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.

Vote For Miss Ron Paul!

Wonkette reports the following story: "Hey there Paultards who like to look at women online! Now you can elect your favorite female Libertarian standard-bearer in a beauty pageant that's attracting literally dozens of votes. There are several Miss Ron Pauls to choose from and you can vote twice a day before May 31, because that is what Freedom is all about: voting twice."

You can check out the five leading candidates here, with all the glamor that Ron Paul is famous for. Surprise, surprise: All five of them are white, four of them are blonde, and the last one looks like she needs to be carded. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising, coming from a political ideology that thinks that child pornography laws are a bad thing.

Paulville Neglects to Pay Hosting Fees

Yes, we've heard it all before. "The campaign was never about getting Ron Paul elected, it was about the movement." No one ever bothered to explain what they meant by that, with few exceptions. One example of this is Paulville, the Paultard attempt at creating their own Rapture in honor of Ron Paul, an idea so creepy that even Ron Paul himself wouldn't want to live there. This is what happen when the revolution goes beyond the grasp of its messiah.

Paulville.org was the brainchild of Jason Ebacher, founder of the West Central Minnesota Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group. It recently ended, as all Paultard projects do, with humiliating and incompetent failure. Did the mainstream media conspire to keep them down? Was it the Federal Reserve? Good guesses, but no. Apparently, Jason was thwarted by something that we call "hosting fees." It's pretty silly when you're trying to start your own pocket civilization, and you can't even make a simple credit card payment.

Ron Paul may not approve of Paulville, but this is what happens when you campaign on a vague message of "freedom" and "liberty" without any actual guidance or leadership, or even competence. What exactly did Ron Paul expect to happen? If it's about the movement, then what is your movement?

Paul's official is that "I don’t think that’s the solution. You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible." Unfortunately, the closest that the Paultards have ever come to being "persuasive" are sticker bombs and outright vandalism. Paulville may have been an idiotic idea, but at least it would have given the Paultards an opportunity to really put their money where their mouths were, and to test whether they could practice what they preach. It may not have been wise, but at least it had a somewhat naive sincerity to it. But if the rEVOLution can't even manage to run their own pocket community, then why should we immediately reward them for that failure by trusting them to run the entire nation? That argument doesn't make any sense, and it isn't exactly very persuasive.

Welcome to Paulville!

If you're a reader of this site, then you probably know about Ron Paul. If if you already know about Ron Paul, then you've probably heard of Paulville, the latest adolescent fantasy from the Paultard community. The Paultards live a paradoxical exist, where they claim to uphold the values of freedom and liberty, but where they abhor the fact that people might use their freedom and liberty to do things and believe things that they personally disagree with. What's that? Someone is using their freedom to doubt intelligent design as valid science? How dare they!

Paulville's solution is to set up a gated community designed to keep out the undesirables, thanks in large part to the genetic discrimination policies that Ron Paul valiantly fought to protect. Right now, a lot of blogs are reporting on the story, so I decided to report from Encyclopedia Dramatica:

Exodus: The founding of a new (sovereign) nation!
Meanwhile, in another small part of Texas, embittered Paultards are building a gated compound- uh, I mean, a 'gated community' named (wait for it...!) PAULVILLE. Yeah, you read correctly. No doubt an homage to Smallville because Dr. Paul is like Superman to his followers. The website says "The goal of Paulville.org it (sic) to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty", though they warn "These communities are not for the faint at heard (sic)". The whole affair appears to be organized along the lines of a co-op and is located somewhere near Waco. Given the general level of batshit-crazy that will consolidate there, this probably won't end well, will it?

"Pick a fucking side you fucks! You hate Dems and lefties but then you say that people living in Paulville are a joke... For choosing to uphold the constitution?? You are absolute morons if you believe for a second that the U.S. greenback is worth what wall street pretends it is and you knock the gold standard... Then you also CLAIM to dislike stupid government intervention, however, you mock those who creat (sic) a community to limit it??? ...Your site is one big sad fucking joke that gets all the facts but then fails to properly process the information. Please kill yourselves. You can blame your deaths on “the terrorists”. Assmunch!" -- a batshit-insane Paultard emails all the way from fucking Canada to BAAAW about a right-wing website making fun of "Paulville"

Please be careful about clicking those links if you don't already know what you're in for.

From Online Polls to Straw Polls to Amazon.com

Recently, it came to my attention that Ron Paul was considering taking all the money that he didn't spend on his failed campaign run and putting it into a for-profit publishing company for libertarian propaganda. The Paultards, still in full Stockholm mode, are still defensive of the measure, saying that they support him because it will "spread the message." Question to Paultards: If people weren't buying the message when it was free, then why the hell would they pay good hard cash for it towards a for-profit company whom they are ideologically opposed to?

One example of this brilliant plan is Ron Paul's latest Manifesto, which is currently for sale on Amazon.com. Not surprisingly, the Paultards have already taken to spamming the site, the same way they spam online polls and straw polls, under the misguided assumption that anyone else really gives a shit about these transparent acts of manipulation. Which of course comes from their assumption that everyone else is an unthinking sheep, and they should therefore react accordingly.

Wonkette has done the work of finding some of the more interesting book reviews highlights. Go check it out.

Another Case of Paultard Persecution

And in today's headlines:

OWATONNA, Minn. - An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.

Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR — driving while Republican."

See Paultards, this is why no one takes your cries of persecution and censorship very seriously. Because you're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Yeah, I'm sure that the current regulations against obstructing the driver's view were designed specifically to deter republicans. That's exactly what happened.

Oh, and another thing: If you really want to attract other people to your "revolution," maybe you should avoid using a campaign advertisement that actively puts their lives in danger. I think that John McCain learned that the hard way, when his 2000 campaign involved engraving "Vote John McCain" on bullet casings and firing them into random crowds. As a general rule, people usually don't respond well to threats of vehicular homicide. Don't ask me how I know this.

Austin Chapter NAACP President Backs Away from Ron Paul

Remember a few weeks ago, when the Austin Chapter NAACP President Nelson Linder defended Ron Paul, and the Paultards ran away with it? The story quickly morphed into "The NAACP President endorses Ron Paul," and then into "The NAACP endorses Ron Paul," and finally into "All fleet footed Negroes love Ron Paul more than they love life itself. Which is amazing, because fleet footed Negroes usually hate white people, not that I'm saying that Ron Paul is white, because libertarians are incapable of racism because we don't see color."

For a while, you couldn't point out Ron Paul's history of racism without having a Paultard bring up Nelson Linder, followed by the sight of him stuffing his own head firmly between his ass cheeks in order to avoid any further argument. Unfortunately, it turns out that the story of Linder's "endorsement" may have been highly exaggerated, just like everything else from the Ron Paul campaign. Alex Jones has since been forced to order a retraction:

UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.

Good job, Paultards. Good job. A black man gives you guys an inch, and you decide to exploit him for a mile. Perhaps if you didn't plaster every black man you saw as the poster child for your campaign, these types of incidents wouldn't happen?

Post Tuesday Fallot

All I can say is, karma is a bitch. After watching the Paultards spend months and months ruining the internet and vandalizing our schools, they now get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. My one regret is that I didn't start this website sooner, but oh well. Next time a Ron Paul appears, the internet will be ready. I remember once reading about how before the iPod came out, everyone was speculating on what would be the "next walkman," and after the iPod came out, everyone speculated on the next "iPod killer." When Ron Paul began his candidacy, people started wondering if Ron Paul would be the next Ross Perot. But I think that Ron Paul has officially taken his place in loser dome. At least Ross Perot managed to get actual votes.

Ron Paul placed 4th place in nearly every state yesterday, averaging roughly 4-5% of the popular vote. In Alaska, he managed to place as high as 3rd place, with 17% of the vote. I guess that people who love the bridge to nowhere would also love Ron Paul. In California, Ron Paul managed to place 5th place, with 4% of the vote. Fifth place out of the four republicans still running.

The guy who runs the Ron Paul Tumblelog has been hunting around for the Paultard reaction. Here's what he found:

Twilight Canal Zone

One of the few things I like about John McCain is that he, like me, is a member of the semi-exclusive fraternity of Americans who were born on foreign soil to two American citizens, and is therefore a natural-born American without being, strictly speaking, a native-born American. The reason this is significant is because Article II, section 1 states that "No person except a natural born Citizen..." can become President. If elected, McCain (born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone) would be the first President born outside the incorporated territory of the United States. Pretty cool, huh? Well, I thought so, anyway.

Every few years, some overly excitable person with a nativist streak and a hazy memory of the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President rediscovers that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and--in an argument reminiscent of the chuckleheads who say we don't have to pay taxes because Ohio wasn't really a state--declares that McCain is ineligible to become President; wackiness typically ensues. Given the distinct nativist streak and general zaniness that typify a lot of Ron Paul supporters, you will not be surprised to learn that this argument has begun to make the rounds among the faithful over the past week or two now that McCain has taken a commanding lead for the nomination.

One Robert Werden, a dedicated fan of the Ronster, makes the case (or at least I think that's what he's trying to do):

A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.

So there.

In fact, there's no debate here. Since 1790, U.S. laws have held that children born abroad to U.S. citizens acquire United States citizenship at birth, and no knowledgeable person seriously believes that there are any Constitutional issues that would remotely prohibit McCain from becoming President due to the circumstances of his birth. Of course, we're not talking about knowledgeable people, we're talking about Paulbots.

"I mean, I could really care less about where he was born," says "gangreneday" at dailypaul.com, "but the constitution needs to be amended then, if he does get the nomination (god forbid) right?" Right.

"Terri and Dustin," one or both of whom organize the Ron Paul Meetup in Knoxville Tennessee, offer up this lengthy screed from something called AmericanVoiceRadio.net, which somehow manages to bring in the USS Liberty incident--a favorite obsession of anti-Semitic nutjobs everywhere--and reminds us that "Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican." (Mexican, for God's sake!!)

Not everyone who makes this argument is a racist; some are simply morons. Like Carl at ronpaulforums.com who speaks with all the self-assured dickishness of the truly ignorant:

Yes he is disqualified, he was born on foreign soil. A child born to parents outside of the United States Proper is not a natural born citizen of the United States even if that birth takes place upon a U.S. military base. Every military parent is told this. If he was born in Germany, even upon a U.S. base, he would be considered a German citizen and subject to their military draft system.

(Emphasis mine.) I'll have to ask my parents if the U.S. Marine Corps put them in touch with Carl after I was born so that he could give them this important information. I may unwittingly be AWOL from the Philippine military even as I write this.

Fortunately, a Paultard who appears to go by the name "Sir David-Andrew" has figured it all out.

...McCain is not a natural born Citizen; therefore, is he not eligible to hold the office of the presidency. I suspect that there is a deal between McCain and Clinton over this very issue. After Clinton steals the DemocRATic nomination and McCain steals the Republican nomination, and then Clinton planned on challenging McCain about his citizenship and McCain would be more then willing to bow out the election a week or two before the General Election. Leveling Billary to steal the election unopposed.

However, Blomberg most likely is aware of this fix and is ready to step in and run as well, or maybe, Blomberg was planning on bumping McCain himself with is trump card. Either way, both Clinton and Blomberg are both able to buy McCain's loyalty.

Got all that? Good.

Add "Ron Paul Racing" to the list of Ron Paul Fail

Thanks to Wonkette for the find. From the same trolls who brought you the Ron Paul blimp, and who tried to make it so that uppity Negroes would be forever branded as a living billboard for Ron Paul, comes the latest batch of fail: Ron Paul Racism Racing. I love the idea that the Paultards have literally thousands of internet trolls at their disposal who pride themselves on being free market gurus and who can brainstorm ideas 24/7, and these are the types of things they come up with.

At some point, the Paultards need to just bite the bullet and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, none of them know what the hell they're doing. Maybe the reason they can't prop their guy up as the next president isn't because of some elaborate conspiracy against them, or the fact that the rest of the population is completely sheep-like and uninformed. Maybe the real problem is just the fact that getting a guy elected to the presidency is a fucking hard thing to do, vastly more challenging than uploading a cell phone video to youtube, and Paultards simply don't have what it takes to pull it off.

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: http://goldprice.org/gold-price.html).

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 goldprices.org 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.

Conclusion:
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

Shocking news! Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in near future!

From the Congressional Record:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse.

Absolutely shocking and completely frightening. If Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in the near future, then dammit, it must be true. Even more shocking is when the speech was given: February 23, 1981. That means that we're 27 years overdue, and that the hyperinflation that Ron Paul predicted in the near future is even nearer.

BTW, what about the rest of the article? Here's a basic summary of what Ron Paul has to say:

• Myth #1: There isn't enough gold. False. There will always be enough gold, as long as we put our faith in the invisible hand to provide it.
• Myth #2: A gold standard would enable Russia and South Africa to hold us hostage. False. There's a rumor that Russia already sold a lot of gold to Saudi Arabia, so we would actually be held hostage by the Middle East. Also, the only reason why gold is considered valuable is because of fear and panic, so if we return to the gold standard, than the fear and panic would end and gold wouldn't be valuable anymore and Russia wouldn't be in a favorable position, even though the value of gold was the very reason I advocate a return to the gold standard in the first place.
  
• Myth #3: Gold causes depressions. False. Actual statement: "Were we to establish a gold standard, we would have to pursue a course that would not result in deflation and would not cause a depression. We would redeem at the market price for a period of one year the greenbacks we have printed, and then cease redemption, allowing the gold coins we have put into circulation to function as our money of account. If we proceed to a gold standard in an orderly fashion, such as I have proposed in my bill H.R. 7874, then there will be no depression. A gold standard cannot be achieved if we do not end our budget deficits as well. The standard must be accompanied by tax cuts, an end to the printing of paper money, and a significant reduction of federal regulations if we expect a restoration of a sound economy. Unless we are committed to all these things, even the establishment of 100 percent gold coin standard cannot stop our descent into economic chaos." Dear readers, feel free to cite this excerpt the next time you hear Ron Paul insist that he is only advocating for "competing currencies.
  
• Myth #4: Gold causes inflation. False. It's almost as bad as the people who criticize Michael Bay for being too intellectual for audiences.
• Myth #5: Gold would be speculative. False. After all, how could the invisible hand ever lead to economic instability?
  

Quick Links

For people who want more content, here are some links to other blogs you might be interested in:

• Paul Can Run But He Can't Hide: "The Paul campaign said in a prepared statement that Gray was not forthcoming about his background. But way back in August, Gray posted a notice on a prominent white nationalist blog announcing his involvement in the campaign. Moreover, this blog, along with others, exposed Randy Gray's activities before January 17 (that's when I first reported it). The Paul campaign, in releasing the statement, claims that they only learned about this over the past few days. This is a lie, since they took down the photograph of Paul and Gray as soon as vigilant bloggers exposed Paul's association with Gray."
• Stunning Ignorance: "Good grief. First, Paul isn't about defending the Constitution at all. He is a states rights conservative who confuses the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. Worse, a lot of his philosophy is squarely in the neo-confederate camp." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
• Ron Paul is an Ignoramus Part II: "Ron Paul could not be more wrong in his economic arguments. He blames government intervention and the Federal Reserve for economic problems. He says monetary policies are the cause of the business cycle. When was the Federal Reserve created? How interventionist was the federal government prior to that moment? Why do we have government intervention in the first place?" (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
• More independent research on Ron Paul's vote against MLK Day, and his criticism against Phil Gramm for not doing the same. (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
• A Dimension of the Hegemony of Whiteness: "Paul is thus useful to the elite and this is why the media is playing along with the charade. To be sure, the corporate media pushes him back down when he starts to get a little too popular. Capitalists discovered in in the first half of the twentieth century that when you go all the way with right-wing authoritarian types, the results leave a lot to be desired. Thus it's better to have the ideas injected into the public and manipulate them that way rather than have the countermovement actually come to power." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
• Ron Paul Forums: "Why can't Ron Paul do what the other CFR does? Why can't we run 5 Ron Paul Republicans, so we can max out our donations to each of them...then let them all drop out one by one and endorse Ron Paul?" (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
• DailyPaul.com attempts to steal a page from Bioshock. (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
• Ron Paul Campaign removes Vox Day Endorsement from website. (Thanks to Sultan Knish).
• Top Ron Paul Supporter Defends Slavery (Thanks to Sultan Knish)
  

If there are any other blogs I should know about, post a link.

The Rise of the Ron Paul Democrat

A few days ago, I made a post in mockery of Paultard "pshycology". It was fun for a laugh and all, but sure enough, in the past few days, I've noticed a lot of Paultards following ship. Has anyone else seen a rise in the self proclaimed Ron Paul democrats, or is it just me?

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ron Paul democrats, it basically goes like this. They'll usually be in their late teens, and claim that they had affiliated themselves with the democrats for their entire lives, but after conducting some unbiased independent research (Re: Youtube), they are no planning to jump ship and join the Ron Paul bandwagon. They will urge their "fellow" democrats to be willing to cross party lines, and vote for Ron Paul.

So what defines a Ron Paul democrat? Well, usually, they're staunch believers in the Austrian School of Economics, who claim that taxes are a form of theft and that "men with guns" will come by if they don't pay. They support a return to the gold standard. They oppose labor laws, labor unions, and the minimum wage. They might claim that they disapprove of climate change and racism, but they believe that the invisible hand is the best solution to address it. They don't mind "don't ask, don't tell," and they consider gay sex immoral. They think that life begins at conception, and that abortion is a form of murder. There's a good chance that they don't accept the theory of evolution.

Most real world democrats are nowhere near that conservative. In fact, most republicans aren't even that conservative. Chances are that the typical Ron Paul "democrat" can't name a single policy that they disagree with Ron Paul on. Which means that they're either republicans, or they're life long Dixiecrats. The Paultards have realized that they're not gaining much traction within their own party, so they're deluding themselves into believing that Ron Paul has bipartisan appeal. When will the Paultards realize that they're not going to win many votes with these sorts of tactics?

Paultards are whiny crybabies

See Paultard.

See Paultard cry.

Cry, Paultard, cry.

"Waaahhh!!! These elections are rigged! It's as if they were heavily biased in favor of the candidates who have actual support, or something! Why can't these debates be more like youtube, where a vocal minority can spam anyone we disagree with into oblivion? It's not fair, dammit!"

If Ron Paul can't even handle a simple debate, then how the fuck does he expect to run an entire country?

Paultards attempt to use a little "pshycology"

Thanks to Wonkette for picking this up. Chances are, you've seen the tactic used by Paultards in the past. But now, when people use this tactic, you can feel free to mock them by by citing this thread.

Ron Paul has over 100,000 "Endorsements," Paultards Continue to Ruin Digg

A Paultard by the name of hedonisticpleasureseeker recently posted to the comments thread, bragging about how Ron Paul recently recieved over 100,000 endorsements. And not just any old endorsements, either, but endorsements from "bigwigs in academia, business, science, finance, media, and economics, all of whom say RP is "dead on" in his assessments of the economy and the state of human and civil rights in the U.S." That's a pretty bold claim. The source? Well, apparently, it came from a from a Digg link to a forum posting:
The original thread was posted back in November, and the Digg submission was only posted two days ago. Yet the Digg submission has managed to receive one Digg for ever three page views (And keep in mind that most people will visit a thread more than one time, in order to check out new postings). Also keep in mind that the forum post in question doesn't include a convenient "Digg this" button on it. This is strong evidence of the fact that Paultards will Digg just about everything on Digg without actually bothering to read it first. It also suggests that although Paultards are relatively small in numbers, they benefit from the fact that a disproportionately large number of them are spammers and Diggbots. A forum post with only a few hundred views can magically achieve 70 Diggs, just by saying something favorable about Ron Paul.

BTW, what exactly is the methodology of the page? Well, it's not just flawed, it manages to completely live up to the title of "Paultard. Apparently some guy ran the phrase "endorses Ron Paul" through google, got 100,000 hits, and concluded that every hit represents an individual bigwig endorsement. By the same Paultard logic, we can safely conclude that Al Gore didn't just win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he won it over 4,000 different times. Honestly, only a Paultard could find this type of argument convincing.

Oh yeah, and the original thread which claims that Keith Olbermann backs Ron Paul? Yeah, that's just as dishonest as anything else you can come to expect from the Paultards. It links to a youtube video where Keith Olbermann states that "The crowd at a Republican debate booed not Ron Paul, not Adolf Hitler, but John McCain," and interprets that as an endorsement for Ron Paul. By that same deluded Paultard logic, it would also be an endorsement for Adolph Hitler. I'm pretty sure that Keith Olbermann wasn't endorsing Adolph Hitler.

Internal Paultard Chaos Erupts Over Possible Astronaut Endorsement

The Paultards are continuing their tactic of reading endorsements into situations where no endorsement exists. From Wonkette:

In one of the better recent threads at Ron Paul Forums yesterday, someone floated the idea of courting Neil Armstrong’s support based on a blurb from the famous astronaut’s Wikipedia page: “The first man to walk on the Moon was also approached by political parties from both ends of the spectrum. Unlike former astronauts and United States Senators John Glenn and Harrison Schmitt, Armstrong has turned down all offers.” Later in the thread however, Armstrong’s ties with the CORPORATES are revealed — he’s a Freemason and a Skull & Bonesman, it seems, and therefore made up the moon landing!

And they wonder why people accuse them of being crazy.

Paultards Don't Care About Black People

As we all know, the Paultards attempted to prove how anti-racist they are by changing the focus of Martin Luther King Day into a massive fundraising event for the man who voted against it. They were hoping to break brand new records in both cash and donors, and ended up failing miserably on both counts. The $1.85 million that Ron Paul raised for himself yesterday might sound impressive, but it was less than half of what they raised for Guy Fawkes Day, and a third of what they raised for blimp inauguration day. Apparently, the Paultards care more about a failed British terrorist who attempted to commit mass murder for the sake of issuing a Catholic Monarchy than they care about Martin Luther King. It isn't even close.

Is the Ron Paul voter base starting to dry out? Well, maybe not. It looks like David Duke, the Anti-Racist Grand Wizard, hosted his own money bomb yesterday. So perhaps Ron Paul's voter base is just strong as its ever been, but the people who would normally vote for Ron Paul would rather spend their money on Robert E. Lee?

Wonkette provided the above video of one of the Paultard MLK marches. Ron Paul supporters are to Martin Luther King Day what the Cadbury Bunny is to Jesus. The only minority I spotted during the rally up at the 1:00 mark. He's not holding any sign and keeps avoiding the camera, so he may simply be a bystander who was trying to catch a cab. At the 2:30 mark, you see a guy with a Guy Fawkes mask. Because, you know, Martin Luther King and Guy Fawkes are totally interchangeable.