Monday, June 30, 2008

Paultards who can't read, Part II

From the previous thread:

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

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

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

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


Anonymous said...

PAULTARD -- you missed my point.

You are dredging up crap about which NO ONE CARES. You hear?

Discriminatory organizations of which you have not produced one whit of evidence.

Now go back on your porch and play your banjo.

FuckRonPaul said...


No need to post this comment, but in memory of Tim Russert, here's a link to a video I made showing highlights of Ron Paul's appearance on Meet the Press.

Russert completely humiliated Ron Paul yet Paultards insist that it was a great interview. Yeah, great for comic relief:

Ron Lawl said...

NH4RonPaul, is that you? It's hard to take you seriously when you state things that aren't true, like claiming that the medal was tax payer funded, and then pretending not to notice when you've been corrected.

Anonymous said...

Paultards are a monument to idiotic morons everywhere.

Anonymous said...

we see the actual cost involved.
Ron Paul opposes medal to Dalai Lama
Congress authorized $30,000 to be spend to mint a congressional medal to honor the Dalai Lama, and Ron Paul stood up alone in Congress to oppose this. Here is his speech to the House of Representatives:

Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when

I think this came after Ron Paul voted yes for giving tustegee airman a congressional medal.

Anonymous said...

Quick question. If the medal was not taxpayer funded, then why is congress hearing about it? Why doesn't the rainbow coalition, or some other private entity produce the medals? Just curious. Thanks.

Ron Lawl said...

Because it's a congressional medal, doofus. Who better to give a congressional medal than congress? Sure, you could ask some other coalition to award a medal, but it wouldn't have the same meaning.