Ron Paul on Huck’s Christmas ad: When fascism comes, it’ll come bearing a cross
posted at 8:57 am on December 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Quoting Sinclair Lewis, of course. He’s quick to add that he’s not sure if that’s a fair assessment, although it was obviously fair enough for him to utter aloud as the first thing that came to his mind, hm? Oh well. As an antidote to the Corner’s endless hosannas over the past 12 hours to the stupendous brilliance of sitting in front of a Christmas tree and name-checking Jesus to woo evangelicals, you can do worse than this. I liked Paul’s own Christmas ad better but then I’m not the guy Huck’s aiming at.
He might have had no choice but to toss his supporters a bone. It seems a few of them are upset with his having abandoned the “biblical position” on illegal immigration. Repent, HA border enforcers.
Update: Bryan says this will “hurt” Huck about as much as Hitchens’s latest tirade will.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Given that Huckabee wraps his big government leanings with Christianist justifications, Paul’s quote is more on target than the typical Paulian faux pas.
Harpazo on December 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Call Christians fascist and call Islam a religion of peace.
Clueless Ron Paul should look into the backgrounds of some of his supporters.
RobCon on December 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Paul sounded a little out of it at the start, kind of like he had to remind himself where he was
offroadaz on December 18, 2007 at 9:04 AM
At least Carter had the comic-relief of Billy. All Huck has is a dog-loving son.
bbz123 on December 18, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Paul sure has his progressive talking points down.
William Teach on December 18, 2007 at 9:13 AM
If fascism comes to America, the cross will be one of the first things banned.
Bigfoot on December 18, 2007 at 9:16 AM
He didn’t call Christians fascists. He said that Huckabee made the statements as though he’s the only Christian running. And Paul would not have done that.
Fascism will come waving the flag and bearing the cross doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity other than the concept that that is how people will be misled into allowing someone to take their freedoms away from them.
ThackerAgency on December 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Bigfoot on December 18, 2007 at 9:16 AM
We’re practically there now.
jdawg on December 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Judging by the verbal exchange, Paul’s micro-chip brain insert was still in the warm-up phase ……
Doocey:
“Texas Congressman Ron Paul is in Des Moines. He joins us live. Good morning congressman.”
Paul:
“I’m in Des Moines. Des Moines, Iowa.”
Thanks for clearing that up Paul, we all thought you were in the other Des Moines.
fogw on December 18, 2007 at 9:19 AM
I tend to disagree. I think it will be more in the name of the “chilllllllldreeennnn”
jdawg on December 18, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Other than Paul’s foreign policy isolationism, I agree with pretty much all of Paul’s positions as a conservative.
LESS government. END GOVERNMENT WASTE. Let the people keep the money that they earn.
ThackerAgency on December 18, 2007 at 9:20 AM
same idea as the quote for the point he was trying to make. that doesn’t say chillllllldreeennn are fascists, just that that is how freedoms will be taken from people who willingly give them to someone who is ‘for the chiiiiiillllllldreeenn’.
ThackerAgency on December 18, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Straight up.
And I’m a conservative (theologically) Christian.
Tim Burton on December 18, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Ron Paul? Pat Paulsen? Or…Ron Paulsen?
flipflop on December 18, 2007 at 9:24 AM
It’s also one quote by one long-dead author who never lived to see full spectrum political correctness at work. Paul’s quip here redounds heavily to Huckabee’s benefit. Huck’s supporters are likely to see yet one more instance of an intolerant jerk screaming like a vampire at the sight of a window pane that looks like a cross. Smart. Tough. And very counterproductive, if you want to stop Huckabee. That’s how Paul rolls, though. He’d rather irritate and alienate than just make a reasonable point in a reasonable way.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I wonder what Paul’s brother, a Pastor in Holland Michigan, thinks of this?
Pam on December 18, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Exactly. It’s gotten so that anytime two lines intersect at a 90 degree angle, people get worked up screaming “church and state” or “Fascism”. This is what political correctness has done to our nation.
jdawg on December 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Three words: Kiss my, and um, what’s the other one?:)
What Paul quoted was probably true. Totalitarianism would come only through the passive assent of the populace, the message that would allow that be coached in God and country. There’s some historical reference to that.
People are really going to vote for Huck because of something Hitch or Paul said? Color me doubtful.
Spirit of 1776 on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 AM
That is no windowpane. (And don’t tell me that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.) Surely if it was accidental, someone who made the ad would have noticed, just as I and many others did. Smart politics though. Deflects from your political positions. Temporarily anyway.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Speaking as one of those horrible, scawy Christian Evangelicals, I can only say that Bryan has it absolutely right (again):
Is the Huckabomb’s use of the window in the background deliberate? I have no doubt that it is. It’s not like he’s been hesitant to use his faith, or claim that he has one, as justification that he should be President, which is a practice that I, once again as one of those fascist Christian Evangelicals, find utterly loathsome. Render unto Caesar etc.
But the bottom line is this: Idiots hyperventilating over something looking like a cross, whether they’re justified or not, is going to hurt the hyperventilating fools and nobody else.
That’s the only lasting effect of the knee-jerk Christophobes’ mantra of “Church and State, Church and State!” every time they see something that might, possibly, if you squint your eyes and tilt your head JUST SO, look like something having vaguely to do with Christianity. The clownshoes have been howling like that over nothing for so long that nobody takes them seriously anymore even when they DO, uncharacteristically, have a point.
Much like the liberals and their abuse of the word “racist” which used to mean something.
Now, if you’ll excuse me. I have to go plot the coming Christofascist takeover of the country. We’ll start gently with mandatory monthly communion (at gunpoint, of course) or maybe forced caroling every year at Christmas.
Misha I on December 18, 2007 at 9:52 AM
My fiance works with dementia patients, and in their common room, the keep a sign that tells them where they are, what time of year it is, and what they’re having for lunch.
What’s for lunch, Ron?
Frozen Tex on December 18, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Won’t a majority of Huckabee’s supporters get up in arms if anyone targets his sanctimonious approach on any grounds? It’s a nearly unassailable position. As long as he keeps his religious fervor around his campaign, he’s pretty much untouchable by anyone who is willing to point it out, in terms of trying to wean away the Christians on both sides.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2007 at 9:55 AM
RPaul’s Christmas blessings of troll; lol,lol,lol,lol,lol; lol,lol,lol,lo….
As per “Christian” stance on immigration, a certain Joseph took Mary and returned to the city of their heritage in compliance to decree. As a man, Jesus advised giving to Caesar that which is the government’s (adhere to law), and unto God that which is His (love).
Huck knows no bounds.
maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 10:04 AM
“Biblical position” on immigration, my holy rolling ayzz. As I’ve said ad nauseam, there IS no position beyond Romans 13. What strange Bible is Huck reading that is missing this chapter?
Kid from Brooklyn on December 18, 2007 at 10:05 AM
BTW
troll
to sing or play in a jovial manner
ah, if it were still so–
there goes the evolution of a thought/word
maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 10:08 AM
The answer is to keep after him on policy and leave the Christmas ad alone. Supposing that the “cross” was intentional (and I think it probably was), it’s extremely difficult to criticize that ad without creating a rallying effect among his supporters. But his supporters by and large are law and order types who support the Bush approach to the war and who don’t like putting criminals back on the streets. That’s where Huckabee is weakest — foreign policy and his clemencies. So that’s where he needs to be hit.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 10:09 AM
in biblical Christian Theocracy, the Civil Govt. is basically radical Libertarian. Which is why many in this movement support Paul because he’s paying lip service to radical govt. changes, even though there is no realistic shot of it happening….they have “hope”.
to be paranoid over your own citizens and leaders in a Free State and dismissive of threats on real Fascist Police States that wish us death, is to be Morally Confused. Which is what Paul is. His religion is a radical interpretation of Libertarianism and the role of Govt., all else be damned.
jp on December 18, 2007 at 10:14 AM
The Biblical position on immigration is far, far less clear than the Huckster’s supporters would have us believe. In fact, let me say an atheist that what I dislike about fundamentalist Christians is that they are just as “liberal” in their interpretations of the Bible as the outright liberals. In the Bible, God had the Israelites expel their own foreign wives and even their children born of them:
See also Nehemiah 13:23-30.
(Digression: I strongly reject the traditional atheist argument that the Bible is evil and wrong because it contains such verses and because the Bible contains war. I’d actually argue that the Bible is right to contain such ideas, to give us different alternatives from which we must choose. We live in a fallen state on this planet.)
Getting back to immigration, the Book of Ruth favored by the pro-illegal immigration types does not support their story at all. The story of Ruth is that of a woman, who is a legal immigrant according to the norms of time, being assimilated to Israelite culture. The Book of Ruth is, in fact, an excellent argument for English Only laws.
Let’s do the Bible the justice of a fair interpretation, if we want to bring it into politics.
thuja on December 18, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Fascism can emerge from sanctimonious Christians just as easily as it can from any other background…religious or not.
Tell me…when a certain [Christian] demographic thinks it has the authority to dictate, via gubmint proxy, the exact ‘lawful’ configuration of personal loving relationships…how is this _not_ fascism?
We have plenty of ‘fascistic’ (as well as ’socialistic’) corruption in our gubmint (and law) as it currently stands. The more we add, the more we legitimize and tacitly authorize gubmint to behave this way…and we become a de facto fascist state.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I’m telling on myself, but I did’nt notice the “floating cross” in the background, when I first watched the ad. Very obvious, when pointed out. Scoff at subliminal messages, but this is a prime example of this type of marketing. I pointed out to a friend the Budweiser logo written in cursive, reads Budweisex. The logo written on the back of their sponsored car during a NASCAR race, had the cursive ‘x’ changed to a cursive ‘r’ to maintain a family friendly image. Messaging such as this doesn’t reside in the realm of playing a Beatles record backwards. It is a technique that is based on the premise, that 100% rational, logical and focused attention, does not occur 100% of the time. The time spaces in between become the time spaces for this method to be effective.
captivated_dem on December 18, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I can see it now:
Paul: “When fascism comes it will be bearing a cross!”
Huck: “Ron Paul hates Christmas! Get behind me Satan! I will deliver you all from the heathens!”
OK, so maybe I’m caricaturing Huck a little too much, but one of those three statements will probably come out.
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 10:37 AM
the Govt. logo in the anti-Christ bigoted hate speech movie, “V for Vendetta” was a Double Cross. Since many of his anarchist supporters wet in their pants over that movie, chance he was thinking of it.
jp on December 18, 2007 at 10:42 AM
It will probably just firm up his support with his base.
Ditto here as well
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Fark me! Is that an Oscar category now?
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
ThackerAgency…
You are right, he is great on domestic policy. I agree with him 100%. He is right on abortion. He is right on government spending, etc etc.
But the #1 primary function of a president is FOREIGN POLICY.
Ron Paul is not suitable to be the President of the United States. His isolationist vision is not only ignorant, but it is dangerous to our nation’s interest.
He would be a great cabinet member…but that’s about it. =)
msipes on December 18, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Wishing someone a merry Christmas is risky business.
Biblical positions on immigration are safe. It’s illegal immigration that would find no support in the OT or NT. Hebrews welcomed people from away to their faith, and Christians were noted throughout early church history to be good citizens and follow civil laws.
Merry Christmas……
Hening on December 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
What makes you say that?
The primary function of the prez is to be the chief of the executive branch…executing the output of the legislative branch. Some of that output may be related to foreign policy, a great deal more will not.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Traditional marriage is now fascist too? Western culture has been living in crypto-fascism for thousands of years now, huh. Who knew?
That brand of contemptible ignorance is why Christians perceive, correctly in your case, that they’re under attack by bigots who’ll find any excuse to hate them. If they can’t find a real excuse, then like yourself, they’ll just make one up.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Frozen Tex on December 18, 2007 at 9:53 AM
lol. Ouch baby, very ouch.
Spirit of 1776 on December 18, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Sheesh…you’re employed by MM and your english comprehension skills are pathetic.
I _never_ stated that ‘traditional marriage’ is fascism, dummy.
I stated that it is _fascistic_ to presume the authority to _impose_ constraints over how _others_ arraneg their private lives.
FFS
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Don’t personally insult me. Juvenile name-calling is a one way ticket to banning. One more and you’re gone.
What “constraints” were you referring to when you said the following:
Dance around that all you want. You’re attacking Christians as “fascist” for defending traditional marriage. That’s the plain meaning of what you wrote. If that’s not what you meant, direct your insults at yourself.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Don’t be a baby. You want to stick your foot in your mouth and throw around “contemptible ignorance” and “bigot”…then man-up and take a slap in return.
No. You need some kindergarten english.
No. I’m characterizing the establishment of a [presumed] authority to dictate personal relationships as ‘fascism’. It happens to be high on the wish-list of a principally Christian demographic (notice I respectfully capitalize “Christian”…I am not anti-Christian). To the extent that this Christian demographic wishes to assert such authority over others, it is behaving in a fascistic manner. Tough, bitter pill to swallow, I’m sure.
Just to make it clearer to you. Traditional marriage _is not_ fascism. Christianity (and Christians) _are not_ fascists. The assertion of one by the other via gubmint force _is_ fascism.
Get it?
PS. Banning me for this exchange really is the cowards way out.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Don’t_ban_him; I’d_miss_all_the_underscoring.
Frozen Tex on December 18, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I get it. You don’t have a clue what fascism really is and you’re using that word to tar people like me with whom you disagree because you don’t have a real, substantive argument. That’s tiresome and doesn’t do anything to add to rational conversation.
Re banning, if I ban you it will be because you insist on using insults (”baby,” “coward,” etc) instead of defending your position with anything other than your own opinion. So defend what you wrote, with facts this time. You’d do well to define fascism and then show how it relates to what you wrote. Show your work, in other words. Your own opinion as you have stated it is unpersuasive. Here’s your do-over.
One insult and you’re gone. No kidding.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 11:51 AM
lol…old habits die hard…_really_ hard ;-)
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The Bible may say “Render unto Caesar”, but Big Government Nanny-Staters like the Huckster are more about “Surrender unto Caesar.”
ReubenJCogburn on December 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
What a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement. People are getting too worked up over this Christmas ad.
Seriously, for all the complaining that is done among conservatives about political correctness - now, many conservatives are complaining that saying the name of Christ and having the appearance of a cross in an ad is not politically correct. Come off it.
Freakin’ Merry Christmas!
CP on December 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Historically, isn’t trad. marriage a religious issue. I think religious people have standing in this.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
OK…let’s try definition of terms.
“Fascism”…derivative of the word “fascia” - a bundle of sticks - representing consolidated power. One stick - fragile - many sticks bound together - strong.
Mussolini’s “Fascist” party used the fascia as their symbol. Little historical perspective there.
Essentially, fascism is a tightly centralized authority, typically manifest as government. It not only presumes the sole authority over political decisions, it also presumes sole authority over which political realms it will incorporate into its domain. The Fascist Manifesto is enlightening as to what was considered the proper domain of government and what was private.
When I make statements about fascism or fascistic behaviour, I am not committing some obnoxious “just like Hitler/Mussolini” fallacy. I am observing the fascist mentality at play…the desire to consolidate increasing decision-making power into the government.
The shift from free, individual decisions over personal relationships, to one where the government dictates what is considered ‘legal’ or ‘recognized’ is a shift towards fascism. An expansion of the government domain into the realm of private relationships.
My view - the non-fascistic view - is that people should remain free to marry whomever they choose (and in whatever number), and that other private individuals or institutions will remain at liberty to judge such decisions for themselves. Life/health insurance companies, for example, should be at liberty to deny - or raise premiums - on male homosexuals due to the increased health risks they face.
This may seem an unpleasant and non-PC thing to do, but it is a free, individual decision…not a government mandate.
Your [collective] problem is you are hyper-sensitive to the use of the term ‘fascism’ and immediately assume you are being victimized and tarred with a Hitler/Mussolini brush. Not so. Fascism is more abstract than that, and can be evident in many seemingly innocent places.
FWIW, it is rather revealing, and alarming, that the fascist mentality is such a pervasive part of the human condition. Perhaps this is why such political leaders are so successful?
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 12:17 PM
There is no specific “Biblical position on immigration” other than commanding respect for governments & laws. Compassion can be shown to poor Mexicans without violating national sovereignty.
jgapinoy on December 18, 2007 at 12:25 PM
To me this is typical Ron Paul. Not content with just saying something like “Yes, the ad was nice and he’s certainly not alone in the sentiment” he has to go Birch and bring the crazy.
I’m of the firm belief that the best thing for Ron Paul’s campaign is to prevent him from appearing or speaking in public.
JohnTant on December 18, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Congratulations on getting through an entire post without resorting to insults.
The shift you describe isn’t a shift, or at least not in the direction that you perceive. Marriage has had the legal definition that you describe as a “shift” for a few millennia now, in the West, and that definition isn’t merely the church’s definition. It has been the state’s definition as well for quite a long time. The state got its definition from Christianity (mostly) but it has nonetheless taken on an entirely secular life of its own. It’s not Christians who are pushing for a shift, it’s those who want to change the man-woman definition to another one. That doesn’t make them fascists for bundling the power of the courts and public office for advocating this change, though. See Gavin Newsome’s illegal marriages in San Francisco, for one example, or the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision for another. They’re not fascists, and neither are the people (not all of whom are Christians or basing their stance on religion) who oppose them. Your initial post describing Christians as “fascist” for defending an old definition against a new one is wrong, and a smear. Fascism isn’t relevant to this argument, in any way.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Obviously, there are some real “nuts” out there who like Paul, but I think most of his $ comes from liberals who want him in the race to keep trashing Bush & the other candidates.
jgapinoy on December 18, 2007 at 12:30 PM
This is the lowest moment of the election so far. Given the history of Lewis’ novels, Paul is essentially calling Huckabee a Nazi.
I laugh when someone sees the Blessed Virgin in a piece of toast or a water stain, but now we have people seeing theocracy in a window frame. We’re approaching a kind of anti-religious mania.
People are acting as if Huckabee is trying to activate Christian sleeper cells with this thing. Paul really is a nut.
John on December 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Article II Section I Clause I & II
All Foreign Policy is ran through the Executive Branch. That makes the Presidency a primary role in Foreign Policy.
msipes on December 18, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Does Ron Paul buy into the Illuminati theories?
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Again you misread. It is not fascistic to _defend_ such ‘traditional’ definitions…but that is not merely what they are doing. They are attempting to leverage government authority to impose their definition on everyone. This implicitly presumes the authority to dictate such aspects of individual liberty. I say this is both wrong, anti-liberty, and _fascistic_ in nature.
The very concept of personal relationships, and the nomenclature used to describe them, being a legitimate realm of governmental legislation (not to mention Constitutional amendments!)…that one personal arrangement (heterosexual monogamy) can be declared ‘legal’ at the expense of others…is a categorical subordination of an aspect individual liberty to the state…and a further shift towards greater consolidation of authority within government…a _fascistic_ shift.
I’m sorry that you guys don’t like the use of the term, but I will not pander to sensibilities simply because some view ‘fascism’ as a slur or epithet. I am only interested in using _correct_ terminology. I’m sure you’ll acclimatize.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 12:46 PM
It’s not that I have some need to “acclimatize,” it’s that you’re wrong on all counts on this. You have your history backward, which causes a category error in your thinking (the definition being “imposed” has in fact been in place for a very long time). And you’re inserting a smear where it’s not applicable, which leads to degradation in political discourse. It’s impossible to discuss the issue on the merits if you insist on inserting “fascism” where it has no bearing.
Other than that, brilliant work.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 12:50 PM
That’s not what you said…you said that foreign policy was the primary responsibilty of the prez…not so…it is but one duty among many.
What is the relevance of this?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 & 5 is a starting point…and these powers are _congressional_, not executive
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Neat dismissal. Brilliant work.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 12:54 PM
The problem with your argument is your premise is flawed.
Nobody is calling for us to execute gays or prevent them from doing whatever it is they do with each other.
What they are saying is that as a matter of public policy, we should not be granting civil recognition of those relationships because it implies they are morally equal to heterosexual relationships.
Clearly since non-heterosexual relationships are more damaging to their participants as shown by major studies on the issue of homosexuality as well as cohabitation, they are not morally equivalent and therefore should not be recognized as a healthy alternative to traditional marriage.
Your problem is you conflate the wish to have a public policy that protects and maintains a healthy society with a fascistic wish to opress a certain victim class.
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Getting back on topic:
I think what Ron Paul said was highly inappropriate. If the first thing that comes to his mind when he sees a Christmas commercial is a conspiracy theory, he isn’t the person I want holding the nuclear button.
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 1:06 PM
My premise is the rise of fascism in America.
Errr…between you and Brian, I’m losing steam reiterating all the things that I _have not_ claimed, yet are being attributed to me. Strawmen abound at HA it seems.
This is precisely what I am attacking. The presumption that this is legitimate governmental behavior. You and I are free to ‘recognize’ relationships any way we see fit - personally.
Attempting to utilize government force to establish societal inequality as part of our legal framework on the basis of your sense of ‘morality’, is a fascistic move.
Whether or not non-hetero relationships are more damaging is a metter for individual conscience. I already suggested a legitimate private judgement vis-a-vis the insurance industry.
My ‘problem’ is that using government to enact such ‘public policy’ is inherently fascistic. Where do you get off demanding such social engineering? Do you, and all your cohorts, seriously expect me to believe you have the wisdom to know exactly what is ‘healthy’ for society? You have no such knowledge. You are not in any position to judge unknown people and their private decisions. Yet you wish to use government to impose your views on others.
_That_ is the fascistic wish at play here.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:18 PM
What is so inappropriate? Is it the word fascism and all the negative imagery that it conjures up?
If so we can call it Biblically Sound Centralized Government Control but that is really the same thing.
Throwing the word Fascism around is not a great strategy for Paul here, but I’m not sure that he stays up late at night thinking about his strategy.
Ochlan brought up some relevant points to consider. First and foremost is that the Italians enthusiastically embraced Fascism. This nation is whistling towards dark days and we are willingly accepting this. Whether further government control is indeed “wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” or if it is a “rainbow colored Darwin fish” doesn’t matter much to me.
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 1:21 PM
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders so as to mislead even the elect.
- Matthew
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 1:23 PM
It was a Christmas ad, and the 1st thing that Ron Paul comes up with is an image of Fascism coming to America, and you don’t see anything wrong with it???
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 1:24 PM
And now your calling Huck the anti-Christ because he made a Christmas ad. sad…
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Is that as bad as being in league with the devil?
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Fascism brewing within America
RP has a point…if less-than-artfully expressed, given the fallacious stink associated with the term ‘fascism’. But that in itself is refreshing…he hasn’t focus-grouped every word.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Will you say anything to get your man elected?
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 1:28 PM
No, that was Mohammad. The High Reverend Huckster is merely a false prophet.
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Right, and in response to a Christmas ad is the exact right time to say so? Come on. This guy has problems, can’t you see that?
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Ochlan the bundle of sticks are called “fasces”, not “fascia”.
aengus on December 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM
There’s no fire quite like friendly fire.
Merovign on December 18, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I did say ‘less-than-artful’ ;-)
Anyway, Huck doesn’t get to hide behind the fact that it’s a Christmas ad…what, we should wait until January? RP is identifying a concerning trend, a fascistic trend.
You bet. He’s totally unelectable. He’s also the best man for the job (although I disagree with his isolationism). Electability and competence sadly don’t always go hand-in-hand. Blame it on the bastard god of “democracy” we all so idiotically worship.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
It was a political ad (and a good one i might add). RP is staying on the point he is running on. Other than Huck, the only person who has a chance to make gains off of Huck’s ride to the top is Paul. It allows him to say “see this is what government is coming to, more control over your life”
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Typo noted, thanks :-)
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
How quickly you forget The High Reverend Hucksters own snide hurtful words.
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 1:35 PM
What if I look at the first part of Sinclair’s line, as quoted by Paul?
Who is the guy who is demanding that we return to those good old days of yesteryear because it’s what the real America is all about? Who has the followers portraying him as the last, best hope for America?
Or is wrapping oneself in the flag not fascism if Ron Paul does it?
JohnTant on December 18, 2007 at 1:37 PM
PS. I had no idea that the symbolism of the fasces was so widespread in America…freaky
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Perhaps you missed the part where America is a Constitutional Republic, and therefore while we respect the rights of the minority, if the majority says that in no way, shape, or form are their federal or state governments going to recognize gay unions then that is how it goes.
Fascism requires one person, an executive dictator, who makes the decisions for everyone.
You haven’t a clue what fascism is Ochlan. I’ll help you by utilizing a dictionary:
Notice how we don’t have a system of government led by a dictator with complete power who forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism, actually praises and encourages private industry, and doesn’t require nationalism nor support racism.
Guess what sonnyjim, America fails to be fascist by any standard.
In a Constitutional Republic the people make the laws. It isn’t fascism when everyone gets a chance to voice there opinion, and then the prevailing one is passed, nevermind the fact that by your own admission, gay-marriage is a non-issue because following your logic the government would have to deny all personal unions any status.
This of course flies in the face of the fact that the propagation and support of heterosexual marriage is actually in the interest of the state, in addition to having the backing of the people and the force of logic behind it.
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 1:39 PM
You start off well, then fall at the first hurdle. What you are defining is a democracy, which we are not. OK…it can be argued that we are a _de facto_ democracy, because we use the democratic process everywhere…but Constitutionally-speaking this is not so.
No number of ‘the majority’ can legitimately suppress freedom of speech, religion, RKBA or anything else protected by the Constitution. Similarly, no number of ‘the majority’ may use government to perform any function, or craft any legislation, that it is not explicitly authorized to do.
There is, perhaps, a ’states rights’ argument to be made. The federal government is not authorized to dictate legal standards vis-a-vis personal relationships…so in accordance with the 10th Amendment, the states should decide for themselves (assuming no Constitutional principal can be argued to prohibit this - which I think can indeed be argued). Assuming this to be the case…go ahead…be the first state since slavery to legally define a subset of the population as unequal in the eyes of the law…you’ll _love_ the consequences.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Wrapping yourself in a flag is not fascism..
Carrying a Cross is not fascism..
Wrapping yourself in a flag while carrying a cross is not fasism..
Advocating greater central government control over an individual’s decision while wearing a flag and carrying a cross..not we’re getting somewhere.
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I understand fascism perfectly…yet by this one sentence you clearly define yourself as a person that doesn’t understand his/her own country.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Quite so.
One thing people here seem to have a problem grasping is that you don’t need a fire-breathing dictator goose-stepping around the White House to have fascism in your back yard.
Fascism is an abstract. A principle. An ideology. I can come in many forms…and we’re seeing an ever-growing number of candidates all around us. Some carry crosses and wear flags.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Not fascism, but surely a very tacky fashion statement.
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 1:56 PM
_It_ can come in many forms.
I am not a sexual magician.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Not quite. There is marriage in the sense of a union between people as sanctioned by a religion and then there is marriage in the sense of who the government considers married. They are not necessarily the same.
For example, you can get married in the Catholic church, divorce under Nevada law and then get married again by a justice of the peace in Oregon. The government will consider you married but the Catholic church will not (at least not to your second wife). Or, under the Islamic tradition you can take as many as four wives (concurrently). The government, though, will not consider wives #2-4 to be your spouses.
Clearly, it’s up to the adherents of each religion to decide the rules governing marriage under that religion, but when those same people want the secular law to follow their rules, I see an Establishment Clause problem.
Happy as I am with my marriage to my one, previously unmarried, female wife, who is unrelated to me by blood, the libertarian in me says the government should find some pretty strong reasons before it restricts marriage to a certain class of people. “God hates fags” just doesn’t cut it for me.
factoid on December 18, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Take one step back in your reasoning ;-)
The government should find some pretty strong reasons to conclude that it has the authority to even consider restricting marriage to a certain class of people.
I say…it ain’t none of gubmint’s biz
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Stop being purposely obtuse Ochlan. I know perfectly well how America’s system works, you’re the one trying to pretend that gay marriage is so holy as to be out of the hands of the people acting through their state governments.
The people elect representatives to represent them under the presumption those representatives will act in the interests of the people that elected them. Therefore, the people ultimately make the laws. That this is done through a bicameral legislature is rather irrelevant. In the United States of America the government is supposed to support the people. In a fascistic state the people exist to support the government.
The Constitution exists as an ultimate authority that the people cannot override without a massive supermajority. Regardless, the people collectively still have the power to make and change the laws through their elected officials.
If you want to continue this childish charade where you claim the public recognition of personal relationships (i.e. what marriages are and are not valid) is not a legitimate concern for a government elected by the people to serve the people, be my guest. That isn’t how America works, though.
In America, state governments hold the power to decide what relationships they will and will not recognize, as spelled out first by their state constitutions, then by relevant statutes, then by common law.
I don’t have a problem understanding America, you have a problem understanding fascism.
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Fascism is here and it is green. Econazis are a plague that needs to be eradicated.
mcgilvra on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I’m not sure I see what the big deal is with the cross. Intentional or not, hasn’t Huck already established that he regards himself as THE Christian candidate, and not just one of many? I’m not sure the cross adds anything to his aura of Christian hubris.
The entire concept of marriage licenses is fascist/authoritarian. And it is most certainly a new concept. The idea of marriage licenses came around for racist reasons — to control marriages between people of different races by requiring those marriages, and only those marriage, to have a license. This took the personal and religious institution of marriage and twisted it into a institution controlled by the state, by denying people their inherent right to marry someone of their choice. Ochlan is right, this move is inherently fascist (or authoritarian). In 1923, the “Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” was passed by the Federal government, appropriating all marriages into this new government institution. Marriage, today, is a government institution. I find that reprehensible both for religious- and liberty-minded reasons. Marriage is a private matter, and should be outside the realm of the government. That’s the real definition of “traditional marriage.” One that is none of the government’s damn business.
If we returned to that traditional view of marriage, the issue of same-sex marriage would be moot, because it would be a private decision. Unfortunately we can’t ignore the fact that without a government marriage license, couples today are stripped of certain rights of their relationship and are otherwise penalized, because these rights have been cemented to the government-controlled marriage institution. Instead of complaining about the alteration of the definition of an institution that is less than 100 years old, conservatives and those interested in protecting individuals from the well-muscled clumsy arm of the government would do well to object to the entire concept of the government controlling personal unions.
Mark Jaquith on December 18, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »