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.
  

Ron Paul: Where 6% is a victory

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

Ron Paul Officially Bastardizes Martin Luther King Day

In today's interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul claims that he's the "anti-racist," and denies the allegations against him involving the recent newsletter. As proof of this fact, he lists the upcoming freeatlast2008, where he plans to hold his next "money bomb" on Martin Luther King Day. This is an event that's so tasteless that even a large group of Paultards from the ronpaulforums thought that it was a bad idea, although mostly because they didn't want to sully Dr. Paul's reputation by associating him with a filthy communist. I haven't written much about this in the past, because a) it didn't seem to be getting much publicity, and b) the Paultards could deny it by insisting that it wasn't part of the official campaign. Guess what? Not anymore. Check 1:50 into the video.

Hey Ron Paul, here's a newsflash: If you want to convince people that you aren't a racist, then using your own name to raise money for minority causes might help. On the other hand, exploiting Martin Luther King Day for your personal benefit, and without the permission of his family, makes it even worse. It's like the people who try to show off their patriotism by selling cheap plastic flags that were made in China at $5 a pop. Does Ron Paul think that minorities are stupid, and won't even notice? He must There is no other explanation for this.

The Paultards have tried to justify the use of MLK using their own twisted logic of how they both upheld freedom. Right. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would start holding fundraisers in honor of religious terrorism, and advocating gun rights as his main platform. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would be comparing Edward and Elaine Brown to Gandhi and to himself, just like Ron Paul did. I'm sure that MLK would have had his thugs chasing reporters down like rabid zombies while yelling obscenities and throwing snowballs. I'm sure that Martin Luther King would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Rosa Parks Medal of Honor, and Affirmative Action (Yes, contrary to what republicans have done to bastardize the King, here are his real stances on affirmative action.).

Ron Paul wants to claim that he is the anti-racist candidate, so I'm going to say four words that are long overdue, and which I haven't said until now: Fuck you, Ron Paul. You can't even handle the racism in your own staff in your own name, how the fuck can you proclaim to be the anti-racist candidate for the entire country? In order to bolster his point, Ron Paul uses some weak logic to say that he is the only candidate on either side willing to protect minorities from drug laws. There are some problems with this:

• The argument seems to be based around the idea that if you oppose the war on drugs, then you can't be racist. I guess this means that Stormfront must not be racist either.
• Yes, the war on drugs unfairly hurts minorities. A lot of things do, because minorities tend to be the least capable of defending themselves from abuse. Ron Paul's opposition to the war on drugs is entirely coincidental. Even if war on drugs was racially equitable, he would still oppose it.
• Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs, nor will he protect people from anti-drug laws. He's simply going to make it a state issue, like he wants to do for abortion and gay rights. In other words, Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs. He's going to end the war on some drugs, in some states.
• The main reason why the war on drugs is racist is because the inequalities involving cocaine enforcement. Guess what? Cocaine would still be illegal at the state level.
  
• At best, most states would only decriminalize medicinal marijuana, which requires a prescription. Of course, most of the leading democrats have promised to decriminalize medicinal marijuana at the federal level as well. So what's your point?
  

Dear Paultards, I know that I have made the zombie comparison before, so let me make this clear: Leave the dead alone. Ron Paul is not Guy Fawkes, he is not Thomas Jefferson, he is not Mahatma Gandhi, and he sure as heck is not Martin Luther King. Stop exploiting the memories of dead people who can't speak for themselves. Why isn't it enough for Ron Paul to just be Ron Paul? Why can't you hoist Ron Paul up on his own accomplishments, rather than the accomplishments of others? Oh, that's right, because Ron Paul sucks, and his own list of accomplishments are non-existent. Good job.

I suggest that everyone write to the Martin Luther King Estate and ask them how they feel about Ron Paul using Dr. King's name for personal gain. Let's see how they respond. Surely, Ron Paul would have taken this simple step of seeing how they felt about his upcoming fund raiser before boasting about it on the air? I mean, it's not like he's completely incompetent and uncaring to the opinions of minorities, right?

Update: To everyone crying "That's a grassroots efforts, Ron Paul can't be held responsible!" don't bother. Ron Paul is the one bringing up the money bomb, and he's bringing it up in a way to suggest that it should absolve him of racism. He refers to the money bomb in the first person plural, rather than the third person plural. So Ron Paul still wants to take credit for this event, while denying responsibility for it. Gee, where have we seen that before?

The Real Ron Paul Survival Report

As anyone who visits this blog knows, Ron Paul used to put out a racist newsletter called "The Ron Paul Survival Report," of which only a few of the originals have been available. But all this is about to change.

Reason.com is reporting that The New Republic will be making available more of these newsletters.

On Tucker Carlson's show 45 minutes ago, The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick alleged that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile," and stuffed 20 years' worth of "Ron Paul" newsletters full of "racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective."

Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up at midnight EDT, said that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a "pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson, who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters to both Kirchick and Carlson.

This is going to be fantastic.

What Ron Paul Actually Believes

I've been spending quite a bit of time at Ron Paul's archives hosted at www.lewrockwell.com. There are a lot of articles there, all written by Ron Paul with the majority being his responses to specific bills in congress. Of course we have the old favorites such as his response to Lawrence V. Texas, or his calls to end birthright citizenship. But if you look closer you will find that these archives are a whole treasure trove of crazy.

Take for example his stand against the North American Highway and his fight to protect America from the coming North American Union.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Strong words by a brave man. Except none of it is actually true.

Ron Paul also explains how the Federal Government has no authority to be involved in the abortion debate.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

Of course he is ignoring that pesky little 14th Amendment but hey state's rights and all that. Now I know a lot of Paultards are pro-choice but let's look at why exactly Ron Paul would want to remove the federal government from the abortion debate. Hey, looks like he answers that question right here.

Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.

Of course you also have to ignore all those bills he proposed. Or his voting record.

Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states

We will end this update with one more article. In this one Ron Paul truly stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am talking of course about David Koresh.

Of course this is not the first time Ron Paul has taken a heroic stand against the Federal Government. When talking about famous income tax Ed and Elaine Brown, Ron said,

People who point this out and fight the tax code and fight the monetary code are heroic. I compare them to people like Gandhi, who's willing to speak out and try to bring about change in a peaceful manner; Martin Luther King fought laws that were unfair and unjust, and he suffered, too.

Introduction - The Ron Paul Infection

The 21st marked a new revival in the zombie genre. "Resident Evil," "Dawn of the Dead," "Shaun of the Dead," and "28 Days Later" all became instant hits. In these movies, you have perfectly normal people from all walks of life, dealing with an abnormal situation. The zombies are never very smart, and they're rarely very strong. But they are persistence. And what they lack in smarts, they more than make up for in their numbers.

I think that there's a good reason why we saw the resurgence in zombie movies. It was in anticipation of Ron Paul. Is anyone else tired of seeing them spam every product review and youtube video they can with endorsements of Ron Paul? Is anyone else tired of seeing them attempt to invalidate every online poll they can find? Is anyone else tired of hearing them brag about how much money they raised on a single day, or how they "won" some no-name straw poll that no one cares about? Is anyone else tired of hearing their conspiracy theories on the non-existent North American Union, or how there's a media conspiracy to keep the latest straw poll that no one cares about off the front page of the New York Times? Is anyone tired of seeing them vandalizing public and private property? Of course you are. Or you wouldn't be here.

This blog is for people who need a safe haven from the zombie hoard. This is a blog for people who need to see a little sanity and reason back in their lives. It's also a place where we can plan out our strategies on how to deal with the zombie menace. In nearly every zombie movie, there comes a point where the heroes realize that running and hiding is not enough. Eventually, they need to reclaim the world that was once taken away from them. And that's what we're going to do here.

To the Ron Paul Supporters of the internet: Send your thugs elsewhere. The entire reason we created this site was to get away from people like you. There is no magic youtube video that will win us over to your side. There is no magic conspiracy theory that will convert us to the church of Paul. Chances are that anything you have to say, we've already heard it. The more you attempt to annoy us, the more you prove our case.