5 Reasons Ron Paul is an Utterly Mad Cunt
So, I've had a few people, both friends and site visitors, ask me what I think of Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president and Texas congressman. Up until I looked into it a little, I simply thought he was so far off the "viable candidate" radar screen, I didn't really care … but prompted by the repeated queries, I did a little research. And I can now safely say I think he's an utterly mad cunt, and would be downright dangerous if he had a chance in hell of winning the Presidency.
Why? Well, naturally I'm more than happy to tell you. Here are 5 reasons Ron Paul is a fucking total nutjob, with a very tenuous grasp on reality:
- He opposes NAFTA, because it is "managed" trade, not actual "free" trade. First off, NAFTA was shit to begin with, and not because it didn't go far enough. The only way I can imagine anyone supporting completely unregulated trade is if they a) never lived in a town where the entire economy depended on a corporate manufacturing facility that shut down and moved overseas in search of easier profits, and had either b) never heard of the gross human rights abuses that go on in third world nations at the hands of those same corporations, or c) were psychopathic enough not to give a shit.
So ACME Manufacturing shuts down their factory in Middleville, America, costing hundreds of families their primary source of income. They then open a plant in Mexico, or China or Southeast Asia where they employ women and children at pay rates an American dog couldn't live on, for 12-16 hour shifts with nothing resembling health, safety or environmental standards in place, and then turn around and sell their fucking overpriced crap back to us at the same price as before … and he thinks that's a good thing?! What a godawful selfish, soulless fuck.
- He supports withdrawing from both NATO and the UN. I hate to break it to you folks, but there are more important issues in the world today than preserving our national birthright to fuck over anyone, anywhere, anyhow we choose. The world is a pretty fucking politically complicated place, and the making (and following) of treaties is a reasonably good way of establishing a starting point to deal with it. I think humanity has done a pretty bang-up job throughout history of proving we fucking well can NOT play nice on an international level, without making damn sure we're all signing the same contracts and watching each other's backs for violations … but somehow, taking the US's current reputation as a self-centered renegade nation a step further by thumbing our noses at the very organizations we helped found to prevent that sort of crap is supposed to be an improvement.
Perhaps his only saving grace on this point is that he also supports non-interventionist foreign policy. Which would be necessary if we pulled out of NATO and the UN … because damn fucking sure nobody else would have our backs then.
- He supports abolishing the federal income tax, and then balancing the budget by axing most government agencies. OK, don't get me wrong, I think the current federal tax system in the US is well fucked. But there is reform, and then there is stupidity. In all fairness, this is a major point of philosophical contention: what role should the Federal government have in the nation it governs … and I come down firmly on the side that believes human society is a collective, rather than individual, effort. I believe in collectively-supported education and social services. I believe a nation is only as strong as its weakest members, and it is in everyone's best interest to ensure that large numbers of people do not "fall through the cracks" … especially children. I have yet to figure out a way to help children without also helping their parents, although there are certainly cases where I'd like to.
Also, I think trying to say critical healthcare and financial support should be left to private charity (or state agencies) is a pile of utter bullshit intended to shine over the underlying disgusting selfishness of the idea of abolishing social services agencies. You think your tax dollars are going to support lazy people? Ask those folks who's communities have collapsed in the absence of that factory that moved to China how lazy they are …
- He wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is a bit ironic, as Roe v. Wade was framed as a question of individual privacy rights, and you'd think a Libertarian-leaning politician wouldn't have a moment's hesitation on that one. But Mr. Paul is also stridently anti-abortion … so the only way he could see to weasel that in to his platform and maintain a thin veneer of consistency is to insist it's a "state's rights" issue. Abortion not a "state's rights" issue, it is a personal rights issue … overturning Roe v. Wade would have no lesser effect than banning abortion throughout the Bible Belt and most midwestern states, and would effect primarily lower income women who couldn't afford to travel to a civilized state to have the procedure done.
Funny, once again we seem to have come to an underlying "fuck the poor" issue, haven't we? Yes we have. And fuck the poor women hardest of all … then deny them any social services assistance to raise the unwanted kids they're stuck with after they're done getting fucked.
- He believes private property rights are the answer to environmental regulation. Yeah, that'll work. That'll work just great. Timber companies can buy up our former national forests, and clear cut all the crap they haven't been able to get to yet. Oil companies can do the same … kiss the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge goodbye. And a good chunk of the Gulf Coast waters as well. Mining companies and cattle ranchers can have a heyday with the watersheds in the Western US. If any chemical companies want to build particularly noxious toxic waste dumps, they can just put big fences around them … out of sight, out of mind. And when people in the area start developing horrendous cancers and birth defects, and their property values have gone to hell, the company can just buy up their houses at cut rate prices and move them out of town.
Or is that not what the intended effect is? Because I'd really love to see anywhere on earth where corporations had free rein to do whatever they liked with their own land, and didn't utterly gut the environment on the altar of quarterly profits. Funny … it's once again the poorest people, who can't afford to own property who get screwed hardest with the ol' barbed wire condom of liberty.
So yeah … all in all, the Ron Paul thing turned out to be about as horrible as I thought it would when I heard the word Libertarian used in his general direction. I still can't decide whether it's all a sign of horribly psychopathic selfishness, or a blindingly ignorant faith in the goodness of man … but yes. I can now say with great conviction, Ron Paul is an utterly mad cunt.
See, there will NEVER be a society without poor people. No matter what. The rich want their fucking posh hotels, and nobody is going to offer to pay the maids $30,000 a year to live a decent life, no matter how hard they work. The well-to-do want their four star restaurants, but someone will always be in the back room washing their dishes. Someone will be minding the cash register at the gas station. Someone will be ringing up your total at the grocery store. Someone will be losing their job when their company "downsizes" to free up money to build that new factory in Indonesia. People in Indonesia will be working for pocket change to replace them. Someone, somewhere will be filling all those shit jobs, and not getting health insurance benefits with them. They will be bankrupted and lose their homes when one of their children is injured in a car accident, or one of their parents gets cancer … and according to Ron Paul, and his Libertarian ilk, those people better fucking go to church, and have a damn generous church at that, because it's not the government's job to give a shit.
And if that's the kind of world you want to live in, may I kindly suggest you pool your private resources, build yourselves a fucking space ship, and launch your selfish, short-sighted, brain damaged asses into another solar system. You'd be doing the rest of us, with some functioning sense of humanity left, a huge fucking favor.
You are clearly a bunch of functionally illiterate morons, because you're wrong on every single issue you address!
21st November 2007 at 3:35 am | permalink |You actually make some valid points. His NAFTA and UN agreements are pretty weak. I think what bothers him is the idea of having to hold to treaties we didn't sign, because a majority of countries did.
I agree with you that education should be a community funded thing. You have to have education to make a semi-fair capitalistic society Libertarians base everything on. But how much good has fedral regulation and funding done? Schools have gotten so much worse since the feds got involved.
you also make good point about reserves, with a few omissions.In order to keep making a profit, a timber company is going to plant a tree for every one it cuts down, like most do on their land now. Secondly, the waste dump, like a coal power plant, is going to be dumping crap (Radiation, in this case) into air that is not their own. Just like dumping garbage into someone elses land is illegal, dumping pollutants, especially dangerous ones like CO2 and radiation, into other peoples air is a crime, with stiff penalties.
21st November 2007 at 6:00 am | permalink |Please, do tell us who is your pick.
I'll take nutty Paul any day over the corporate controlled candidates.
21st November 2007 at 6:01 am | permalink |Dear Alphab,
1. Look around the factories have already left. Living in Northern USA has taught me that NAFTA is a failure. You think we should continue with a policy that has seen the big three percentage of the market fall from 70% to 60% in ten years? All that cheap labor in Mexico has gotten us less market share? Do some research.
2. NATO While I very much like democracy, I would never go as far as judging it superior. The first two world wars made NATO possible
because of military might. Now it serves to make many countries feel powerless. NATO is propaganda and a farce for US military might. Our recent military history has proven we should not extend this far. No one like a meddler.
3. The federal government is bloated and most people if given the truth how their money is spent would gladly withhold federal taxes. A balanced budget seems to work for 90% of the business in America, why not for our government? I cannot comment on your open ended statement that RP wants to close most government agencies. Specifics will get specific responses.
4. Ron Reagan is on record as opposing abortion. Other than limiting how medicaid could be spent not much was done. The Supreme Court decides not the President. At the least Ron Paul is honest. He delivered thousands of babies! If he had different views just so he could pander, you would still be attacking him.
5. How far off base can you get?
Get this. Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability.– I guess you want the EPA to continue to be the absent minded, corporate influenced shill it is. SEE Depleted Uranium manufactured in Savanna River Kill and upstate NY, Ground Zero etc. Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England. Mr. Paul has a long voting record of protecting the environment and holding those who pollute accountable. Many states would like the ability to throw off the constraints of the EPA (see Nevada). We live in a highly polluted country. We arrived here partially because states could not overrule the EPA.
I gather from your filthy rants you want the status quo continued.
You like to simplify and swear.
Bad habits. When you say people wanted your opinion, I do not believe they wanted this. I would be shocked if you spent more than fifteen minutes putting your trash laced thoughts down.
Anybody who reads this should take it with many grains of salt.
Alphab needs a sandwich and a nap.
Chris
21st November 2007 at 9:26 am | permalink |@alex: Thanks for your detailed rebuttal! :-)
@taylor: If, indeed, there are regulations in place to prevent any contamination of airspace or groundwater, that position becomes somewhat more believable. However, replanting trees in exchange for clear cutting a hundreds-of-years-old forest ecosystem is hardly a 'like for like' replacement.
@Chris: Regarding NAFTA, I do NOT think we should continue with NAFTA as a trade policy. I do not support "free trade", in equal parts because of the repercussions of free trade on the "cheap labor" being mistreated in other countries because of lax trade regulation, and its effects on the US workforce. I could give a shit about the corporations' market share … but it seems like if we had more living wage jobs remaining in the US, US citizens might be able to afford to buy more stuff from the US companies paying them those living wages.
Regarding NATO, I agree that the US military is grossly overstepping any and all reasonable bounds of military intervention currently … however, I don't see what that has to do with NATO.
Regarding balancing the budget, I have no problems with balancing the budget. I support a balanced budget. I do not, however support balancing the budget by eliminating the income tax and eliminating large numbers of government programs. I don't know where you got the idea I was against a balanced budget!
Regarding abortion … what's your point here?
Regarding environmental regulation, NO, I do not want the status quo continued. I'd like to see much stronger environmental protections in this country, and I think the EPA is a corporate-contaminated waste of office space. However, I think using private property rights as the foundation of environmental regulation is madness.
May I respectfully suggest that before critiquing someone's viewpoints, you make certain you're not putting words in their mouth based on your own heavily biased assumptions?
But mostly, I'd like to say thanks (honestly!) for actually taking the time to write such a lengthy response. However many incorrect assumptions you made about my opinions, it's a damn sight better comment than ol' alex left. :-)
21st November 2007 at 2:51 pm | permalink |Oh, sorry for forgetting you, me …
Who do I support? As usual, nobody who has any chance in hell of winning. But if I had to pick my favorite back-of-the-pack wingnut, I'd pick Kucinich over Paul in a freaking heartbeat.
21st November 2007 at 2:52 pm | permalink |You are profoundly ignorant of economics. You should learn something. I was going to take the time to educate you, but I didn't care that much.
I understand that you think you have the right to impose your values on me. You have a right to think so. You just don't have a right to do it.
Bye now.
21st November 2007 at 8:31 pm | permalink |It appears there is another Chris reading your blogs. I most definitely do not wish to be confused with him so I'll change my tag. Regardless – Kucinich is definitely my pick. I am a little disturbed myself at how much support Ron Paul is getting, even if it fails to be enough. A lot of people have been working the Ron Paul corner around me and I was a bit excited to see what he had to offer at first. But almost like anything, get beneath the surface and shit just gets ugly.
22nd November 2007 at 7:46 am | permalink |@rich: See, the funny thing is, no matter who is in power, they're imposing their values on someone. That's just the way it works.
And thanks for not bothering to "educate" me … because I think it's the Libertarians who don't understand the way *real world* economics work.
@AC: I do agree with Ron Paul on quite a lot of points … but man, the ones I *don't* agree with him on are BIG ones. And it disturbs me that so many people are willing to overlook them (or actually agree with them, in the worst case).
23rd November 2007 at 6:13 pm | permalink |ron paul would destroy medicare, medicade, schip, all regulations that keep the corporations from running the country.. and just tons of other shit that I'm far too tired/sick to list. Even if he isn't the "best" of the republican candidates, that's still like being the nicest smelling pile of shit.
I'd honestly take the worst Democrat over the worst Republican any day after the bs we've had to endure with bush in office.
Because I'd prefer someone being totally useless and spineless to ACTIVELY fucking up the country.
30th November 2007 at 3:03 am | permalink |@david: See, that's the sad thing … I too would take the worse Democrat over any Republican I've seen lately.
But "the lesser of two evils" hardly seems like a fair choice. :-(
30th November 2007 at 3:43 am | permalink |I should have said "even if he IS the "best" of the republican candidates" which, personally, I don't know. All the piles of shit smell about the same to me. But someone people think he is.
It is sad, but that's the only choice we have. I wish we had a dozen viable political parties.. but.. bah. Even if their only purpose was to get the Democrats off their ass and fighting like they should be.
30th November 2007 at 6:26 pm | permalink |Nice post. Ron Paul's positions are idiotic and dangerous.
To the poster who said Ron Paul is the only non-corporate choice, what about Kucinich?
2nd December 2007 at 12:05 pm | permalink |@davidgx: Yeah, I'd love to see a dozen political parties here … who knows, maybe one of them might really be viable. ;-)
@charlie: "idiotic and dangerous" That's a nice, succinct way of putting it. hehe
4th December 2007 at 2:01 pm | permalink |f*cking c*nts
6th December 2007 at 10:55 am | permalink |because there are far too many of them in this world.
And unfortunately, are one of them!!
I totally agree with Alex Libman!!
@jim: I assume you meant to say "And unfortunately, you are one of them!!"
I notice you and Alex seem to be on about the same mental level, judging from your rebuttals. I bow before your clearly superior intellects.
6th December 2007 at 4:43 pm | permalink |[...] 5 Reasons Ron Paul is an Utterly Mad Cunt [...]
7th December 2007 at 2:49 am | trackback from ron paul natoRon Paul is not against regulated trade. He simply wants the federal government or foreign powers out of it.
12th December 2007 at 7:24 pm | permalink |[...] of doing. I’m endorsing all the got-damn candidates. I'll endorse Ron Paul, even though he has some positions Napoleon would downplay. I’ll endorse Kucinich. I'll stump for McCain. I’ll campaign for [...]
12th December 2007 at 11:08 pm | trackback from Does my endorsement look like a bitch? Then why you trying to fuck it like a bitch? by Samuel L. Jackson on News Groper - Fake Hollywood Celebrity Blogs, Bad Ass Humor, Funny Snakes on a Plane Satire@alexander: Well who, pray tell, is going to regulate it then? Regulations are meaningless without enforcement, and enforcement is meaningless without teeth.
13th December 2007 at 3:59 pm | permalink |Can you explain me the logic behind supporting social security and not supporting NAFTA?
You claim jobs will be lost by americans and go to mexicans and chinese, isn't this selfish?? How is this different from "each one for his own"??
You cannot claim a "holier-than-thou" argument to drop it in its tracks a minute later. Either you want the best for the human kind or not, regardless of geographical differences.
There is no difference between protecting the person's liberties (Ron Paul's views) and a society, even if it has over 300 million people (your argument). With your mentality, countries act selfishly not unlike the individual under Ron Paul's proposal. Why is this different?? Somehow it is right for societies to be selfish?? If so, how large a society should it be?? Because clearly a Multi-national corporation should not (I infer this from your opinions)
At least Ron Paul and all other "libertarians" are honest to themselves. The every man for himself argument, though selfish (and who said this is wrong, btw??), works in the long run.
The way I see it, it is not inequity we must combat, but poverty. As long as the poor troughout the world are capable of living a decent life with some kind of commodities, they should not be offended by some other guy earning a million times as much as they are.
14th December 2007 at 7:11 pm | permalink |You FAIL at the last part… In his interview he clearly states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is responsible for upkeep of the environment. Perhaps you should try actually following up on the headlines you read, because clearly that's all you have done.
14th December 2007 at 7:32 pm | permalink |@robert: "Can you explain me the logic behind supporting social security and not supporting NAFTA?"
Social services benefit individuals, NAFTA hurts individuals and benefits corporations.
And the corporations who move their manufacturing facilities out of the US aren't doing any huge favors to the countries they move to … generally, they pick areas with poorer environmental regulations, and little-to-no worker's protection regulations.
@bryan: His website, on the other hand, clearly states, "Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards."
17th December 2007 at 3:30 pm | permalink |Have you been hanging out with Wonkette lately? Srsly.
4th January 2008 at 7:53 am | permalink |@becca: Fabulous! :-D
Although I think one commenter there summed up my thoughts rather well:
4th January 2008 at 2:44 pm | permalink |You have a lot of clever analyzing going on here. Lets not forget that at least Ron Paul addresses the issues with a solution. And have you seen the people who are supporting him? I will tell you this, there are some people on that list that know a lot more about economics and foreign policy than anyone on this forum. For all of you "conservatives" who want to be all over the world, disobeying our very own constitution, it is you who will bring this country down with your buying into the lies. And we're not crazy if the conspiracies are true. People used to say Skull and Bones wasn't real, now they just try to ignore it. See ya on the other side when you wake up my friend.
8th January 2008 at 1:41 pm | permalink |@phil: Well, there are also some other people out there who know a lot more about economics and foreign policy than anyone on this blog, who agree Ron Paul is a fucking fruit loop.
I'm sticking with them, thanks.
8th January 2008 at 4:39 pm | permalink |I think this post helps confirm the utter stupidity, or brilliance of its writer. If it was intentionally poorly informed, then it is stupid. If this is instead a clever ruse to highlight Ron Paul's obvious leadership characteristics then it is utterly brilliant. Kudos are given if he latter is so, a library card and the ability to uncork heads from own ass if not.
24th January 2008 at 7:11 pm | permalink |@MCEsheronUSpolitics: "obvious leadership characteristics"?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
24th January 2008 at 7:23 pm | permalink |1. NAFTA is going to be used to forge a North American Union, destroying the Constitution in all but name. With the economy strengthened in the ways he has put forward, the dollar being stronger etc- people will have more money working in the US & far greater buying power abroad. The others want to keep borrowing from abroad.
2. The UN & NATO can pass unconstitutional regulations. They speak not for the Constitution, nor always for the best interests of the US, nor are the majority elected, or do the public generally get a say.
Nuff said!
3. You think the government needs to get BIGGER then? (Like the other candidates want..) When the economy is doing so dire perhaps a real change is needed, the bureaucracy is out of control pure & simple, and this makes the government an inefficient monster of unaccountability.
4. I think taxing people less is a good start to helping the less well-off! 'The poor' wouldn't be such an issue if the Fed and the like didn't stick its nose into everything, and the private banks controlling the interest rates, causing inflation etc, all help to wipe out the middle class, ensnaring the majority in a net of debt.
5. Of course he would have regulations to protect the people, it's so naíve to think that he wouldn't. The other candidates are all donated tens of millions at a time from corporations, so who do you think they want to win!?
Calling us braindead when people were voting for Romney super-tuesday, thinking that he wasn't just a tool of the neo-con core, now he's quit, having a knock at Ron Pauls war stance and effectively handing the thing to McCain QUICKLY in a strategic & dishonest move so the neo-cons can try for another 'War-President'.
Those who vote for the other corporate tools are the braindead ones who basically want a 3rd Dubya term.
9th February 2008 at 5:52 am | permalink |@kenshao: 1. I can only assume the reason you people keep missing the fact that I said I don't support NAFTA is because as soon as someone attacks Ron Paul, you all start to see red, and lose your reading comprehension skills.
2. The UN and NATO exist for a wider purpose than kissing the US's ass. Of course they don't put our best interests first … our "best interests" don't always have the best interests of the rest of the fucking world at heart.
3. I didn't say anything about the government getting bigger. If I had my say, the government would end up smaller, and STILL be able to accomplish more good for the citizenry and the world as a whole.
4. I think we could do a fantastic job of helping the poor while taxing people the same. Or instituting a flat, no exemptions, tax system which automatically excluded collection from people living at or below the poverty line.
5. I don't particularly care for the massive corporate whore candidates either. That's why I liked Kucinich, and why I'll hopefully be able to end up voting for Obama. (A large percentage of his campaign contributions came from individual donors, in amounts of $200 or less.)
I notice you didn't have anything to say about the Roe v. Wade issue. In case you missed the actual point of item #4, it was Roe v. Wade, not the tax system.
9th February 2008 at 9:59 pm | permalink |I don't endorse Ron Paul, but I will say this, our Income Tax, from a legal standpoint, is unconstitutional. Federal Reserve is a private organization and not government run.
25th February 2008 at 1:37 am | permalink |@Wildekarrde: Well, it was originally unconstitutional, until they passed an amendment that allowed the federal income tax. I don't recall off the top of my head which amendment it is, but they did make it legal.
25th February 2008 at 2:45 pm | permalink |Hmm.
24th December 2009 at 2:25 am | permalink |Would I be correct to assume that you have leaning towards liberalism and/or the democratic party?
Well, scanned over the comments, and what do you know? You revealed exactly what I suspected. The fact that I can tell who you affliate with that easily, says something. You have an utter lack of understanding of the Libertarian party, hun. Good try, though. I'd take the time to exlain the concepts so that you can better understand, but there are too many others with less ignorance than yourself. Yes, I'm lazy and would rather do as little explaining as possible to those who aren't as dimwitted as yourself.
Before you write another article on Libertarians, try actually understanding the concepts of being a Libertarian, rather than making your own assumptions. Your representation of the Libertarian party is completely inacurrate and full of shallow thoughts and insights. Maybe if you actually UNDERSTOOD the concepts, you wouldn't be attacking as you are. However, if you honestly think these concepts are true, then I'd be with you in an anti-Libertarian rage – fortunately, you lack an understanding in all of your article. Sad that you misrepresent Libertarian ideals so well, though.
24th December 2009 at 2:30 am | permalink |Also, please allow me to say just this last thing:
You are an eloquent writer.
You are obviously an intellectual.
However, others would take you more seriously if you spoke on a more mature level and dropped the obsentites. Honestly, it makes people want to write you off.
I'm telling you this, because I feel like you could actually put up some VERY good arguments for debate [a sometimes rare quality], however, you hinder yourself with such regressions.
Another point I forgot to mention [damn forgetting to proof read!] is that Libertarians do not want to be FORCED to help someone. That is completely different and irrelevant to the fact of if they WANT to help someone or DO help others. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. It's not selfish. I do not want to be forced to help another, but by god, I can bet you I'd help whoever it was by my own free will and compassion. Forcing charity demeans the term and act in itself. Charity should be out of compassion – not obligation.
Little tid bit of a story to better illustrate this point: Ten years ago, my family's house exploded. Yes, exploded, completely leveled it. We were all severely burned and spent MONTHS in the hospital. I, myself, have had nearly 30 surgeries, and will be getting a few more in the near future. I digress, when we were left with nothing, no material possessions, and not even each other to lean on [as we were too ill to even see each other] a large group stepped in. The majority affliated with the Libertarian party, and some were anarchists. Those that could give money, did. Those that could not spare money, gave time. More than any other group or organization, more than any other political group, these guys stepped in. As a little girl, scared, alone, and with no family to even contact and with parents in the hospital that I also could not contact, these strangers showed me more love than I've ever known. The best part? They did it out of the kindness of their hearts, not because they were forced to or felt obligated to.
No, I can bet you that any one of them would not have wanted to be FORCED to help us – however, that has nothing to do with whether they actually wanted to and did.
24th December 2009 at 2:46 am | permalink |