Saturday, July 19, 2008

Paultards Pissed At Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul War Room Gets Hacked

According to the Ron Paul Tumblelog, the Ron Paul War Room was recently hacked by people who placed hard core pornography on the website. Some War Room you have there.

Also, in other news, Comedian Colbert of the Colbert Report recently made a joke where he states that the part of the brain that fools the body into thinking that a useless pill was medicine is the same part of the brain that gets people to vote for Ron Paul. For the confused Paultards out there, there analogy is that Ron Paul is a useless pill, even though his devotees seem to think that he can cure the economy. Simply screaming "Ron Paul, R[evol]ution!" is not going to be a cure in itself.

BuddyRey writes:
Yeah, I think he was pretty much calling us delusional.
We just got seriously dissed by one of the only allies we ever had in the media.
I think that your first mistake was assuming that Stephen Colbert was your ally, Buddy.
manny229 writes:
Yeah I saw that too..... I was surprised quite a few of the audience members laughed... I thought we were popular among that young cool and hip crowd?
Once again, Manny, this is a common Paultard fallacy. Not knowing the difference between "Most Ron Paul supporters are young people," and "Most young people support Ron Paul." Also, while most Ron Paul supporters might be young, "cool and hip" they certainly ain't.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Ron Paul Campaign Manager Dies, Uninsured, With $400k in Debt

Today's news story made me sick. Huffington Post and DailyKos report that Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder, recently passed away from pneumonia. Snyder spent two months in the hospital with no insurance, which means that his family must now cover the $400,000 in debt.

Despite his record as a doctor, despite the millions of dollars he raised, and despite his faith in the free market to settle health care matters, Paul was unable to provide for the most basic of care of one of his top staffers. Why didn't Snyder have insurance? Unfortunately, Snyder had a pre-existing condition, which would have made coverage prohibitively expensive. Readers on this site might remember the fact that he was the one man in all of congress to protest the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, which would have allowed companies to diagnose pre-existing genetic conditions at the genetic level, for which his supporters were more than happy to cheer him on for, arguing that they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's misfortune (which, ironically, is sort of the entire point of insurance in the first place). Well, congratulations, guy. The bad news is, your campaign manager couldn't buy insurance to cover his pre-existing defect. The good news is, your campaign member couldn't buy insurance to cover his pre-existing defect. Further, there's the fact that Kent Snyder was openly gay, which means that he couldn't get coverage via marriage. Ron Paul opposes gay marriage, and believes that recognizing gay marriage should be done at the state level.

In New Hampshire, when Ron Paul was asked to provide his stance on making health care affordable, Ron Paul attempted to avoid the subject by going off into one of his general rants on inflation, which in this case, wasn't even an accurate use of the term. In Ron Paul's world, the problem isn't the cost of health care, but inflation. His supporters keep insisting that hyperinflation is inevitable and that the U.S. dollar will be worthless in the next few years. Perhaps they believe that by then, paying off the $400,000 debt will be easy, since it will cost people $400,000 just to pay for groceries? Of course, that's only assuming that their economic predictions will come true. For some reason, I doubt it.

His supporters have begun fund raising for him. Maybe it'll be enough, and maybe it won't. But even if it is, what due they intend to do for the tens of millions of people who are likewise affected by the platform that Ron Paul advocates? Libertarians often look down on government programs, citing private charity as the superior solution, and accusing anyone who doesn't believe in private charity as the solution as being hypocritical. Kent Snyder will put their sincerity to the test.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

March of the Paultards: 9/11 was an inside job

I've been meaning to post about the Ron Paul rally for a while, so I'm getting around to posting about it now. Above is a video of Jack McLamb speaking with a megaphone and calling 9/11 an inside job, much to the delight of the Paultards. You ever wonder why people have a tendency to associate Ron Paul with the truthers? Well, this is why. Hey Ron, if you can't even manage your own rallies that are being held in your own honor, then what chance do you have of managing a country full of people who despise you?
Meanwhile, Wonkette has posted numerous photos from the event. I suggest you check it out.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Behold, the Ron Paul future!

I was watcing the Twilight Zone the other day, and one episode entitled The Rip Van Winkle Caper caught my eye. It's about a band of gold thieves who steal a million dollars in gold bricks, only to end up fighting amongst themselves over them. Wait until you see the ending.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

More Medals: Ron Paul and the Dalai Lama

The above photo is of the Dalai Lama being awarded a congressional gold medal from last October. Doesn't he look awfully miserable? Ron Paul seems to think so. Ron has a habit of screwing people while claiming to uphold the principles that they stand for, and doing it in their own self-interest. He does this because he assumes that he's a better expert on what those people stand for then they themselves. e.g., the exact sort of patronizing behavior that he hypocritically accuses the state of doing. Ron Paul voted against awarding the Dalai Lama a gold medal, citing the following reasons:

Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.
You'll notice how Ron Paul always makes statements such as these before attempting to screw people over, which is his own version of "with all due respect." In the eyes of the Paultard, this makes Ron Paul exempt from criticism.
I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.
Now, I'm not expert on Buddhist faith, but then, neither is Ron Paul. But I'm pretty sure that Buddhism is about rejecting the desire for and attachment to material possessions, rather than the material possessions themselves. If someone offered you a gold medal, then fine, take it. The Buddhists monks who I've spoken to tell me that they aren't allowed to refuse anything. And if someone put a gun to your head and said "hand it over, or else," then you hand it over. But I don't think that their doctrine forces them to rely on purity of thought alone. That's pretty naive. I mean, what would they eat? Where would they live? What would they sleep on?

True, you could argue that the $30,000 could be spent on other things. But that's a slippery slope. For instance, you could say the same thing about their plane trip, and their living accommodations. And it's ironic for Ron Paul to on the one hand claim to uphold "purity of thought," while on the other hand claim to reject a "feel-good congressional gesture." Again, I'm not an expert, but if the congressional gold medal brings people together and gets them to overlook their differences (with one notable exception), then I think that it would be in line with the whole concept of Buddhist compassion.

Update: Commenter Yokomado Jin chimes in: "You are exactly correct. The physical possession has little meaning, it is the intention that is what important. In this case, this Mr. Paul guy insulted Buddhists two ways. First, by assuming for another things about the faith he doesn't understand- stereotyping us. Secondly, as the world works based on the laws of karma, a gift is a good deed that brings good into the world. By rejecting others desire to give a gift, he is removing their potential reward of good karma. I don't know who this Mr. Paul fellow is, but he strikes me as the typical ignorant westerner who doesn't understand Buddhism beyond what they see in a movie. I've looked at some of the other articles about him and I am not surprised, he seems to be a bitter man. Blessings to his heart that it turns less ignorant."

Monday, June 30, 2008

Paultards who can't read, Part II

From the previous thread:

NH4RonPaul writes:
The guy who is writing this blog is what I call a PAULTARD.

Someone who has the disease of not being able to stop attacking Ron Paul with weak accusations.

A medal for Rosa is NOT the purview of the Congress.
It has nothing to do with racism, but you KNOW Paultards like that one will try to make it into an issue.
That was already addressed in the FAQ, under points #2, #3, #4, and #13. Which you would know, if you had actually bothered to read it. But, like I said, Paultards can't read. I should point out that Ron Paul has recently also co-sponsored legislation that would not only produce commemorative coins for discriminatory organizations, but would also divert public funds to subsidize them. Where, pray tell, does the constitution allow for one, but not the other?
devil21 writes:
Notice he never refutes the points that were made in this thread about why RP voted NO. Besides, who cares about people like this screaming for our attention now. Your day has come and gone "Ron Lawl". Keep trolling for the blog hits that have now dried up. You're way too transparent.
Yeah dude, my day has come and gone all right. That's why Ron Paul is well on his way to becoming president, just like you predicted. As for your claim that I didn't refute any of the points made in your thread, all you guys basically said was that it was tax-payer funded, and that Ron Paul offered his own money. Which, again, was refuted in my 16-point FAQ, which included actual text from the legislation in question showing that these claims were false.

Update: The Paultards are still at it, and still mocking the fact without having actually read it. Case in point:
NH4RonPaul further adds:
I hate to tell this PAULTARD that writes this sad blog, but no one cares what Ron did or did not do with the Rosa Parks medal. NO ONE! He voted no which was his right no matter the reason. WE know the reason was because this is not how you are supposed to spend taxpayer money.
Well, you guys keep saying that they spent tax payer money, but unfortunately, the actual bill disagrees with you, since it states that the medal will be self-funded through the sale of replicas. Which, again, was covered in the FAQ, under "Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!" Simply repeating the myth that it was tax payer funded, while ignoring hard evidence that says that it wasn't, is not the mark of good debate.
G-Wohl writes:
This guy has to stop wasting his time, because Ron Paul's movement is one made up of people who are educated, well-read, and intelligent. This loser is not.
Unfortunately, this is a common Paultard fallacy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand the difference between saying that you're most intelligent, and actually being more
intelligent. Hey G-Wohl, I've read all your arguments, and I've refuted them accordingly using links and citations. It's hard to take you take seriously when the only thing you have to say in your defense is an appeal to authority fallacy, where the authority you're appealing to is yourself. It's hard to take your claims of being well read seriously, when you can't even read simple legislation pointing out that the medal was self-funded. Yes, you may be well read in all things related to Ron Paul fellatio, but that is not the same thing as being well read in general.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

In surprising news, Paultards can't read

Someone pointed me to an old post from the Ron Paul Forums mocking our previous FAQ on the Rosa Parks medal. The funny thing is how the first poster writes "check this! Stupidity, really to the bone," only to have everyone regurgitate the very same talking points that have been refuted in the FAQ, without ever actually acknowledge the fact that it was addressed in the FAQ. You know, "It was tax payer funded," "Ron Paul pitched in his own money," yadda yadda yadda.

If you're going to mock an article, then it might help to actually read said article before you fall back on your standard talking points. Especially if the entire point of said article is to refute the talking points in questions. Unfortunately, Paultards aren't capable of doing that. Not only do they refuse to accept contradictory viewpoints, which is normal, they instead have to live in an imaginary world where they pretend that contradictory viewpoints don't exist. That theirs is the only viewpoint on Earth, and the only reason why everyone else hasn't adopted it is because they haven't "woken up" yet.

That's one of the reasons why I wrote the Rosa Parks FAQ in the first place. When you bring up an argument to the Paultards on why Ron Paul is a moron, they will twist and turn in an attempt to avoid all rational discussion on facts, evidence, and theory. The fact that they're willing to launch discussion threads about the FAQ while refusing to actually discuss the content of the FAQ hints at their own vulnerability. The don't want to acknowledge the content, because they know that they're weak on that issue. And their weakness on that issue can be exploited.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Ron Paul Quits?

Well, I've been busy for a while, and I didn't even get to cover Ron Paul's latest attempt to quit/not quit/raise money without actually campaigning. I was planning on seeing what Encyclopedia Dramatica had to say on the subject, but even they didn't have much to say about the news. I guess when you jerk people around as often as Ron Paul has, it's hard to get them to take them seriously when you actually mean it.

Ron Paul has since abandoned ship on the Ron Paul campaign in favor of the Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty. Because the best way to emphasize on the idea of "it's was never about the Ron Paul, it was about the movement!" is to plaster Ron Paul's name in the fucking title. Narcism, much? I especially love how their banner illuminates Ron Paul from behind so that he can appear as the deified cult figure speaking to his masses.

Meanwhile, a Huffington Post article writes, "Ron Paul Breaks The Hearts Of Creepy People Everywhere." Apparently, the spammers on that site don't take the headline very well. Big surprise. It's funny how after over a year of campaigning, they're still reciting the exact same talking points. Guys, if it didn't work the first 10,000,000 times, why do you think that it'll work now?

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Ron Paul is Clueless About the 16th Amendment

From Goldfish for Thought:

On January 28th 2003, Ron Paul introduced legislation proposing a Constitutional amendment. This amendment, dubbed the Liberty Amendment, proposes to abolish "personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibit the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens." The Liberty Amendment forbids the Federal government from engaging in any "business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution," and all government activities in violation of the amendment are to be liquidated within three years of ratification (Paul).

Furthermore, it will repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in an attempt to abolish the income tax. Paul made a statement in the House of Representatives in which he makes several assertions in support of the Liberty Amendment (Paul):

  1. The 16th Amendment enabled Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals.
  2. Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
  3. The founding fathers realized that "the power to tax is the power to destroy," which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax.
  4. America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax.
Each claim will be scrutinized in detail; Paul is seriously misrepresenting the intent of the 16th amendment, and proposing changes to the Constitution that would cripple the federal government. The resulting government would likely have even less power than the confederate government established by the Articles of Confederation.
Paultards will often claim that Ron Paul's ability to deliver 4,000 babies makes him a bigger expert on the constitution than the people who actually studied it in school, and who study it for a living. Here's an article that says otherwise.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

New Ron Paul Interview with Counterpunch

Some highlights:

ALI: What would be your plan to get out if you were elected President?

PAUL: I’d just come home as soon as the military could get them out. Whether it was 2 or 3 months, as long as they could get them out safely. And I’d announce to the world our policy is changing, the Navy would be backed off from the Iranian shores and that we’d be willing to talk to people. I think the dollar would go up and oil would do down and they’d probably start talking to each other. You know, they’re talking to each other right now. If we weren’t over there, Israel would probably be talking to the modern Arabs, the Arab League would be involved, even with the civil strife in Lebanon, they would talk to each other, and I think they would do it more so if we were out of there. So, I think sooner we leave the better.
Hey Ron, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but you did not fucking answer the question. The guy asked for your exit strategy. Which would imply some to show that you were willing to put a minimal amount of thought into considering the basic challenges associated with the problem, and how you would go about overcoming them in the most efficient way possible. You didn't do that. All you said was, "I intend to do it in the fastest way possible, and I believe sunshine will spill out of my butt afterwards."

Holy shit, it's like talking to a five year old. "I think sooner we leave the better"? That's your answer? I'm surprised that you didn't just respond with "very carefully," or "to get to the other side." Both answers would have been equally as effective. Although I suppose that "very carefully" would imply some degree of caution at the expense of speed, which I guess is not what Ron Paul is about.
The big mistake is blaming capitalism. This is what we did in the Depression. They blamed the capitalism gold standard for the Depression, and it was absolutely wrong.
Sure they are, Ron. Just like the people who support evolution. I would trust a vagina doctor over an economist or a historian any day of the week.

PAUL: I didn’t say racism doesn’t exist, but if you’re a true libertarian, you see people as individuals and you don’t even know what group they bond to. I think the instrument that causes so much of this is sort of a subtle thing by the media, and it annoys me to no end. Because every time they analyze campaigns or elections, before or immediately after elections, they immediately go out and say, well, they never say, “How did the individuals vote?” they say, “What did the Muslims do? What did the Jews do? What did the women do? How did they vote?” And everyone is put in a category endlessly. So, we’re conditioned to think we’re not important because we’re an individual, but only because we belong to a group and that was the point of mine making that statement. If people are truly racist, they see people in groups, because if you’re a true libertarian, you don’t see that. Now, there might be some libertarians that drift off, but I think they lose their libertarian credentials if they’re able to do that.
Way to take the Stephen Colbert defense, Ron. After all, you would never generalize voters based on racial demographics, would you? BTW, what were you saying when Wolf Blitzer asked you about the newsletter accusations several months ago? I completely forgot.

Oh, right. That. Well, there you have it folks. Ron Paul does not fall under his own definition of libertarian.
ALI: What’s the future of your “Revolution?” Where do you think it’s going to go?

PAUL: Well, it seems there’s a lot of momentum and a lot of interest and the book is doing well. And I’m going to continue to try my best to keep the momentum going to help people stay energized, give them information, promote education, give people a chance to get involved in politics, run for Office, and all those things that will change the country. So, we have a lot to do here. And, soon, because the total Primary will be ending pretty soon.
So basically, the revolution will continue in more for-profit book sales and more failed runs for office, which I'm sure will bring up the level of annoying to even greater heights. Great.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Ron Paul Spends Campaign Donations On Family

Thanks to the reader who pointed me to this Washington Post article:

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice.

"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."

For all their talk of free market competition to select the best and most qualified agents for the job, the Ron Paul campaign seems to be relying on a much older method for choosing his staff: Nepotism. As though we didn't get enough of that with the last Texas GOP presidential candidate.

Given Ron Paul's high success with fund raisers and his low performance in the polls, the Paultards were left with two burning questions: Where was all that money going, and where was Ron Paul finding the idiots who were running his campaign? Well, now we have the answer to both questions.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Ron Paul: "No" on Rosa Parks, "Yes" on Homophobic Organizations

Readers of this site may remember our article on the Rosa Parks medal of honor, where we analyzed and debunked Ron Paul's reasons for voting against it. The RonPaulogists made several claims defending his position, claiming that it was would have been paid for in tax dollars (an outright lie), and that it was completely unconstitutional (unfounded, and contradicted by history).

So how, then, does this same group defend Ron Paul's vote on H.R. 5872:, also known as "Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act"? This bill entails the following:

  • Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act - Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue up to 350,000 $1 coins in commemoration of the centennial of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America.
  • Requires the coin design to be emblematic of the 100 years of the organization.
  • Restricts issuance of such coins to February 8 through December 31, 2010.
  • Subjects coin sales to a surcharge of $10 per coin.
  • Requires payment of such surcharges to the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, to be made available to local councils in the form of grants for the extension of Scouting in hard-to-serve areas
Where exactly does the U.S. Constitution (Ron Paul Edition) give Congress the authority to issue commemorative coins to the Boys Scouts of America, when it apparently doesn't give Congress the authority to issue Rosa Parks a self-funded medal of honor? In fact, H.R. 5872 goes one step further than the Rosa Parks Medal does. Not only do the boy scouts get a coin made in their honor, but they also receive a sizable chunk of the proceeds in hard cash, of up to $3,500,000. Meanwhile, Ron Paul cried foul at the thought of awarding Rosa Parks with a gold medal that would have cost less than 1% of that amount. In fact, Ron Paul not only voted in favor of this bill, but he is also listed as a co-sponsor.

The RonPaulogists would frequently defend Ron Paul by pointing out that he claims respects her. It's a pretty literal translation of prefacing an insult with the phrase, "With all due respect." It smacks of insincerity. Ron Paul voted against giving a congressional medal of honor to Rosa Parks, a civil rights hero who greatly furthered the cause of equal rights. And yet, he has absolutely no problem co-sponsoring a federal fund raiser the Boy Scouts of America, an organization with a long history of outright discrimination against atheists, agnostics, and gays. Their group bylaws even includes a "Declaration of Religious Principle," where all members must swear to recognize God as the "ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

It's time to call the Ron Paul's tendency to shield his beliefs behind the constitution for what it really is: An outright fraud. There is absolutely no constitutional basis that could explain Ron Paul's inconsistency on these two issues. None. The only thing that is consistent is the fact that he'll support groups that promote blatant discrimination, while opposing groups that attempt to promote equality. What's the term for that?

Update: Some Paultards are trying to insist that the Boy Scout Bill is constitutional (Ron Paul Edition) under the coinage clause. I'm going to call bullshit on that. The constitution may give congress the authority to make commemorative coins. But does the constitution (Ron Paul Edition) give them the authority to sell these coins at a surcharge, and then give the profits to a private religious organization? Because that's a separate power. If Congress made a bill to coin $10,000,000 commemorative silver dollars of the ACLU, and then donated those $10,000,000 silver dollars to the ACLU directly, I doubt that most Paultards would be cool about it, despite their supposed love for civil liberties. We know they aren't cool with the Rosa Parks Medal, despite the common welfare clause, and despite the fact that Congressional Medals predate the constitution. In other words, "Anything we like is constitutional. Anything we don't like is unconstitutional. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's actually mentioned in the constitution."

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The High Cost of Gold

One of more important Paultard campaigns this past year was their call to return to the gold standard. Oh sure, there were always a few would scoff and insist that Ron Paul wasn't really advocating for a "gold standard," but their clarification on the matter usually amounted to saying that "Monster Island isn't actually an island -- it's actually a Peninsula!" Well, maybe so, but it wasn't the "island" part that concerned me.

Now, we could go over the fact that the gold standard doesn't actually solve any of the problems that Paultards claim that it will, or the fact that the current system grants us with economic flexibility. Instead, I'm going to target one of Ron Paul's more naive claims, his insistence that "there will always be enough gold so long as no one interferes with the free market mechanism." Apparently, Ron Paul believes that the invisible hand can create gold from thin air, so long as the market is there to demand it, like villagers in "Black & White" who pray to the player for grain. Unfortunately, Ron Paul neglects one critical fact: Gold mining is expensive. Not just in raw dollars, but also in terms of the human and environmental toll.

The Paultards look at a hunk of gold, and all they see is a glittering rock. They don't really put much thought in how it got there, like a person who loves eating meat, but who doesn't want to know the conditions that the animal was raised in. A recent article from Spiegel online reports the some of following hard truths associated with their beloved metal:

  • Mining enough gold for just one wedding ring produces about 20 tons worth of waste.
  • There are no proper environmental standards, nor do miners consider the rights of local restaurants. For example, in Guatamala, mines have been set up in areas which the residents consider sacred.
  • Goldmines use an estimated 182,000 tons of cyanide a year, effectively destroying the land. Further, the toxic waste poisons the ground water and rivers, and in Indonesia, it is dumped directly into the Ocean. In fact, these substances are so toxic that we are still dealing with the effects of waste products left behind by the Ancient Roman Empire.
  • Mining operations tend to only employ a few people, and local residents rarely see the benefits to their economy.
Meanwhile, in Mozambique, the high price on gold has encouraged a hefty rise of slave labor, prostitution, and disease. Drinkable water is also becoming scarce as a result of pollution. The temperatures reach below freezing levels at night, causing workers to freeze to death. And all this for a few grams of gold dust, scattered throughout the Earth.

The problems in the gold industry combines two things that makes libertarianism what it is: A love for gold, and a hatred of regulation. The problem is bad enough right now, when gold is primarily used for the sake of technology and jewelry. But what happens if we increase the demand for gold even further, by forcing people to exchange in gold currencies for all transactions in general? Returning to the gold standard under a libertarian system would cause the price to skyrocket even further, causing people to harvest as much gold as possible for as little cost as possible, environmental and social concerns be damned.

This is also the main reason why Ron Paul's solution of returning to the gold standard to end the oil crisis doesn't work. He's not actually increasing the supply of oil at all, he's simply matching one hard to extract finite resource to another hard to extract finite resource, in the hopes that two wrongs can make a right. It's sort of like having a diet plan that hopes to bring a 500 pound man to average body mass, not by asking him to lose weight, but by forcing everyone else to become fatter.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Followup on Burma

A Ron Paul support by by the name of Funky Dung has recently weighed in on the recent Burma controversy, by going straight to Lew Rockwell for clarification. Dung sent in the following:

I think what bothered me more is that though he voted no regarding Burma, he voted yes for domestic frivolities. Where does the Constitution say that Congress can/should pass silly resolutions praising sports teams?

Also, the resolution for Burma offered no aid. The line that a Paul spokesman said offended him suggested that a referendum election be postponed in favor of humanitarian efforts. What's wrong with that? Is diplomacy beyond the scope of Congress' powers? If Congress threatened violence or sanctions for noncompliance with its suggestion, it would of course be wholly in the wrong. However, I cannot see why states cannot or should not suggest to others how they ought to address important matters, so long as those suggestions can be freely ignored without fear of reprisal.
Meanwhile, Rockwell responds the only way he knows how. Which is, to say, by not really responding at all, and by relying on the same libertarian talking points that we've heard time and time again:
"It is none of the US government's business, which is using the disaster to try to expand the empire. The US government, like all governments, engages in theft and murder. It can keep its charity to itself. On the other hand, the US would not allow foreign help for the victims of Katrina."
Dung laments by asking, "Ever get the feeling you're not being listened to? He didn't address a single point I made, preferring instead to add to his list of red herrings." Welcome to our world, FD.

In other news, Allah Pundit from offers the following critique:
Commenter JohnTant raises a curious anomaly in the comments to the Headlines item about this, though: If it’s all about minding our own business or not deigning to vote on meaningless hortatory resolutions, why’d America’s Greatest Patriot cast a yes on an old measure regarding intercountry adoptions in Romania? Or on one condemning jihadist attacks in Egypt? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that makes that a necessary and proper power of Congress — but only with respect to countries other than Israel, because when it came time to condemn a terror attack there, the Paulnut politely declined. On principle, I’m sure.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

"Dr. Nay" Votes "Yes" to Football

You remember all of Ron Paul's horrendous no votes where he refused to condemn China over Tibet, and he refused to offer sympathy to the victims of the Cyclone Nargis. Ron Paul's defenders on Digg were quick to defend Ron Paul by claiming that the resolution was meaningless and a waste of tax dollars, and that there was nothing in the constitution to support it. It's a pretty lame excuse, since Ron Paul is wasting just as much time/tax dollars by voting no than he would have wasted voting "yes."

So does "Doctor No" only vote "yes" when absolutely necessary? Apparently not. For all their talk of doing your own research and looking into Ron Paul's voting record, Paultards rarely practice as they preach. Nick Curran from Radar Online did some digging, and discovered that Ron Paul recently voted "yes" on all of the following bills:

• The University of Kansas football team for "winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl and having the most successful year in program history"
• The New York Giants for "winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable post-season runs in professional sports history"
• The Louisiana State University football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series national championship game
It looks like the Paultards may need to find another excuse to fall back on. Where in the constitution does it mention football?

In other news, one of the posters on Ron Paul's official website writes the following:
Ron Paul wants to be the President of the United States and forsake the glamor and the power of the position to restore and protect the liberty of the individual. Who better for an endorsement than an NFL lineman??? How’s this for a free market alternative to Secret Service Protection: Todd Wade, Val Venis (Sean Morley) and Kane (Glenn Jacobs) in badges and armor. When the “small guy” is billed as 6′3″ 260, thats enough meat to turn a riot into a book club.
Stay classy, guys.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Ron Paul Opposes Condolence Bill to Burma

Reprinted from the Ron Paul Tumblelog:

H. Res. 1181: Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis.

Passed 410-1.

Ron Paul opposed a condolence bill to Burma because it also called on Burma’s military junta to postpone a referendum which would solidify their oppressive regime over the already-suffering country.

His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills: “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country. It’s just none of our business.” Note that the bill does not call for interference; it only contains an admonishment, not an invasion.

Take note: not only did Ron Paul refuse to express sadness for the plight of an Asian people burdened by the double disaster of natural calamity and tyrannical government, but he explicitly supports said military tyranny under the guise of a weak-handed isolationism.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Vote For Miss Ron Paul!

Wonkette reports the following story: "Hey there Paultards who like to look at women online! Now you can elect your favorite female Libertarian standard-bearer in a beauty pageant that's attracting literally dozens of votes. There are several Miss Ron Pauls to choose from and you can vote twice a day before May 31, because that is what Freedom is all about: voting twice."

You can check out the five leading candidates here, with all the glamor that Ron Paul is famous for. Surprise, surprise: All five of them are white, four of them are blonde, and the last one looks like she needs to be carded. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising, coming from a political ideology that thinks that child pornography laws are a bad thing.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Paultards Reject Free Market, Demand Government Intervention

h/t to Wonkette for this:
So the Paultards will defend laissez-faire when it comes to the freedom to discriminate against minorities solely for being minorities, or when a business pollutes the local land, air, and water table with toxic carcinogens. In other words, things that cause actual harm to actual people. But when a business decides to to put Ron Paul's books at the back of the store? Well, now you've gone too far, big business, and you deserve to see our lawyers! Keep in mind... this is the same group that doesn't believe that Rosa Parks deserves a gold medal, because she didn't want to sit in the back of the bus.

Paultards will often defend free market offenses by relying on free market solution, which usually amounts to "let's let the problem work itself out." Ironically, there actually is a free market solution in this case. See, what they don't realize is that most publishers actually pay to have their books placed in a prominent position, it's part of how a book store earns its money. Ron Paul apparently didn't pay up like his competitors did.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Paulville Neglects to Pay Hosting Fees

Yes, we've heard it all before. "The campaign was never about getting Ron Paul elected, it was about the movement." No one ever bothered to explain what they meant by that, with few exceptions. One example of this is Paulville, the Paultard attempt at creating their own Rapture in honor of Ron Paul, an idea so creepy that even Ron Paul himself wouldn't want to live there. This is what happen when the revolution goes beyond the grasp of its messiah. was the brainchild of Jason Ebacher, founder of the West Central Minnesota Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group. It recently ended, as all Paultard projects do, with humiliating and incompetent failure. Did the mainstream media conspire to keep them down? Was it the Federal Reserve? Good guesses, but no. Apparently, Jason was thwarted by something that we call "hosting fees." It's pretty silly when you're trying to start your own pocket civilization, and you can't even make a simple credit card payment.

Ron Paul may not approve of Paulville, but this is what happens when you campaign on a vague message of "freedom" and "liberty" without any actual guidance or leadership, or even competence. What exactly did Ron Paul expect to happen? If it's about the movement, then what is your movement?

Paul's official is that "I don’t think that’s the solution. You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible." Unfortunately, the closest that the Paultards have ever come to being "persuasive" are sticker bombs and outright vandalism. Paulville may have been an idiotic idea, but at least it would have given the Paultards an opportunity to really put their money where their mouths were, and to test whether they could practice what they preach. It may not have been wise, but at least it had a somewhat naive sincerity to it. But if the rEVOLution can't even manage to run their own pocket community, then why should we immediately reward them for that failure by trusting them to run the entire nation? That argument doesn't make any sense, and it isn't exactly very persuasive.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Stickerbombs and Conspiracy Theories

In light of their recent failures as a political movement, the Paultards have have recently introduced their latest strategy for bringing a swift and sudden victory for the Doctor: The Ron Paul sticker bomb. Because I guess that this is Ron Paul's greatest hurdle, the fact that he doesn't have enough vandalism going on under his name. Because obviously, all those past efforts to bumper sticker the city have worked out really, really well. I know the stock response, "It's not about Ron Paul, it's about the movement." So just out of curiosity, what happens to this sticker when you take Ron Paul out of the equation?

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul Tumblelog finds one DailyPaul poster asking the other DailyPaul posters to cut down on the conspiracy theories. It doesn't go over very well.

And finally, a few notes to all of the anonymous RonPaulogists who like to comment on this site:

  1. When I call you a Paultard, it's not so you guys can start whining about how I hurt your feelings , and how persecuted you are, and how you supposedly have a 180-point internet IQ. No, when I call you a Paultard, it's a challenge, to see if you can prove me wrong by adding a rational argument. For a group of wanna-be revolutionaries, you guys seem to have an incredibly thin spine.
  2. BlogSpot shows me your comments, but it doesn't say which post the comment is responding to. So the only way I know what you're responding to is if your comment somehow makes it clear to me. Here's the deal: If you comment doesn't make it clear to me, then chances are, you aren't responding to any post in particular. And if you aren't responding to any post in particular, then chances are that you aren't responding to any argument in particular. And if you aren't responding to a particular argument, then it's extremely difficult for you to find the flaws of that argument, much less develop an argument of your own. In other words, if it isn't clear what you comment is responding to, then your comment is probably garbage, and not worth publishing. Common examples are the people who accuse me of spreading lies and smears, but who never actually explain why I'm using them.
  3. I've been arguing with libertarians for years and Paultards for months, and honestly, most of your arguments are pretty derivative. Chances are that if you're repeating something that you heard from someone else, then I've heard it as well, and I've already refuted it. If you want to impress me, then try to think on your own for a change. I know that's a lot to ask, from a group that supposedly prides itself for its individuality, but please bear with me.
That's all for now. Peace out.