Jackson was pretty much of a Libertarian. He followed the Monroe doctrine, opposed the war on drugs, opposed the war on terror, opposed socialism, opposed the federal income tax, opposed the department of education, opposed the NEA, etc.
What “glory”? We picked a fight we couldn’t win, the capital was burned, and a bunch of people were killed to no gain. And, it’s almost 200 years ago so why care?
You are kidding, right?
Jackson was nothing like a Libertarian.
-XT
This is interesting. I think that many of us are having this same reaction. As I’ve said already I’ve gone from ignorant and neutral about Paul to distinctly contemptuous as a result of hearing his groupies go on, yet it is an active process, much more so than my eyerolling about the Tea Partiers in general or about Palin and her ilk of ignorance. Something about the way his supporters promote him seems to trigger this reaction in many of us. (Why else this many many posts?) What is it?
My guess is that it is the unwarranted arrogance his supporters seem to have. I am suspecting that the crowd that hangs here gets a visceral negative reaction to those who claim to be oh so much more intelligent than the rest of us, while demonstrating no evidence of such, and enjoy the process of showing those people, or at least everyone else in the area as often those sorts of people are often too clueless to recognize when it has happened, that they are not as smart as they think they are.
In any case, if the goal of the Paul promotors has been to actually build support for their man, then they have been achieving the exact opposite around here. Then again, they are ill advised to spend their efforts here anyway. These necks of the woods are not prime stomping grounds for those most likely to vote in the GOP primaries and that should be their first priority if they really believe their man has any chance at all.
:dubious: “Opposed the War on Terror”? Did he have a time machine?
I figure with all this talk, someone has to link to 538.
[
](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html)
It’s going to be a long, long, long two years.
And:
The straight lines just write themselves.
I’m partial to this list of canonical books:
-
Madison’s Notes on the Federal Constitution (published in 1840, written in 1787 with a few later annotations)
-
Common Sense by Thomas Paine (1776)
-
Autobigraphy of Ben Franklin
-
Last of the Mohicans by James Fennimore Cooper (1826)
-
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon (1776, 1st edition, part 1)
-
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1776)
…it was in my all my U.S. history textbooks. I don’t think the media is covering it up.
How do you advocate for something that happened 200 years ago?
Most of those things didn’t exist during Jackson’s lifetime.
Perhaps you might try reading something modern instead of works centuries out of date.
We burned York first, the capital of Upper Canada. We won the war, because we stooped impressment and pened up free trade. The Treaty of 1818 proved we won, and the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was icing on the cake. We also annexed Florida in 1819 as a result of the war of 1812.
The worst British war bewtween 1588 (Spanish Armada) and the 20th century was the War of 1812.
James Madison spent his last two years as the most popular president in the entire histroy of the Unitede States, thanks to our great victory. If Madison can be that popular, so can Rand and Ron Paul.
Yeah, but he totally would have opposed them!
He was also against 4chan, so vote for Ron Paul.
Just for giggles, please elaborate on the exact steps via which you arrive at that conclusion.
So Ron Paul can be elected if he goes to war with Britain and wins?
A Canadian in another thread has been advocating “we” (the USA) invade Mexico. I propose we invade Canada!
(Not really. But the latest Guest to swim into our ken is giving me a contact high. And not doing much for Doctor Paul’s cause.)
No, I’m not kidding. There are many of us. We are paid to defend the War of 1812 wherever it is discussed.
…even though I just listed tons of major policy issues were Jackson was Libertarian.
:smack:
No no no, Ron Paul can be elected if he goes to war with the New World Order, which as we all know is made up of the British Crown, International Bankers (who may or may not have many members who are Jews, our OP seems to have tapped out in this tag-team match), and Lizard People.
Oh, and:
Probably the wrong admission to make here.
Ron Paul must go to war against the global empire. In 1812, it was the British Empire. In 2010, it is the NWO.
And at the same time, defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Ron Paul could become the Second Coming of James Madison in 2012, exactly 200 years later.
Are you being paid to post here?
You said he opposed the NEA, which I take to mean the National Education Association. It came into existnece in 1857, 12 years after Jackson died. You said he opposed the War on Drugs, which can be dated to the late 1960s or to the ninteen-teens, at the earliest. You said he opposed the Department of Education, whose predecessor (the Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare) was created in 1953. You said he opposed the war on terror, which dates to 2001. Is he opposing them through a medium?
So what? The equivalent to the burning of Washington DC would have been burning London, not a British provincial town.
No, we refused British attempts to negotiate so we could flex our largely imaginary muscles, and got slapped about by the far more powerful British until we agreed to a peace treaty and essentially status quo ante.
Rand is popular to a small segment of the population because her philosophy panders to the worst aspects of human nature; her popularity is limited due to the number of people who can see they’d be screwed under her sociopathic philosophy. There’s a limited number of people foolish, arrogant, or corrupt enough to follow her. Paul is unlikely to be popular because he’s wrong in all sorts of obvious ways, holds positions that too many people find silly or offensive, has followers who turn people off, and probably won’t live too long anyway.
Damnit, it’s no fair if you take my most extreme mocking parody of silly beliefs and then go and endorse it.
Defend it from what?
And who’s paying you?