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

[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.

.

[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?

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

How was I asking it.

[FlameOfCallandor]

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.

.

I dont know,

[Mandark]

Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.

I assume you've taken that back, since you're so open-minded and such.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.

Nope, I still stand by it.

[Flannel Boy]

How was I asking it.

Was it worth 600,000 to end slavery? The way the question is phrased makes it sound as if some party that wanted to end slavery started the civil war. And this party is then solely responsible for the deaths of 600,000 people.

It might be more honest to ask 'Was it worth 600,000 lives to try and secede just to maintain a terrible and unethical practice?'

Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.

Nope, I still stand by it.

Ignorance standing tall in the face of uncertainty.

[Mandark]

Cause just a few posts ago you were spouting off on how every other country got rid of slavery without a war so why couldn't we just do that.

Nope, I still stand by it.

If you think the US could have gotten rid of slavery peacefully based on the experiences of other countries, maybe you'd care to explain HOW that would happen, then.

[Phoenix Dark]

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

Now you're just being obtuse. What the fuck. Comparing the civil war to Iraq makes no sense whatsoever

[Phoenix Dark]

FoC and many libertarians looks at world events like a simple math problem. There is no concern or understanding of the complexities of country and foreign affairs, instead using a "one size fits all" method of approach. So oh, the Iraq war wasn't just because Iraq didn't attack us, THEREFORE WWII wasn't just because Germany didn't attack us. Oh slavery is a finite phenomena, it will solve itself! How does one pass any college level history or PLS class with this logic?

[brawndolicious]

It is illegal to secede according to the constitution.  that therefore makes it legal to get that state back.  besides, the south attacked the Union first.  dumbass, there was a fort in Charlotte's harbor (one of the major southern cities) and the southerners were pissed off that it was there so they attacked the fort.  that officially started the war.

as for whether slavery would have stopped, not for around 70 years.  definitely well over 50.  having slaves still gives you a huge advantage in manufacturing capability.  after the industrial revolution, you could send the slaves to factories (and the conditions in the factories and boarding houses were barely above slave conditions).

and yes, the lives were worth it going by your cock-sniffing piece of llama shit logic because it was a legal war according to the constitution.

[Phoenix Dark]

It is illegal to secede according to the constitution.  that therefore makes it legal to get that state back.  besides, the south attacked the Union first.  dumbass, there was a fort in Charlotte's harbor (one of the major southern cities) and the southerners were pissed off that it was there so they attacked the fort.  that officially started the war.

as for whether slavery would have stopped, not for around 70 years.  definitely well over 50.  having slaves still gives you a huge advantage in manufacturing capability.  after the industrial revolution, you could send the slaves to factories (and the conditions in the factories and boarding houses were barely above slave conditions).

and yes, the lives were worth it going by your cock-sniffing piece of llama shit logic because it was a legal war according to the constitution.

Was about to post this

The south's entire economy was dependent of slavery - there was no way they were going to give up slavery on their own. I'd bet they would have continued slavery into the early 20th century if given the option. That may be fine for you FoC, but not for me.

[Gay Boy]

I still cant get over how FoC didnt care in the slightest Hitler was wiping out an entire "race" and taking over europe. Just cause it didnt involve American soil.

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.

[Phoenix Dark]

Fucking horrible analogy. wtf

[Howard Alan Treesong]

this thread is a monumental testament to one man's stupidity. everytime I think it can get any dumber or more offensive, FoC finds a way to, like, sing the praises of slavery and Hitler. merry christmas!

actually, Raoul, if for a christmas present you could lock this thread for 24 hours, so it doesn't ruin our 25th, that would be awesome

[Flannel Boy]

FoC finds a way to, like, sing the praises of slavery and Hitler. merry christmas!

That's going too far.

actually, Raoul, if for a christmas present you could lock this thread for 24 hours, so it doesn't ruin our 25th, that would be awesome

Sounds good to me.

[Gay Boy]

I dont think foc/paul is for slavery and is pro-hitler but it shows the faults of the belief system if their strict dogma would allow hitler to run loose and slavery to go on un-checked.

All the worlds problems can't be solved by looking at the constitution and do what it says or if it does not tell us what to do then we ignore the problem.

[Phoenix Dark]

The constitution is not a fucking multiplication table

[Human Snorenado]

You guys are looking at it all wrong... a war that costs 600,000 lives is wrong when it's waged to end the loathsome practice of owning other human beings, but if it was being waged to INSTITUTE THE GOLD STANDARD, then it would be just peachy keen!

And I'll log back on close to midnight, shut this thing down for a day, then pop it back open on the 26th.  But not for Jesus.  No, I'm doing it as a half-birthday present to myself, since I was born on June 25th and I rule.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Feel free to lock i permanently.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Fucking horrible analogy. wtf

Why?

[FlameOfCallandor]

The south's entire economy was dependent of slavery - there was no way they were going to give up slavery on their own. I'd bet they would have continued slavery into the early 20th century if given the option. That may be fine for you FoC, but not for me.

So we are in agreement that the south would have gotten rid of slavery. The price we paid was over 600,00 American deaths for getting rid of something that would have ended without a war.

[Human Snorenado]

Feel free to lock i permanently.

No way, chachi.  We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames.  What was the point of leaving it open so long if we don't have it around for the good part?

[FlameOfCallandor]

I dont think foc/paul is for slavery and is pro-hitler but it shows the faults of the belief system if their strict dogma would allow hitler to run loose and slavery to go on un-checked.

Im actually surprised that you said something that was correct.

Also, we aided the allies in WW2 before we entered the war.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Feel free to lock i permanently.

No way, chachi.  We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames.  What was the point of leaving it open so long if we don't have it around for the good part?

Whats the point of closing it for a day?

[FlameOfCallandor]

No way, chachi.  We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames. 

Also, Iowa isnt the only state in the U.S.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

No way, chachi.  We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames. 

Also, Iowa isnt the only state in the U.S.

maybe Alaska will succeed (sic) and form the new free nation of Pauldonia!

[Flannel Boy]

Fucking horrible analogy. wtf

Why?

Your argument style:
A and B are similar in some respects so C should treat A and B equally in all respects.

Can you not see how the Tibet situation and the Holocaust differ and how this difference might cause America to act differently?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Your argument style:
A and B are similar in some respects so C should treat A and B equally in all respects.

Can you not see how the Tibet situation and the Holocaust differ and how this difference might cause America to act differently?

I do see how they are different, but I dont see how you can argue against aggression in one place but not argue to stop aggression in another.

[Gay Boy]

No way, chachi.  We've got LESS THAN TWO WEEKS before your hero goes down in flames. 

Also, Iowa isnt the only state in the U.S.

that very same week is NH though (only 5 days later). And you proclaimed he will win NH. And you also admitted if he doesnt win either his campaign failed. So yes, in less than two weeks your candidate will either rise or be dead.

[Flannel Boy]

Your argument style:
A and B are similar in some respects so C should treat A and B equally in all respects.

Can you not see how the Tibet situation and the Holocaust differ and how this difference might cause America to act differently?

I do see how they are different, but I dont see how you can argue against aggression in one place but not argue to stop aggression in another.

Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a  war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.

[FlameOfCallandor]

And you proclaimed he will win NH.

I think so.

And you also admitted if he doesnt win either his campaign failed.

That doesnt sound like something I said. But even if I did, I was wrong. It's clear that he could do well in both of those states and still have the funds to keep going.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a  war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.

So you are only for stopping aggression in some instances, not all? What are the exact parameters of aggression before we can intervene with force and american soldiers?

[Gay Boy]

"do well".

So he'll be the first candidate in history of modern GOP politics too lose all the early primaries and win the election? If he loses Iowa, NH, MI, and SC he cant win the election.

[FlameOfCallandor]

We'll see.

[Gay Boy]

So come on. You'll honestly be predicting he'll win it all after all the early primaries come and he doesnt win any?

[FlameOfCallandor]

So come on. You'll honestly be predicting he'll win it all after all the early primaries come and he doesnt win any?

We'll see.

[Flannel Boy]

Because... of the differences. What is going on in Tibet is horrible, but it is not on the same scale as what happened in Europe and Asia in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Also starting a  war with China would cause far, far, far, far more harm and death than leaving China alone in Tibet.

So you are only for stopping aggression in some instances, not all? What are the exact parameters of aggression before we can intervene with force and american soldiers?

Countries don't go to war against aggression anymore than they go to war against the reification fallacy!

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

[FlameOfCallandor]

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

[Flannel Boy]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Just because I don't think that there are simple and exact parameters that dictate exactly when and where a nation should go to war does not mean that the decision is completely arbitrary. For instance, my reasons why America should not go to war with China are not arbitrary. Such a war would cause millions of deaths and untold suffering while preventing relatively few deaths. Not really arbitrary.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Evilbore= Bill Kristol. 
[youtube=425,350]0rduigENzHo[/youtube]

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Just because I don't think that there are simple and exact parameters that dictate exactly when and where a nation should go to war does not mean that the decision is completely arbitrary. For instance, my reasons why America should not go to war with China are not arbitrary. Such a war would cause millions of deaths and untold suffering while preventing relatively few deaths. Not really arbitrary.

When should we go to war and we should we not go to war?

[Gay Boy]

Evilbore= Bill Kristol. 
[youtube=425,350]0rduigENzHo[/youtube]

the north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is

Oh and Bill Kristol is right in this video.

[Flannel Boy]

Evilbore= Bill Kristol. 

Evilbore on the civil war = most people who aren't crackpots.

When should we go to war and we should we not go to war?

I already told you I can't give you a simple answer. My inability to provide you with such an answer does not mean such a decision is arbitrary. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

the north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is

Why wouldn't they sell slaves? isn't that what the did? They treated them like property? So if someone were to offer a fair price for your property why wouldnt you sell?

They didnt need slaves for farming, they needed workers. If they were to sell the slaves and then use that money to reinvest in their farm and then hire people, (By the way a hired workforce is much more efficient and productive than slaves another reason why slavery would have eventually ended.) they would have been far better off.

You have a very simple view of the whole situation.

[Gay Boy]

the north couldnt buy the slaves and free them. the south would not sell all of them, they needed them for farming. what an idiot paul is

Why wouldn't they sell slaves? isn't that what the did? They treated them like property? So if someone were to offer a fair price for your property why wouldnt you sell?

They would not sell all of their slaves to the north. Not a chance. They only sell the slaves they don't need.

I could technically sell my computer. But will I? No because I am using it.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I already told you I can't give you a simple answer. My inability to provide you with such an answer does not mean such a decision is arbitrary. 

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

[FlameOfCallandor]

They would not sell all of their slaves to the north. Not a chance. They only sell the slaves they are using.

You're such an idiot.

[Gay Boy]

They would not sell all of their slaves to the north. Not a chance. They only sell the slaves they are using.

You're such an idiot.

you honestly think they'd sell ALL the slaves and let their plantations go to ruins?

[Flannel Boy]

It would be arbitrary if the decision was based on my mood or the flip of the coin. You have to take many things into account when deciding to go to war. And these things depend on the situation and context. That is why I will not provide a simple general answer.

There is no reason to believe that the South would agree to this and if they did there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't just import more slaves, of course.

[APF]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

Then define when it's ok to go to war.

[Flannel Boy]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

Then define when it's ok to go to war.

You can't be this obtuse.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

Then define when it's ok to go to war.

You can't be this obtuse.

Then you leave it up to the whim of the leader at the time. You cannot say the Iraq war was not justified if you cannot say when we should and should not go to war.

[APF]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

Then define when it's ok to go to war.

You can't be this obtuse.

Then you leave it up to the whim of the leader at the time. You cannot say the Iraq war was not justified if you cannot say when we should and should not go to war.

Paul does no better when he says he'll be led by the whim of Congress--a Congress, note, which did not oppose the war in Iraq.

[Flannel Boy]

Why do I need exact parameters? In reality there are none.

So going to war should be completely arbitrary?

Situational != arbitrary.  Arbitrary is like, when you say you'll go to war whenever Congress wants you to.

Then define when it's ok to go to war.

You can't be this obtuse.

Then you leave it up to the whim of the leader at the time. You cannot say the Iraq war was not justified if you cannot say when we should and should not go to war.

Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.

Fine I'll give you one. If there is a full moon out, it is justifiable to start a war.

Now that's arbitrary.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Paul does no better when he says he'll be led by the whim of Congress--a Congress, note, which did not oppose the war in Iraq.

We never actually declared war...

[FlameOfCallandor]

Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.

All Im saying is this, if you cannot dicide when and when not to go to war then you cannot be mad when someone goes to war on a similar note as one you do support (pre-emptive strike)

[Flannel Boy]

Can't I simply point out why the Iraqi wasn't justified. Or why another war is or is not justified on its own terms? Why do you need a simple precept.

All Im saying is this, if you cannot dicide when and when not to go to war then you cannot be mad when someone goes to war on a similar note as one you do support (pre-emptive strike)

I can decide, just on a situational basis. So if I don't think a particular war is justified for specific reasons--which I am more than capable of articulating--then I have plenty of right to get upset. If you were correct, then because I am unable to give you simple and definite rules for when it is correct to go to war then I could not get upset over a war fought between two countries over a religious doctrinal dispute, for example.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I can decide, just on a situational basis. So if I don't think a particular war is justified for specific reasons--which I am more than capable of articulating--then I have plenty of right to get upset.

Then if you can decide on a situational basis, you give the leader of our country the power to decide on a situational basis, something he exercised.



 

If you were correct, then because I am unable to give you simple and definite rules for when it is correct to go to war then I could not get upset over a war fought between two countries over a religious doctrinal dispute, for example.

Unless you say that all wars fought over religious doctrinal disuputes are bad.