Sunday, February 3, 2008

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


Paultard said...


wheresthebeef said...

Oh, very good points. Lots of research went into this one. Still I don't see the point on why you choose this to go after the paultards with. As you said, he was the only one to vote against it, so she got the medal. Why not tear apart his economic plan, or give hints on how to show them how him bringing the troops home will destroy America? This is a minor issue. Lets move on to something major.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that we get 8 more years of Bush by either HRC or McCarthy McCain. More of the same.

When you want to nail a Paultard you must try and write about something someone will read.

I see there are no comments on this which means noone said anything you liked or the piece went unread.

Why unread?

The subject matter. There are serious issues out there and serious people want to talk about them.

I read all positions with an open mind. And I ignore any discussions about issues or positions on matters less threatening.

Pre-emptive war vs 50 year old Gold Medals

You seem to be able to format a nice page, just doesn't have anything worth reading...

Another nailed Paultard

Ron Lawl said...

Beef, you can't "nail" a Paultard on economics, because there's too much wiggle room. You argue facts and evidence, and they shoot back with "But the free market works so much better in my imagination, and unless we follow the instructions of my imagination PERFECTLY, and prevent the Jews and the NWO from interferring, we'll never know for sure whether or not that's true!" You can't nail them on his lack of an exit strategy, because again, they'll make appeals to how the free market will work everything out if we just let it. It's silly, and retarded, just like a horoscope. But, just like a horoscope, you can't really argue against it.

And anonymous, if this issue doesn't matter, then will you please concede that Ron Paul is wrong/hypocritical/incompetent? Since he's only wrong/hypocritical/incompetent on something unimportant, it should be pretty easy for you, right? Thanks.

Conservative said...

Uh... he offered to pay for the medal himself as long as the other Congressmen pitched in...

You are highly misinformed.

And why do you hate Paul supporters? They're so passionate about saving this country, and you insult them for this? Wow...

I mean, they truly are the ones who are working the hardest for a cause they very much believe in. And to call them "Paultards", and as an obvious pun for retard, you imply them as being dumb sheep! Do you not know that these guys actually enlighten themselves on all the issues and what Dr. Paul preaches, instead of just mindlessly following whoever the most popular candidate is? You are trash.

Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate, anyways :).

Anonymous said...

mmmm i could take the time to prove you wrong with counter information, on almost every point.

and then raise a few more points.

also your entire argument is the same if not worse thena paultards so how can you be correct at all...

but alas i have not the time, i'm sur e someone else might do it. besides your argument is crap. i'm glad you made it, but it's crap.

and here's why:

So you expect this useless arugument to stop a paultard, when ( in terms of votes and events) this is barely a rung in the ladder. not do mention i've already discredited your entire argument.

its okay, i'm still voting who i'm voting for.

yawn, i can only hope you've spent as much time looking at candidates as you have looking at this silly argument.

just because you can't understand why a man will stand up for his principles doesn't mean you should think him worthless.

you've done the same things most Paultards have, which is why i'm not going to bother countering it. because it's self-countering.

Anonymous said...

If bringing the the troops home is something you want to argue, then, I served in 2 branches of the military, following orders is paramount, being lied to by the CIC makes the military member an illegal weapon and subjects him to international law.
Bringing them home is exactly what we need to do. How is that wrong, hypocritical, or incompetant?

Ron Lawl said...

Conservative, way to regurgitate a Ron Paul talking point that was already addressed in the fact, and then accusing me of being misinformed. See #10 and #11. And I hate Ron Paul supporters for the same reason I hate LaRouche supports. Passion doesn't substitute for sense, and doesn't make up for their annoyance. Are you really that much of a brat to think that your problem is that you Paultards are just too informed and enlightened to fit in with the general population? Please. The fact that you couldn't even read the FAQ before you attempted to discredit with your sheeplike talking points shows otherwise.

Anonymous Coward/Internet Tough Guy War Vet, thank you for proving my point. I ask you to concede to a basic point on Ron Paul's stance on the Rosa Parks medal, and all you can do is twist and evade and change the subject to something that will never be settled into the near future. You claim that Ron Paul is a man who stands up for his principle. The fact that he promised to donate to the Rosa Parks medal and never followed through on it is proof that he doesn't. If Ron Paul can't even follow up on a $100 token donation that's would be a meager gesture for himself, then I'm not going to take him very seriously. You claim I don't understand. I understand perfectly well, and I have the facts and evidence to back me up. When you show you can acknowledge the facts and evidence, even on a minor issue, then I can take you more seriously. If you can't, then I won't. Just admit that Ron Paul lied in regards to the Rosa Parks medal, and that he was wrong to call it unconstitutional. Try it. Admit that Ron Paul might be fallible.

Fleet-footed Black said...

Ah, Paultard ownage. It never gets any less funny.

Anonymous said...

Have you been poking Paultards with sharpened sticks lately Ron? They sure seem to be coming here more often . I did really hate them with a vengeance but slowly I am beginning to see that they are comedy gold. They have already started saying there are going to be surprises on super Tuesday ( I have heard this every step of the way and am still waiting ). This is my favourite though , a plan found in the "Grassroots Campaigning" ⇒ "Strategies for Success" section , a devious and cunning plan to win the presidency by use of pregnant women......

Anonymous said...

All of the establishment republicans and democrats are pro-war. The Iraqi death statistic is now over a million. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the war.

Ron Lawl said...

Saying that all the candidates are pro-war and that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the war is like saying that all movie stars are Pro-AIDS, and that Tom Cruise is the only movie stars who will bring a cure to it.

There's a big difference between calling for an orderly phased withdrawal of one or two brigades per month so that the vast majority of troops are out within a year according to the advice of the experts, as the democrats have suggested, and being "pro-war." There's also a big difference between saying that you will end the war, and having an actual exit strategy that will actually be able to accomplish it with minimum turmoil and loss of life. You can say those things don't matter, but it would be nice to have a leader who was actually willing to take those things into account.

Yeah, Ron Paul is against the war. So are Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke. I'm not voting for those guys, either.

Bellesouth said...

I can't wait until Ron Paul waves his magic wand of freedom and brings the troops home, restores all power to the states and legalizes pot for all.

Because Ron Paul really is, historically, a guy who likes to get things done. Just look at how many times he's cast "yes" votes in Congress!

Anonymous said...

I LOVE this blog. I know a Paultard in real life. Just as insufferable as on the web.

My favorite Paultard argument is "you must be afraid". They repeat this over and over, as if a dare might convince us to vote otherwise.

cattle rustler said...

MSM man... it is all the MSM, right? I mean, mainstream media *must* be afraid because they never talk about how awesome Dr. Paul is?

The iriony is I imagine most mainstream media *is* afraid to talk about R__ P____. Why? Every time they do, their forums, inboxes, cell phones and PDA's get blown up by paultards correcting every "bias" in the article. I imagine the mainstream media could copy & paste a R__ P____ press release in verbatim and they'd still get a flood of idiots correcting their "bias"!

Paultards make me ill.

Dwayne Mayor said...

You are doing this country an inestimable service Mr. Lawl! Point #13 alone should shut down all further argument with sensible Paultards (if such there be!). My highest commendations, good sir!

MNTX said...

Little known fact but something that can be found in Paul's record on his congressional website.
While Paul rejected the medal for Reagan and Parks, he sponsored bills to give similar awards to a Radio DJ and baseball player in his local district- both contributors. I'll come back and post the bill numbers.

Fraud Paul is a joke.

Morgan said...

I'm curious about how you got your estimate for the cost of the Cold War Medal. I'm pretty sure it's utterly wrong.

When Congress authorizes a medal for servicemembers to wear, that doesn't mean that they buy a copy of the medal for everyone. Wearing medals is optional, and if someone in the military wants to wear it, they buy it for themself.

The government cost would be the minimal one of deciding what the medal, and its accompanying ribbon, are going to look like.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I am a hardcore Ron Paul supporter and never knew this. It is interesting and good job with your research. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

In the scheme of things though, this tidbit of information is so small and irrelevant to the major problems we are facing in our country. If every candidate was looked at with a fine toothed comb like you have with this issue (and dont get me wrong, I think you did a commendable job and candidates should be put to the test) the enormity of discrepencies and outright lies from other candidates would take up a gigantic portion of the space in the Internet. Nobody is perfect, I just happen to think Dr. Paul has a lot more integrity, common sense, and a more principled voting record of any other candidate.

HeritageHeck said...

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter... to any degree.
The reason I'm making this post at all is because you have a slight error on Point #14 about the Cold War. You mentioned something about it being a war 'without a shot being fired'. Young fellow, that sounds like a 'rewrite of history' to me.

The families of the following people might be interested in that point of view:

Jack D. Lively, killed in shoot down Of US Navy P2V Aircraft by Soviet Planes near Vladivostok, USSR October 4, 1951

RB-29 shot down over Sea of Japan near Kamchatka Peninsula, USSR, June 13, 1952 USAF Crew of 12 presumed killed Busch, Samuel N, MAJ; Scully, James A, 1LT; Service, Samuel D, 1LT; McDonnell, Robert J, 1LT; Homer, William B, MSG; Moore, David L, MSG; Blizzard, William A, SSG; Moneserrat, Miguel W, SSG; Berg, Eddie R, SSG' Bonura, Leon F, SSG Becker, Roscoe G., SSG Pillsbury, Danny A, A1C)

RB-50 shot down over Sea of Japan near Kamchatka Peninsula July 29, 1953, one survivor, crew of 12 killed.

Lt. Jesse Beasly - Neptune aircraft shot down over the Yellow Sea - January 4, 1954

James McGovern, CIA Pilot,
KIA over Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam,
May 3, 1954.

Seaman Duane Hodges, USN, USS Pueblo, Killed by North Korean Shelling, January 23, 1968

PFC Walter Boyd, USMC, KIA in Operation to rescue SS Mayaguez from Khmer Rouge May 15. 1975

Major Arthur Nicholson, US Army, Killed in East Germany by Soviet Soldier March 24, 1985

COL Nick Rowe,
Killed by terrorists in Philippines, April 21, 1989

These are just a few names, dates, and places, but you get the picture. We lost a lot of good people during the Cold War era. Don't discredit the honor of their valiant sacrifice by telling people there were no shots fired during the Cold War.


doctorlaszlo said...

I was in Korea at the time of the USS Pueblo, but can tell you there were a lot more KIAs, ours and South Koreans, at the time. But if you really want a rebuttal to the "not a shot being fired," check out MAJ Rudolf Anderson, USAF, who was shot down and killed in October 1962 by a SOVIET missile crew in Cuba. Anybody who says "no shots were fired" were either not paying attention during the Cold War, or just too young to know about it.

Hendrix08 said...

//Still I don't see the point on why you choose this to go after the paultards with.//

i have seen alot of people express thereselves in the same way when it comes to the rosa parks medal.I personaly rather hear about we the people act and ron paul's views on lawerance vs texas. not only does ron paul's we the people act violate the constitution,but his views on lawerance vs texas cleary show how ron paul's cares little if a state government invades its citizens privacy. I could probably go on and on about how ron paul is complete LUNATIC when it comes to the constitution. Aside from that though this article raises a very important qeustion.PAULTARDS CLAIM THAT RON PAUL IS AN EXPERT ON MONENTARY POLICY,BUT RON PAUL CLEARY DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE U.S MINT WORKS. THUS WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO DOESENT EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE U.S MINT WORKS?

Ron Lawl said...

The key phrase there is that the cold war was WON without a single shot fired. There's a reason we refer to it as "the cold war," and it's not because of the temperature. Now, if you think that people should get medals for specific incidents in specific battles, then fine. Ron Paul is still a hypocrite, but whatever. But "the cold war" is pretty vague, especially if you stretch it over 50 years. To say that EVERY soldier over a 50 year period is more deserving than Rosa Parks, or to imply that Rosa Parks isn't in the 10% of Americans when it comes to deserving a medal, is really stretching it.

Shuman 14 said...

Is Rosa Parks deserving of a Medal, yes she is.

Are Cold war Veterans deserving of a Medal, yes they are.

How about this, if you'll support the Cold War Veterans Association (CWVA) and the American Cold War Veterans (ACWV) in our struggle to get a Cold War Service Medal approved, we'll support you in getting Rosa Parks her Medal.Both are well deserved.

Hortnon said...

Nice. I went over this myself here. You covered a lot of points that I hadn't even thought of, though.

Anonymous said...

The $30,000 to pay for the medal is indeed taxpayer money, hence the PUBLIC fund. Did you read (understand) the bill? It is essentially a $30,000 taxpayer-funded loan.
Whether the US Mint makes it back or not is irrelevant.

You lose.

Ron Lawl said...

Hey Josh, yo' momma was a tax payer funded loan.

Please explain how my comment just now is any less true than the comment you just made. e.g., "True because you say it's true."

Huckster08 said...

Wow, what a utterly useless douchebag you are. Why don't you do a breakdown of all the flip flopping, lying, war propaganda spewing and campaign finance law breaking bullshit McCain has done just this year instead of wasting your time arguing something as petty as a piece of shit medal in which Ron Paul offered to help pay for himself should the other Congressmen also pitch in. You can't possibly prove he wouldn't have paid his part unless the other Congressmen offered to pay as well. As a taxpayer, I'm not willing to pay for a bullshit medal for Rosa Parks or anybody else for that matter. There are too many important issues at hand that trump a medal. Oh btw, I am a Huckabee supporter for the record. I just find it odd that the original poster here would pass off such garbage as a valid opinion. lol...

Ron Lawl said...

Hey Huckster, I'll make a deal with you. If you kill yourself, then I'll cure cancer. Sound good to you? You can't possibly prove that I won't cure cancer if you don't kill yourself. So go do it.

Anonymous said...

My comment is true because apparently I can read and comprehend.

Arguing the mint is 'self-funded' is analogous to saying the federal government is 'self-funded' through the Treasury.

Any monies(profits) the US Mint makes goes into the US Treasury, which is as you know is taxpayer pools of money.

That's $30,000 which went to the medal and not into the Treasury per USC title 31 section 5136.

Ron Lawl said...

Hey Josh, you stated a bunch of random non-sequiturs, but nothing resembling an actual argument. You haven't shown the logical connection from your premise ("Money goes to the US Treasury") to your conclusion ("Therefore, the Rosa Parks medal is a waste of tax dollars."). I'm sure this type of argument must kill on the, but it doesn't really work outside of the choir, where people don't already agree with you from the get go, and will grasp to the thinnest of straws in agreement. Now, if you really could read, then you should know that your argument was already addressed in the FAQ. But you said nothing to refute the content from the FAQ, I can only assume that you didn't read it.

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.

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with your computer analogy (which if that's the best you can do, well... lol)

That 30K is taken from funds which would otherwise, by law, be destined for the Treasury - which is wrong in and of itself regardless of whether replicas end up covering the cost or not.

Inhibiting the flow of that 30K into the Treasury is the same as Congress taking from it, hence why this needed a Congressional vote in the first place - to authorize funding. If the money isn't of congress' constituents(taxpayers) then why vote?

Who fills the Treasury? Martians?

Ron Lawl said...

So anything that results in giving less money to the treasury is automatically wrong in itself?

So if every year, I purchase ten commemorative coins, and then one year I suddenly stop, that would be wrong in itself? Because I'm denying them money that I normally would have given them?

You rely a light on broad statements and generalizations, but you fall short on actual arguments that cut to the point. Giving the treasury money is a bonus. And producing the Rosa Parks medal would have likely resulted in giving them more money than what they lost (After all, they're a multi-billion business, and they have a good idea of what will sell and what won't).

Just out of curiosity, where do you think that the US Mint gets it's revenue in the first place? Oh, from the sale of commemorative coins and replicas. Replicas of what pray tell? Replicas of expanding their product line. You're criticizing the US Mint for expanding their product line, not because it would cause them to go in the red, but because it would temporarily cause their profits margins to shrink an infinitesimal amount, which would be more than paid for in the long run.

//f the money isn't of congress' constituents(taxpayers) then why vote?//

Non-sequitur. Voting does not entail funds. Ron Paul voted on numerous pieces of legislation that congratulated football teams, something that Ron Paul would be more than capable of doing even without a congressional vote. Did those votes allocate tax payer dollars?

Anonymous said...

//Oh btw, I am a Huckabee supporter for the record. //

well i geuss Ron Paul is not alone in the a gay basher that is.