Paultards who can't read, Part II

From the previous thread:

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

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

A medal for Rosa is NOT the purview of the Congress.
It has nothing to do with racism, but you KNOW Paultards like that one will try to make it into an issue.

That was already addressed in the FAQ, under points #2, #3, #4, and #13. Which you would know, if you had actually bothered to read it. But, like I said, Paultards can't read. I should point out that Ron Paul has recently also co-sponsored legislation that would not only produce commemorative coins for discriminatory organizations, but would also divert public funds to subsidize them. Where, pray tell, does the constitution allow for one, but not the other?

devil21 writes:
Notice he never refutes the points that were made in this thread about why RP voted NO. Besides, who cares about people like this screaming for our attention now. Your day has come and gone "Ron Lawl". Keep trolling for the blog hits that have now dried up. You're way too transparent.

Yeah dude, my day has come and gone all right. That's why Ron Paul is well on his way to becoming president, just like you predicted. As for your claim that I didn't refute any of the points made in your thread, all you guys basically said was that it was tax-payer funded, and that Ron Paul offered his own money. Which, again, was refuted in my 16-point FAQ, which included actual text from the legislation in question showing that these claims were false.

Update: The Paultards are still at it, and still mocking the fact without having actually read it. Case in point:

NH4RonPaul further adds:
I hate to tell this PAULTARD that writes this sad blog, but no one cares what Ron did or did not do with the Rosa Parks medal. NO ONE! He voted no which was his right no matter the reason. WE know the reason was because this is not how you are supposed to spend taxpayer money.

Well, you guys keep saying that they spent tax payer money, but unfortunately, the actual bill disagrees with you, since it states that the medal will be self-funded through the sale of replicas. Which, again, was covered in the FAQ, under "Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!" Simply repeating the myth that it was tax payer funded, while ignoring hard evidence that says that it wasn't, is not the mark of good debate.

G-Wohl writes:

This guy has to stop wasting his time, because Ron Paul's movement is one made up of people who are educated, well-read, and intelligent. This loser is not.

Unfortunately, this is a common Paultard fallacy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand the difference between saying that you're most intelligent, and actually being more
intelligent. Hey G-Wohl, I've read all your arguments, and I've refuted them accordingly using links and citations. It's hard to take you take seriously when the only thing you have to say in your defense is an appeal to authority fallacy, where the authority you're appealing to is yourself. It's hard to take your claims of being well read seriously, when you can't even read simple legislation pointing out that the medal was self-funded. Yes, you may be well read in all things related to Ron Paul fellatio, but that is not the same thing as being well read in general.

In surprising news, Paultards can't read

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

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

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

Ron Paul Quits?

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

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

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

Ron Paul is Clueless About the 16th Amendment

From Goldfish for Thought:

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

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

1. The 16th Amendment enabled Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals.
2. Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
3. The founding fathers realized that "the power to tax is the power to destroy," which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax.
4. America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax.

Each claim will be scrutinized in detail; Paul is seriously misrepresenting the intent of the 16th amendment, and proposing changes to the Constitution that would cripple the federal government. The resulting government would likely have even less power than the confederate government established by the Articles of Confederation.

Paultards will often claim that Ron Paul's ability to deliver 4,000 babies makes him a bigger expert on the constitution than the people who actually studied it in school, and who study it for a living. Here's an article that says otherwise.