"Leave Ron Paul Alone"
By Ace of Spades Posted in 2008 | celebrity guest bloggers | Ron Paul — Comments (87) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Please welcome Ace O'Spades to RedState. -JE
Stolen from the Jawa scavengers off a tip from Junkyard Blog.
I really don't get it. I liked George W. Bush quite a bit when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. I did. Seriously.
I know people hold Ronald Reagan in rather high esteem.
But I have never in my life witnessed the sort of zealotry that attaches some to Ron Paul.
Can anyone explain this to me? Why have so many otherwise sane-seeming people gone completely bug**** crazy over this flake?
I wasn't just tossing a cheap joke into the last post. Seriously, honestly: Let us put aside indelicate questions about Ron Paul's possible anti-semitism, racism, etc. Just let's leave that be for a moment.
Can Ron Paul's defenders please justify voting for a man who appears, based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of paranoid schizophrenia?
If Art Bell told you he really had some great ideas about cutting the federal bureaucracy and returning to "constitutional governance," would you guys all flock to him, too?
Read on.
I don't know about you all, but "not google-eyed bat**** crazy" is one of my higher-priority qualifications for a president. Yes, I realize it's not actually explicitly listed as a qualification in the Constitution, but I'm comfortable unconstitutionally imposing this test on a would-be leader nevertheless.
Blimps and Nazis and maniacs and money that tracks you and a secret cabal of all-controlling international bankers. If this weren't all too real, it might make for a neat pulp fiction story. Maybe Doc Savage and the Trilateralists of Terror.
Money that spies on you. Money. That spies on you.
I realize if someone is capable of caring for themselves, we don't usually call them insane. We call them "eccentric." But honestly, if you guys heard a homeless dude spouting this sort of over-the-moon blather would you say, "Oh yeah, Stinky Ted here makes some good points about fiat money and the fed's plan to track my every movement with their newfangled SpyBacks" or would you just avert your eyes and hope he doesn't eat somebody someday?
Why are such florid hallucinations suddenly sensible when they come from Ron -- ahem, Doctor -- Paul?
Is any of this humbuggery any less crazy than UFOs or Bigfoot or Atlantis? What's the limit here? What level of psychological, ahem, "quirks" are you willing to tolerate?
Ace blogs at Ace of Spades HQ. More of his thoughts on Ron Paul, blimps, and money that tracks you can be seen here.
http://www.modernconservative.com/
We have been dealing with this for a while, including even one tacit death-threat in the comment thread here.
We don't believe there's any place for this madness in the GOP, as we said on Wednesday. We were also pleased and amused to see the exact same sentiment echoed here on Redstate on the same day, and in much the same way! We took note of that similarity in a follow-up yesterday.
The FreeRepublic threads on all of these posts were amazing! There were lots of defenders of our points, of course, but the Paul supporters were, by-and-large, totally crazed. They appeared pathologically unable to see the distinction I was making between principled support of libertarian positions and Ron Paul's version, which just happens to come along with a side-dish of racism, conspiracy theory-nutjobbery, blame-America-firstism, and generalized lunacy!
would fit that category. The main reason Paul has the supporters he does is, quite simply, he loves this country.
I don't believe he's a paranoid schizophrenic in the traditional sense. However, he may exhibit symptoms of it because he is afflicted with another medical condition: senility. Most people use the term as a perjorative but there is an actual condition of such and I believe Paul is suffering from it. It typically has other underlying causes which, when you're seemingly healthy on the outside, tends to get overlooked.
No, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Sympathy is not a good reason to cast a vote in his direction. He deserves respect for the love he exhibits toward this country, right or wrong in his opinion. In addition, there are times when the opponent should be looked at as a fellow human being. It's real easy to beat up on him because of the things he says and does. However, how will you feel about it if there is, in fact, a medical reason for it?
But last night, it struck me hard. Watching him was painful. He reminded me of my uncle Joe who suffered from that affliction and acted much like Paul is acting now for the first few years of it. As it progressed, he became increasingly paranoid and delusional. He tried to kill my aunt, one of his daughters and two grandson under the mistaken belief that they were someone else entirely. There are a number of underlying causes for it but the most prevalent is arteriosclerosis. He might be as healthy as a horse from the outside considering his slim build. He'd also be the last to acknowledge he has a problem.
No, it's not a reason to vote for him. But... It might be a reason to have some sympathy considering the treatment he is getting from the media.
Alcoa stock always goes up when RonPaul™ speaks
he has the hope of America on his side, he seems pretty much a candidate for thorazine.
About how we need to leave Lord Algore alone when AGW starts to more dramatically implode.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?ex=1356843600&en=b...
I did not realize that there is a technical term for AGW - I thought 'con' or 'hype' was adequate.
Welcome, Ace! I've followed your feeds for a little while already.
Spot on. I have been waging my own personal counter-offensive against this particular brand of crazy.
Religious zealotry is always dangerous especially when your idol is 5 beers short of sixpack.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
For a country of our stature to allow people like Ron Paul to muck up the serious debate of a Presidential primary. It's fine to allow people to jump in, to get their fifteen minutes of spotlight, but at some point, the curtains got to come down. No question, the likes of Biden, Dodd, and Richardson added some maturity to the Dem debate, but they were gone by NH, or shortly thereafter. Why, in the name of Ronald Regan, is the GOP allowing this moron to continue embarassing himself and the party. Most countries have a sixty day window for elections; this country has pretty much embraced a forty-eight month window, which now means there will always be people running for President, ad infinitum.
Just to be totally clear, we're all on board that this was a satirical take on the "Leave Britney Alone" video, right? Just made a funny intro to make fun of the paul crazies? No one was suggesting that that was an actual video?
Also, how cool is it to see Ace of Spades here. Pretty soon I'm not going to have use my favorites menu anymore. Everyone will be here.
absentee
| 
| 
| 
He was dead serious about the "Leave Britney Alone" stuff, then hit on the hosts. He had total command of the interview.
I thought this Ron Paul video was hysterical, but I DO think his suppporters are on the flaky side.
Welcome Ace of Spades! Great to see you here. Gotta love that Chris Crocker take off. Perfect for Ron Paul.
I think it's because Paul offers what is the easy way out. Walk away from your troubles in foreign policy. It was great to see his butt handed to him tonight when he became the laughingstock of the debate.
I only wish that someone had brought up what happened with the Shah of Iran in the session on Musharrif.
Again, it's great to see the Ace of Spades here.
Hey moron- welcome to Redstate!
I'm surprised they let you in here. Rumor is, when you came over to RedState, the average IQ of both AOS and RedState dropped significantly.
That being said, I'm glad you're hear.
A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
LOLOL!!!
Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"
It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22
Ron Paul is the more radical Republican equivilent to Barack Obama (who between him and Hitlary is the lesser of 2 evils), anyway many of Ron Paul's supporters are normal people who want to show their commitment to a candidate they believe is right, I mean sure there are crazies in the crowd but there are crazies in the crowds of all the candidates, it's just the crazies who follow Ron Paul are more vocal. I myself think Ron Paul is a better choice over Gouliani who cant stop saying '9/11' and seems to be fixed on this ideology that terrorists just attack America for fun. What I think this country needs most is a more charismatic almost 'Ron Paul' minus of course some of the extremism and who has appeal to all Americans, basically a libertarian Barack Obama would be great.
Veritas vos liberabit - The truth will set you free
please. stop.
That's their game; we don't have to dignify it by playing it too.
Besides, I've always thought of Hillary as more of a Central American dictator .... you know, one who aspires for the big time but is really small potatoes.
Evita.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
the opposition by comparing them to Hitler. We don't do that here.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Maybe Mike Pence? Where have all the libertarians gone? Mark Sanford, start building up that resume...
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
You wrote:
"Can Ron Paul's defenders please justify voting for a man who appears, based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of paranoid schizophrenia?"
Based on what evidence? You might not agree that we are in debt or that we should not nation build, but how does that make one mentally unstable? I really want to know your logic on this.
What about not having the same opinion as you, makes someone paranoid schizophrenic?
I'm in perfect understanding of your disagreeing with positions on issues but still having a hard time understanding the ad hominems.
...graph in the post:
If Art Bell told you he really had some great ideas about cutting the federal bureaucracy and returning to "constitutional governance," would you guys all flock to him, too?
Again: it's the man, not the Constitutionism, the fiscal responsibility, or the limited governance.
If you're *really* conservative-libertarians, just pick a better messenger next time.
"based on what evidence." I haven't seen him say anything crazy beyond his monetary policy.
You're free to hate him, but I've read several people here lately saying that the libertarian wing should choose a better messenger. No one is going to sound sane by calling for the abolition of the IRS, or saying FDR was a commie, or that drugs and racial discrimination should be legalized.
Of course what really has people upset is that we've invested so much emotion fighting the anti-war scum that we can't take it when a Republican wants to retreat.
his monetary policy? Obviously you missed, or ignored, his comments on foreign policy. RonPaul's foreign policy is way beyond "wants to retreat".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Let's say that I read the Constitution and tremble. Let's say that I look at the 1st Amendment and boggle at the radical ideas regarding Liberty contained therein. Let's say I look at the 2nd and my jaw drops at the thought that a well-armed citizenry is necessary for a free state. I go on through the Amendments and hit the Ninth which says "Oh, just because it ain't mentioned in here, doesn't mean it isn't a Right too" which asks the government to presume Liberty on the part of the citizenry... and then I read the 10th which goes on to say to the Federal Government: "Oh, if we didn't explicitly give you jurisdiction over it? It's the jurisdiction of the States."
Let's say my response to the Constitution is one of awe and reverence.
I know, I should be considered a nut because my immediate response is not "we need something about abortion in there" or "we need something about a vigorous foreign policy in there" or "we need something about how people born on this soil aren't necessarily citizens in there" (yes, I know, before you write the response to that last part, please assume irony before ignorance).
Assuming that I am one of the nutballs who reads the Constitution as one would read a letter from a lover...
Who would you offer to me as a candidate?
And, if you don't have someone who is above a certain bar, why should I not instead vote for the candidate who is promising me the biggest slice from the public treasury?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Again: it's the man, not the Constitutionism, the fiscal responsibility, or the limited governance.
If you're *really* conservative-libertarians, just pick a better messenger next time.
he sold out Libertarians as well as conservative-libertarians by allowing freaks into the Libertarian movement he gives us a bad name
Ron Paul's message of limited government is obviously a good one, though some of his ideas of what to rollback in govt. are highly debatable. I think the anti war left and fringe anarchist groups are the ones that seem to prop Ron Paul's campaign up. You don't seem to hear a lot of people talking about his views on the Austrian Economics more than you hear about his criticisms of American Foreign Policy.
He wouldn't want the fuzz to see the grow operation he's got going on in his Mom's basement. Of course, the black helicopters have probably already been dispatched anyway, since he has publicly outed himself as a Ron Paul supporter.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
In 2004 the tone of the debate and the tenor of the Democrats was a crazed hatred for Bush. I assumed Bush was striking a nerve with people who use abortion as birth control, as he was threatening a self centered lifestyle. It gave me confidence that Bush was doing something right.
I see the same response on the Republican side of the house against Ron Paul. The tenor of this post I am replying to is a perfect example of how the Democrats responded to Bush in 00 and 04. It makes me think that Paul like Bush is striking some sort of nerve and is making me suspicious of my party.
The tenor of this post belongs on Marcos' site, not a site that represents responsibility. The tenor of this post will create a third party candidate and cause people to vote for him which will put a Hussein/Clinton back in the white house.
Door's over there if you don't like our justified mockery of racist lunatic scumbags like Ron Paul.
And also: grow up. Hussein is Obama's middle name. I understand needling the Left by referencing it as part of the guy's full name, although I personally think that that particular game's at least slightly uncouth; but don't play out-and-out attempt-to-bait games here. Do you understand?
I expect a yes or no answer to that question, by the way. In your next post.
Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The suspicion of your party should be wtf we allow Ron Paul to debate on our side. He's the favorite candidate of "Dennis in the sky with aliens". Theres the green party for this offbeat type of horse cr[*]p. Or more likely theres the Nazi party. He'd do 1000% better if he disowned the white supremacist and truthers who make up his vocal backing and if the people backing him weren't confrontational a[*]ses that loot the world with their asinine ideas, people who debate not by showing facts but by showing "evidence" made by fellow supporters and then responding by saying our evidence is all from the government so its wrong. Make a true point, don't bullsh[*]t the country by putting up 1,000 earmarks and saying "but I voted against them." Ron paul and his supporters need to grow a pair and learn proper debate instead of the Left Wing tactics of trying to drown out those who prove you horribly wrong.
[Language, people. Language. - Moe Lane]
I really doubt that he'll run as an independent. He has the cash, the fanatics and the fatalism, but what purpose would it serve from his perspective? If anything, his candidacy has only made average people hate small-government conservatism even more.
Ron Paul did not make average people hate small government. Unconstitutional handouts made many people hate small government.
But then, I have PDS (Paul Derangement Syndrome) as bad or worse than anyone I've seen.
It's not "striking a nerve;" it's that I get around on the internets a lot and these people really ARE bug**** crazy. They're cultists. I don't even give RP credit for those things he's supposedly "right" about, because even the worst people are right about some things some of the time. It's what he and his supporters are wrong about that's so objectionable. And believe me, there's a LOT that's wrong--I've done a whole lot of digging. There's a reason why he's supported by the dregs of society: his shrieking about "liberty" mirrors the rhetoric of his extreme (and I do mean extreme) right/anarchist supporters.
I will not rest until every last white supremacist, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier, troofer/conspiracy theorist, and militia member is unceremoniously thrown out of the GOP and back into the filthy underbelly of the internets where he or she belongs.
Our tent may be big, but it need not be THAT big. I don't want those scum ever identifying as "Republicans," and I don't want paleolibertarians (not "libertarians," PALEOlibertarians), anarcho-capitalists, or Birchers to be mainstreamed, just as I don't want Marxism mainstreamed. EVER.
We are a conservative party, a moderate party, even at times a centrist party. We ARE NOT a party of extremists or psychotics.
P.S. Hi Ace! I hang out here too because it's mostly an RP-free zone. ;)
---
Beth
There's a percent of Paul supporters who are just insane. The "truthers", anarchists, racists, anti-government, etc.
I still think there is a percent that just lean libertarian. There isn't a candidate running this year that you can really say is small government and fiscally conservative. That wing of the GOP has really been silent for awhile now, and Paul is essentially the only thing they have right now.
I think some rational conservatives (I actually know...one?) go to the Paul camp because they see a current field that has a host of flaws in dealing with domestic issues. Especially those who don't care all that much about foreign policy, or see it as somehow vastly less significant than domestic concerns.
Those of us in the mainstream of the party aren't all that different, in that sense. Many of us are willing to look away from our chosen candidate's flaws because we think they're so amazingly right on other issues:
-Mitt's backers are willing to avert their gaze from his evolving positions because they see someone who they think is now a consistent conservative, and one who certainly has a strong executive record.
-Giuliani supporters think their man's pro-choice and anti-gun record is outweighed by his fiscal and terrorism credentials, coupled with a pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges.
-McCainites look beyond his McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, G14, and anti-Bush tax cut record because of his honorable military service, national security credentials, and hard work against wasteful spending.
-Huckabee supporters are willing to support someone who's a complete fiscal liberal because of his social conservative credentials and personable demeanor.
-Those of us who support Fred don't really have anything to cover for, except, perhaps, a slow-moving campaign.
I actually doubt the more rational Ronulans truly believe that their man will win, but they're most likely interested in sending a message with their vote; perhaps one that wishes to draw attention back to the current path our party has taken away from limited government principles. The same would apply to those supporting the hypothetical Art Bell candidacy; they wouldn't actually have to deal with the possibility of victory, but would do it to highlight the issues they find lacking elsewhere.
I, personally, hope the other candidates glean some of his better economic points, especially on entitlement reform, where he and Fred seem to be the only two candidates willing to confront the beast. I'd actually consider voting for the man, to send the aforementioned message, if I weren't such a foreign policy hawk.
I'd welcome debate with rational Ronulans, if they actually exist on the internet.
I was going to jump in here, but you made the case for me, so it's really not necessary. I've said before that he won't win, even going so far as to say that Romney would be my pick among the top-tier and offering to vote for a "not Rudy" candidate if the anyone-but-Rudy forces had united by the time New York comes up. I've actually (gasp, especially for the Fredheads) expressed my differences with him. If one of the top five spent some serious time talking about how the government had essentially forgotten the Constitution, all except the parts that the Supreme Court has written anyway, I could easily be supporting someone else. Sadly, I haven't heard that from any of them. Worse yet, they're all ready to concede that the policy decisions that they will be able to make as President, rather than the applications of those decisions, are restrained by the dictators in robes.
I am not going to get into a Ron Paul debate, but your man is dead wrong on the most important issue and battle of our time - maybe of all time. It is almost like he hasn't been alive the past 10 years. This is not a "flaw", it is an outrageously dangerous way to look at the world in light of all that has happened.
His other positions range from interesting to impossible.
Ron Paul people are by and large in the fight for legal dope . They like dope . Lots of dope .
But this is one of those that just screams for an exeption to that rule.
Welcome to RedState, Ace. Good to have you and please come back soon and often.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
the proper respect that he and his legion of committed, prone-to-violen...er, passion followers deserve.
I also want the Klingon Empire and Borg Collective to undertand that it was Ace, not I, who failed to show proper fealty to their Ambassador to Earth.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I'll take the bait. One reason is that we're terrified of the financial mismanagement of our federal government. Here's an interesting Q&A by David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office:
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/tourqa.html
David was on Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs) and asserted that if the federal government were evaluated like a business it would be bankrupt.
The dollar is falling precipitously. Yet with these financial problems you have the democrats talking about single-payer healthcare. It's like they can't stop drinking the Koolaid.
Amongst the republicans only Fred talks much about the building financial crisis. RP is the only adamant about stopping vast amounts of government spending--particularly military spending.
The Fed is printing and borrowing money to fund the budget deficit. This has to continue to debase our currency.
So that leaves us with RP as our only horse in the race.
I don't think RP can win but I hope he can raise awareness. When he leaves the race I'm going to move my investment money into precious metals - without RP I will unashamedly bet against the dollar. That bet has been paying very well for the last couple years and unfortunately I suspect it will continue to pay well.
There ARE better candidates that want to cut gov't wasteful spending. You point out Fred and I belive Romney, McCain, and Rudy are also on board. Why not work for a candidate who can win instead of propping up this loon who's going nowhere?
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
The people voting on FNC Text Message Polls after the debate for Ron Paul are the same folks who voted for Sanjaya on American Idol...The people voting for RP are closet liberals and independents who want to see an embarassing candidate receive the Republican Nomination. The more noise they make, the longer this loon sticks around. Sure he has a few good ideas here and there, but this guy is a complete loon. Could you ever have imagined someone who would be a worse public speaker than W?
Mark my words...Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of the 2008 election cycle.
John Q. Citizen
and equally untrue.
"The people voting for RP are closet liberals and independents who want to see an embarassing candidate receive the Republican Nomination."
For the record, the candidates to whom I have contributed in the last couple of cycles are Tom Coburn, Bob Schaffer, Steve Laffey, Pat Toomey, Mark Kennedy, and yes, one Democrat, Bob Casey, Jr.
www.republicansenate.org
Typically, if I'm looking for economic insight... I avoid Glenn Beck like the plague. Some of his pronouncements on the economy actually make Ron Paul seem sort of sane.
The Fed is printing and borrowing money to fund the budget deficit. This has to continue to debase our currency.
I'll take the bait on this one... every country prints and borrows money. Even the EU... are you saying the Euro is being debased? (A quick check should disprove that, apart from the inflationary pressures in the economies of the Eurozone.) The difference is largely in the amount of perceived value exists in those currencies. The Euro has certain benchmarks that are put in place for long-term economic stability (even if they are rarely followed), to say nothing of the fact that the continued talk of an impending recession in the United States is spooking foreign currency investors as well.
Not that a gold standard would keep our currency from being debased, either... all it would take would be a mid-80's-style market correction in precious metals to make where the US dollar stands vis-a-vis the Euro look rather peachy in comparison. Not that I am an investment guru, but normally I would avoid putting money into a commodity that everybody is already noticing how far it has run up. Usually that means that the real significant returns have already occurred, and a new position would just expose yourself to, best-case scenario, a modest return, or a rather sudden shock to the system should a correction occur. Also, the dollar has by and large remained flat against major world currencies the past few months... I think the worst in the currency market is behind us.
If you want to be a pessimist, you are free to do so. Go ahead. I just think there isn't much money to be made from pessimism in the market right now.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
In every significant population of human beings, anywhere in the world at any place and time, there will be a not-insignificant cohort of individuals whose thought processes tend toward assembling pieces of "evidence" into an elaborate "story" that explains the paranoia and fear they experience on a daily basis. They lack an adequate capacity for reality testing, have extraordinarily vivid but unstable and erratic imaginations. Importantly, they also suffer from a breakdown in their internal mechanism for re-establishing a state of equanimity and sangfroid. Rather than learn the truth about the crazy things they believe and soothe themselves, they instead enjoy daisy-chaining scary thoughts together into an elaborate and ever-deepening tale of crisis. That is what allows them to believe crazy premises insinuating things like:
The monied elites of the United States and the rest of the world are meeting in a pagan ritual in the woods, dressing up in strange costumes with fires smoldering and strange drums beating in the background and worshipping a Giant Owl and celebrating the "Death of Care."
...
Popular Mechanics is a Hearst "yellow journalism" publication that only publishes lies arranged by the Planners and the people who are the propaganda arm of the Trilateral Commission
...
Donald Rumsfeld secretly had everyone on Flight 93 rounded up and disposed of so that he could destroy the plane and fire a missle at himself in the Pentagon, to provide the pretext for the United States to go to war in the Middle East.
They're mentally ill, basically. Jason Bermas knows very well what he is doing on one level. When I met him in New Hampshire he was quite conscious that he was "crashing the Spin Room" by appearing as a "bonafide journalist" to fool people. The difference is that Bermas and his ilk see that as permissible and necessary because they believe the rest of the world is living in an enormous web of conspiratorial lies, and they are the heroes trying to "pierce the veil."
Lenora Fulani and to a lesser extent Lyndon LaRouche and Chairman Bob Avakian also understand this dynamic. The number of people they appeal to waxes and wanes with the time and with the general Quantity of Insanity present in society at any given time, but it is always present, and it doesn't take many of them.
It's very difficult to "deprogram" them because they are not (or at least not most of them) true, endogenous schizophrenics. I personally know a true, endogenous paranoid schizophrenic, and I have known him his entire life because he's my younger brother.
These people are more appropriately placed in the category of "borderline psychopathology" with strong ideational and messianic tendencies. The main difficulty in "deprogramming" or convincing them they're wrong is that their stories are a self-reinforcing network of assertions that are difficult to disprove, and they are both motivated and resistant to efforts to disabuse them of any part of their belief systems.
As a result of that and their vivid imaginations, even if you successfully disabuse them of one element of their confabulatory tales, they simply ignore that and invent another explanation to take its place.
Very hard to treat. Unfortunately also a relatively common failure mode of human wetware and mental apparatus. Nobody is perfect, least of all human beings.
You can watch Jason Bermas, who crashed the Spin Room at St. Anselm for Ron Paul supporters while I was there covering the debate for HinzSight and TMR, at this link.
It was perfectly obvious even at that early stage of the campaign that although reasonable people might enjoy some of Ron Paul's ideas and arguments, his supporters were another thing entirely, and that just beneath the surface was a whole lot more than Ron Paul was saying for the national television cameras.
The night ABC aired "The Path to 9/11" this debate between Bermas and Avery and two editors from Popular Mechanics aired on LINK TV. Watch Bermas carefully during this "debate."
I was going to see some Arrested Development.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
I don't know if it's the best, but it's up there with the best. Which means, of course, that they canned it.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
I can watch it for hours.... It's very clever and subtle.
"I call it hot ham water."
"Operation Hot Mother"
I can't get enough. Sorry, about the threadjack.
No, Jason Bateman is actually relatively OK. He knows the difference between fantasy and reality. He makes his living in one, lives the rest of the time in the other. But there's a firewall there. ;)
Arrested development is one of my favorite shows ever.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
You can find the "debate" through Google here.
And at the Democracy NOW! website here.
They may despise the Clintons and Dems and everything socialist about the left, but they also believe the CFR and Trilateralists and Bilderbergers are conspiring against us and the gov. is coming after us in black helicopters. (In all honesty, whenever a high profile collection of global elites gather for any reason, it cannot ever be good for us.) They believe Republican admins. are as dangerous as Democrat ones. They don't believe in evolution but they do believe the human race came from outer space 10K years ago. They are not true libertarians and they still like Buchanan. There is something definitely off in their brains, and they remind me of all the so-called moderate Muslims who, when you meet them, are extremely likable; then you engage them in conversation for a while and out pops the conviction that Israel must be destroyed (this has happened to me with co-workers). RP people are nice and then out pops the mindblowing nuttery. I have a dear friend in CA who supports RP and I have had to start avoiding her emails. The paranoia is overwhelming.
Ace, great video. But Moe, there is a tad of hypocrisy in policing the language in print (for which I'm grateful) and not at least requiring a warning for language in video. I'm serious.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Maybe it is just the generally low opinion that Congress is held in, but is anyone else concerned that someone who appears to be completely bugnutz is in Congress?
Have we really arrived at the point where we only draw the line at having crazy people for President?
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." --- Mark Twain.
I think it's pretty simple. Most Republicans support continuing the war in Iraq but not all. Many of those who do not are either going to support either Obama or Paul, depending on how strongly they feel about the size of government. Most of these people are younger, college aged voters who, although not large in number, are highly enthusiastic for their candidate.
Plus you get the crazies, but I believe that's really an insignificant amount.
In other words, if they identify themselves as Republicans AND support RP, they are either immature, misinformed, uninformed, misguided, short sighted, or most likely, all of the aforementioned.
But not as much as Democrats who support Paul and Republicans who support Obama. At least Paul is pro-life and fiscally conservative.
The most vocal supporters are the ones who give Paul the crazy perception, most are normal people that you see every day. They see parties that corrupt and grow government, move away from transparency, and generally work to add to their own power as well as that of their associates and sponsors.
On Paul’s birthday (late August), I saw him speak to a large crowd in his home district. Everyone was kind, friendly, and enthusiastic. The very large room was completely filled, some people were concerned about the TTC, some about how expensive the war was, some about lobbyists, etc...
Generally his supports just want less federal government and more state/local control. I dont see where the crazy part is.
Monetary policy
He wants to allow commodity-backed currencies to exist. Whats so bad about that? If you dont want it, dont use it. It will have an exchange rate to a reserve note just like any other good, service, or foreign currency.
Wants to cut spending enough not to need the federal income tax. This looks feasable if done in stages over a few years. Who doesnt want to get rid of the income tax?
Defense
He has stated multiple times that he is not against using military action. What he is against is doing so without a declaration of war, thats simple enough. Wants to stop bleeding money on bases throughout the world, how is this bad?
Immigration
For legal immigration, against illegal immigration. Would limit welfare to illegal residents. If jobs are needed, then people could come here through legal means and work.
Drug war
Expensive and unproductive. He wants to make it a health issue instead of a criminal issue. It would ease the burden on overcrowded prisons and reduce the underground economy.
All in all, he has good ideas and shouldnt be held accountable over which individuals support him. If you agree that he has good ideas in some places, then I would hope congress would work with him on those. If he proposes bad ones, would he not be checked on them by the other branches?
As for this supporter, I was raised in the USSR in the 80s, I am a naturalized US citizen, I am a college graduate, and I am employed… speaking of which, I’ve spent enough time on redstate this morning, time to get back to work.
Aside from all the Ron Paul stuff, it's great to see you here on RedState. Come back early and often.
Now get Ramesh Ponnuru to chime in from time to time and this place will be so choice that I can't even stand it. :)
[My friendly friend. NO RON PAUL SHILLS. - Moe Lane]
...hiding under the sheet with a flashlight, crying into your video camara...
Welcome ACE!
I really don't get it. I liked Gerald Ford quite a bit when I voted for him in 1976. I did. Seriously.
I know people hold Bill Clinton in rather high esteem.
But I have never in my life witnessed the sort of zealotry that attaches some to Rudy McRomney.
Can anyone explain this to me? Why have so many otherwise sane-seeming people gone completely bug**** crazy over this flake?
I wasn't just tossing a cheap joke into the last post. Seriously, honestly: Let us put aside indelicate questions about Rudy McRomney’s possible fascist health care, homosexual terrorist groups, Environmentalist energy caps etc. Just let's leave that be for a moment.
Can Rudy McRomney's defenders please justify voting for a man who appears, based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of megalomania?
If Nelson Rockefeller told you he really had some great ideas about cutting the federal bureaucracy and returning to "constitutional governance," would you guys all flock to him, too?
Read on.
I don't know about you all, but "not google-eyed bat**** crazy" is one of my higher-priority qualifications for a president. Yes, I realize it's not actually explicitly listed as a qualification in the Constitution, but I'm comfortable unconstitutionally imposing this test on a would-be leader nevertheless.
50 million dollar personal loans to his own campaign and Stonewall Veterans and Indicted partners and cards that track every immigrant and an open list of every stockholder in the Federal Reserve. If this weren't all too real, it might make for a neat pulp fiction story. Maybe “Don’t worry, Adolf McRomnianni and Homeland Security is watching you.”
A Plastic Card that pays your bills. A Card that holds data about your finances. A piece of plastic. Used as money.
I realize if someone is capable of caring for themselves, we don't usually call them insane. We call them "eccentric." But honestly, if you guys heard a homeless dude spouting this sort of over-the-moon blather would you say, "Oh yeah, Stinky Ted here makes some good points about torturing muslims and the his plan to track each immigrant’s every movement with his High-Tech Identity Card" or would you just avert your eyes and hope he doesn't eat somebody someday?
Why are such florid hallucinations suddenly sensible when they come from Rudy -- ahem, Mayor, Governor, Senator -- McRomney?
Is any of this humbuggery any less crazy than UFOs or Bigfoot or Atlantis? What's the limit here? What level of psychological, ahem, "quirks" are you willing to tolerate?
And your guess is as good as mine if this guy was Left-nuts or Right-nuts. Ach, well, at this level of teh crazy it starts to blur anyway.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I kind of like RP, he has some good points: reversing gun control laws, lowering spending, leaving the UN.
Then he has some really really bad points: cutting the fed, usuing the boy scouts as our primary defense, changing our money so the aliens can have free trade with us when they come, etc.
Personally I like Fred. But this guy is pretty funny.
Redstate bans someone just because he has better ideas than them?
Why aren't all the Huck-haters banned?
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Because most of his SUPPORTERS are known, "based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of paranoid schizophrenia."
AND I think quite a few are the anarachist type, ready to attach themselves to any movement that draws a crowd of more than two people and gives them a chance to shout at someone (see assault of Hannity).