Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Ron Paul kooks manufacture conspiracy theory to explain his moonbattery

As a follow-up to my post about Dr. Paul being a magnet for various nutbars and scumbags (as laid out by TNR), we now see where Krazy Ron’s Kook Minions are attempting to deny reality and blame their Jim Jones’ nuttiness on conspiracy theories.  From the anti-Paul site Revolusion 2008:

Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn’t a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a “party line” which he doesn’t really believe himself.

It’s an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to “learn to love big brother” in the form of Ron Paul.

It’s a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies.

You really ought to see the screenshots (pictures) to get a good feel for how Daron Westbrooke goes from “Wow, this is bad news!” to “Ron’s a victim of Th’ Man’s conspiracy!”  Comedy gold, I’m telling you.

As one commenter there astutely puts it:

DaronWestbrooke:

All we got now is the signatures, but the point is to repeat it over and over. we can make the thought reality.

Joseph Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” 

If Dr. Demented weren’t polling in the single digits, I’d be frightened at the guy.  Instead, he’s just a bigoted Bircheresque crank with similar minions doing his bidding.  The Paulnuts are a cult.

January 14, 2008 - Posted by | bigotry, moonbats, Ron Paul

15 Comments »

  1. have you done any research of TNR?!
    look up the founder, croly.
    look up kirchik! the guy who wrote the piece!
    it has nothing to do with racism, it’s a smear through and through.
    unfortunately its working.

    hmmmm, apologies for facsism, destroy the constitution, praise democracy and down with limited government, supporting militarism, etc.

    you see, they do not mention these “newsletter” for the cause of anti-racism, but only to smear a man who threatens them and what their agenda is.

    you can question ron paul and his oversight. i’ll give you that. but he didn’t write those words. and everything he says and does. what his campaign stands for is the total opposite of racism. just like paul says, libertarianism is the opposite of racism.

    why do you praise TNR for this piece, when you should be condemning them for supporting this war.

    Comment by Jesse | January 14, 2008

  2. If you read the first link I provide, Jesse, you’ll see my prior post where I concede that TNR should be taken with a shaker of salt, especially in light of their Ratheresque “Scott Beauchamp” fabulism. That’s why I was skeptical of the Paul story at first.

    But dude, are you telling me with a straight face that Paul signed his name to a decades’ worth of anti-Semitic, racist, conspiracy theory rich series of newsletters without reading a single one of them? That’s his argument, and you’re buying it?? If so, then with all due respect, you’re as delusional as he is.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 14, 2008

  3. I like Ron Paul. He’s kind of like your mentally challenged cousin…everyone comes to the family reunions just to see what he’s going to say next.

    Comment by The Truth Hurts | January 14, 2008

  4. Truth, you know you’re wrong for saying that! :-D

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 14, 2008

  5. Remember the first GOP debate (hosted by Fox) where Paul basically blamed the US for 9/11, and Rudy bodyslammed the piss out of him?

    Here’s another “conspiracy theory”: Fox allowed text message voting to let the viewers decide who won the debate. Somehow (read as: the annoying bastards in The Horde texted like the earth was on fire) Ron Paul won, and everyone is baffled (including my nemesis, Sean Hannity). At the end of the video, Paul slips into 2nd place behind Romney, and there’s all of a sudden this conspiracy to relegate and dismiss Paul.

    First off, the video doesn’t show Paul’s ridiculous comment, and makes it look like everyone is gaining up on the poor little man.
    Second, how anyone can win a Republican debate by blaming us for 9/11? Democrat debate, sure, but a Republican? Hardly.
    Third, I love how the video is so happy that Paul is winning the useless text-based voting system, until he slips into second. Then the whole thing is just dumb and they’re just trying to hurt our fearless leader.

    Sorry for the nice block of text, Jon, but the Horde just pisses me off. What’re your thoughts on the video?

    Comment by Ed | January 14, 2008

  6. I agree with everything you said, Ed. I’ll have to view the video tonight, since the network I’m currently on blocks access to YouTube.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 14, 2008

  7. I don’t think he has anything against blacks, and even if he did in the past, people change.

    The words are not very consistent with his character, I have read them, done my research, and I don’t think he had a hand in them.

    Obviously, you can believe as you choose, but his proposed “actions”, that concern black people as well, I think benefits everyone as a whole.

    I do not believe he is racist, and even if he was, I can almost guarantee you would never see any “rounding up of them”, even if that was the case.

    http://www.frankfortpost.org

    Comment by frankfortpostroll | January 14, 2008

  8. Don’t make fun of my mentally challenged half-cousin Gomer. He don’t like to be laughed at, but he sure likes his french fried potaters.

    Comment by FreedomLover | January 14, 2008

  9. The Reasons Why Ron Paul is a Moonbat –
    A Dispassionate Reasoned Argument From a Real Conservative

    Debt & Taxes – Ron Paul wants to lower taxes by abolishing the income tax and cutting spending. He also wants to lower the debt, stop inflation by ending irresponsible printing of money, and he thinks it’s a bad thing that our debt is financed largely by China and Saudi Arabia. He feels we should balance the budget and eliminate wasteful spending of all kinds. He’s concerned about the falling dollar, and he thinks we are in the midst of an expanding economic crisis.

    Clearly, all of this is insane. Only a maniac could possibly believe that lower taxes are a good thing. First of all, if average Americans had more money to spend, they would probably waste it on lottery tickets and pay-per-view wrestling. It’s government’s job to protect us from that kind of wasteful spending.

    As for the debt, it’s a good thing. Let’s face it, debt is normal, it’s correct, it’s as much an American institution as apple pie and baseball. If we didn’t have debt, we couldn’t have plasma TVs and X Boxes. If the government didn’t have debt we couldn’t have any more bridges to nowhere or wars in countries that dis us. Is that what he wants? And as for selling the debt to foreign countries, could the Paulistenians please explain why that’s bad? What are they gonna do, foreclose? The worst that could happen is that we have to learn to speak Mandarin and after all, everyone should know a foreign language.

    And why not print more money? Look at it this way, at home when you run low on ramen noodles, you go get more. Money is like ramen noodles. When we run low we print more. That’s just common sense. There is no relationship between printing more money and money being worth less. That’s silly, it says right on the dollar that it’s worth a dollar. What more do you need than that? And if the dollar falls too much against the Euro we can always nuke the European Union. They’re commies anyway.

    Border Security & Immigration Reform – Ron Paul has a six point immigration plan. He wants to: physically secure the borders, enforce visa rules, oppose amnesty, end welfare for illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and pass real immigration reform with rules and waiting periods without amnesty.

    Madness! If we physically secure the borders and don’t have an amnesty program, there won’t be anyone to mow lawns. And then grass will grow out of control, and pretty soon the whole country will look like the Amazon rainforest. Is that what he wants? Besides that, chickens will go unplucked. No more fried chicken! THAT’S UN-AMERICAN! And if terrorists can’t get in, we might not have another 9/11 and then we might have to declare victory in the War on Terror. Is this guy on crack? And if we enforce the visa rules, we’ll run short on Pakistani doctors who work in the emergency rooms where illegal Mexicans go for free medical care when they get stabbed in gang fights. Is he trying to create a health care crisis? As for anchor babies, how does this traitor think illegal immigrants will be able to apply for welfare if they don’t have kids to go with them and interpret at the Department of Social Services? And if we cut off welfare for illegals what would we spend the money on? Services for citizens? Then you end up with a nanny state. Isn’t it better to turn the illegals into blood-sucking, dependent, shiftless parasites sucking on the government teat? Besides, the illegals take the money they save by using government hand-outs and wire it back to home to their countless unemployed relatives. If they didn’t do that, we would have to increase foreign aid to Latin America. Think of all the money that would cost!

    War & Foreign Policy – Ron Paul believes the war in Iraq to be illegal, costly in blood and treasure, entered into under false pretenses and detrimental to our national security. Further, he believes that foreign policy should be conducted through negotiation, trade and communication, not through the use of military force.

    OK, now if this doesn’t prove that Ron Paul is one Christmas light short of a strand, I don’t know what will. First of all if we weren’t fighting Iraqis in Iraq, we would be fighting them in Duluth. Saddam Hussein had clearly expressed a desire to put troops ashore in Nantucket and he would have if we hadn’t acted immediately. If George W. Bush had not heroically stood up to the Constitution, and unilaterally declared war on Iraq, our children would even now be learning Arabic in madrassa, schools and your wife would be wearing a burkha. Furthermore, what do you think would happen to the prosthetic limb industry in this country if we quit creating amputees?

    And does Ron Paul really think the founders meant that only Congress has the power to declare war just because it’s in the Constitution? We can’t be bound by that! The founders never envisaged a situation in which the President would need to pre-emptively invade any country that threatens to kill his father. Duh!

    As for conducting a foreign policy not based on the threat of invasion, how else does this nutball expect us to deal with people we don’t like? Look at it this way, if you don’t constantly threaten everyone you meet on the street with a gun, you might get mugged. Therefore, it only makes sense to shoot everyone you meet and ask questions later. Or to put it another way, talk is cheap and war is expensive. Since war is more expensive; and more expensive things are intrinsically better than cheaper things; then war is better than diplomacy. And if we run out of money to pay for war we can print more. If we run out of troops, we can draft the illegal aliens we let in through the open borders. THAT is a coherent foreign policy. Peace is for pussies.

    Smaller Government – And finally Dr. No believes in smaller government and personal freedoms as defined in the Constitution.

    This is so ridiculous as to not merit a response. But for those of you in the tin foil hats, I will attempt to explain how stupid this is. If government were smaller who would pay for: the K-12 Fishing Mortality Education Program in Orange City, CA, Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi, Mormon Cricket Research in Nevada or Citrus Waste Utilization in Winter Park, FL? And these are just a few of the necessities provided via the 696 pages of earmarks in the recently passed omnibus spending bill. Is Ron Paul trying to tell us we could get along without Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance programs? Puh-leeze! Besides, everyone knows that government is the most efficient manager of everything from health care to Asian Horned Beetles. Just look at how efficiently they’ve managed Iraq. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Presidents of Halliburton and Blackwater or the prisoners at Abu Gharib.

    As for personal freedoms, who needs ‘em? I mean, does he want the terrorists to win? And make no mistake, the minute we allow the terrorists to make us stop giving up our civil liberties they’ve won. They hate us for our freedoms, and if we start exercising our freedoms they will hate us even more! Wiretapping, waterboarding and war are the three Ws that make America great!

    So in closing, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for bin Laden. That should be starkly clear. He is supported by liberal fascists, Islamo-fascists and neo-Nazi fascists. No one but a fascist would support peace, lower taxes, sound money, strong borders and smaller government.

    Comment by Enation | January 14, 2008

  10. Enation, try to be a little more original when defending Dr. Nutbar. You just copied and pasted this crap from a couple of weeks ago. Geez, you Paulbots stick to your talking points, don’t you?

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 14, 2008

  11. the point is that the law and policies he advocates are not racist and do not allow for racism. he does however allow for free speech.

    he also is the only candidate to say that the war on drugs should be abandoned. if any group in the US knows the ills of the war on the drugs it is the black community. he has said he would pardon all onviolent drug offenders. why would a racist make a statement like that

    israel is a whole nother story but it makes a heck of a lot of sense to stop giving them and their opponents cash, weapons, and protection at the expense of american lives and taxdollars.

    no matter which way you slice it, the fact remains that everything he stands for just doesn’t line up with racist ideas or policies.

    let’s say he’s racist for a moment. does he take action in that regard? does he ask for laws that would encourage that behaviour? no. so how do these allegations add up?

    if there is proof beyond words then bring it on. otherwise its just a smear and playing on people’s fears of supporting someone who “appears” to “maybe” be racist.

    also, i guess another argument could be that this is guilt by association if, say, ron paul didn’t write the words but someone else did. i guess that makes just about everyone in the world guilty.

    Comment by Jesse | January 15, 2008

  12. ps- http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

    ed, i guess you don’t understand the concept of blowback.
    you know, the concept of action/reaction?
    rudy either is a liar or an idiot to say he had never heard that before.
    this concept is not new. its very very old.
    you think ron paul just makes things up when he talks about bin laden giving his reasons for the attack?
    come on dude. that’s just ridiculous.

    do you not see that people around the world are actually viewing america more and more as an aggressor?

    even andrew sullivan gets it!
    “One other vital thing: none of the candidates seems to have the slightest nuance on the Iraq war. I don’t find Paul’s extreme non-interventionism to be palatable; but I don’t think it’s less inherently reasonable than McCain’s belief in occupying half the planet for ever as long as we don’t have US casualties. Giuliani is the nuttiest. Romney just vacuous and dumb. To listen to McCain, you would honestly think Iraq would soon become a peaceful, unified, independent nation. At best, that might happen in 50 years time. Until then, we have to occupy the place, constantly juggling various militias, appeasing various factions, arming those who will one day attack us and then the next day realign with us? Empire is a rough business. And when you’re running en empire on borrowed money and your own currency is going down the tubes, it’s not an indefinite prospect. And if McCain believes Arab culture will tolerate a permanent American occupation the way that Koreans or Germans have, he has learned nothing from these past five years and even less from history.”

    james ostrowski:
    “McCain’s Johnny One Note campaign (“I support the troops!!) is as predictable as it is ridiculous. Last night, after Ron Paul explained once again how our meddling in other countries’ affairs leads to “blowback”, sometimes in the form of terrorism, McCain’s canned answer was: “We should support the troops, not criticize them.”

    Of course, Ron Paul was criticizing the foreign policy decisions of the politicians in Washington, not “the troops.” He has more financial support from military people than the other candidates do precisely because his policy of national defense to defend America is why they volunteered for the military. They did not volunteer to be involved in “nation building for 100 years,” as McCain would have it. “Who are you?”, Ron Paul asked him to his face, to assign the next five generations of American youth to useless “nation building” in the Middle East? Good question, Ron.”

    Comment by Jesse | January 15, 2008

  13. Jesse,

    I don’t care if Ron Paul is a racist. He has been very close with the most nativist, populist and anti-liberty components of the Old Right for years (i.e. Lew Rockwell and the very criminally misnamed Ludwig von Mises Institute). This includes but is not limited to paleolibertarian (i.e. “Doughface libertarians”), paleoconservatives, neo-confederates, “white nationalists”, John Birchers and other anti-state types who have a bug up their ass about the federal government.

    Proof isn’t necessary for me because I’m not making the claim. However, it is very telling that the Paul campaign did a piss poor job handling this and, given the serious political liability this presents, his ghost writers have not stepped forward to take some of the heat off of him. Why is that? The suspicion is that those ghost writers are very close to him, perhaps someone who has advised him.

    And finally Dr. No believes in smaller government and personal freedoms as defined in the Constitution.

    Dr. No believes in states rights and is disgustingly anti-14th Amendment.

    http://eastcoastlibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-judicial-conservative.html

    The dead giveaway is his treatment of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment as somehow granting “a majoritarian right to govern” or and unlimited state police power. He’s Robert Bork not Thomas Jefferson.

    He’s also committed the grave sin of claiming a right doesn’t exist because it is not in the Constitution.

    His entire movement is a disgrace to those of us who share in the core principles of liberty, especially those fringe nutjobs who would be stupid enough to do this:

    http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/889

    I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted to.

    Last, on foreign policy, while nation building is fraught with difficulty and success is not at all easy to attain (and usually requires more than an election cycle or two), 1) diplomatic relations and trade with failed or rogue states is, by my hunch, difficult if not impossible and 2) our greatest threat comes from nonstate actors. Quoting Chalmers Johnson may be the cool thing to do but he has never articulated how to deal with these problems.

    For what it’s worth, we were trading with the Saudi’s on 9/11.

    Ok, I’ve spent too much time on this.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian | January 15, 2008

  14. thanx for taking the time.

    i don’t have much time right now. buti’ll take two seconds to disagree with the “unlimited state police power” bit. the constitution does apply to the states. the states can’t just do what they want.

    Comment by Jesse | January 15, 2008

  15. [...] Is it or is it not a “living, breathing document”?  Or are you going to use the Ron Paul defense, i.e. “Hey, I didn’t write that [...]

    Pingback by Schmuckabee: Constitution a “living, breathing document” « Crush Liberalism | January 18, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers