Thursday, February 28, 2008

Wonkette Endorses Chris Peden

From Wonkette:

To most American political fanatics, Ron Paul is just a goofy hobbit whose hilariously doomed online presidential campaign provided standout entertainment in a year that offered a wealth of hilariously doomed campaigns.

But to many of his constituents in Texas Congressional District 14, Ron Paul is just a blame-America-first attention whore who completely ignores the people who put him in office. There are no Democrats running in the 14th District primary next Tuesday — so if Ron Paul loses, he will have the honor of being a double loser in the eyes of his beloved constituents. With this in mind, Wonkette enthusiastically endorses Chris Peden for Congress.

Once again, I don't endorse anyone in that district, and Peden has his own share of loony. However, I did find this particular comment to be lawl worthy:
If delivering a baby is a prerequisite, then I still meet it. I have four children, and I delivered my third son. So I guess I am just as qualified to be a congressman as Ron Paul.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Ron Paul Launches New Ad On Immigration

Some of you may remember Ron Paul's previous ads on immigration, bragging that he would end birthright citizenship and deny student visas to "terrorist nations." Those were a form of subtle racism. Recently, Ron Paul has decided to go a different route on the matter in order to win back his base: Blatant racism. The following comes courtesy of Wonkette:
Note the caption at the bottom, "Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2008 Prsidential Campaign Committee." For everyone insisting that Ron Paul can't be a racist because we would have seen evidence of it, I give you Exhibit A, and Ron Paul's attempt to turn the above photo into the public image for all immigrants in general. And seriously, "No social security for you?" You're going to invoke a Seinfeld character known as the Soup Nazi in order to justify your racism? Brilliant move.

In addition to playing on the fear of Ron Paul's Aryan supporters, the ad also misses the point. Right now, illegal immigrants are putting money into social security that they will never collect on. The end result is a net benefit for social security. And according to, "But nobody's proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens or are granted legal status."

Ron Paul is either being dishonest, or he's once again being incompetent. Which is it?

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Ron Paul Cowers Away from GOP Debate Primary

From Captain's Quarters:

Every time we suggested dropping Ron Paul from the national debates, his supporters would go nuts. They claimed in the one instance where he did get dropped, the January 3rd debate just before Iowa, that a grand conspiracy existed to keep his message from the people and to stop the 4% revolution. They demanded boycotts of Fox and of the Iowa GOP. Paul himself complained bitterly about his exclusion, and not without some justification.

Now that Paul's focus has returned to his own Congressional race, he seems much less enthusiastic about debates. After declining to hold a debate with his primary challenger, Chris Peden, Paul got asked yesterday about this seeming hypocrisy at a town-hall meeting in his district. Check out Paul's predictably hysterical response:

Like I said before, I do not endorse Chris Peden, a candidate who might actually be competent at pushing through the GOP Agenda. However, a loss for Ron Paul would be highly amusing. The Paultards campaigned for months and months on a platform of "change." Well, be careful what you wish for.

RonPaulForums blames Obama for their loss

Yeah dudes, totally. It's Obama's fault for not abandoning his politics and his ideology and dropping out of the race, just so that Ron Paul might get a slight boost to his own poll numbers. Selfish bastard. And I don't mean "selfish bastard" in the Ayn Rand sense, which is supposed to be taken as a compliment. I mean that in the bad sense, which is to say that someone is using selfishness in order to promote their own cause, rather than Ayn Rands cause.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Paultards Enraged At Fake City

From Wonkette:

Ron Paul’s most fervent supporters were outraged to learn that “Watson University” had rescinded an invitation for the Libertarian congressman to speak there. One commenter on The City Desk declared angrily that “Ron Paul can teach your entire student body more in 1 hour than they learn in 4 years of study.” But the biggest problem with this educational institution isn’t their brazen dis of America’s greatest patriot. It’s that it doesn’t exist.
Oh come on Wonkette, this is the same group that goes on and on about the North American Union. Since when did something actually have to exist before they start complaining about it?

Friday, February 15, 2008

Paultards Spam a Livejournal Post

Somewhere on the internet, a math teach with an obscure livejournal account wrote up the following post:

That was actually the best part for me -- getting to make fun of Ron Paul and getting all the students to join in. Didn't even have to attack his assinine policies, just showed him on the bottom of the GOP opinion polls month after month, and every time I added a new month's worth of Data and talked about the other candidates rising or falling, and extending the lines on their graphs, I'd end with "and Ron Paul stayed flat" and add another segment to his straight line near the zero marker. The kids loved the running gag. They started to join in, chorusing "and Ron Paul stayed flat!" Some of them even got a little impatient as I talked about the rest of the candidates: "and what about Ron Paul?" "He stayed flat." Cheers. :-D "And Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, dropping his numbers to zero, so Ron Paul finally got ahead of someone." Laughter. It was sweet.
Not surprisingly, the Paultards respond with their typical legion of spam. "Oh, how dare he discuss real world applications of graphs and statistics in a math class!!! This is what's wrong with America, dammit!" As though it's somehow the math teacher's fault that Ron Paul is a complete failure at life. One Paultard even goes a bit further:
We are thinking of making up some T-shirts with this picture on the front, with the the words "PREACHING HIS POLITICAL OPINIONS TO YOUR CHILDREN" on the back, and "GREGORY EARTOFF" under the picture in the front.
We will then mail them to all the residents in the area of your school.

What do you think? Good idea? You see Greg, some lessons in life are tough, especially when you become the example for others. We are crazy you say? Ok then, maybe we will act it then.
Your crazy for fucking with us, asshole. Welcome to the shitlist.
Others have resorted to digging up personal information. Gee, I wonder why no one takes them seriously. You crazy motherfuckers.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 finally gets around to Ron Paul

After months of putting Ron Paul on the back burner, finally treats him like they would any other candidate. From their article:

We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:
  • Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
  • Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.
  • Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.
    Have fun reading.

    Monday, February 11, 2008

    So Long, Dr. Paul. You were our only hope.

    Many of our readers may already be aware of the fact that Ron Paul has basically given up from his campaign, in order to spend more time with his family district. You may be wondering why we didn't cover this sooner, but that's only because we're still trying to take it in. Honestly, there was a lot of material on Ron Paul that we never got around to publishing, which just isn't as fun anymore. Once again, I wish that we had done this blog a little sooner, when the internet could have used it most.

    In his letter, Ron Paul writes that:

    "Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you."
    A great philosopher once asked, "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." Ron Paul's letter shows his typical rejection of positive liberty in favor of negative liberty. It also shows his tendency to cry wolf, and exaggerate, which is why no one listens to them.

    Ron Paul also states that:
    I also have another priority ... If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas."
    He's right of course, I would probably would have a good laugh about it. The real question is why Ron Paul is even worried. We live in a country where the incumbent has a 90% re-election rate. Hell, we live in a country where Mark Foley came within 2% of being re-elected, and that was after he already dropped out of the race for seducing under-aged male interns. Is Ron Paul conceding that his recent presidential campaign might have made him less popular in his own district, rather than more popular? Because that would still give me something to laugh about. Should readers of this site encourage Republicans in Ron Paul's district to vote for Chris Peden instead? No idea. Peden seems to be pretty crazy in his own right, and he may or may not be competent enough to actually get things done. On the other hand, he might help make the district more vulnerable for a Democratic seat, but that seems unlikely.

    Despite the fact that the campaign has already raised more money than they know what to do with, they're still soliciting for more:
    "Ron Paul is not going to surrender, and John McCain will not take the Republican nomination without the fight of his life. Your donations and work as Precinct Leaders are needed now more than ever."
    Ron Paul still has six million dollars of leftover cash from his previous fund raising efforts. What exactly has he been waiting for? Although it would be illegal for Ron Paul to transfer that money to his congressional run until he officially cancels his campaign, that wouldn't exactly stop him from being able to run general "Ron Paul is great" congressional presidential ads in his home district, with a a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more."

    Ron Paul insists that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate, which just goes to show that he's no better than the politicians who he criticizes. Ron Paul talks a lot about revolution and the message, but he's still a republican at the core, and won't do anything to harm the party. That, or he doesn't want a repeat of his 1988 campaign, when the other libertarian candidates gave him a lot of flack for his votes against MLK Day. But I guess it's harder to fall back on the "MLK was an adulterous, gay pedophile" excuse after you already attempted to turn the holiday into your personal piggy bank.

    Ron Paul and the "Reo-Cons"

    Editors Note: The following article comes from a site visitor named John, and not by the creator of this blog:

    Gary North is a former congressional aid for Ron Paul, but North is also a major figure in Christian Reconstructionism. When most people think of right-wing Christianity they will often assume that the lunatics are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Which is correct, but one must not also forget the Reo-Cons like Gary North:

    “when people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime”-Gary North

    “The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death”

    “....And he the blasphemeth the name of the Lord,he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him” (source)
    The above statements are pretty bad ass, and sounds like something Osama Bin Laden would advocate for. So then why would someone like Ron Paul have Gary North be a member of his staff? Maybe its because they both want to return to the gold standard,and return to a LewRockwellian sized government. I have pretty good hunch though Ron Paul is up to something else, and i think it rhymes with “newsletter”.

    In Angry White Man, James Kirchick not only brings up the newsletter,but he also brings up Gary North,and Christian Reconstructionism. Kirchich also points out that Ron Paul and Gary North are pretty close. For example Ron Paul stated in a letter “Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnat Review about my exposes of government abuse.” Does Ron Paul read Christian Reconstructionism literature,and share similar views? Of course. Just look at Ron Paul's rants at In one The Moral Promise of Freedom, Ron Paul defends David Koresh, and refers to him as the “groups spiritual leader." Paul continues to defend Koresh's cult, and portrays them as peace loving hippies. Koresh was a child molester, and brainwashed those “handmaidens of the lord.” The fact that Ron Paul would defend Koresh is beyond me. Actually its not, and it just shows how Ron Paul thinks property rights should trump individual rights. So not only does Paul think Koresh is the man,but he also sounds just as nuts as Gary North.

    If you still think Ron Paul is America's last hope, and are still feeding on his fear mongering Then you should probably start building your bomb shelter. If you need help with the construction of this, or are unsure of what to do I have a solution. Pick up the phone and contact Gary North. I am sure he still knows how to build the ultimate pillow fort, after all he did predict the end of the world to happen during Y2K. If you have ever talked to a Ron Paul supporter you to may realize they fear the end is near.

    Gary North and Ron Paul arent the only one's who are caught in the web of Christian Reconstructionism. In fact they are perhaps the one's who are trying to do there best to create a Christian Republic. The Reo-Cons, and Ron Paul have a very similar agenda,and it is perhaps the most illogical one on capital hill. Property rights would re-place individual rights,and the state would have the right enforce sodomy laws. Reo-Cons would also treat women like second class citizens. This is no surprise since Ron Paul's book freedom under siege implies that women should cease with sexual harassment suits,and instead find another job.

    Ron Paul can play senile about the newsletter,and fool a few paultards,but he isn't going to fool most when it comes to We The People Act. If this bill was actually passed then it would be pretty easy for states to enforce current sodomy laws. It would also make it impossible for the supreme court to rule such violations as unconstitutional. This comes as no surprise since Ron Paul has met with the National Reform Association,and is perhaps a strong believer in there libertarian policy's. As of yet I know they have only met once,and the fact there first trip to capital hill involved Ron Paul is a little suspicious. This meeting occurred on march first, and during the year 2001, one year after Y2K.

    The Paultards can talk all they want about Ron Paul,or even tell me to Google him. They can talk about change,and even loose change. When it comes down to it though they will still have to dig through his records just like I have. Once the paultards actually dig through his record they may do one of two things. Paultards will either continue to defend him and David Koresh,or actually do some research. Its pretty simple to see now why an informed opinion would not rally behind Ron Paul.

    Saturday, February 9, 2008

    Ron Paul Bounces Back, Wins Another Online Poll

    Looks like we're in trouble, guys. A Newsday Online Poll asks the following question, and gets the following response:Because if there's one thing that we learned from Paultards these past several months, it's that online polls are far more accurate than random sampling, since they're not influenced by the mainstream media conspiracy.

    Another Case of Paultard Persecution

    And in today's headlines:

    OWATONNA, Minn. - An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.

    Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.

    "I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR — driving while Republican."
    See Paultards, this is why no one takes your cries of persecution and censorship very seriously. Because you're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Yeah, I'm sure that the current regulations against obstructing the driver's view were designed specifically to deter republicans. That's exactly what happened.

    Oh, and another thing: If you really want to attract other people to your "revolution," maybe you should avoid using a campaign advertisement that actively puts their lives in danger. I think that John McCain learned that the hard way, when his 2000 campaign involved engraving "Vote John McCain" on bullet casings and firing them into random crowds. As a general rule, people usually don't respond well to threats of vehicular homicide. Don't ask me how I know this.

    Friday, February 8, 2008

    Prophetic Episode from the Simpsons

    Hey everyone, who does this remind you of?

    Ned: Since the police can't seem to get off their duff-a-roonies to do something about this burglar-ino, I propose we start out own neighborhood watch (pause) aroony! (everyone cheers) Now, who should lead the group?

    Man: You!

    Everyone: (cheering again) Flanders! Flanders! Flanders!

    Ned: Well, I don't have much experience, but I'd be--

    Moe: Someone else!

    Ned: (more cheers) Someone else! Someone else! Someone else!

    Homer: I'm someone else!

    Lenny: He's right!

    Homer: We don't need a thinker, we need a doer! Someone who'll act without considering the consequences!
    And we all know how well that turned out.

    Of course, I'm sure that more than a few Paultards will respond by citing the "It's a two party system!" Halloween special. Completely ignoring the fact that Ron Paul is a republican, and the fact that people just don't like him no matter what.

    I Vow To Donate $100 to Ron Paul

    That's right, folks, I'm saying this hear and now. A lot of people think that I have an unfair vendetta against Ron Paul. That couldn't be any further from the truth. I think that I'm completely fair to Ron Paul. But even his strongest supporters should be willing to look at Ron Paul objectively now and then.

    In fact, just to prove that I can be completely fair to Ron Paul, I hearby pledge to donate $100 to Ron Paul's campaign, which he can use to purchase $30 million worth of ads. If Ron Paul hopes to succeed after his super Tuesday failure persecution, then he's going to need it. But only if someone can compile a list of 300,000 other people who will pledge to donate $100 to Ron Paul's campaign. Right now. Just like the Paultards give Ron Paul credit for "volunteering" to donate $100 to Rosa Parks medal if the majority of congress would do the same, I'm sure that they will likewise give me credit for donating $100 to his campaign.

    So how about it, Paultards? Are you willing to do it? Put your money where your mouth is? Finding 300,000 donors should be easy, more people than that voted for Ron Paul last Tuesday.

    Or do none of you actually support Ron Paul?

    Thursday, February 7, 2008

    Austin Chapter NAACP President Backs Away from Ron Paul

    Remember a few weeks ago, when the Austin Chapter NAACP President Nelson Linder defended Ron Paul, and the Paultards ran away with it? The story quickly morphed into "The NAACP President endorses Ron Paul," and then into "The NAACP endorses Ron Paul," and finally into "All fleet footed Negroes love Ron Paul more than they love life itself. Which is amazing, because fleet footed Negroes usually hate white people, not that I'm saying that Ron Paul is white, because libertarians are incapable of racism because we don't see color."

    For a while, you couldn't point out Ron Paul's history of racism without having a Paultard bring up Nelson Linder, followed by the sight of him stuffing his own head firmly between his ass cheeks in order to avoid any further argument. Unfortunately, it turns out that the story of Linder's "endorsement" may have been highly exaggerated, just like everything else from the Ron Paul campaign. Alex Jones has since been forced to order a retraction:

    UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.
    Good job, Paultards. Good job. A black man gives you guys an inch, and you decide to exploit him for a mile. Perhaps if you didn't plaster every black man you saw as the poster child for your campaign, these types of incidents wouldn't happen?

    Wednesday, February 6, 2008

    CLCV: Ron Paul's Stance on Global Warming

    The California League of Conservation Voters has recently released a breakdown of where all the candidates stand on the issue of global warming. Ron Paul currently lists energy and environment as two of the major issues on his official campaign website. So surely, you would think that Ron Paul would be willing to put some thought on the very issues that he's hoping to campaign on, right? Think again. From their website under Ron Paul:

    LCV Lifetime Score: 30%
    Carbon Cap And Targets: No articulated position
    Fuel Efficiency: Opposed 33 mpg in 2005
    Renewable Electricity Standard: No articulated position
    Efficiency Targets: No articulated position
    New Coal Plants And Liquid Coal: No articulated position
    Answers to our questions? Did not answer
    The Ron Paul campaign a campaign of empty promises. His supporters will proclaim his as a straight talker who's willing to give thoughtful responses to the pressing issues of our day, but his inability to even answer basic question says otherwise. The Ron Paul campaign boils down to a few sound bites like "I will work to restore a free-market in energy," without going into detail on how that would actually work, much less actually delivering on it. In short, Ron Paul is a politician, and not even a very good politician. Global warming is one of the most pressing matters of our age, and the "free" market has decided that they enjoy Al Gore's message a lot more than Ron Paul's. Why does Ron Paul hate the free market so?

    Of course, Paultards will probably insist that the potential devastation of the all human life as we know it isn't a "real" issue, like Ron Paul's doomsday prediction on hyperinflation. Because imagining a scenario where the factories at the US Mint goes crazy ala I Love Lucy and starts doubling our money supply exponentially over and over again is so much more plausible than believing that an unchecked and massive output in carbon emissions might produce problems faster than the free market can correct for.

    Post Tuesday Fallot

    All I can say is, karma is a bitch. After watching the Paultards spend months and months ruining the internet and vandalizing our schools, they now get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. My one regret is that I didn't start this website sooner, but oh well. Next time a Ron Paul appears, the internet will be ready. I remember once reading about how before the iPod came out, everyone was speculating on what would be the "next walkman," and after the iPod came out, everyone speculated on the next "iPod killer." When Ron Paul began his candidacy, people started wondering if Ron Paul would be the next Ross Perot. But I think that Ron Paul has officially taken his place in loser dome. At least Ross Perot managed to get actual votes.

    Ron Paul placed 4th place in nearly every state yesterday, averaging roughly 4-5% of the popular vote. In Alaska, he managed to place as high as 3rd place, with 17% of the vote. I guess that people who love the bridge to nowhere would also love Ron Paul. In California, Ron Paul managed to place 5th place, with 4% of the vote. Fifth place out of the four republicans still running.

    The guy who runs the Ron Paul Tumblelog has been hunting around for the Paultard reaction. Here's what he found:

    Tuesday, February 5, 2008

    Super Tuesday Posting

    Go get 'em, Paultards! Before you go out today, here are a few Paultard tips of the trade to keep in mind:

    1. Always assume that everyone who doesn't follow Ron Paul is a sheep, and that you're the Shepherd. Yes, that does make you Jesus.
    2. When addressing the conservatives, insist that Ron Paul is a true republican, and all the other candidates are just posers. When addressing the liberals, insist that Ron Paul is more of a democrat than all of the democrats currently running, and they should look past the "R" after his name. Remember, people are sheep.
    3. The only thing preventing people from voting for Ron Paul is the fact that they haven't seen his name yet, in large part because of the media conspiracy/censorship against him. However, this problem can be corrected by hanging up signs, which will instantly convince the sheep to vote for him.
    4. If anyone tells you that they're voting for someone else, ask them why they hate the constitution, and imply that they're commie soviets.
    5. If someone ever challenges one of your conspiracy theories, look back at them in disbelief and shout, "What do you mean, 'crazy?'" It's real!" By asserting that your conspiracy theory is real, rather than fake, you automatically win the argument.

    Monday, February 4, 2008

    Ron Paul Flatlines

    From James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:

    Ron Paul’s numbers are flatlined. He’s the only one of the remaining quartet that isn’t up substantially from six months ago. Despite the field winnowing from ten candidates to four, Paul continues to appeal to no more than 5-6 percent of Republicans.

    With most candidates, the obvious explanation would be that their support has shifted to one of the frontrunners in a strategic move to avoid “wasting” their vote. Given the depth of Paul’s support, though, that strikes me as incredibly unlikely. The hard-core libertarians who back Paul are mostly dead-enders who would rather write in Paul’s name than deign to compromise for one of the Establishment candidates.

    Could it be that hard-core libertarians are just a relatively small group? That, despite being organized and enthusiastic, there aren’t enough of them to elect a president? Barring a better explanation, I’m leaning in that direction.


    (h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

    Twilight Canal Zone

    One of the few things I like about John McCain is that he, like me, is a member of the semi-exclusive fraternity of Americans who were born on foreign soil to two American citizens, and is therefore a natural-born American without being, strictly speaking, a native-born American. The reason this is significant is because Article II, section 1 states that "No person except a natural born Citizen..." can become President. If elected, McCain (born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone) would be the first President born outside the incorporated territory of the United States. Pretty cool, huh? Well, I thought so, anyway.

    Every few years, some overly excitable person with a nativist streak and a hazy memory of the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President rediscovers that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and--in an argument reminiscent of the chuckleheads who say we don't have to pay taxes because Ohio wasn't really a state--declares that McCain is ineligible to become President; wackiness typically ensues. Given the distinct nativist streak and general zaniness that typify a lot of Ron Paul supporters, you will not be surprised to learn that this argument has begun to make the rounds among the faithful over the past week or two now that McCain has taken a commanding lead for the nomination.

    One Robert Werden, a dedicated fan of the Ronster, makes the case (or at least I think that's what he's trying to do):

    A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.
    So there.

    In fact, there's no debate here. Since 1790, U.S. laws have held that children born abroad to U.S. citizens acquire United States citizenship at birth, and no knowledgeable person seriously believes that there are any Constitutional issues that would remotely prohibit McCain from becoming President due to the circumstances of his birth. Of course, we're not talking about knowledgeable people, we're talking about Paulbots.

    "I mean, I could really care less about where he was born," says "gangreneday" at, "but the constitution needs to be amended then, if he does get the nomination (god forbid) right?" Right.

    "Terri and Dustin," one or both of whom organize the Ron Paul Meetup in Knoxville Tennessee, offer up this lengthy screed from something called, which somehow manages to bring in the USS Liberty incident--a favorite obsession of anti-Semitic nutjobs everywhere--and reminds us that "Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican." (Mexican, for God's sake!!)

    Not everyone who makes this argument is a racist; some are simply morons. Like Carl at who speaks with all the self-assured dickishness of the truly ignorant:
    Yes he is disqualified, he was born on foreign soil. A child born to parents outside of the United States Proper is not a natural born citizen of the United States even if that birth takes place upon a U.S. military base. Every military parent is told this. If he was born in Germany, even upon a U.S. base, he would be considered a German citizen and subject to their military draft system.
    (Emphasis mine.) I'll have to ask my parents if the U.S. Marine Corps put them in touch with Carl after I was born so that he could give them this important information. I may unwittingly be AWOL from the Philippine military even as I write this.

    Fortunately, a Paultard who appears to go by the name "Sir David-Andrew" has figured it all out.
    ...McCain is not a natural born Citizen; therefore, is he not eligible to hold the office of the presidency. I suspect that there is a deal between McCain and Clinton over this very issue. After Clinton steals the DemocRATic nomination and McCain steals the Republican nomination, and then Clinton planned on challenging McCain about his citizenship and McCain would be more then willing to bow out the election a week or two before the General Election. Leveling Billary to steal the election unopposed.

    However, Blomberg most likely is aware of this fix and is ready to step in and run as well, or maybe, Blomberg was planning on bumping McCain himself with is trump card. Either way, both Clinton and Blomberg are both able to buy McCain's loyalty.
    Got all that? Good.

    Add "Ron Paul Racing" to the list of Ron Paul Fail

    Thanks to Wonkette for the find. From the same trolls who brought you the Ron Paul blimp, and who tried to make it so that uppity Negroes would be forever branded as a living billboard for Ron Paul, comes the latest batch of fail: Ron Paul Racism Racing. I love the idea that the Paultards have literally thousands of internet trolls at their disposal who pride themselves on being free market gurus and who can brainstorm ideas 24/7, and these are the types of things they come up with.

    At some point, the Paultards need to just bite the bullet and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, none of them know what the hell they're doing. Maybe the reason they can't prop their guy up as the next president isn't because of some elaborate conspiracy against them, or the fact that the rest of the population is completely sheep-like and uninformed. Maybe the real problem is just the fact that getting a guy elected to the presidency is a fucking hard thing to do, vastly more challenging than uploading a cell phone video to youtube, and Paultards simply don't have what it takes to pull it off.

    Sunday, February 3, 2008

    Clarification on the Commnent Policy

    Wow, the Rosa Parks article has recently sparked a lot more comments than normal, in a much shorter range of time. For the record, comments are moderated. When I first started this site, I figured that I could either open myself up to the spambots, or I could take a firm line against them. So here are a few guidelines:

    1. Don't post spam. "Ron Paul has never voted for this, Ron Paul has never voted for that." Trust me, we've already seen it. The problem is, we aren't very impressed.
    2. Don't make arguments that have already been addressed. "But Ron Paul volunteered to donate his own money!" If you can't show the courtesy of reading the article, then don't expect the courtesy of getting published. On the other hand, if you make a good argument, then chances are that I'll publish it. Because if you make that argument here, then you can make it somewhere else, and I'll want my readers to know how to address it.
    3. Don't try to change the subject. The purpose of the post is nailing Paultards on concrete issue that's easy to test and verify, and which should be fairly painless to concede to. When you attempt to change the subject, you only prove my point.
    You can claim that it's a minor issue, but if it were so minor, then you should either be willing to concede to the argument, or ignore it. Yesterday's post on Paultards drinking Fiji was a lot more minor than this one, but I didn't see any of you Paultards commenting on that one. It seems like I've managed to strike a nerve here, "nailed" you where it hurts, and now you're trying to run off to Iraq or somewhere else where you think you can maintain the moral high ground. Personally, I think that the fact that Ron Paul wants to completely revamp the US Economy when he doesn't even understand the basic workings of the US Mint is pretty damn important.

    Update: And sure enough, the Paultards are still responding with things that have already been refuted in the FAQ ("They can't use my tax dollars to fund the medal, dammit!") or attempting to change the subject to Iraq. Funny how Iraq seems to be only worth bringing up on this post, and not on one of the dozens of other postings to this site. You guys must be really desperate to change the subject. Again, if it's such a minor point, then it shouldn't be hard for you to concede.

    For the record, here's my stance on Iraq:
    • I was protesting the war from the start, and you guys still suck.
    • Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke are also the war in Iraq, but I'm not voting for them either. Why? Simple. Because they're batshit crazy.
    • The entire purpose of the thread was to see if Paultards could be nailed down to something concrete and specific. If you want to discuss Iraq, then give us an actual exit strategy. Oh wait -- you guys don't have one. You want to bring troops out just as recklessly as Bush brought them in. Only, you guys seem to think that Ron Paul will have a magic wand, and that he'll bring everyone home just by having them click their ruby slippers.
    • Ron Paul's promises to take us out of Iraq is only meaningful if I had any faith that he could actually follow through on it. Ron Paul couldn't even follow through on his promise to contribute a token $100 donation to the Rosa Parks medal by purchasing a replica, and he's rich. Why should I believe that Ron Paul could succeed in immediate withdrawal?
    • The democrats have a policy of phased withdrawal for the vast majority of troops, based on the maximum number of brigades that we would be able to pull out per month, with a small number of troops remaining to protect the U.S. embassy. Somehow, the Paultards have distorted that position into being "pro-war."
    • Listening to Paultards saying that that all the democrats are "pro-war" because they live in a reality is stupid. It's like listening to someone insist that if you don't believe scientology can cure AIDS, then that means that you're "pro-AIDS" as a result.

    How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal

    If you're reading this blog, then chances are that you find Paultards annoying. But how do you deal with a Paultard? How do you get them to shut up? How do you bring their idiocy and hypocrisy out in the open?

    In order to understand how to deal with a Paultard, you need to understand the nature of what a Paultard isGenerally, the Paultard will make claims and warants are as vague and as abstract as possible, which is what I like to call "horoscope style debating." This means that their claims can't be tested or falsified, which also makes it so that their claims are completely meaningless. After all, how do you disprove a horoscope? Paultards may talk about personal accountability, but since they're also massive hypocrites, accountability doesn't really matter. Dealing with a Paultard is dealing with a phantom, a spirit. There's nothing to hold onto. In order to nail a Paultard, you really need to nail them down. Fix them to something concrete and tangible, and then youattack them. The Paultard will struggle. The Paultard will resist. Don't let him get away that easily.

    In this series, "How to Nail a Paultard," we will discuss specific issues and arguments that you can nail the Paultards on. This will save you time and energy, since it will give you something clear and specific to focus on, rather than an abstract tangent. It will also make it harder for them to writhe and squirm, since it doesn't give them much room to lie and spin. This should come in handy every time you get annoyed by a particularly persistent Paultard, which should be often.

    In part one in this series, we'll discuss the Rosa Parks Medal, which several of our readers have stated would be an effective strategy on dealing with the Paultards. The Rosa Parks incident is very cut and dry, very concise and to the point, and I recommend that you bring it up the next time you deal with a Paultard at the first opportunity. It's comes in handy for attacking Ron Paul and his army of Paultards on any of the following subjects:

    • The fact that Ron Paul's rhetoric regarding the constitution is worthless.
    • The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make speeches and votes on false pretenses.
    • The fact that Ron Paul is incompetent and unwilling to engage in even the most basic of fact checking on extremely unpopular votes.
    • The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make promises that he is unwilling to follow through on.
    • The fact that Ron Paul has a over tendency to "cry wolf" and vote against things without even reading them, thus making his "nay" votes worthless in general.
    • The fact that Paultards will accept anything that Ron Paul says as absolute truth, without reading it themselves

    Basic background on the Rosa Parks Medal
    In April of 1999, Congress held a vote on whether or not to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. Congress was unanimously in favor of the award, with only one exception: Ron Paul. In order to justify his lone nay vote, Ron Paul delivered a speech, where he made the following arguments:
    1. That the medal was tax-payer funded, and that we should look for alternative sources for funding.
    2. That the medal was was unconstitutional
    3. That the medal goes against the spirit of Rosa Parks.
    In order to nail Ron Paul, we need to take this down point-by-point. The Paultards assert that you might not agree with Ron Paul, but that doesn't invalidate his reasoning. They're wrong. If you're dealing with a Paultard who seems brainwashed and unreasonable, this is a great tactic for proving it. The Paultard will be objectively and verifiably wrong, and yet, chances are that they'll still refuse to concede.

    Point #1: Was the medal against the spirit of Rosa Parks?
    We already knew that Ron Paul deludes himself into believing that he can speak on behalf of the long dead founding fathers, but apparently, Ron Paul also seems to think that he can speak for people who were still alive at the time. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:
    "This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.
    I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.

    Point #2: Was the Medal Unconstitutional?
    I dare anyone who says this to cite the specific passage within the constitution that prohibits the awarding of medals. They won't be able to do this, because there isn't one. At best, they can argue that the awarding of medals isn't "explicitly" endorsed in the constitution, which therefore makes it unconstitutional. Now, you could try arguing that it falls under sections like the necessary-and-propers clause, but that will only give them room to squirm. Instead, I would point out that Congressional Gold Medals have been around longer than the constitution itself, and have been given out ever since. Here's a brief history of some of the earliest awards:
    • 1776 George Washington.
    • 1777 Major General Horatio Gates
    • 1779 Major Henry Lee
    • 1781 Major General Nathaniel Greene
    • 1787 John Paul Jones
    • 1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun
    If the founding fathers disapproved of Congressional Gold Medals on principle and found them unconstitutional, then why isn't there any record of this? Why do the founding fathers need Ron Paul to speak on their behalf? Is it the same reason that Rosa Parks needs Ron Paul to speak on her behalf?

    Point #3: But those were military gold medals, not civilian!
    Please let us know the exact passage in the constitution that says that congress can award medals to the military, but not to civilians. Oh wait -- it doesn't. If you're going to make an argument on constitutional grounds, then you need to be apply the constitution consistently. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the constitution that endorses or restricts either of these awards. Either both types of awards are constitutional, or both types of awards are unconstitutional. The first case disproves Ron Paul, and the second case is disproved by history. Which is it?

    Point #4: Congressional Gold Medals Fall Under the Tenth Amendment!
    Ah, the "states right" argument. It's bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that the authority of Congressional Gold Medals falls under the individual states? Do you even understand what the phrase congressional gold medal entails? Do you actually believe that when Captain Thomas Truxtun was awarded the congressional medal in 1800, that he received that award on behalf of the individual states, and not on behalf of all of congress?

    Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!
    Wrong. The bill in question was only a few pages long, and would have taken less time to read then it would have taken for him to deliver his speech against it. If he didn't read it, then that's another example of Ron Paul incompetence. If he did read it, then he would have caught the following passage:
    SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

    SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

    SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51
    In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

    Point #6: Is there any evidence that a medal was ever created?
    Yes, there was. In fact, you can still order a replica online from the US Mint for $38. Of course, this is another attempt to twist and squirm, since Ron Paul never opposed the bill on the basis that they would be unable to live up to section three.

    Point #7: But what if they couldn't sell enough replicas to cover the cost?
    Another attempt to twist and squirm, because Ron Paul never opposed the medal on the basis that he didn't think that the replicas wouldn't be popular enough to cover costs. Which is a silly argument to begin with, because why should profitability be our main criterion for whether or not we honor an American hero?

    Point #8: But the first medal was still tax payer funded!
    Wrong. From the US Mint Homepage:
    Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.
    What part of "self-funded agency" do Paultards not understand? The US Mint has been around since the time of our founding fathers, and not are they non-tax payer funded, but they also turn over a surplus that provides an additional source of revenue (which would actually save money in the long run.). They make over a billion dollars per year, from the sale of coins and medals, which is enough to cover the cost of the Rosa Parks medal 33,333 times over. Far from being a waste of money, the popularity of the Rosa Parks Medal would have likely been very profitable for the US Mint. I think they've been around long enough and made enough in sales to know what they can and can't make money from.

    So no, the medal wouldn't have been tax payer funded. The initial cost would have been funded from the sale of previous products, and the revenue from the duplicates would be used to fund more congressional medals in the future. That's sort of how the US Mint works, which I was able to figure out after two minutes on google. I would hope that Ron Paul, a congressman hoping to run for President based on his knowledge of economic policy, would be aware of US Mint.

    Point #9: But the sale of congressional gold medals is unprofitable!
    This line comes from an article by Joelle Cannon, a congressional staffer. The article reads as follows:
    As of September 11, 2006, gold’s closing price was around $590.40. According to the Treasury, each Congressional Gold Medal contains 14.5 troy ounces or 16 regular ounces of gold. Thus, the gold in a medal minted today is worth roughly $9,446.40. As stated below, the CBO estimates the cost of the bill to be $35,000. Sales of most duplicate medals are not strong enough to offset the cost of the gold medal (source:
    Sound pretty damning, huh? Few problems. First off, the article isn't written in response to the Rosa Parks medals. It was written in response to a congressional medal for Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, who I'm sure that most people have never even heard of, so it's hardly surprising that his medal would have been unprofitable. And since the proposal never made it past the opening introductions, it's irrelevant. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Rosa Parks is a tad bit more well known, and would have slightly better sales. Moreover, this claim on insufficient isn't warranted or qualified in anyway:
    • The source provided doesn't actually support the main claim on profitability, it only supports the claim that gold is expensive. And why is a congressional staffer citing anyway? Shouldn't they be citing something more official?
    • In April of 1999, the cost of gold was roughly $280-$285, less than half of the 2006 figure cited in the article. So even if a Congressional Gold Medal wouldn't be profitable today, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be profitable in 1999.
    • No numbers are provided to back up the claim. Examples, "In the past 50 years, duplicates only pull in an average of X dollars in profit per medal, while the medals themselves have cost Y dollars produced, using constant dollars that were adjusted for inflation."
    • There is a fallacy in assuming that just because some or even most congressional medals are unpopular, they must all be unprofitable, or even unprofitable as a whole. This is a faulty assumption. Along the same lines, most movies have traditionally been unprofitable, when you factor in the costs of marketing and productions. However, the movies that did pull in a profit were so profitable that they were able to make up for the difference.
    Of course, this is all just another attempt to twist and squirm. The fact is, even if most medals are unprofitable, there is no evidence to suggest that the Rosa Parks medal was unprofitable, and Ron Paul never made his argument based on this assumption anyway. The US Mint is profitable overall, completely self-funded, and the cost of the Rosa Parks medal is still insignificant in terms of their overall expenses and revenue.

    Point #10: But if the US Mint is a source of revenue, then any loss in revenue would have to be made up for in tax dollars!
    This is a really, really, really stupid attempt to twist and squirm, and again, not the argument that Ron Paul was making. You can't equate a potential loss of additional revenue with direct tax payer funding. This argument is such an incredible stretch that it's hard to come up with a sensible analog. The best I can come up with is a person who spends $1000 on a new computer, assuming that the productivity gains from the new computer will pay for itself in the long run, and someone else insisting that the purchase on the new computer represents an unfair waste of tax payer money, because the person who spends $1000 on a new computer will have less money to donate to the his son's high school school and the school will have to make up for the funds in elsewhere. Huh? And of course, this is only assuming that the Rosa Parks medal is a complete failure and pulls in zero dollars of revenue, which is entirely baseless.

    Point #9: But Ron Paul said it was tax payer funded!

    Well, it wasn't. Read the bill for yourself. Either Ron Paul is lying, or he's incompetent.

    Point #10: Ron Paul volunteered to donate $100 of his own money to the medal!
    Well, then he lied, because he didn't. This speaks wonders on Ron Paul's ability to live up to his own promises. He got his wish, the medal wasn't tax payer funded, and it would be paid for by private donations (through the sale of replicas.). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Ron Paul ever followed through on this promise, not even from Ron Paul himself, even though he's had ample opprotunity to bring it up. Hell, remember that $500 that he received from Don Black a few months ago, which Ron Paul refused to return? Ron Paul could have purchased 13 bronze medals with that money. Why didn't he? He had the cash, he didn't need it, and it would have shown that he was sincere in his rejection of Neo-Nazi support and his praise of Rosa Parks. Instead, I supposed that Ron Paul figured that the money would be better spent on more important things, like turning uppity Negroes into living billboards.

    Point #11: Ron Paul never promised to donate to a duplicate, he only promised to donate if other congressmen did!!
    So in other words... Ron Paul was only willing to donate to charity if it was mandatory for all congressmen? And not from the kindness of his heart? That's not the libertarian rhetoric I've heard regarding private charity in the past. But I forgot -- most libertarians are raging hypocrites. They like to talk about private charity all right, but actually contributing is another matter.

    Point #12: But Ron Paul also voted aginst the medals for Ronald Reagan, the Tony Blair, and Frank Sinatra!
    Yeah, so? Ron Paul has called Ronald Reagan a complete failure, and he's called Tony Blaire a pinko commie. And while Frank Sinatra might be a great guy, I don't think he's quite at the level of Rosa Parks.

    Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
    No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:
    Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

    `(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

    `(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

    `(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

    `(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'
    Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.

    Point #14: But the cold war veterans were more deserving than Rosa Parks!
    Really? The one that was won without a single shot being fired? That cold war? I'm not going to say that Rosa Parks put herself in more danger than all of them, but I am willing to say that she probably put herself in more danger than at least some of them. Mind you, it's not like soldiers serve entirely for free, and without compensation. They get money and training for the time they spend in the military, as well as plenty of other benefits. Rosa Parks? Not so much.

    Point #15: Is any of this really important?
    Well, it proves that Ron Paul is a liar, a hypocrite, and generally incompetent. So... yes. It also sets the backdrop for any future debate. Unfortunately, most Paultards have a habit of falling back on an Appeal to Ron Paul fallacy, where they assume that Ron Paul is honest and infallible and therefore we should always assume that whatever he says must automatically be true.

    Point #16: But it's such a minor and insignificant point!
    Then you should have no problem conceding it. Unfortunately, if you can't even concede on a "minor point" even when you're completely and utterly wrong, then you concede to the fact that you're completely incapable of rational/open minded debate. And if you're incapable of rational/open minded debate, then there's no point in going any further, with more abstract/general matters that would give you more room to twist and squirm and generally avoid accountability. On the other hand, if you refuse to concede because you think that you're right, then you should be willing to present an actual argument, rather than attempting to change the subject.

    Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. That's how you nail a Paultard, folks, but you have to stay firm and stand your ground. Don't let them evade, and don't let them change the subject until they've managed to settle the subject at hand. The goal is to stay as specific and as concrete as possible.

    Link to this Article

    Saturday, February 2, 2008

    Ron Paul Drinks Fiji Water

    (h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

    Shocking news! Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in near future!

    From the Congressional Record:

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

    As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

    I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse.
    Absolutely shocking and completely frightening. If Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in the near future, then dammit, it must be true. Even more shocking is when the speech was given: February 23, 1981. That means that we're 27 years overdue, and that the hyperinflation that Ron Paul predicted in the near future is even nearer.

    BTW, what about the rest of the article? Here's a basic summary of what Ron Paul has to say:
    • Myth #1: There isn't enough gold. False. There will always be enough gold, as long as we put our faith in the invisible hand to provide it.
    • Myth #2: A gold standard would enable Russia and South Africa to hold us hostage. False. There's a rumor that Russia already sold a lot of gold to Saudi Arabia, so we would actually be held hostage by the Middle East. Also, the only reason why gold is considered valuable is because of fear and panic, so if we return to the gold standard, than the fear and panic would end and gold wouldn't be valuable anymore and Russia wouldn't be in a favorable position, even though the value of gold was the very reason I advocate a return to the gold standard in the first place.
    • Myth #3: Gold causes depressions. False. Actual statement: "Were we to establish a gold standard, we would have to pursue a course that would not result in deflation and would not cause a depression. We would redeem at the market price for a period of one year the greenbacks we have printed, and then cease redemption, allowing the gold coins we have put into circulation to function as our money of account. If we proceed to a gold standard in an orderly fashion, such as I have proposed in my bill H.R. 7874, then there will be no depression. A gold standard cannot be achieved if we do not end our budget deficits as well. The standard must be accompanied by tax cuts, an end to the printing of paper money, and a significant reduction of federal regulations if we expect a restoration of a sound economy. Unless we are committed to all these things, even the establishment of 100 percent gold coin standard cannot stop our descent into economic chaos." Dear readers, feel free to cite this excerpt the next time you hear Ron Paul insist that he is only advocating for "competing currencies.
    • Myth #4: Gold causes inflation. False. It's almost as bad as the people who criticize Michael Bay for being too intellectual for audiences.
    • Myth #5: Gold would be speculative. False. After all, how could the invisible hand ever lead to economic instability?

    Friday, February 1, 2008

    Quick Links

    For people who want more content, here are some links to other blogs you might be interested in:

    • Paul Can Run But He Can't Hide: "The Paul campaign said in a prepared statement that Gray was not forthcoming about his background. But way back in August, Gray posted a notice on a prominent white nationalist blog announcing his involvement in the campaign. Moreover, this blog, along with others, exposed Randy Gray's activities before January 17 (that's when I first reported it). The Paul campaign, in releasing the statement, claims that they only learned about this over the past few days. This is a lie, since they took down the photograph of Paul and Gray as soon as vigilant bloggers exposed Paul's association with Gray."
    • Stunning Ignorance: "Good grief. First, Paul isn't about defending the Constitution at all. He is a states rights conservative who confuses the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. Worse, a lot of his philosophy is squarely in the neo-confederate camp." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
    • Ron Paul is an Ignoramus Part II: "Ron Paul could not be more wrong in his economic arguments. He blames government intervention and the Federal Reserve for economic problems. He says monetary policies are the cause of the business cycle. When was the Federal Reserve created? How interventionist was the federal government prior to that moment? Why do we have government intervention in the first place?" (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
    • More independent research on Ron Paul's vote against MLK Day, and his criticism against Phil Gramm for not doing the same. (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
    • A Dimension of the Hegemony of Whiteness: "Paul is thus useful to the elite and this is why the media is playing along with the charade. To be sure, the corporate media pushes him back down when he starts to get a little too popular. Capitalists discovered in in the first half of the twentieth century that when you go all the way with right-wing authoritarian types, the results leave a lot to be desired. Thus it's better to have the ideas injected into the public and manipulate them that way rather than have the countermovement actually come to power." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
    • Ron Paul Forums: "Why can't Ron Paul do what the other CFR does? Why can't we run 5 Ron Paul Republicans, so we can max out our donations to each of them...then let them all drop out one by one and endorse Ron Paul?" (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
    • attempts to steal a page from Bioshock. (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
    • Ron Paul Campaign removes Vox Day Endorsement from website. (Thanks to Sultan Knish).
    • Top Ron Paul Supporter Defends Slavery (Thanks to Sultan Knish)
    If there are any other blogs I should know about, post a link.

    Paultards Attempt to Ruin Huffington Post

    A fw days ago, a first time blogger named Heath Calvert wrote an article on the Huffington Post entitled "Why I support Ron Paul." The article follows the same talking points and assumptions that we have come to expect from Ron Paul Democrats: The idea of supporting Ron Paul would have seemed crazy a few months ago, youtube is only source of objective information, the federal reserve and the IRS are bad and should be eliminated, America is uninformed, Ron Paul isn't a "real" republican, the only reason people don't support Ron Paul is because they've been brainwashed by the media, no we're not crazy, and if you would only listen to Ron Paul speak for yourself you would realize that he is the new messiah who's only seen as crazy because he loves the constitution.

    The vast majority of commenters there are supportive of Calvert. Does that prove that Ron Paul has more support among liberals than anyone could have anticipated? Does that prove that Ron Paul really could pull a victory off? No. Because it looks like the Paultards are attempting to spam Huffington Post, the same way they spam everything else. Huffington Post proudly displays which sites are linking to their articles, and here's are what they have:

    Sites Linking to This Page...
    Source Views 5517 647 574 351 159

    Hey Paultards, no one is falling for this. If they were, then you wouldn't need to send you legion of 5500 from just to spam them.

    The Rise of the Ron Paul Democrat

    A few days ago, I made a post in mockery of Paultard "pshycology". It was fun for a laugh and all, but sure enough, in the past few days, I've noticed a lot of Paultards following ship. Has anyone else seen a rise in the self proclaimed Ron Paul democrats, or is it just me?

    For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ron Paul democrats, it basically goes like this. They'll usually be in their late teens, and claim that they had affiliated themselves with the democrats for their entire lives, but after conducting some unbiased independent research (Re: Youtube), they are no planning to jump ship and join the Ron Paul bandwagon. They will urge their "fellow" democrats to be willing to cross party lines, and vote for Ron Paul.

    So what defines a Ron Paul democrat? Well, usually, they're staunch believers in the Austrian School of Economics, who claim that taxes are a form of theft and that "men with guns" will come by if they don't pay. They support a return to the gold standard. They oppose labor laws, labor unions, and the minimum wage. They might claim that they disapprove of climate change and racism, but they believe that the invisible hand is the best solution to address it. They don't mind "don't ask, don't tell," and they consider gay sex immoral. They think that life begins at conception, and that abortion is a form of murder. There's a good chance that they don't accept the theory of evolution.

    Most real world democrats are nowhere near that conservative. In fact, most republicans aren't even that conservative. Chances are that the typical Ron Paul "democrat" can't name a single policy that they disagree with Ron Paul on. Which means that they're either republicans, or they're life long Dixiecrats. The Paultards have realized that they're not gaining much traction within their own party, so they're deluding themselves into believing that Ron Paul has bipartisan appeal. When will the Paultards realize that they're not going to win many votes with these sorts of tactics?