Webcomic author bans me from posting

[tomaO2]

Very annoying. I have been reading about Ron Paul since November and I figured it was time to see how well I have learned the old time, Taft Republican talk.

I decided to mention Ron Paul on a blog of a webcomic author I like. First I went under anonymous but after my first post the subsequent ones didn't get through so I joined and I got a few more and then he replied in a way that made me look bad so I replied to that and he wouldn't allow it. Furthermore he banned me from replying in his journal. Here is the posts.

Some guy

Just once, just once, I would like to see a candidate who claims to be a true, Lincoln-era conservative, and means it. Small government. The rights and responsibilities of the individual. Thrift. Respect for fellow man and the law.

Me

Excuse me? What about Ron Paul. He is a classic Goldwater/Taft Conservative. On top of that he is deeply religious in a way that is completely non showy. He may be nowhere in the polls but he believes so strongly in his beliefs that he will fight on in his nomination no matter what. He is everything a conservative could want except he is anti war and I don't understand how you can call yourself Christian when Iraq violates the "Just War" theory that Christians are suppost to hold.

Why do you claim you want this but don't back it up by voting that way? I can only assume your desire to back a "winner" or a pro-war president is more important then keeping a guy that is as conservative as it gets. Look at his 19 year voting record. HE is the only person in congress that has the same ideals as the founders. For shame

Webcomic author

He ignores the facts in order to call the Iraq war "illegal," and thinks that the correct solution to the terror war is to run away.

Me.

Since my first anonymous reply wasn't posted, I'm joining.

Exactly where does the president get the authority to declare a war? I submit that you are the one ignoring the facts. The constitution clearly states that only congress can declare war.

That said, this hasn't happened since World War II. Korea was attacked under a UN resolution for instance. However, just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it constitutional. Therefore this war, and indeed all wars for the past 50+ years have all been illegal. Ron Paul is exactly right and you are wrong.

As for running away... Yes, that sounds great. we have miliary bases in over 130 countries. Why are there still troops in Japan and Germany? How many years must we keep a military presence in Korea? Look at Vietnam, we left there unconditionally and now that country is a friend of the USA. On the other hand, places where we constantly meddle, like Cuba and North Korea, are still dictatorships.

We have spent decades meddling with other people affairs. Military bases is one of the 3 reasons listed by Osama as to why 9/11 happened. They don't attack us because we are free and prosperous, they attack us because we are over there. We helped install Sadam to power then we tear him down. Everything we do creates concequences and we must understand that and stop trying to manage everyone.

So yes. Just back off and open up to free trade. We do much better at spreading our ideas while trading with people then when we bomb them. The miliary seems to agree. Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined. It seems the troops believe that supporting them means bringing them home.

I would also like to know how you reconcile your Christian beliefs with waging war on a country that didn't attack the US, it wasn't a threat... The Christian 'Just War' theory should be paramount to any good Christian and yet Christians are among the most pro-war.

Until they join up that is.

webcomic author

Congress issued all the necessary paperwork back when this started, as well you know.

One may as well argue that all wars are illegal because destruction of public and private property and firing weapons in a residential area is illegal. In case you didn't notice, you semantically obsessed moral infant, flying planes into buildings, violating ceasefire agreements, funding and sheltering terrorist leaders, raping teenage girls, and filling mass graves with women and infants is kind of illegal around the world TOO. The bad guys don't give a duck's watertight backside what your lawyer has to say on the matter.

This is a war against a network of homicidal Islamic maniacs that stretches across multiple nations and incorporates street level butchers, jihad-preaching "holy leaders," and corrupt and evil tinpot tyrants. There is no "nation" to issue a "proper" declaration of war TO. No leader, no government, no ambassador, no set of borders to send the dutifully-filled-out form in triplicate, do you GET it yet?

Furthermore, even if 9-11 had never occurred, we were still obligated to go in and take Saddam out of power the instant he violated the ceasefire agreement. Why? Because we gave our word that we would. That's what a ceasefire means; a contract signed by us that says "you get out of line, we will come in and kick your ass."

The UN signed that agreement too. But the UN is a worse-than-impotent holding pen for international criminals and useless people. It has no legislative or executive authority, anyway. It is not a governing body, it is a diplomatic institution.

So that left us, and the REST of the 40+ nations that signed on, to finally fulfil our 12 year old obligations and remove the destabilizing Saddam regime from power.

Saddam was a violent, evil, warmongering THREAT. He sent money around the world to terrorists, hosted their leaders in his own home, and had agents in his own government playing footsy with their operatives. He had training grounds in Haditha for plane hijackings, and is on videotape discussing funding of terrorist actions in America to try and destabilize our government.

Oh yes, Saddam was no threat. He never attacked us....

Neither had Germany, at Pearl Harbor. For that matter, noone considered post WWI Germany a realistic threat to anyone, either. Not even after their first invasion. Not till they'd conquered half of Europe.

But hey, I'm sure the iron-fisted, mass-murdering, invasion-happy tyrant with the funny mustache involved THIS time would have given us peace in our time, right?

Sit down, shut up, and let the adults do the driving.

My next reply was erased and when I pressed it, he banned me from posting on his journal. I'd already had some stuff by him erased by this point so I had saved it for your reading pleasure.

Me

"Congress issued... paperwork"

Doesn't matter, no amount of paperwork can take away from the fact that you need a declaration of war from congress when you attack another country LEGALLY, according to the constitution. The war is illegal by that measure and if you feel that we don't need to do that, then one needs to make a new amendment. Change the law if need be but don't ignore it.

"One may... argue... all wars are illegal..."

No, sometimes war is needed.

"In case you didn't notice... flying planes into buildings... illegal around the world TOO."

I HAVE noticed and I do agree that something needs to be done. Not this though.

"This is a war against a network of homicidal Islamic maniacs... There is no "nation" to issue a "proper" declaration of war TO... do you GET it yet?"

I do get it. This is the exact reason that simply attacking countries and nation building won't work. Instead, we should follow Dr. Paul's advice and bring back "Letters Of Marque" which the founders used to go after pirates. We need to hunt them down directly and stop waging war on countries.

"Furthermore, even if 9-11 had never occurred, we were still obligated to go in and take Saddam out of power the instant he violated the ceasefire agreement..."

We also gave our word that we would stop genocide, yet we stand by and watch as countries like Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur commit it. North Korea has broken some serious aggreements and we give them more rewards? Clearly the USA is cherry picking who 'deserves' to be attacked. Right now, that decision is in the President's hand alone. He needs to be reigned in by congress. We as a NATION need to decide which countries to go forth and invade.

"...the UN is a worse-than-impotent holding pen for international criminals and useless people."

And yet we go in and invade countries under UN resolutions. Wasn't Iraq rubber stamped as well? Conversely, we can't protect victims of Genocide because the UN blocks us. I agree that the UN can be worse then usless so the answer is that we need to stop defering to them and reclaim our national sovereignty.

"So that left us, and the REST of the 40+ nations that signed on, to finally fulfil our 12 year old obligations and remove the destabilizing Saddam regime from power."

The Federal goverment have no oblagation to invade. Only to follow the will of the people and protect this nation. The people don't want this war and Sadamn wasn't a threat to us. That said, I am aware many individuals feel a moral obligation to help. I think you should do whatever you can to help whatever causes you believe in. However, you can't take it upon yourself to decide that the country should do.

"Saddam was a violent, evil, warmongering THREAT."

He was secular leader and he WASN'T a threat to us. The reason Al Quida (the people we are SUPPOST to be fighting) was not in Iraq is because he wouldn't let them in. He was their enemy as well and as I look at how Al Quida has grown in Iraq after we attacked, I feel we were safer with him in power. I think his partnership with the terrorists was overblown. Again, none of the 9/11 bombers were from Iraq.

"Neither had Germany, at Pearl Harbor. For that matter, noone considered post WWI Germany a realistic threat to anyone, either. Not even after their first invasion. Not till they'd conquered half of Europe."

Germany DID attack by declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour happened. The situations were different however and you can't really compare them. I think though that Germany would not have become such a threat if they hadn't been treated so badly in their surrender conditions after WWI. You make people better by trading and talking to them, not punishing them.

"But hey, I'm sure the iron-fisted... involved THIS time would have given us peace in our time, right?"

The USA shouldn't make decisions based on if a dictator wants war or not, it should be made based on will of the people and whether or not it is a threat to our national sovereignty. Iraq fails on both counts.

"Sit down, shut up, and let the adults do the driving."

I am a conscientious objector and in my experience people that toss around insults are the childish ones.

It's unfortunate he banned me because I am really impressed and happy with this post. The only thing I had to look up was where the recent genocides had happened. How do you guys feel I replied? There is a space limit so there wasn't more room to type more. I think I did a great job dismantling his arguments. Anything I could have improved on though?

It bothers me that I was banned by a guy that talks about how he likes to keep arguing with evolutionists because he is right. He has a strange definition of arguing if he does so by erasing replies. He could at least erase his own.

The webcomic is Tales of the Questor at http://www.rhjunior.com/totq/

and the thread that got me banned is here http://rhjunior.livejournal.com/410378.html

Why do Christians love war so much?

 

[Liberté]

gee, I wonder why you were banned.

 

[Tdcci]

gee, I wonder why you were banned.

Because the webcomic writer couldn't settle a dispute with words so he used power, an inevitability when you argue with someone who argues for pre-emptive war?

 

[berrybunches]

I posted your comment for you! also if you can find a way to change your IP address you can re register and post more. Try using a proxy and clear your cookies in your browser

edit: the comment has to be approved first, hope he posts it!

 

[tomaO2]

I hope so too but that's a fail safe. All anonymous posts are screened so he can delete them. When my screened posts stopped going up, I joined and the posts were not screened then but after he set that to screen for that as well.

I found that out when I tried to repost. He then banned me from posting. I can post as anonymous though for the time being but they are still screened. I think I'll keep doing that once a day or two for awhile and see if I can get him to let me in.

Don't know how to change my IP address unfortunatly. It would not make much different though, I don't think. Too much work for something he would keep deleting.

I enjoy the fact that I "won" the argument though. ^_^]

I didn't know any of this stuff 6 months ago. It's so... clear now. It makes so much more sense to follow what Ron Paul says. I'm to glad I decided to read up on him. It blows me away that I was still I was pro-war. Pro-war, dispite everything that happened up until now, until I saw that YouTube debate with Gulliani and read more on Dr. Paul.

 

[Zavoi]

This is what happens when a forum/blog administrator gets involved in contentious discussions. My advice is to not waste time on this person any longer and use your arguments on more public discussion places with hands-off moderators.

 

[Aldanga]

Wow, you did great. Kudos.

 

[ReneeSaffron]

I think you did just fine. I have actually been in the middle of a similar discussion on my blog, (only I'M that one that moderates the comments) I've actually decided to change my strategy a bit. It takes less time to just quote Ron Paul rather than writing up a reply myself and while he may not be the greatest speaker, he sure can write! There are hundreds of articles by Ron Paul on nearly every subject in the Ron Paul Library. You might want to check it out.
BTW, I am a Christian and I do NOT love war and neither does Christ. The Christian church in general seems to have become hard-headed, naive, unloving, and un-Christlike. We are all human beings and we all make mistakes...often big, scary mistakes like supporting a big government, conservative-in-name-only, candidate for president.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Let me walk you through something here, to see if you can spot it, objectively.

The post you quoted started with a fairly neutral request for information:

Just once, just once, I would like to see a candidate who claims to be a true, Lincoln-era conservative, and means it. Small government. The rights and responsibilities of the individual. Thrift. Respect for fellow man and the law.

Why did you immediately go into attack mode?

Excuse me? What about Ron Paul. He is a classic Goldwater/Taft Conservative. On top of that he is deeply religious in a way that is completely non showy. He may be nowhere in the polls but he believes so strongly in his beliefs that he will fight on in his nomination no matter what. He is everything a conservative could want except he is anti war and I don't understand how you can call yourself Christian when Iraq violates the "Just War" theory that Christians are suppost to hold.

Why do you claim you want this but don't back it up by voting that way? I can only assume your desire to back a "winner" or a pro-war president is more important then keeping a guy that is as conservative as it gets. Look at his 19 year voting record. HE is the only person in congress that has the same ideals as the founders. For shame

You'll get more flies with honey. For example:

Just once, just once, I would like to see a candidate who claims to be a true, Lincoln-era conservative, and means it. Small government. The rights and responsibilities of the individual. Thrift. Respect for fellow man and the law.

The candidate you're looking for is Ron Paul, a classic conservative in the mold of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan. A doctor who's been married to the same woman for 51 years, he walks the walk. He's been marginalized, but that doesn't change his support for fiscal conservatism, sound monetary policy, and downsizing a bloated government.

He voted against the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and other programs that threaten individual rights like privacy and parenting decisions. He has never voted for a tax increase, does not participate in the Congressional pension plan, has never taken a Congressional Junket, and returns part of his Congressional budget each year. He has a long list of government agencies he believes we'd be better off without. He'd let you keep the savings to spend as you see fit.

How's that for a thrifty, small-government proponent?

He believes in Armed Neutrality as a foreign policy, strong but not meddlesome. He would send our military after Bin Laden and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11, instead of a dictator we installed and who was not supporting the terrorists. He believes we've been fighting the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. He believes war requires a declaration by the members of Congress, as defined in the Constitution, and that the President hasn't the authority, moral or legal, to go to war on his own.

How's that for respect for fellow man and the law?

Check out his voting record over his two decades in congress, and you'll find he sticks to his guns and isn't swayed by popular opinion. You'll also find he's the Congressman who most consistently votes for the rule of Constitutional Law.

As you learn more about Dr. Paul, you'll understand why those who currently call the shots do everything they can to make him a fringe candidate. If we all start thinking for ourselves, those pundits will be out of a job.

Take a look at his positions at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues. If you believe that voting is about your preferences in government, rather than a horserace where you're trying to pick "the winner," you'll likely find there's only one candidate worthy of your vote this election cycle.

Just my two cents worth. As soon as a discussion stoops to personalities, it's already over, and lost.

 

[tomaO2]

Good points. I'll consider that. It's hard for me to have a high opinion of people that say what he did though. I know in my heart they are almost certainly not serious.

Anyway, he had heard of Ron Paul and flung out the old Newsletter scandal, which I didn't post here. I think handled that reply better. I think a good comeback is to ask people if they can find just one quote that comes from Ron Paul himself and not a ghostwriter that shows he has any racist inclanations whatsoever.

I simply will not accept the word of a ghostwriter over all the things I have read and seen Ron Paul do.

 

[ZzzImAsleep]

Just my two cents worth. As soon as a discussion stoops to personalities, it's already over, and lost.

While I do agree with what you are saying, I have immediately gone on the attack before on message boards where people see Paul as a joke candidate.