"Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These 11 Reasons"

[Martin Radwin]

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: If you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neo-conservative such as Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third-party ticket. And because of the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9 percent). That would undoubtedly re-elect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want?

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

No, "we" do not love killing people. At least, I certainly don't. In fact, I find the killing of innocent people to be morally abhorrent. You don't seem to mind killing people, as long as they belong to groups that you consider to be of no value, such as Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, or Libyans, as long as you don't have to do the actual killing yourself. At least, this is the implication of the fact that I've never yet seen you morally condemn any of the killings of people from these countries by the U.S. government.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove anything to someone for whom I have as little respect as I do for you. In fact, I wish I could take back the last two minutes I've spent replying to your puerile claptrap.

"No, 'we' do not love killing people."

Phony, self-righteous a-hole.

Well, I'm certainly sorry that you spent two whole minutes on this post. Given the extremely high quality of your posts here, and the utter brilliance of your arguments, you have certainly demonstrated just how valuable your time is. Just think of how many more valuable posts imparting your wisdom you could have made with the allocation of just a few more two minutes intervals.

Perhaps I can get you to reconsider your decision not to respond to my last post. Granted, I am a phony, self-righteous a-hole, but please keep in mind that, when you post on OL, you are communicating with a wide audience of OL readers, most of whom, unlike me, are not phony, self-righteous a-holes. Surely, you wouldn't wish to deprive all of these non phony, non self-righteous, non a-hole readers of the benefit of your great wisdom, just because I have demonstrated that I am obviously not worthy. Why punish them just because I'm a phony, self-righteous a-hole? That doesn't sound very fair to me.

And so, as a public service to the OL audience, let me make some suggestions as to how you could follow up on your previous post about the necessity of us defending ourselves. Please feel free to use any of these suggestions as the topic of one of your brilliant follow up posts!

1) You can explain how the U.S. government torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, including the torture of children as young as 12, is a necessary component of defending ourselves. This shouldn't be very hard. After all, even 12 year old children can turn out to be terrorists. You can never be too careful! Obviously, stripping them naked, putting hoods over their heads, and taunting them will teach them never to mess with us ever again, guaranteeing our future safety. Please feel free to elaborate.

2) You can explain how the previously imposed Iraq sanctions, which are estimated to have led to the deaths of at least several hundred thousand Iraqis, were absolutely necessary for our defense. Of course, a lot of children died as a result of these sanctions, which included such things as forbidding the importation into Iraq of water purification equipment. But you know what they say. Any one of those thousands of dead children could have grown into an anti-American terrorist. So killing them before this could happen was just a form of pre-emptive self-defense. Please feel free to elaborate.

3) You can explain how flying drones all over Pakistan and firing hellfire missiles into wedding parties, incinerating all of the participants, is absolutely necessary for our defense. After all, any of these participants in the wedding party could secretly be a terrorist out to destroy America. Besides, after the couple get married and have children, their children could grow up to become terrorists out to destroy America too! So this would also definitely qualify as pre-emptive self-defense. Please feel free to elaborate.

4) Now that these drones have proven just how incredibly valuable they are for the self-defense of America, they are starting to be used for domestic law enforcement. Just recently, a Predator B drone was used in a domestic law enforcement operation in North Dakota. And you know how government programs are! Why, they just keep growing and growing! So you know that it's just a matter of time before these Predator drones start being used all over the United States for domestic law enforcement. And even though, as we all know, our government is super diligent and careful, mistakes do happen from time to time, even among our exalted leaders! Since the U.S. government clearly has the right to defend us against evildoers abroad, surely we have the right to defend ourselves as well, even against accidents by our own government, right? So, once we find that there are Predator drones flying over our neighborhoods, armed with hellfire missiles, what can we as good objectivists do to protect ourselves against accidently being incinerated by one of these missiles? Please feel free to elaborate.

5) Now that the National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law by president Obama, declaring that the entire world, including the United States, is a war zone, granting the government the power to arrest anyone anywhere in the world, including American citizens inside the United States, and to detain them indefinitely without charges or trial, possibly for the rest of their lives, we really need to think up some survival strategies just for living here in the U.S. Of all of the presidential candidates, even though you seem to dislike him more than any of the others, Ron Paul was the only one who opposed the NDAA, and since he isn't going to be the next president, I think we can safely assume that this legislation is here to stay, making the U.S. a dejure although not yet a defacto military dictatorship. There is always the possibility that the U.S. government may decide to arrest some of us as potential terrorists and lock us up for the rest of our lives. So what can we as good objectivists do to protect ourselves against being arrested by the government and locked away, possibly forever, assuming that we haven't already been incinerated by a hellfire missile? Please feel free to elaborate.

You see, I've given you five great ideas for a follow up to your previous post about the moral imperative of us defending ourselves. Surely, you can take at least one of these ideas and run with it? Just because I'm a phony, self-righteous a-hole, you shouldn't deny the rest of the good objectivists on OL the benefit of your brilliant ideas for coping with the endless threats facing us in these trying times. So please, keep posting on this subject, I beg of you! The objectivist community desparately awaits receiving your great wisdom.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Aside from the relatively trite Whiskey Rebellion the U.S. really started its bloody, imperialistic wars with the Indian Wars most exemplified by the work of duelist Andrew Jackson. Then the Mexican-American War and the Civil War. After a bunch of foreign wars the monster has turned upon its own citizens generally speaking. It's obvious that in the name of self defense there is no reason not to mount a campaign against the residents of Galt's Gulch and eliminate that terrorist stronghold.

--Brant

for a diversion, the U.S. could declare war on several different countries--but not fight them, as opposed to fighting several different countries and not declaring war

[Brant Gaede]

When you take Ayn Rand's radical vision and put it up against today's world you can understand why even thirty-five years ago she was too disgusted to go on commentating on current events. Still, she did exhibit some serious neo-con drift in the 1960s and 1970s and contemporary Objectivism seems to have accelerated that trend.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Aside from the relatively trite Whiskey Rebellion the U.S. really started its bloody, imperialistic wars with the Indian Wars most exemplified by the work of duelist Andrew Jackson. Then the Mexican-American War and the Civil War. After a bunch of foreign wars the monster has turned upon its own citizens generally speaking. It's obvious that in the name of self defense there is no reason not to mount a campaign against the residents of Galt's Gulch and eliminate that terrorist stronghold.

--Brant

for a diversion, the U.S. could declare war on several different countries--but not fight them, as opposed to fighting several different countries and not declaring war

Your observation is on point and eloquent. Our nation is trapped in the Forever War. This has got to stop soon or we will be ruined or destroyed.

Ba'al Chatzaf