FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[FlameOfCallandor]

That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential. 

Um no, I have responded to most here and put up with alot more shit than most people would

[FlameOfCallandor]

Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day.   

We didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own. 

Except he said WW2 was justified. You fail yet again.

[Phoenix Dark]

Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day.   

We are the only country that fought a war to end slavery. A war that resulted in 600,000 deaths was probably not needed.

The war wasn't fought to end slavery, and I think you admitted that earlier in this thread. Jeez

If we weren't attacked at Pearl Harbor, should the US have entered WWII?

[FlameOfCallandor]

The war wasn't fought to end slavery, and I think you admitted that earlier in this thread. Jeez

You are right, but I was replying to the context of gay boys statement.

If we weren't attacked at Pearl Harbor, should the US have entered WWII?

No

[Gay Boy]

No

wtf. Hitler could have taken over Europe!

[Flannel Boy]

That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential. 

Um no, I have responded to most here and put up with alot more shit than most people would

You have not really responded to the most salient points people have brought up. And when you have responded, you have missed the point entirely and  posted some random quote, or gif, or photoshop.

Paul was on MTP today and said the north didn't need to start the civil war with the south cause the south would have gotten around to getting rid of slavery on their own one day.   

We didn't need to fight a war with the Germans either. They would have gotten around to closing down Auschwitz on their own. 

Except he said WW2 was justified. You fail yet again.

See, this is you missing the point. All things end eventually. But at what cost? Germany would have eventually closed down the concentration camps, even if it was hundreds of years later. However not before they killed every last Jew, gypsy, gay, and handicapped person in Europe. Would slavery have ended without war? Probably, but how many decades would that have taken? How many African Americans would have been slaves who might have been freemen?

Dr. Ron Paul thinks America could have ended slavery by simply purchasing slaves. Silly Lincoln for not thinking of that idea... Actually he did have a plan for compensated emancipation. However the south had no appetite for such a plan and they did not want to change their way of life. Besides, people are not to be bought and sold. They are not private property.

Paul contends that Lincoln did not have go to war. But Lincoln did not cause the war and his stance on slavery was not even very  progressive (he didn't want it to spread to territories where it didn't already exist). Some southern states started the process of secession before he was even inaugurated! And then it was the Confederates who fired the first shots at Fort Sumter! Does Paul think that Lincoln should have let the Union be torn apart while allowing slavery to spread? It was the South that caused the war and made a political solution to end slavery untenable.

[Gay Boy]

My question is FoC, if Japan did not attack us on Pearl Harbor why should we have not gone over?

Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on?  France had fallen and England was struggling.

What constitutional basis to not go to war with the Nazi's if we weren't attacked first is there that out ways the the sense of humanity and the drive to stop the evil actions of Hitler?


As for the Civil War. How long is "eventually"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Waiting even just one more year of slavery is inconceivable. There was no more heinous act taken in our nation other than slavey.|

Also when the south seceded we should have just let them form their own nation? That is completely absurd. The union HAD to stay together. When the south seceded they in a way declared war, they threw the first stone with that action.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Paul contends that Lincoln did not have go to war. But Lincoln did not cause the war and his stance on slavery was not even very  progressive (he didn't want it to spread to territories where it didn't already exist).

Yes he did, he could have let the south succeed from the union. Something that every state should be able to do. Just look up the definition of the word state. What you are saying is that it was worth over 600,000 american deaths to shave a few years off of slavery. If you use that argument for slavery then you have to be for the Iraq war, since it only cost a few thousand american soldiers to free the Iraqi people.

[FlameOfCallandor]

My question is FoC, if Japan did not attack us on Pearl Harbor why should we have not gone over?

IF we arent provoked then why should we go to war? We were helping out the allied war effort without committing any soldiers.

Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on?  France had fallen and England was struggling.

China took over tibet and we didnt do shit, guess what? the world goes on.

What constitutional basis to not go to war with the Nazi's if we weren't attacked first is there that out ways the the sense of humanity and the drive to stop the evil actions of Hitler?

Your definition of war then becomes very arbitrary. If its not for self defense then you have to be for pre emptive strike which then says that the korean war, vietnam war and the Iraq war were all worth American soldier's life.

Also when the south seceded we should have just let them form their own nation? That is completely absurd.

Why is it absurd? The states are supposed to have more power than the federal government. That was the way our government was set up. Look up the word state. It doesn't say "subservient to a federal government.

The union HAD to stay together. When the south seceded they in a way declared war, they threw the first stone with that action

Why?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Hitler was quickly taking over Europe and killing Jews/Gypsies/etc in massive amounts. Why should we allow that to go on?  France had fallen and England was struggling.

Iran kills Gay people, alot of the middle east commits some atrocious human rights, as do Africa. Should we just declare war on them all? Are we really the world police?

[Flannel Boy]

Paul contends that Lincoln did not have go to war. But Lincoln did not cause the war and his stance on slavery was not even very  progressive (he didn't want it to spread to territories where it didn't already exist).

Yes he did, he could have let the south succeed from the union. Something that every state should be able to do. Just look up the definition of the word state. What you are saying is that it was worth over 600,000 american deaths to shave a few years off of slavery. If you use that argument for slavery then you have to be for the Iraq war, since it only cost a few thousand american soldiers to free the Iraqi people.

Again, it was the South who fired the first shot.

Anyway, I see that you have yet to read your new logic book. Shame. The two situations are not comparable. Iraq isn't a part of the United States and the Iraqi's were not slaves. They lived in an undemocratic country but they were not treated as sub-human property to be bought and sold by a supposed superior race. Since Iraq was not seceding from the rest of America and did not have slaves the two situations are not analogous.

The word you were looking for is seceded, not succeed.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Anyway, I see that you have yet to read your new logic book. Shame. The two situations are not comparable. Iraq isn't a part of the United States and the Iraqi's were not slaves. They lived in an undemocratic country but they were not treated as sub-human property to be bought and sold by a supposed superior race. Since Iraq was not seceding from the rest of America and did not have slaves the two situations are not analogous.

The word you were looking for is seceded, not succeed.

So you think the cost of 600,000 was worth the civil war?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Should say 600,000 lives.

[FlameOfCallandor]

To put that in perceptive. 3,000 people died in 9/11. That 200 9/11.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?

[Human Snorenado]

Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?

Except that you just said, not 10 posts ago, that Lincoln should have let the south secede and become their own nation, where they would have undoubtedly continued slavery since it was in their economic interest.  So ipso facto, you don't have a problem with slavery.

[Mandark]

Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?

O RLY

[FlameOfCallandor]

Except that you just said, not 10 posts ago, that Lincoln should have let the south secede and become their own nation, where they would have undoubtedly continued slavery since it was in their economic interest.  So ipso facto, you don't have a problem with slavery.

You're such an idiot. I think Iraq should have been it's own country but I didn't support Saddam Hussein.

I dont have a problem with what other countries do. It's not America's job to police the world.

[Flannel Boy]

edit:
Was it worth 600,000 lives to try to secede from the Union primarily to keep other human beings as property and to allow said practice to spread into other regions? Why lay the guilt for those 600,000 deaths at the hands of Lincoln?  Seems so. Slavery in Europe wasn't as big in the 1800's since they could treat their own poor pretty badly.

Of course, many countries ended slavery only after violent revolt.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Im not arguing that the Nazis or slavery was a good thing, Im arguing that the way in which america ended slavery was clearly not the right thing. Every other country in the civilized world ended it without a war. I guess america is special?

O RLY

Slave rebellion isnt a war.

[Mandark]

Large-scale organized violence in order to achieve a political goal is the DEFINITION of a war, kid.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Large-scale organized violence in order to achieve a political goal is the DEFINITION of a war, kid.

Large scale? I would hardly call the british virgin islands slave revolt large scale.

[Mandark]

The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.

Explain to me at all how this squares with your "everyone else ended slavery peacefully."

Look, you obviously don't know anything about the relevant history and you're not interested in learning about the relevant history.  You just heard Ron Paul say something, assumed it must be right, and worked backwards from there.

At least spend 30 minutes skimming Wikipedia so you can fake some lay expertise on the subject.

[Flannel Boy]

The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.

Explain to me at all how this squares with your "everyone else ended slavery peacefully."

Look, you obviously don't know anything about the relevant history and you're not interested in learning about the relevant history.  You just heard Ron Paul say something, assumed it must be right, and worked backwards from there.

At least spend 30 minutes skimming Wikipedia so you can fake some lay expertise on the subject.

My post from yesterday:

A person can change his opinions, but that does not mean he is open and responsive to new ideas and arguments. People change their minds, but not necessarily for rational reasons. So even if you have changed your political outlook (something no one believes) you can still be closed minded and non-responsive to logical discourse. The fact of the matter is that ideological converts are often the most pigheaded people of all.

Whenever someone has constructed a cogent argument against Ron Paul, or one of his policies, or libertarianism in general you have ignored it. That is why I think you don't listen to arguments that contradict your worldview. Whether that worldview is new or not is inconsequential.

[Mandark]

Yeah.  FoC am mini-David Horowtiz total.

[FlameOfCallandor]

The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) was the most successful of the many African slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. It established Haiti as a free, black republic, the first of its kind. At the time of the revolution, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue. By means of this revolution, Africans and people of African ancestry freed themselves from French colonization and from slavery.

Explain to me at all how this squares with your "everyone else ended slavery peacefully."

Look, you obviously don't know anything about the relevant history and you're not interested in learning about the relevant history.  You just heard Ron Paul say something, assumed it must be right, and worked backwards from there.

At least spend 30 minutes skimming Wikipedia so you can fake some lay expertise on the subject.

Ok I'll give you that. One country that was part of the civilized world ended slavery with a war besides the U.S.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I still think that 600,000 deaths is alot of people. I dont subscribe to "The ends justify the means"

[Mandark]

Apparently you do.  The means of preserving slavery was worth the ends of avoiding those deaths.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Apparently you do.  The means of preserving slavery was worth the ends of avoiding those deaths.

What the fuck? Way to twist words around.


600,000 deaths was not worth ending slavery a few years/decades early.

[FlameOfCallandor]

So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?

[Flannel Boy]

I still think that 600,000 deaths is alot of people. I dont subscribe to "The ends justify the means"

This is a prosaic point. Of course 600,000 deaths is a lot.

Do the ends justify the means? Well before coming into office Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery (the ends) and didn't want to pursue the means (war). Maybe if the South wasn't secession happy and slave happy 600,000 people wouldn't have died. Ron Paul is wrong to lay the blame at Lincoln's feet.

Apparently you do.  The means of preserving slavery was worth the ends of avoiding those deaths.

What the fuck? Way to twist words around.


600,000 deaths was not worth ending slavery a few years/decades early.

No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.

[Flannel Boy]

So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?

So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.

[FlameOfCallandor]

No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.

How is it more honest? It's just saying his side of the argument. And by his logic you can use that phrase for anything in the world. Most of the time when people say "the ends justify the means" the "ends" part of it usually involves doing something.

[FlameOfCallandor]

So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?

So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.

Same moral argument. We went to Iraq to free people. If they were slaves would the Iraq war be even more justified?

[Flannel Boy]

No, he's giving you a more honest perspective.

How is it more honest? It's just saying his side of the argument. And by his logic you can use that phrase for anything in the world. Most of the time when people say "the ends justify the means" the "ends" part of it usually involves doing something.

Secession and maintaining--even enlarging the slave trade--can also be seen as ends. He's simply pointing out that you are laying the blame for the deaths on only one party. While it is more justifiable to turn the situation around.

So you supported the Civil war, but not the Iraq war because the slaves were in America?

So we went to Iraq to free a race of slaves? I'm confused.

Same moral argument. We went to Iraq to free people. If they were slaves would the Iraq war be even more justified?

More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery). 

[FlameOfCallandor]

More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery). 

So then do you think that states should not be allowed to succeed and if they do its worth going to war over?

[Mandark]

Quick rundown.

European slavery was mostly practiced, then ended, centuries before the American Civil War.  It ended when feudal lords gradually replaced it with serfdom, and it did not involve importing workers from a different race/ethnic group.

There was some race-based slave trade in the UK in the 1700's, but Britain's domestic economy was NEVER anywhere near as reliant on slave labor as that of the American South.  No contemporary European country's economy was.

The places that did rely on slave labor were colonies like those in the Caribbean and South Africa.  Those places did not voluntarily abolish slavery because it was wrong.  They did it when their imperial masters in England and France told them to.

None of these situations show how slavery could have been ended in the South.  Local barons and viscounts would replace it with serfdom?  A court appeal would show it to be illegal, despite being codified into law?  England would tell them to just knock it off?

To say that there was some great European precedent for peacefully abolishing slavery that could somehow have applied to the American situation is just WRONG.  It's simply not true.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Quick rundown.

European slavery was mostly practiced, then ended, centuries before the American Civil War.  It ended when feudal lords gradually replaced it with serfdom, and it did not involve importing workers from a different race/ethnic group.

There was some race-based slave trade in the UK in the 1700's, but Britain's domestic economy was NEVER anywhere near as reliant on slave labor as that of the American South.  No contemporary European country's economy was.

The places that did rely on slave labor were colonies like those in the Caribbean and South Africa.  Those places did not voluntarily abolish slavery because it was wrong.  They did it when their imperial masters in England and France told them to.

None of these situations show how slavery could have been ended in the South.  Local barons and viscounts would replace it with serfdom?  A court appeal would show it to be illegal, despite being codified into law?  England would tell them to just knock it off?

To say that there was some great European precedent for peacefully abolishing slavery that could somehow have applied to the American situation is just WRONG.  It's simply not true.

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

[Flannel Boy]

So then do you think that states should not be allowed to succeed and if they do its worth going to war over?

Yes FoC I believe states should be allowed to succeed. I hope they are really successful!

Mandark:
taliking points > historical context.

[FlameOfCallandor]

taliking points > historical context.

More... I suppose. But the civil war wasn't started to end slavery. It was to stop secession (which was primarily motivated by slavery). 

[Gay Boy]

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

We wouldn't, no. But would have taken DECADES. If not more than 50 years for it to fully go away. Which is unimaginable and impossible accept.

Same with civil rights, if it wasn't for the bill the south would never fully grant civil rights for at least another decade or two. Which in terms of humanity is impossible to accept.

The well being of your fellow man is far more important than the constitution. There are things worth fighting for. Slavery and civil rights are those things. Those are things worth dying for.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Pick your poison:
(Image removed from quote.)

This is really your only contribution to this thread isnt it? Guiliani's campaign is dead.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Nice edit gay boy

[Flannel Boy]

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

Slavery was abolished over 140 years ago in the United States. Slavery probably wouldn't be around today, but we can not be sure. However we can be sure that slavery would have lingered in the south well after 1865. And likely well into the twentieth century.

[Gay Boy]

what the fuck? that post is from october on the first page you idiot. I didnt edit it out. You looked at the wrong page.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

We wouldn't, no. But would have taken DECADES. If not more than 50 years for it to fully go away. Which is unimaginable and impossible accept.

So in your opinion it was worth 600,000 lives to end it a few decades early.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

Slavery was abolished over 140 years ago in the United States. Slavery probably wouldn't be around today, but we can not be sure. However we can be sure that slavery would have lingered in the south well after 1865. And likely well into the twentieth century.

So then the argument comes down to how many american lives it was worth to end slavery early.

[Gay Boy]

Do you think we would still have slavery today if we didnt end it with the civil war?

We wouldn't, no. But would have taken DECADES. If not more than 50 years for it to fully go away. Which is unimaginable and impossible accept.

So in your opinion it was worth 600,000 lives to end it a few decades early.

And in your view slavery going on for 30-50 more years WASN'T worth dying for? You are a sick human being if you think that.

Those thousands died for something they believed in and died for a honorable cause that america is far better for.

[Mandark]

FoC: Do you think if the Civil War had not been fought, those 600,000 soldiers would be alive today?

You're the one pimping Ron Paul's European solution.  So explain to me how it would have worked.  Just which European model was going to be followed?  I'd like to know.

[Flannel Boy]

So then the argument comes down to how many american lives it was worth to end slavery early.

Since the war wasn't started in an effort to end slavery, stop asking these loaded questions. Mandark's question is more honest;  was it worth all the lives in an attempt to secede in order to maintain slavery?

[Gay Boy]

The fact FoC holds interpreting the constitution strictly over the need to stop hitler and end slavery is disgusting. How can any human with dignity find a political belief system more important than stopping a murderous dictator hellbent on ruling the world and freeing slaves?

[Gay Boy]

And FoC answer malek. Those lives would never had been lost if the south did not secede. Was it worth seceding to lose those lives?

[FlameOfCallandor]

And in your view slavery going on for 30-50 more years WASN'T worth dying for? You are a sick human being if you think that.

Those thousands died for something they believed in and died for a honorable cause that america is far better for.

Yea im sure all those poor drafted soldiers and all the Irish immigrants were really fighting for what the believed in.

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC: Do you think if the Civil War had not been fought, those 600,000 soldiers would be alive today?

You're the one pimping Ron Paul's European solution.  So explain to me how it would have worked.  Just which European model was going to be followed?  I'd like to know.

Im not pimping anything other than the civil war wasn't some war of candy canes and rainbows. It wasnt black and white or good guy vs. bad guy.

[FlameOfCallandor]

And FoC answer malek. Those lives would never had been lost if the south did not secede. Was it worth seceding to lose those lives?

I cant predict what would have happened if they didnt have a war. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Since the war wasn't started in an effort to end slavery, stop asking these loaded questions. Mandark's question is more honest;  was it worth all the lives in an attempt to secede in order to maintain slavery?

No. But im not arguing that it was.

[Mandark]

You supported Ron Paul's assertion that there was a peaceful alternative way to end slavery, based on a European model.

Please explain how that would have worked.

[Flannel Boy]

wasn't some war of candy canes

No, that would be the War on Christmas.

Since the war wasn't started in an effort to end slavery, stop asking these loaded questions. Mandark's question is more honest;  was it worth all the lives in an attempt to secede in order to maintain slavery?

No. But im not arguing that it was.

You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'

[FlameOfCallandor]

You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'

Why cant it be a serious question? Are we to just assume that all deaths in war are valid?

[Flannel Boy]

You are asking a disingenuous question though. It's like asking, 'was it worth all those lives Roosevelt to start WWII?'

Why cant it be a serious question? Are we to just assume that all deaths in war are valid?

Asking whether the deaths are warranted is justified. I think how you are asking it is unjustified.