I am more than a little pissed off right now. I am pissed off mostly because of the fact that I got to see a very articulate and very good article written by a friend of mine trashed by a group of people who I no am beginning to think don’t think. They don’t think at all. These assholes don’t have two brain cells to rub together. I am, of course, talking about Libertarians. These people have proven, time and time again, that if you say anything bad, or anything that goes against their views, about their Messiah, Ron Paul, then you are going to have all kinds of vitriol and hatred thrown at you.
Here’s an blog posting from a very good friend of mine. I grew up with the guy. He wrote in his professional blog (he is a political commentator, and one of my favorites to read) about how Ron Paul is NOT the hero/savior/awesomeness/God/Jesus/whatever other deity you can think of. And how was his statement met? Hatred, vitriol, and scorning, while still raising up on the glorious pedestal into the sky their hero, Ron Paul.
So, what were my friends reasons for why Ron Paul is not a saint? Well, he had some pretty good ones. The first was the fact that Ron Paul is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. So, basically, he believes that the government should be smaller, but large enough to force all women to carry a pregnancy to term? It is just the first of a laundry list of stupidity to come from this guy.
See, Ron Paul believes that he is a scientist. He’s a doctor, to be sure, but he is not a scientist. One of the really great proofs of that is that he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution. It’s come straight from the horse’s mouth. He claims to be a scientist, while not accepting the fact that evolution has a mountain of evidence, a mountain. Here’s an article by Richard Dawkins which can nicely pwn Ron Paul. I think a nice little bit that was on NPR (oh no, NPR! The Libertarian’s worst nightmare!) which can also put his views on this subject in their place. Really, there can be no denying that the theory of evolution is true. So, this is another area where Paul’s supporters are completely out of their depth.
Then there is the fact that Ron Paul is against the seperation of church and state. My friend had a great quote from the man himself, and a response (of sorts) by Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father. Here is Ron Paul’s quote -
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
And here is the response, or rather, disagreement, that Thomas Jefferson would have had -
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
But really, when you think critically about this issue, being against the seperation of church and state is a huge fallacy to having a small government. If the government had a state-endorsed religion, that would mean taking away people’s LIBERTY or freedom to worship whatever god, gods, or whatever, that they please (I am an atheist, so I think it’s all bullshit, but we have the right to have it in this country). Yeah, that’s really big for small government, right?
So, those are a couple of the examples of hypocrisy in what he says. His supporters will clamor to his defense (as they did against my friend) that he is for cutting taxes, entirely. Okay, let’s get something straight – Ron Paul’s economic ideas are childish and dumb. We are too far in debt now for cuts alone to work. This nation is too far in debt for us to be able to just cut spending. We have to increase revenue. Sorry, but that’s a fact. Really, the fact that Paul endorses Alan Greenspan’s failed economic ideology, which was modeled after Ayn Rand’s way of doing things, is a sign that he is out of his depth.
Now, it should be noted that Paul does want to end the wars. He very much wants to bring the troops home. He seems very dedicated to this cause. However, in being dedicated so much to this, people are losing sight of the other side of this character. The side who wishes to destroy our infrastructure, take away women’s control over their bodies, and wants there to be no seperation of church and state.
And this is part of what’s pissing me off right now about the reaction my friend got. There was nobody articulately defending anything. They all just came on and did endless attacks, making lovely strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks. It was just a bunch of ranting bullshit that really served no purpose other than to reinforce a view I already had the Libertarianism is just a me-me-me belief. Don’t take my money, don’t give money to other people, don’t interfere in my life.
This is what gets on my nerves so damn much poeple like Ron Paul supporters – the fact that they just seem to have blinders on. There was a posting on Reddit where a guy said that he was a pro-choice atheist, but then turns around and says that Ron Paul has a good perspective, that his is the right perspective. And this is why I consider the followers of Ron Paul, and TJ Kincaid as well, more like members of a cult than a political party, and also why I think the party can’t be taken seriously.
These people follow this man and talk like his word is gospel the moment it leaves his lips. There are some, a precious few, who question, and contend, and they are lambasted and ridiculed by the rest. My friend’s posting was put on DailyPaul.com, and everybody jumped on the bandwagon the Ron Paul is some kind if victim/savior who is going to save America. No! Wrong! He’s a guy. He’s a guy with some alright ideas, and a guy with a lot of really fucking stupid ideas! And if you want to accept his good ideas, then guess what, you Libertarians, you also have to accept his bad ideas! Sorry, but that’s a fact! If he is elected President, you will have to take responsibility for what this man espouses. His religious views WILL affect his politics. Sorry, but that is how it is.
Until next time, a quote,
“If you wanna vote for him, at least be honest about his fucking foibles! Stop treating him like a god! Stop sucking his fucking dick!” -TJ Kincaid, CULT of Ron Paul
Peace out,
Maverick
Well said.
Thanks!
Pingback: Why I won’t be voting for Ron Paul…ever « Skepacabra
I felt the same way you do about Ron Paul…but I felt this way with Obama.
The point I’m making is, what group of partisans are not into cult worship of their leaders ideals.
Ron Paul is no different than Obama when it comes to his followers.
Hence why I don’t follow anybody. I follow a group of ideals. Who has them, well, that I judge as they come up. Of course, they are all bought and paid for. Ron Paul is no better.
one world order
Another stupid term that means nothing. I’ve heard that thrown around a lot. Pure bullshit.
Probably means nothing to you but for some- things just keep getting more Orwellian. Neo-Cons still have their hands on everything.
Ah, another conspiracy theorist who rambles and can prove NOTHING. If this government was competant enough to be like Big Brother, I might think you have something. But you don’t.
Yeah…you’re one of those guys that jumps the gun and just says stuff without thinking, right?. Never said I was or am such a “theorist” however I am 100% correct on the neo-con part, we’re living in their foreign policy and I’m just going to go out on limb and assume you read little to nothing on the prior topic or industrial-military complex.
But this is OK, I’ve talked to know nothings know it alls before. Please continue with your wisdom, or do you feel as it would be wasted on another dumb person in your view?
Living in the foreign policy? Dude, this government is completely an utterly incapable of doing anything. The Neo-Con? What does that even mean for you? This is not the Orwellian 1984. In that world, they were very direct and had very direct control. There is no control over people. If there were, things like the Internet wouldn’t exist, for one thing. You try to sound smart by reading something Ayn Rand or one of those other lovely philosophical and socio-political jokes wrote, and then think you have learned something. I got a tip for you – read a lot of books, from a lot of sources, and then you might just learn something. And you believe that we all live in some kind of world of control. It is as much a conspiracy theory as any of the others that are out there.
Dude, you really need to relax, stop turning everything into an argument. You’re as right as the next guy who will write on this blog, and that probably depends on if they agree with your world view or not. You argue not with facts but with commentary and opinions. You’re partisan, I’m not. I won’t even try to debate with emotion because it gets you nothing.
Never did I say I was anything or say what I’ve read or who I agree with, you assumed I were these things.
But I will say I find it a little silly that you can say Ayn Rand is a joke while you list the pundit thinkers on MSNBC as people you watch and more than likely agree with. They are as much a joke as any of the others that are out there.
So relax, have a conversation before you try and debate. You’re not right, nor are you wrong. You’re just emotional.
Dude, you seem to believe that your opinion means something to me. I recognize the internet for what it is – place to voice opinions. I don’t care what you have to think. You aren’t that important. Ayn Rand is a joke because her philosophies were morally repugnant. Preaching greed is a joke. Of course, that joke has consumed humanity, but I don’t care. I write with emotion because that is how I work. Logic is boring. I write with passion. Passion is a good thing to have. You seem to believe otherwise. This is why I can’t see eye-to-eye with you. If only those who were big on things had passion, people might actually pay attention.
Oh no, Lucien. I care not if what I say leaves any bit of a dent in your mind or heart. Like your words, mine are fodder. Neither of us are important in the grand scheme of things either. Ayn Rand who I only know a fraction about, can’t say her words really jump off the page to me, could I agree to an extent? Yea, for sure I could but again they’re just words and only mean as much as I want them to mean. Most of what people say are indeed morally repugnant. I defiantly think actions speak volumes and words, like yours, mine or hers( Rand’s ) exist to fill a void, what that void is? I do not know, I’m sure you don’t either.
And I’m not anti-passion by any means. I’m all for being pragmatic though and emotions are just not realistic, they’re selfish even.
If I see someone who is homeless and they’re asking me for money and being honest about what they’re going to do with it- buying drugs, booze, I’m probably not going to give them money. That is pragmatism. Emotional thinking could allow me to believe that this person needs that dollar more than me and assuming he’s going to right with it. I don’t think in absolutes because nothing in human thinking is absolute.
If you’re a healthy guy without insurance and you choose not buy that service/product and you get sick, I don’t think anyone but you should have to pay for your stupidity, regardless if that were your freedom to choose that route.
So, have a conversation, not a debate. Have passion but remove the emotion from it, be more practical and less idealistic.
Emotions are selfish? Well, now I have learned something – you are either not human, or kind of a sociopath. Good to know. I always like meeting more of my kind.
I’m human but again, pragmatic.
Read weak
Read the Informed Heart
No, I mean that you are weak. You dismiss something as impossible. Only the weak do that. All of the progress that our species has made is because a group of people came together and said that there is NOTHING that we cannot do. They challenged notions, often even risked their own lives. That is how we have gotten this far. But people like you, who want to blanket it in the cloak of “pragmatism,” are just weak people, and I have no respect for any of you.
Right…now show me where you pulled that view point from out of anything I wrote above because I’m inclined to believe that you’re probably full of it. I see that you’re only reading what you want to read and choosing out of that what to attack. Again, your emotions are getting in the way of an actual conversation.
I doubt you have done much of anything to advance the human race but I do believe you have done everything to advance your way of thinking, which seems like a thing you “liberals” and “progressives” do, not to generalize, just an observation I have made reading your work among others and noting how you respond in these situations. You don’t like to be critiqued, you’re clearly not into hearing other viewpoints unless they have value within your own. Tell me how you’ve progressed as a human by ruling out rational thought and jumping to the “I’m better than you because I’ve read this and I believe this” nonsense.
You’re trying, I’ll give you that but you’re a wall hitting a wall.
At least I am trying. You say that universal healthcare is “impossible.” You say that fixing things in Africa is “impossible.” You have used that word many times. And with as many times as you have said I am full of it in previous posts, why are you saying you are thinking of saying it now? You might want to be careful who you say is just pulling things out from.
Weird, you love quoting people…Yet you were unable to pull any quotes from any of my previous posts. I re read everything, never once did I say impossible, at least not in this thread. I’m not sure where you brought Africa up from but we never talked about it before. Do you want to talk about an issue in Africa? Maybe talk about the Coltan mining and how your computer wouldn’t work if it weren’t for it? What are your thoughts on that? What troubles your young mind that you’re so resentful of your fellow man?
When you say you have no respect for people like me and those who you think like me, would you still help one of your less respected counterparts if need be?
I like to read your written thoughts, which is why I waited to say you were full of it. Now that I know you are, I’m pretty sure anything you say will fill me with laughter and make me remember the days I was a young punk so full of idealism; I wouldn’t even wear a Crass shirt- I thought they were “sell outs”.
But go on, show me where I said anything within the lines of “impossible” this, “impossible” that and where and when we even talked about Africa. (BTW I use a public computer, don’t own one myself, don’t really feel the need to own material objects like that.)
Universal Healthcare? You’re right, asking everyone to pay for each other is impossible, especially with the current government we have now. I don’t even mean constitutionally either, I mean that you can not trust anyone other than yourself to do the right thing; so asking anything from our government would just be a lost cause.
I’m not against the government competing in the free market, if they can offer affordable care better than a private company, let them, but support for this care should only come from those buying into it and not those who don’t want it. Should everyone own healthcare? Probably. I don’t want to support anyone but myself and my family, unless noted otherwise. Thankfully the government can not force me to buy such a service but I do have it because that is responsible. Also I’d like to add that it is not a right, should it be? Maybe but that would mean it should be free and I doubt you find any doctors willing to give you free care, college did cost them a lot of money. If you want to try and change that…GOOD LUCK.
Well, good thing there is one more guy who is going to work to change something, unlike you “don’t give a shit” crowds. I will try and change things. And when we find something that works, us people who are willing to go out and try, well, it will make you fatalist, or would it be more like nihilists, just seem that much more pathetic in the context of history. And if you want to keep trolling my blog, that’s your choice, man.
Eh, I work everyday to ensure people who can not take care of themselves are taken care of, Lucien. Not sure where you’re from but here on Long Island, NY there are private/public agencies that assist and care for those who have various types of M.R like the one I work for- Suffolk County AHRC….So go on about how I make little or no difference, I know it isn’t true. I see the change I make.
I wished you luck, didn’t I? As for trolling? Nah, I’m only writing back because you are, which I guess would mean the “troll” worked and I were “fed”….a lot.
But as for being a nihilist, show me where what I wrote could be seen as nihilism and explain why you feel that way. You’re having a really hard time staying on topic here, should I assume you’re going to respond with another rebuttal that isn’t really an answer but just a fledgling insult?
Yeah, I need to learn to stop feeding the trolls. What a worthless waste of my time. I bet I’m not the first to tell you that.
Oh no! I’m sure you tell everyone it’s a waste of time but this should be used as a way for you to actually become a writer, I can’t predict you’ll be a good one but hey, it’s a start!
We’re talking about your blog, right?
blarg. slepcot gagope cepgaope. klelatp caogpihas coish eso weclkat pcskeproi abpoice soipbacpa baoicpwe baspoeid deicatops lagopowe.
Nerd.
While morally I don’t agree 100% with Chris. It is hard to say he doesn’t have a point.