Skip to main content

View Diary: Ron Paul says secession is 'a deeply American principle' (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Now this is funny (33+ / 0-)
    “There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.”
    I guess they left out the part where he says, "unless an overwhelming majority of people elect a black guy president".

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:13:34 PM PST

    •  The implication being (7+ / 0-)

      that somehow the secession of red state(s) will provide greater responsiveness.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:23:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm assuming that "secession" (8+ / 0-)

      is another one of those race-based code words for the South shall rise again.

      •  Yes. (5+ / 0-)

        I have actually been told several times that the SOuth did not lose the Civil War. When I pointed out that Le surrendered at Apamattox and Jefferson Davis spent a lot of time in prison, they shrug and mutter that not everyone surrendered.  I'd like to blame this on David Barton but this was in the 80s....

        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

        by irishwitch on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:38:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irishwitch, Justin93, sethtriggs

          We could always let them secede, and then invade them so they surrender for real!!

          It does seem a bit extreme to want to secede though.  When Bush was elected for a second term I was very upset, and contemplated moving to another country, but never contemplated making my own.  

          It just doesn't make any sense, they have way too much to lose if they secede.

        •  There are times I regret the whole thing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          METAL TREK

          This much blood and money to keep these states? Yes, I know it worked out, because end of slavery was worth it. And there are wonderful people in the South along with the idiots. But overall, it is sometimes hard to see this was a good bargain. Like when people talk about great patriotism while worshiping a culture of treason. That's difficult to hear.

          by Magenta on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:48:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  mmm. that's good irony. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      isn't "a government that is more responsive to the people it represents" what the right and especially Libertarians are dead set against? don't they typically label that disparagingly "Big Government" and rage against it? Don't they advocate for less government or even no government? Don't they constantly tout "individual rights" and "freedoms" over the needs of "the people" and deny even the concept of "community?" Isn't "a government that is more responsive to the people it represents" exactly what Democrats and Liberals support and sometimes actually deliver? Isn't that what the "gifts" comments by Romney were complaining about, that a lot people got what they needed and wanted from their government (while a handfull of billionaires didn't) and therefore voted to continue that government philosophy by a strong majority? Isn't that what their biggest complaint about losing is based on?

      Oh wait...he means responsive to himself personally, and those who think like him, doesn't he?

      In other words, he means, "a government more responsive to the rich and powerful special interests it represents." The ones that Rand called the "producers" and NOT the masses of parasitic "moochers."

      ummm, Dr. Paul, I think you're thinking of an Oligarchy, you know like the form of government that we rebelled against to create this democratic republic. So what you're actually saying is we should never have "seceded" from Britain in the first place? We should have remained Loyalists? but wait a minute, your statement is attempting to defend secession as an "American Tradition"...

      I'm so confused...

      no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

      by srfRantz on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 05:56:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who does the federal gvt "represent?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Why is it always a small-town doctor, dentist, or construction company owner who complains the federal government does not represent them? These are the upper status individuals in small and mostly rural parts of America where each vote is weighted more heavily than is the case for votes in large urban areas.

      These representatives of the small town elites in the South are still angry that the federal government came in and told them they had to treat Black People as equals. Then the federal government required them to give women fair credit reports in their own names, not just their husband's names. Can you imagine enforcing such an upsetting of the natural order? And these days the federal government is requiring even more of the natural leaders of the small towns - decriminalize LGBT behavior and protect gay people from the normal enforcement mechanisms of the small town - the KKK and less formal similar groups of violent young men like the ones who dragged James Byrd to death or those who murdered Matthew Shepherd.

      These doctors, dentists, and small company owners are the natural leaders in the small towns, and some outsiders from the federal government are coming in and ordering them around like they were poor people. The locals have their own ways and they elect their local equivalent of Sheriff Joe Arpaio to enforce local standards. The federal government has NO RIGHT to come in and change things!

      Ron Paul and his idiot child have Hayeck and Von Mises to support their views. What better sources could anyone have? Just ask them.

      These guys represent the older pre-industrial elite. Modern urban industrial society is forcing them back into the woods and mountains like the Angles and the Saxons forced the Celts into the edges of what is today Great Britain. That's what motivates today's conservatives - including libertarians and fundamentalist christians. They are losing control of the modern world and they hate it.

      The federal government generally represents (not perfectly) the rest of us  - the modern urban people who are products of modern non-religious mass education. Ron Paul and his ilk hate that. It means they are losing power.

      The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:58:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site