Friday, August 17, 2007

Ass-Clown Ron Paul has a defender

The Dowager Viscountess knows that I have a good time wandering through the asylum where the Ron Paul pod-people are housed (for their own protection) and poking them through the bars of their cages with a sharpened stick.

To this end she sent me an article from a Ron Paul pod-boy whom she describes as " normal sounding". Well, he certainly does sound like he can be trusted to dress himself, feed himself and wipe himself all without adult supervision, but let's look at his substance as well as his style.

The following is by Szandor Blestman and appeared in the American Chronicle:

I’ve noticed a number of people on the Internet complaining about Ron Paul supporters recently. Many of them have the same complaint, that Ron Paul supporters are too pervasive. They call them Ron Paul spammers. . .

Over here we call them pod-people.

They claim that a very few people are so dedicated to Ron Paul’s candidacy that they have skewed all the polls and made it appear as if Ron Paul has more support than he actually does by voting for him again and again. On Digg, they claim that there is a core of supporters that wait for a Ron Paul article to come out so they can Digg it and catapult it to the front page. If that were the case, they were taking time off when my articles came out.

Could be that you aren't high profile enough or they don't think your writing is good enough for them to highlight.

These detractors need to think for a moment. I don’t know which candidates they support, but those candidates are getting support of very few people in the online community. One must wonder why some of these candidates don’t have that kind of support. One must wonder why Mitt Romney doesn’t have dozens of technologically savvy supporters going online to spam the polls or to create a buzz on Digg. One may wonder the same about John McCain or Rudy Giuliani supporters also, or the supporters of any of the other republican candidates. Could it be that the supporters of the other candidates simply aren’t as excited about their candidate as Ron Paul’s supporters are?

Perhaps the supporters of the other candidates are grownups who realize that spamming online polls only makes their candidate look silly. Perhaps they look at the fact that their candidates have real support shown by real polls (you know the kind taken by polling companies which can't be skewed by tech savvy 14-year-olds (calender or emotional age) and are satisfied with reality and so don't feel the need to create a fantasy world where their guy is number one.

Doesn’t it make you wonder why Ron Paul supporters are so excited?

I know why they are excited. Paul is a libertarian and libertarianism is a Utopian philosophy. There are always plenty of folks around who, for whatever reason, can't adjust to life in the real world and so latch onto a Utopian fantasy. This explains how Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones (among many others) were able to gain followers. Despite the fact that they were all either crazy as shithouse rats, cynical con men or both.

And I personally don’t think that it is in fact true that Ron Paul supporters are low in numbers and spamming the Internet. In fact, I think the number of Ron Paul supporters is growing day by day despite the fact that the Ron Paul detractors have tried to keep this from happening.

Then why isn't he showing anywhere near the level of support in real polls that he is showing in easily gamed online polls? The current polls show Paul getting no more than 3% in a couple of polls and 1% in most. You see Szandor it's like the Rush song says, "you can twist perception, but reality won't budge". What the Paul pod-people are doing is attempting to twist perceptions of Paul's electoral prospects but anyone with a brain can see through it.

Another tactic some Ron Paul detractors use is name calling. They claim Ron Paul supporters are crazy. Since when is it crazy to speak out about someone you believe will make a difference, especially if that someone is doing something as important as running for president? Since when does following a dream make you crazy?

What do you call those who follow a crazy dream? Sorry to bust your bubble but you have heard the one about the shoe fitting, haven't you?

They claim his supporters are on the fringe of society, that they are mostly 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorists.

See the above about reality not budging. Why do you think that Paul won't denounce the conspiracy loons? He knows it would cost him too much support.

Well, I don’t think that’s so true. I think a lot of everyday regular people are supporting Ron Paul.

3% on a couple of polls 1% on most.

I’ve talked with a number of people who support Ron Paul and the subject of 9/11 or conspiracies hardly come up.


And even if some of them are 9/11 truthers or conspiracy theorists, what’s wrong with wanting to know the truth? What’s wrong with asking questions, especially when those questions haven’t been answered satisfactorily?

And when has fire ever melted steel? The questions have been answered to the satisfaction of SANE people.

What’s wrong with not believing everything you see on the TV news? Do you believe everything the television news people tell you to believe? If you do, you might want to rethink that position and start getting information from other sources. There’s nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting different points of view to try to get a better understanding and a more complete picture of the world around you.

You tell 'em champ! And don't forget that the tiles in the so-called "gas chambers" aren't nearly blue enough to have been exposed to Zyklon B.

They claim Ron Paul’s policies are too impractical, that he is too much of an idealist. Since when is being an idealist a bad thing? Isn’t that what our founding fathers were? Since when is it impractical to speak of freedom and liberty? Again, our founding fathers risked their very lives speaking out about such radical ideas. How long ago was it that the United States of America became a place where dreams died? When was it that spies were unleashed to see to it those same dreams could not be resurrected?

George Washington and Karl Marx were both idealists. The difference is where their ideals logically lead. Think about it while you fiddle with your tinfoil hat while waiting for the dream-killing spies to come for you in the night. Just remember they can't cross your threshold unless you invite them. Or is that vampires?

There’s something else Ron Paul detractors don’t seem to understand. Ron Paul supporters are supporting more than just Ron Paul, they are supporting ideas.

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are good, or at least they are heading in the direction of being good. However his central idea of dealing with the greatest danger on the face of the earth, militant Islamic jihadism, by requesting their terms of surrender (that is what he means by "listening to al Qaeda" - no matter what kind of spin his kool-aid drinking pod-people followers try to put on it) and then complying with them in the naive believe that the only result won't be a longer list of demands the next day and the next and the next. . . is a recipe for not just national but civilizational suicide.

It doesn't matter any how good Paul's ideas on taxes and regulation are today any more than it mattered how good Neville Chamberlain's ideas on those topics were in the 1920's. What matters - ALL THAT MATTERS - is that Paul like Chamberlain (and everybody running for the Democrat nomination as well) fails to grasp the mortal danger that confronts him, his nation and his culture.

That is why Paul must be rejected even by people who hate the IRS as much as he does.

That fact makes everything else Mr. Blestman has to say about Paul irrelevant. Paul fails the one test which anyone who wishes to lead this nation to anywhere other than the graveyard must pass if he is to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

That is why Ron Paul is an ass-clown and why his supporters are pod-people. They do not deserve to be taken seriously, because they have not earned the right to be taken seriously.