One definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again, while expecting a different result. And we all already knew that Ron Paul is insane. So perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Ron Paul would prove his fiscal conservatism and financial wisdom by pumping even more money into a long deceased campaign. In the above radio ad, Ron Paul goes over his usual list of talking points. You know, the exact same talking points that haven't gotten him very far in the past, where he recites his list of non-accomplishments, talks about his military donations, proclaims himself as the "Champion of the Constitution," in much the same way that Michael Scott proclaims himself as the world's greatest boss. Of course, I suppose that even the radio ad isn't as bad as the "sloppy seconds" posters that his supporters have been using.
Do you notice how often the radio ad mentions Ron Paul by name? As Seth Stevenson at Slate wrote, "I suspect most advertisers avoid the broken-record technique out of fear that it will annoy people. Which it does. But so what? Maybe a small percentage of us will snootily refrain from buying HeadOn—as an act of protest against an ad we find irritating—but this is a small price to pay when millions of other folks are now familiar with HeadOn, curious about it, and unlikely ever to forget its name. The repetition method serves no purpose for a well-established brand ("Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus. Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus"), but for a new product fighting to get noticed, it makes a lot of sense."
I suspect that the Paultards had a similar strategy in mind throughout the campaign. What they neglected to consider, of course, is that there is a huge world of difference between getting people to acknowledge a product, and getting people to buy a product. Conversely, they believe that if the American public doesn't buy Ron Paul, then it must be because they haven't acknowledged him, which is why they're quick to blame media conspiracy. Unfortunately for them, it's going too take a lot more than "Ron Paul, apply directly to DC" to win the office of Presidency.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Courtesy of Wonkette: "Here are Ron Paul's supporters, still leading the Ron Paul rEVOLution, on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday at a rally, gazing longingly at George Washington's aluminum-tipped erect penis in the distance. Did you know that Ron Paul will also have a famous obelisk-cum-penis when he is president, again? More pictures of his concubines dancing the dance of Freedom, after the jump!"
The best comment on that thread comes courtesy of SayItWithWookies: "Oh, this is so sad -- in a Norman Bates 'My mommy's not dead' sorta way. It's the tard without the Paul." Pretty much says it all.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to earn the GOP nomination, the douchebaggery among Paultards is still alive and well. HMBeast over at DailyKos reports the following story, about a Paultard Campaign Worker who decided to trespass a local high school with pro-Paul propagandas, urging kids to skip school on April 15th on a so-called "Truth Strike." The Paultard, Joe Baker of Burlington, WI, is also a 9/11 truther. Big surprise! Here's a report of HMBeast's conversation with him:
You ever notice how Paultards are completely incapable of forming their own arguments, or recognizing what an argument even is. Instead, it's "google this," and "youtube that." Ironic, considering how they like to boast about how they and they alone are well informed and capable of critical thought, where as everyone else is a sheep. Really, the average Paultard doesn't give a crap about reason or logic. What they're interested in is the general feeling of being convinced. And they hope that if they can point other people to the same video, then the same feeling will be communicated to them as well. But when it comes to breaking down the basic arguments restating those arguments in their own words? That's when they fall short.
Me: Sir, not to be rude, but you do realize that you're handing out fliers about the income tax to high school students, students who don't pay the income tax and probably don't care?
Joe Baker: But you will pay the income tax soon! The income tax is unconstitutional (see note below) and fraudulent.
Me: How is the government supposed to pay for things like this school that you're on right now without the taxpayer's money?
Joe Baker: What you'll see if you listen to this series of audiotapes, is that we don't need a government at all.
Me: Good luck with that.
Readers may remember our story from last February, when hundreds of anonymous Paultards decided to spam a math teacher's personal livejournal blog, for the high crime of showing actual campaign data regarding Ron Paul. Apparently, showing a real world application of mathematical principles is completely antithetical to the average Paultard. The Paultards responded by maintaining their usual levels of civility; posting the guy's personal information online and tracking his movements.
Some may accuse the Paultards of hypocrisy on this one, but actually, they're pretty consistent. The Paultards aren't against bias in public schools, or using public schools to push an agenda (or lack thereof.). No, the Paultards have an agenda that's deadset against learning itself.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CNN reports the following:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for "nonviolent" demonstrations.The Paultards have already sent their legions over to Digg in an attempt to white wash and spin doctor the incident. Right now, the best argument they seem to provide isn't the the bill was wrong, either in intent or in execution, but simply that it's a "waste of time," and vaguely, a "waste of tax dollars." Which is a pretty pathetic argument to begin with, and which sounds even more pathetic once you actually think about it. How exactly does voting "no" waste significantly less time than voting "yes"? You're still using the same amount of time, either way. So why not use your time to actually make the moral choice?
The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has not dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.
The "waste of time" issue is also pretty hypocritical when you like at the things that Ron Paul actually has supported in the past. For instance, Ron Paul voted yes on H Con Res 31, which stated that "the public display of the Ten Commandments should be permitted in government offices and courthouses." That's not just a waste of time - it also undermines the establishment clause of the first amendment. Yet Ron Paul still supported it.
You may remember a few months ago, when the Paultards were insisting that Ron Paul couldn't possibly be a racist, because he cited Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as his personal heroes, thanks to their stance on non-violence and civil disobedience. The recent Tibet vote would have been a great opprotunity for Ron Paul to show that he really means it.
If Gandhi were alive today, would Ron Paul be defending him? Would he condemn the British for their oppression of India? Or would he in the rest of the Paultard brigade insist that Gandhi wasn't worthy of their time? Of course, history has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr. to be in the right, so it's not only easy to defend those men today, but it's almost required if you want to be taken seriously. But most Paultards aren't old enough to have actually lived through, so they can't say how they would have reacted. It's amazing how Paultards are always the first to cry foul over their paranoid delusions of media censorship over their supposed "r[evol]ution", yet they can't even speak out in support of the Tibertan protesters without Ron Paul's say so.
This wasn't about economic sanctions or military action, it was about taking a moral stance. If the Paultards can't even go that far, then they have no right to lecture anyone else. Non-violent protest is great, as long as Ron Paul doesn't actually have to listen to or acknowledge it in any way, shape or form. But if Ron Paul won't listen to them, then why in the world should he expect for anyone to listen to him? The people in Tibet are taking real risks and are suffering real consequences. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is a rich old white man who likes to whine that he isn't even wealthier than he is already because he has to pay taxes. Hey Ron Paul, other people have problems too.