Things to Be Thankful For

When you go around the Thanksgiving table tomorrow and say what you are thankful for, keep in mind the informational poster above, courtesy of the ever-resourceful James Lileks. I know I'm thankful not to be "helpless beneath the boots of the Asiatic Russians," as the caption warns me might occur. And I'm sure that most (though not all) American men are grateful they weren't sterilized by the Reds.

Comments

Cesar | November 21, 2007, 3:47pm | #

They just want our big-breasted women.

Big Nanny | November 21, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I don't know why, but for some reason the mindless, crippling fear seems somehow familiar.

Episiarch | November 21, 2007, 3:50pm | #

This is exacly what the IllegalMexicans and the MexicanGovernment want too. One ForeignThreat after another!

Peter | November 21, 2007, 4:02pm | #

I don't know why, and I'm not saying that Islamic terrorism is to be taken lightly (I lived 6 blocks from the towers when they fell). But it just does not incite the same level of pure hatred in me as does a galvanized communist threat.

NoStar | November 21, 2007, 4:05pm | #

I hadda pay good money to get sterilized. I for one would have welcomed our would-be vasectomizing masters.

shecky | November 21, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Yeah, Islamism isn't the threat it's made out to be. Hell, communism wasn't the threat it was made out to be.

But maybe I'm in the minority here. I like being sterilized!

Alan Vanneman | November 21, 2007, 4:11pm | #

On the other hand, if the Soviets had won, we would have gotten to see busty, half-naked chicks with serious perms being stomped on by giant boots, and that's something that, I'm sure, ALL American men would be grateful for.

First Little Pig | November 21, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Methinks the implication was more "castrated" than "given a vasectomy" when the poster was produced. So some of you might want to rethink your acceptance.

Franklin Harris | November 21, 2007, 4:15pm | #

So, the Russians wanted to rape our women and castrate us guys? Did they get this idea from watching "I Spit on Your Grave" too many times?

Episiarch | November 21, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Did they get this idea from watching "I Spit on Your Grave" too many times?

Franklin, I don't think you got the point of I Spit on Your Grave. Though I appreciate the desire to reference it.

Fluffy | November 21, 2007, 4:20pm | #

That poster would make a great album cover.

Franklin Harris | November 21, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Franklin, I don't think you got the point of I Spit on Your Grave. Though I appreciate the desire to reference it.

I'm bored. Referencing it was my point.

DannyK | November 21, 2007, 4:28pm | #

These boots were made for Russians/
And that's just what they'll do/
One of these days these boots are gonna invade North America and sterilize all the dudes.

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Rick Barton | November 21, 2007, 4:29pm | #

shecky:

Yeah, Islamism isn't the threat it's made out to be. Hell, communism wasn't the threat it was made out to be.

I think that without our government's provoking, Islamism wouldn't even be a threat at all. But communism was a mass murder machine.

Rick Barton | November 21, 2007, 4:32pm | #

So the commies were gomma do it for free....I want a refund on my vasectomy!!

Episiarch | November 21, 2007, 4:49pm | #

I'm bored. Referencing it was my point.

That's what I figured.

Warren | November 21, 2007, 4:50pm | #

They just want our big-breasted women.
I wouldn't hold that against them.

Wow, what a great audience.

Rick Barton | November 21, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Doesn’t she look a tad inappropriately sanguine? Perhaps she’s extrapolating from the size of the foot…

Jacob | November 21, 2007, 5:01pm | #

Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?

Franklin Harris | November 21, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?

It's just that models and actresses still had curves back then. They hadn't invented eating disorders yet.

Elemenope | November 21, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Rick + Shecky:

The downtrodden and/or marginalized are rarely a threat to any nation, as they can muster only spasmodic bursts of violence. Obviously 'Islamists' (in the Osama bin Laden sense) are no existential threat to America; The mere thought is idiocy.

On the other hand, Islam, when married to government, has been a grave threat to its neighbors. Ditto Christianity. Ditto Communism. Ditto Fascism. Ditto pretty much anything else you wish to name.

Me, I have great faith in the originality and flexible perversity of human thought; I imagine even Libertarian ideology could be perverted into a mass murder machine. If that seems nonsensical, it's only as nonsensical a thought as reading the New Testament and then guessing that Christianity would become an empire endorsed murder machine.

What was that quote, about the abyss, and monsters...?

Jamie Kelly | November 21, 2007, 5:39pm | #

DannyK,
I blew snot on my monitor here at work, and I'm still laughing like an idiot.
Please refrain from such hilarity. :-)

1950s | November 21, 2007, 5:43pm | #

Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?

Well Yes and No.

mediageek | November 21, 2007, 5:45pm | #

"If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stomping on a hot chick. FOREVER."

Elemenope | November 21, 2007, 5:57pm | #

mediageek -

I just barely avoided spewing cherry coke all over my compy. Jerk. ;)

3W | November 21, 2007, 6:05pm | #

Ah, commie bashing. One of those simple pleasures that never gets old.

I still enjoy watching this old "ism" cartoon.

Edward | November 21, 2007, 6:25pm | #

I'm thankful my brain hasn't been so eroded by libertarian slogans that I think Ron Paul has a gnat's ass chance of winning anything. Well, maybe Stormfront poster boy.

SM | November 21, 2007, 6:49pm | #

It's thanksgiving, Edward. Give it a rest.

Elemenope | November 21, 2007, 7:04pm | #

re: Edward's crusade against Ron Paul that knows no bounds of holiday or facts...

The Nation's online front-page article today is all but an endorsement of Ron Paul and a simultaneous shaming of the Democratic front-runners. That, coming from a bona fide left-wing rag...

Jonathan Hohensee | November 21, 2007, 7:22pm | #

I'm egarly awaiting the blog post that will allows to engage in our annual Buy Nothing Day bashing.

LarryA | November 21, 2007, 7:32pm | #

Asiatic Russians

Really? Not the ones from Moscow?

M | November 21, 2007, 7:34pm | #

I think all this hysteria about sterilizing American men is just a marketing ploy. Soap and water has worked just fine for me.

zig zag man | November 21, 2007, 7:40pm | #

"It's thanksgiving, Edward. Give it a rest."

Yeah, lighten up edward.

American Woman | November 21, 2007, 7:51pm | #

"Doesn’t she look a tad inappropriately sanguine? Perhaps she’s extrapolating from the size of the foot…"

Well I don't know about her, but I find the Asiatic Russians to be really hawt.

Kolohe | November 21, 2007, 9:06pm | #

Never mind the godless communists & hot 50's chicks! I'm more worried about the here and now; about what unspeakable things the godless RationalResponder chick is doing to the ConservativeTShirt girls now that she's kicked them out of the ad space.

*thinks a second about unspeakable things*

I'll be in my bunk.

Shirt | November 21, 2007, 9:45pm | #

If you haven't clicked on the link in the article and scrolled throught the pages, you're missing some hilarious stuff.

Rick Barton | November 21, 2007, 10:43pm | #

Jacob:

Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?

I think that female allure hit its zenith in the 80's. An exquisite example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40K2S0-5Xo0

cs | November 21, 2007, 11:01pm | #

I like reading Lileks but I have to say it's ironic to see him presenting this as a joke when he takes such fears seriously when it involves the Asiatic "islamofascist" hordes.

Rick Barton | November 22, 2007, 12:52am | #

Elemenope,

Very interesting-If a libertarian ideology could be perverted into a mass murder machine, I'm thinking that that perversion would have to include the libertarian ideology being shorn of its essence. But I would have never guessed that after the fall of the Soviet empire, our government would have launched a needless war. But then I didn't envision the neocon's designs on the Mideast being so influential on foreign policy.

The quote is:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. "

Friedrich Nietzsche "Beyond Good and Evil" (Aphorism 146)

I was unfamiliar. Thanks! The first sentence rings with truth. How do we interpret the second sentence?

Rick Barton | November 22, 2007, 1:02am | #

Elemenope:

I just barely avoided spewing cherry coke all over my compy.

Me too, mediageek! It was grape juice, but me too.

Elemenope | November 22, 2007, 1:53am | #

Rick Barton-

I agree--perversion is the essence of turning any ideology inhumane, particularly one, like Libertarianism or Christianity, that claims to value the worth of humans as individuals.

If I may be bold, the disjunction becomes easier when the ideology becomes more important than its practical effects as it is implemented. Theory is all nice and smooth, with rounded corners and neat folds, very much unlike anything that comes into contact with the human condition; any attempt to 'smooth' the human edges to fit the theory ultimately becomes inhuman.

Nietzsche (I spent a long time studying him) was quite an enigmatic character, and he had an infuriatingly elusive (coy, I'd say) style. The famous 'monsters' quote is only a very small taste. Often, the point he's trying to make is that ultimate valuations (the ones of ideology, especially religion) tend to drag actual humans into nihilism about human worth, the actual act of living, etc.. In that, he was very closely related to Emerson and Thoreau (American philosophers he very much admired) in the Pragmatic tradition that eventually fed into a large part of American Libertarianism.

Two favorite quotes of his:

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; this lie crawls from its mouth: "I, the State, am the People." (Zarathustra, On the New Idol)

Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions...These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way...the free man is a warrior. (Twilight of the Idols, My Conception of Freedom)

Edward | November 22, 2007, 1:58am | #

This may be the most elevated exchange I have witnessed on H&R. What happened to the Ron Paul slogans?

Elemenope | November 22, 2007, 3:05am | #

Here, Edward:

Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party.

Ron Paul/Nietzsche's Animatronic Talking Corpse '08!

Rick Barton | November 22, 2007, 3:20am | #

Edward's crusade against Ron Paul that knows no bounds of holiday or facts...

I've come to the conclusion that Edward's continued bizarre Ron Paul-Nazi/racist contentions are just one more example of his getting attention by attacking libertarians in this manner. Note that on another libertarian site, he wrote:

Hey Urkobolds, how about keeping your schtick confined to your own unfunny, racist [!?] website...

(Bold mine)

http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-wave-saturday_17.html

Edward, if you can do better than your tortured playing of the Nazi/racist card, it's like bitchen overtime to do so.

Rick Barton | November 22, 2007, 4:01am | #

Elemenope:

In that, he was very closely related to Emerson and Thoreau (American philosophers he very much admired) in the Pragmatic tradition that eventually fed into a large part of American Libertarianism.

"Pragmatic tradition"-Yet we're accused of not being practical!

Two favorite quotes of his:

The first is so true, like the "monsters" quote. I'm still working on the second one. And I'll ask this, even in front of Edward; is it true that some of the Nazis dug Nietzsche? And if so, perhaps it was cuz they liked how he attacked liberal institutions but they ignored his libertarian sentiments?

BTW, did you have a philosophy education?

Guy Montag | November 22, 2007, 7:36am | #

So, Katherine is shilling for Big Boot?

M | November 22, 2007, 8:27am | #

The abyss gazing into you will find an abyss (perhaps more patent in some than in others).

Elemenope | November 22, 2007, 11:25am | #

Rick Barton - (really quickly, it's turkey day!)

re:Pragmatism....well some of us are and some of us aren't. In talking to Libertarians I have been as, let's say 'unimpressed' with their journey towards orthodoxy, as I was in the similar tendencies of the progressive people and orgs. I grew up with. It seems regardless of ideology, some people just can't bring themselves to care about the actual human consequences of whatever it is they wish to implement.

Yes, I studied philosophy in college.

Most of the association of Nietzsche with Nazism in particular and anti-Semitism in general was due to the influence of his sister, Elizabeth Forster, who after his death re-edited a lot of his works "creatively" to make it seem he was a proto-fascist and antisemite. If you actually read his works, you realize just how much she would have to rip apart and paste together to even create an illusion of such (he writes pretty furiously against anti-Semitism in particular as a cultural poison that exposes intellectual inferiority, which he believed was overtaking the German people at the end of the 19th century).

Nothing in fact could be further from the truth. Nietzsche broke contact both with his sister (because she married a rabid anti-semite and he was afraid his works would be tarred by association) and with Wagner (although that also had other reasons). During the Nazi years, Heidegger "reinterpreted" Nietzsche to support Nazi ideology by quoting out of context. Ironically, Nietzsche spent a great deal of his later writings making really nasty fun of German nationalism (see: Twilight of the Idols, 'What the Germans Lack').

Edward | November 22, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Re Ron Paul: Except for his sensible position on the war, his positions extreme and far out of the mainstream. Anybody with any understanding of American politics knows that Ron Paul has no chance whatever of winning the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul's contention that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "replete with references to God" calls into serious question either his knowledge of these documnets or his honesty. His stated belief that the Founding Fathers "envisioned a robust Christian nation" should raise an alarm for secularists of all political persuasions. Such pronouncements may explain some of his appeal to the racist, anti-Semitic right of the Christian identity sort. His apparent unwillingness to distance hiself from these extremist elements should certainly be disturbing to anybody who thinks he has a chance of winning. Since I don't, I just think is disgusting.

LarryA | November 22, 2007, 12:54pm | #

Re Ron Paul: Except for his sensible position on the war, his positions extreme and far out of the mainstream.

Given today's “mainstream,” that’s a feature, not a problem.

Ron Paul's contention that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "replete with references to God" calls into serious question either his knowledge of these documents or his honesty.

Declaration of Independence:
... to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...
... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...
... with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence...

The Constitution not so much, but the two references to religion are critical:
... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

His stated belief that the Founding Fathers "envisioned a robust Christian nation" should raise an alarm for secularists of all political persuasions.

Read the Founding Fathers’ works. They envisioned a limited government “deriving (its) just powers from the consent of the governed.” Such a government can only work if the governed are a moral people holding to personal standards of behavior, one of which standards is Christianity. If a majority of the people in a nation are Christians, it can be a “Christian nation” without having an overtly Christian government. In fact, it can be truly Christian only with a completely secular government.

Jesus: the first libertarian.

Neu Mejican | November 22, 2007, 1:11pm | #

Elemenope,

It seems regardless of ideology, some people just can't bring themselves to care about the actual human consequences of whatever it is they wish to implement.

I think libertarians who base their preference on a "first principles/rationalist (c.f., objectivists)" view of libertarianism, in particular, are more likely to be blinded in this sense. Libertarians who are more "consequentialists" seem, to me, to be more moderate and pragmatic in their views.

Libertarianism is a strange beast in this sense. It attempts to be a moderate anarchism. The principles it is founded upon argue for an extreme interpretation, but it recognizes that the slippery slope towards anarchism is unworkable, and attempts to temper it with a "minimal" "only within this realm" approach to governance. By doing this, however, it, to a degree, undermines the principles that serve as its foundation.

I recognize this is a sloppy attempt to articulate my point, but I think the dangerous libertarians are more likely to slip away from libertarianism towards anarchy.

Re: communism in this context. The shared roots of communism and libertarianism highlight the danger in my mind of people who attempt to govern from "first principles."

Neu Mejican | November 22, 2007, 1:26pm | #

LarryA,

An essay on the libertarian message of Jesus.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport11.html

SIV | November 22, 2007, 2:55pm | #

I think the dangerous libertarians are more likely to slip away from libertarianism towards anarchy.

Count me in!

Edward | November 22, 2007, 3:18pm | #

It's a hard to imagine how a libertarian could buy into the collectivist thinking involved in religion: people of God, saved and damned, followers of Christ, chosen people, and all that bunk. It's the abandonmment of reason involved in religious thinking that made the Founding Fathers so hostile to it (their writings really are replete with this hostility). Robust Christian nation my ass; Ron Paul talks out of his. I trust him and his Christian identity pals about as far as I can throw them.

Edward | November 22, 2007, 3:36pm | #

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.-- Ron Paul “The War on religion”

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." --Thomas Paine "An Answer To A Friend Regarding The Age Of Reason," The Prospect, 12 April 1804

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Elemenope | November 22, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Edward -

Religious thinking is not strictly collectivist, although organized churches, etc. would certainly like to emphasize that notion. Often it ends up being in service to collectivism because it is a great toolbox for demagogues and grifters; in this way it is just as easily used as race or other surface difference.

As I think others have pointed out about Jesus, and can also be said quite strongly of the Buddha, the actual prophets of many religions were anti-Collectivist in thought and often in action.

As far as it goes, Ron Paul is right in that the Separation of Church and State does not directly or easily spring from the text of the Constitution, and the founding fathers were at best divided about how religion should play in the public square. I personally think that the Separation is a generally good policy, and find it unfortunate that Ron Paul thinks otherwise, but it is not a deal-breaker--particularly because he urges restraint in actually taking ideology and legislating it into being.

It's more of a deal-breaker with someone like Huckabee, who takes basically liberal positions (we should use the government to make people thin/save the environment/help the poor/etc.), slaps a "because God wants us to do it" on top and calls it conservative. That's creepy. I believe that Ron Paul doesn't want to shrink government "because God told him to do it", and that's the prime distinction. His ideas are not justified on the basis of his religious beliefs alone, nor does he expect others to accept ideas because they are religiously derived.

Edward | November 22, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Elemenope

I think the deal breaker is the obvious medacity or ignorance Ron Paul displays in his characrterizations America's foundation documents and views of the Founding Fathers. I don't trust ignoramuses or those who balatantly lie for ideological reasons. How do we know when he's telling the truth?

Gotta go see to the turkey.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 22, 2007, 7:35pm | #

I looked this up.......

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except in government schools.........

Guy Montag | November 22, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except in government schools and anyplace within sight of a Leftist.

You left a bit out ;)

Elemenope | November 22, 2007, 8:17pm | #

It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States for a student to freely practice their religion in public schools, under the general restriction that like all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt class. Feel free to correct me if such a law has been passed and survived challenge in a court.

Occasionally, school officials have punished students for organized prayer; these officials act in violation of both the law and school policies when they do this. Of course, these officials also occasionally punish students for legal and within-policy things all the time, such as protesting a war, eating a peanut butter sandwich, offering an unflattering opinion of a teacher, or looking sideways at them. School administrators mad with power is not the same thing as a 'giant leftist conspiracy'. In high school I had a health teacher who gave out bible tracts for his class to read, and when another student complained the student was told to stuff it. He was out of line (captive audience proselytization is a no-no, I think we can perhaps agree), but I don't believe there is a 'giant Christian conspiracy' because of it.

This whole "religious folk are persecuted in Amerika" thing is literally absurd. Is this not the same country that says they'd rather elect a alcoholic president than an Atheist?

Guy Montag | November 22, 2007, 8:27pm | #

Elemenope,

It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States for a student to freely practice their religion in public schools, under the general restriction that like all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt class. Feel free to correct me if such a law has been passed and survived challenge in a court.

I was not, and I doubt TWC was saying, that this has reached success, yet. The shear amount of attempts by the anti-Jewish/Christion ranks can not be ignored.

Back to the basics, I hope I am quoting this right, "As long as there are math tests there will be prayer in public schools" - George F. Will

BakedPenguin | November 22, 2007, 9:46pm | #

Caption:

Better red than tread.

Mr. F. Le Mur | November 23, 2007, 10:08am | #

informational poster above

BZZZT!

Nope, it wasn't a poster, it was from an "article" in 1953's "Man to Man." I guess calling it poster, despite knowing that it wasn't, makes it sound like the image had more social significance than an illustration for some soft-core porn.

Fluffy | November 23, 2007, 10:20am | #

It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States for a student to freely practice their religion in public schools, under the general restriction that like all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt class. Feel free to correct me if such a law has been passed and survived challenge in a court.

Actually, there have been numerous legal battles over issues like high school football players kneeling in prayer before a game, or religious students handing out candy at lunch with religious messages attached to the wrapper.

Religious speech is suppressed in schools all the time in contexts that have nothing to do with class disruption.

protesting a war, eating a peanut butter sandwich, offering an unflattering opinion of a teacher

They shouldn't be able to issue punishments for these activities either.

This is one of the fundamental problems with public education to me. Maintaining order in a school and promoting one particular education vision requires arbitrary authority in a host of different ways. Private institutions can wield such arbitrary authority at will. A public institution, however, is able to do so only because we all agree to pretend that students aren't citizens and that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. The courts generally do this on the basis of reasoning that the educational mission of the school is a compelling state interest that supercedes the Bill of Rights and allows for "time, place and manner" restrictions as well as outright violations of various enumerated rights. To me, this is crap. The enumerated rights were enumerated precisely to make clear that they were not and could not be superceded by the language granting the state its powers. If that makes it impossible to run public schools, too damn bad.

David T | November 23, 2007, 11:27am | #

In fairness, the rape thing does at least have some historical justification--the Red Army's rape of German women in 1945. (It seems that the only words of German the Rusian soldiers knew were "Frau komm"...)

J sub D | November 23, 2007, 11:43am | #

I guess it's time for a genuine atheist to chime in on the religion in public schools discussion.

1) They will NEVER banish prayer from the public schools. Pop quiz, anyone?

2) Society's mores/values, being overwhelmingly, and incorrectly, Christian are inevitably going to bleed over into non-demoniational public schools.

3) We non-christians espescially atheists need to get over the fact that public schools do not exist in a vacuum.

4) Any attempt to prosthelatize the students by faculty MUST be dealt with quickly and firmly. Multiple offenses of commingling religion with scholastics are properly grounds for dismissal. A little comnmon sense could go a long way here. If Ms Jones says God bless to a student who sneezes, get over it. If Ms Jones says that creationist theory is an intellecctually valid alternative to evolution, she should be terminated.

5) To rational theists and atheists alike, relax. The First Amendment is not going anywhere. There is no "War against Religion". If you want your religious viewpoint presented in class, private and home schooling are viable options. Don't ask me to pay for it though, or I'll be demanding equal time to teach freethinking. You don't want that, do youy? Even in "Christian" schools, students will talk about heretical ideas to each other from time to time. This is a good thing. It means they are thinking proto-adults, not sheep and parrots.

In summary, religion isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. Atheists, accept that fact. Theists, don't sweat the small stuff.

J sub D | November 23, 2007, 11:48am | #

BTW, I hope eveybody's Thanksgiving went swimmingly. The parade here in Motown went off wonderfully in spite of the cold weather with threats of rain. It's a fun thing to donate time to.

Edward | November 23, 2007, 2:18pm | #

There is no "War against Religion".

There is in Ron Paul's head.

Edward | November 23, 2007, 2:28pm | #

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/view/index26.html

In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt (who had previously worked with David Duke, and resigned from Pat Buchanan's team when his Identity role became public). Paul refused to repudiate the endorsement; and Pratt has stepped forward again with a quasi-endorsement of Paul's current campaign.

Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.

Mad Max | November 23, 2007, 7:09pm | #

Edward,

Quick, who said th following:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

Wow - who is this fundamentalist threatening the wrath of God on account of slavery, and predicting "supernatural interference"? Who do you think it was who said that, Ed? Pat Robertson, perhaps? Jerry Falwell?

People who aren’t Edward will already have recognized the source of the quote: Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (referring to slavery):

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm

And Jefferson, mind you, was among the most theologically liberal of the Founders. Not all the founders rejected the Bible and traditional Christian theology, as you lyingly pretend.

Your quotations from outdated eighteenth-century attacks on religion certainly show your sophistication and intelligence.

Tom Paine (a deist, not an atheist) had to spend time in prison under the rational, anti-clerical regime of Robespierre in France. Paine almost got his head cut off by those devotees of reason. In the modern era, we have seen murderous anti-Christian and post-Christian regimes which shed rivers of blood. For instance, there are the Communists-who-just-happened-to-be-atheists. The crimes of these anti-Christian and atheistic regimes are so notorious that H&R posters bestow their ultimate insult on the tyrants, calling them religious (“religious” is a H&R word meaning “doing stuff I don’t like”).

Guy Montag | November 23, 2007, 10:33pm | #

No war but class war?

I heard the WTO protestors with masks chanting that.

troll | November 24, 2007, 7:47am | #

calling it poster, despite knowing that it wasn't, makes it sound like the image had more social significance an illustration for some soft-core porn

You talkin' 'bout me?

troll still learning to copy and paste | November 24, 2007, 7:49am | #

than

Edward | November 24, 2007, 11:45am | #

Ron Paul is a pathetic joke, and I will have the last laugh.

BobDobalina | November 24, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Nice Thanksgiving link, Katherine. Great site from Lileks. Loved the "Ghost Signs" segment. When I first moved to Chicago in 1990 as a small town yokel, it was one of the things that endeared me most to the city. That is, until I noticed one day on the train that one of my favorite ghost canvasses had been painted over with advertising for a real Holiday Turkey, the movie "V.I. Warsharsky." Imagine some poor kid discovering THAT in 80 years.

Mad Max | November 24, 2007, 4:10pm | #

"Ron Paul is a pathetic joke, and I will have the last laugh."

I hope you were twirling your moustache when you said that. Adds to the effect.

Sci Fi Fran | November 24, 2007, 9:04pm | #

Edward:

In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt

So what?? This says nothing negative about Ron Paul. But your hitting on the Christian thing isn't near as bad as your ridiculous Nazi/racist contentions. So that's some progress.

Rick Barton | November 24, 2007, 9:26pm | #

Edward,

You should know that of all the current presidential candidates, Ron Paul is the most opposed to faith-based initiatives, the giving of the taxpayers’ money to religious groups. Note as well that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support faith-based initiatives.

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Faith__Based_Initiatives

Rick Barton | November 24, 2007, 9:38pm | #

Edward:

...I will have the last laugh.

Well, your arguments against Ron Paul are unintentionally funny.

Expect Edward to post these statements in the future | November 25, 2007, 2:02am | #

"No, Ron Paul supporter -- I expect you to die!"

"You only live twice, Mr. Paul!"

"I'm Plenty ... Plenty O'Toole."

phil | November 25, 2007, 2:03am | #

I am going to Moj-Poj that to my front door

Syloson of Samos | November 25, 2007, 10:11am | #

It should be noted that the U.S. was the first nation to undertake compulsory sterilization; or rather, numerous U.S. states did. The laws which permitted these practices remained on the books at the time that this picture appears to have been made.

Edward | November 25, 2007, 3:06pm | #

What does Ron Paul have against gays adotpting children?

Edward | November 25, 2007, 5:08pm | #

Here's a Libertarian who think Ron Paul is a loser:

[Ilya Somin, November 20, 2007 at 4:56pm] Trackbacks
Reflections on Ron Paul:
Various people have asked me what I think of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, and whether it will be good for libertarianism. Here's my take:

Ron Paul deserves credit for his strong commitment to limited government on many issues, including taxes, regulation, federal spending, and federalism-based limits on federal government power. Nonetheless, I am skeptical that his candidacy will provide much of a boost to libertarianism. There are also a number of major nonlibertarian elements to Paul's issue positions, some of which are extremely disturbing. The worst is his highly statist position on immigration.

Read more...
http://volokh.com/posts/1195595767.shtml

Rick Barton | November 27, 2007, 1:04am | #

Edward:

Here's a Libertarian who think Ron Paul is
a loser:

That's not an accurate characterization of what the guy wrote.