Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Ron Paul is a goon - yeah, take that you blind followers! (by twistersister)

I don't get Ron Paul.

Actually, scratch that: I don't understand the considerable support he has from the young, internet-savvy crowd that I tend to hang around.  

I won't even touch the fact that many of his policies are incredibly nonviable on a political level, the allegations of racism, or that he apparently thinks the south was the "right" side of the Civil War (seriously, I won't touch them.  Look them up and judge for yourselves; I don't want to be accused of intentionally coloring your opinions for my own dastardly purposes or whatever.  I mean, I totally just did that by mentioning them at all, but yeah.  Whatever, get over it).

No, the Ron Paul policy that sticks out to me is his stance on same-sex marriage (which is of course a whole lot better than that of his "competition," most of whom are far, far too blusteringly insane for me to even bother criticizing!).  His stance, in short, is that "the states should decide."  

This strikes me as a really serious and blatant sidestepping of an important issue, but for some reason it doesn't get too much attention.  Why?  Like, I know people who verifiably support same-sex marriage, and either don't notice or don't care that Ron Paul essentially believes that taking rights away from homosexuals is fine so long as his government of choice is the one that's doing it.

What strikes me hardest about this is the sheer mindlessness of it.  It's like Paul isn't interested in actually making direct contributions to the country's present well-being... just in promoting an ideal.  And considering how documentedly unelectable he's been throughout the years, that's kind of a "duh"-- many of the people who throw their weight behind Ron Paul are less interested in the Ron Paul gestalt than they are in the philosophy he represents.  But that doesn't explain the people who are legitimately interested in seeing Ron Paul become president.  Why have I read Facebook comments from intelligent people who explicit dismiss accusations of Paul's racism as "not important" (but not "untrue")?  Why does any intelligent, socially-conscious person think of him as an even remotely desirable candidate?



  1. Your a goon - yeah. Take that you blind idiot.

    In no intelligent way did you really knock down Ron Paul or his followers. "Allegations and apparently," ummm do you have any "He said this or voted for that," AKA facts?

    How is saying same-sex marriage should be handled by the states side stepping the issue? Seems simple enough. I personally get annoyed by same-sex marriage arguments because basically people are fighting over the word marriage, I don't care, call it marriage, call it a civil union, its basically the same thing. Which ever the way the issue is settled, if ever, my day to day isn't going to change. Maybe, there is more to that issue, but like I said I don't care. The people who do will fight their fight.

    So, that's about it, two things. The rest is just you bashing basically any one who like Ron Paul as well as a few jabs at Republican candidates. I'm pretty confident that you will never vote or anyone other than a Democrat because you are so insanely committed to that party and ideology. If the shoe fits it then wear it. I think people who are die hard Republican or die hard Democrat are the biggest problem with America. If the government officials could just work together for the betterment of America instead of fighting of the power stick to beat the other party with, then maybe just maybe some good productive work would get done. Fuck the parties both of them and vote for the man or woman who is best for the job. To bad it won't happen...

  2. I kind of agree with anon 8:24.
    Why is saying that the states should decide about same sex marriage a problem?
    Ron Paul is about liberty. He's not about telling people what they can and cannot do - so just as he's not going to tell gay people they can't get married, he's not going to tell gay people that they can, because he doesn't feel that it is his place to make the call for everyone.
    He wants individual states to decide what's best for themselves according to their demographics and what the citizens want and yada yada.
    It is not the president's job to decide for everyone (even if states aren't doing what he might consider the "right" thing - I mean, of course, I don't believe there is anything wrong with gay marriage, but I know a LOT of people would say otherwise, and they should have the right to say otherwise, and vote otherwise, and so on and so forth).
    This post was such a weak attack on Ron Paul. Maybe if Ron Paul was a religious nut, like many of the other republicans that were/are running, and he openly opposed same sex marriage for everyone, then I could see a problem. But he doesn't do that. And he doesn't openly condone it either. Why? Because it's not his place to decide. I'm guessing Ron Paul would say the same thing about capital punishment, abortion, and issues alike.

  3. "ummm do you have any ... facts?"

    The facts are out there, but I intentionally (and explicitly) omitted them from my post in favor of the same-sex marriage issue. I chose to make that the focal point because, unlike the other allegations, it isn't really treated as a candidacy-killer for Ron Paul. It's also just more interesting than "hey! Did you hear Ron Paul might be a racist??"

    "basically people are fighting over the word marriage"
    I could argue extensively in favor of the usage of the word "marriage" being a perfectly valid and important point of contention, but instead I'll just point out that it's not just a fight over the word, but over rights. Seems strange that you'd dismiss that.

    "The rest is just you bashing basically any one who like Ron Paul"

    No, it isn't.

    The rest of 8:24's post is strange ad hominem coming from nowhere, so I won't acknowledge it. Maybe try contending with the ideas I presented instead of delving into unrelated territory. On to 8:40.

    "This post was such a weak attack on Ron Paul."

    No, it wasn't. The post attacks Ron Paul's presidential viability, and then questions those who nevertheless believe that Ron Paul is a desirable president.

    To elaborate, I don't really know whether Ron Paul believes that marriage equality is good or not, and in a way I almost don't care. The point of my post is to say that, yes, I understand that Ron Paul has a strong state's-rights philosophy (or as you so charmingly put it, is "all about liberty"). I don't necessarily disagree with that philosophy as a whole . But when we're dealing with something that is an obvious-good (such as marriage equality), I find it at least absent-minded and at most intentionally discriminatory (likely the former, but the result is the same) to continue applying that philosophy as if nothing is different. Again, marriage equality is something that, to most of us, is /obviously good and should happen/. So why stick with this state's-rights philosophy the whole way through? Why not make a warranted exception?

    The answer I propose is that Ron Paul is less interested in actually being president than he is in setting the stage for future presidents who share the most important of his ideals (and potentially modify or omit some of the others). I think this is a valid reason for him to campaign, but it leaves me scratching my head at those who apparently /want/ a candidate who dismisses important freedoms in favor of philosophical purity.

  4. This does not need to be a personal issue with Ron Paul. At its core, Paul is simply taking a typical conservative response to the issue of same-sex marriage. On a very simple level, Liberals tend to support the idea of a unified nation as well as bills and legislation that apply across the entire US. Conservatives, typically, support the idea of "state's rights" and like for the individual states to choose many policies for themselves. That idea has always been a part of the conservative political mindset in the United States.

  5. He's a hypocrite, plain and simple. To say human rights legislation should be decided on by the states is against everything he supposedly stands for. As a "libertarian" he believes that the government cannot legitimately take away the freedoms of individuals. He consistently battles for the "free market", promoting deregulation. He even goes as far as attacking the civil rights act, because, you know, it's everyone's right to discriminate how they choose. Yet he would have no problem with states choosing to make laws removing rights of the minority voters based on some unfounded prejudice and conservative bullshit.

    How, exactly, is it wrong for the federal government to protect rights, but okay for states to remove rights? How is that libertarian? He's nothing more than a free market conservative who borrowed the title libertarian to appeal to the people who want to be anti-government but are too afraid to go all the way. The man is a capitalist crock. The only concern he's ever shown is for protecting business/capitalist rights. When it comes time to make a decision on individual rights, he says, nah, it should be up to the states.

    "Ron Paul is about liberty"
    If that were really true he'd be shouting at the top of his lungs "you can't take away our rights!". But he sits on the fucking fence.

  6. Right, but Ron Paul is the one with youth support.

  7. (The above was a response to anon 10:39; I tend to agree with anon 11:59, for the record)

  8. That's good make more laws that tell me how to think, how to feel, what's right, what's wrong, who can do what, who can't, who must to be hired, and who can't be hired. Punish anyone who doesn't think like the rule makers because we all know they can't be wrong. You know what we really need is some good guy or girl to just tell us everything and punish anyone who doesn't agree. Perhaps you should take up the torch for that effort twistersister you seem to know how gays can and can't be treated, maybe the "experts" on all the issues should decided for us and then pass laws so we can all be forced to be like them. Experts can't be wrong ya know. Freedom for all, unless you disagree and act on your disagreement then we'll lock you up. Equal rights for all unless you disagree and act on your disagreement then we'll lock you up and take away those government given rights like freedom.

    Just know your playing a dangerous game.

  9. You just made all of that up.

  10. I don't know maybe Ron Paul has bigger issues to address. I don't really think it's like human rights are really being taken away.... I always thought human rights were like, the right to live and have property and whatnot... not necessarily to be able to enter into marriage as a same sex couple. Humans created marriage to begin with - so we can argue and say what should be done about the inequalities, you know, civil unions and what have you, but to expect the presidential candidate to march over the state's rights to say, hey, the institution of marriage here will exclude same sex couples (regardless of how 'wrong' this may be), and then criticize the candidate for not saying that the institution of marriage must not exclude same sex couples, is way too critical if you ask me. Several states allow civil unions, and we are continuing to progress as a nation so much that I bet the entire institution of marriage will simply become replaced with something that is more open and inclusive. But for now, we have to wait and do as much as we can to move things forward. Unfortunately, it's not an easy issue, and I think Ron Paul probably has a lot more on his plate, and to really ridicule him for not standing up and saying every state should allow same sex marriage is just too critical - it would be different, however, if he openly expressed a refusal to allow same sex marriage.

  11. You obviously haven't delved into why he "sided" with the south in the civil war. First off, every other civilized nation on Earth got rid of slavery without killing 600,000 of its own citizens. Also, the southern states were more in favor of state's rights, whereas the north wanted more federal power.

  12. "You obviously haven't delved into why he "sided" with the south in the civil war."

    Yeah; for the purposes of this blog, I haven't. That was intentionally, transparently, explicitly, and repeatedly stated throughout the course of this post and comments thread. I wonder why you would ignore that.