NEWS: Fuck Ron Paul

POLITICS: Fuck Ron Paul

Volume 8 of the FTR series in which he puts the word "fuck" in front of a presidential candidate's name.

For those seeking a candidate to fill their horrible Ralph Nader hole, Ron Paul is you man. He is completely void of any possibility of winning an election, so you may clamor on for years about how fucked up things are and how great Ron Paul would have been. Of course, you will have to avoid talking about the fact that Ron Paul is an enormous douche bag.

Let me start by saying Ron Paul is a racist. There is just no way around that fact. Ron Paul used to write a newsletter back in the '80s and '90s called the Ron Paul Political Report. The name was changed to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993 due to the fact that the newsletter was becoming so popular with the many lunatic militia groups around the country. It was around the time the survivalist movement was peaking.

The report had around 7,000 subscribers and was eight pages long. The mainstream media has yet to be able to track down a copy of the newsletter because it was largely only sent to nut jobs. Ron Paul still has copies, but he refuses to make them public because of the horrifying words contained in those pages. One of his supporters did, however, post a copy of a newsletter to a newsgroup in 1993. To say Paul has a demented racist view would be an understatement. Here’s a sample:

Good stuff and exactly the kind of ideas we need from a leader. Of course, Racist Paul has distanced himself from his own newsletter. He now claims he did not write it. It just had his name at the top. So, either he’s incompetent or he is a racist. Paul has chosen incompetent.

Yes, it must have been difficult to oversee the writing of 8 pages of a monthly document. Where would you find the time? I’m sure he never looked it over. Except his own spokesman said the exact opposite to the Houston Chronicle in 1996.

See the total lack of denial, Ron Paul excusers? Instead of denying Ron Paul was writing the newsletter, he confirms it and even says Jesse Jackson says the same thing. So quit with the blind follower bullshit about Ron Paul not writing the newsletter. His attempts to distance himself from a newsletter written in his name and representing his views are pathetic. The dude is a fucking racist. Case closed. Oh, it’s not? Well then lets also take a look at the company he keeps.

How about the good folks at the Council of Conservative Citizens? They are a fun bunch of racists who have their very own radio show called The Political Cesspool . If you look at the names of folks who have dropped by the studio, you’ll find Ron Paul’s name just above Prussian Blue. Prussian Blue are a couple of cute adolescent teenage girls who sing about how horrible black people are.

Ron also likes to hang out with secessionists. In April 1995 he was an honored guest at one of their conferences.

And just two years ago Paul was an honored guest at a John Birch Society dinner. Not really sure if there are bigger lunatics around that the Birch Society. Ron Paul also attended the Libertarian-Patriot Banquet on April 2, 2004. Ah, nothing like hanging out with the lunatic “Patriots” to show how truly Presidential you are. You can find a picture of him here with Robert Clarkson, leader of The Carolina Patriots and The Patriot Network. Good company!

David Duke also loves Ron Paul so much that he keeps putting Ron’s articles up on his website. What could possibly be wrong with a guy David Duke loves?

And I don't want to forget about the racist website Stormfront. They adore Ron Paul and recently posed the question, "Is Ron Paul The One?" According to many on the site, he is.

He’s got to be doing something right to get the support of those guys. But, wait; he can’t help it if these people support him. Really? He can’t plainly disassociate himself from these assholes? He hasn’t and that says a lot about the kind of man he is.

Okay, enough with his racist beliefs and the fucktard company he keeps. Let us move on to the issues, where Ron Paul comes across even more idiotic than he does as a racist.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian! Weeeee! That means he would like to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Energy, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, aid to foreign nations, and the Department of Education as well as remove the US from the United Nations and NATO. Man, that would be so great. Maybe we could also get rid of everyone’s cars and we could ride around on magic unicorns. Also, I want to be able to turn my old shoes into muffins – because I’m a fucking crazy lunatic. Libertarians hold onto these ideas because they cannot grasp the complexities of being part of a larger society. Feel free to come join the adults at the party whenever you want. But I shouldn’t be rambling on; I should let Paul speak for himself.

Paul on Hurricane Katrina:

Does da little baby not wanna be part of da big society? Are they taking your money? Boo hoo.

Paul on Social Security:

Fucking read a book, man. How stupid are you? Ever hear of a fucking Hooverville? Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania answers the question I just asked. Plenty stupid.

Paul considers Medicare and Medicaid to be unconstitutional.

Yeah, we never tried that. Again, Paul, books are your friend, not your enemy. As far as Paul’s choices for Vice President, he had this to say.

Fucking John Stossel? Are you kidding me? It’s like a sketch on Human Giant. First of all, never pick a guy who has a Saddam-like moustache. Nobody with a non-ironic moustache should hold public office. Secondly, Stossel may be the worst reporter alive.

How about aid to poor countries?

Right. He is a cunt. I’m sure AIDS will just work itself out. I envision Paul at night in a corner of his room, arms wrapped around a big pile of money, screaming, “It’s mine!” Time to start acting like an adult, Ronny.

He does has a delightful voting record. He voted against the war. Wow! Holy shit! What a maverick! Doesn’t mean very much when you realize he votes against everything. His nickname is “Dr. No.”

He voted no on establishing a nationwide Amber alert system for missing kids. On January 2nd, 2007, he was the only Representative to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and reconstruction. He voted against hurricane relief funding, even though most of his district is on the Texas gulf coast. He voted no on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

All of those are obviously terrible things and should not be funded. I mean, who wants to save kidnapped kids who are about to be raped and murdered?

But I don’t want to make it sound like Ron Paul votes no on everything. He does come around once in a while. For instance, in July of 1999 he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC. He has also voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to ban Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (Remember, AIDS will work itself out) Paul also supports a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools.

And lastly, for you liberals who are swayed by his anti-war views, Paul is staunchly pro-life. He was given a 0% rating by NARAL, a political organization of the pro-choice movement. Paul believes a fetus is a person, that it is human and has legal rights. He believes if you kill a fetus it is an act of aggression and you should be punished accordingly.

So, there you have it. Ron Paul is obviously a great fucking guy – especially if you ignore everything that he is.

I disagree with the moustache remark.

If the United States were reformed into more of a Loose Alliance of States, would that mean no more stupid presidents?

I finally get it. He wants to be the Michael Gorbachev of the US and preside over its dissolution.

Well, a least he has a comphrehensive program.

oh man, this was better than i could have anticipated, ftr.

ron paul was my congressman when i was in college and so i was exposed to all his wackjobbery way back in the day, so it's totally bizarre to hear some decidedly non-maniacal friends (read; friends who don't have bunkers in their backyards or rub one out while reading atlas shrugged every night) talk about how refreshing ron paul is. my response every time is "really?...no, seriously?"



on a completely unrelated note:

possibly one of the best sentences ever written in newswire history.

Unfortunately, he's done a great job resonating with the conservative base in the debates while keeping hidden his complete insanity.

The problem with Ron Paul, and for that matter the John Birch society, is that they look like pussycats next to our current batch of politicians. Ron may be wrong-headed, but he's earnest. I kind of miss earnest. And frankly he's way less wrong-headed than Bush. I don't agree with his political philosophy, but at least his stated motivation is to try to be a good person.

We would actually be a lot better off if Ron Paul had been in office in 2001, because he wouldn't have gone to war. It's true that if the entire government were Libertarian, we'd be in deep shit, but having a president who's a little bit politically whacked is par for the course in this country, and Paul's whack-jobbery is less harmful than most.

We probably aren't ever going to elect a president who exactly represents your views, even the ones you really care about, because the country is just way to big for that kind of commonality. The best you can really hope for is "mostly harmless, bad ideas restrained by congress." Our government was engineered to create road blocks for the president - too bad King Bush has done such a great job of getting rid of those pesky checks and balances.

And BTW, it may be in some nominal sense racist to say "I'm afraid of big black guys," but at least it's honest. To me, the kind of racism that really does harm is the kind where the person says "no, I think that there should be no difference in how black and white people are treated," and then acts completely the opposite, and refuses to talk about it.

Because it's not okay to say "I'm afraid of big black guys," we can never have the discussion where we point out "what, so big white guys aren't scary?" I think quashing that dialog actually perpetuates racism - understanding comes through debate, not enforced silence.

for the record i was just reading the nullhouston chronicle article that revealed the contents of said newsletter the other day and ftr didn't include a particularly choice line "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

there's pretty much no context that isn't patently offensive.

- Allen Ginsberg, "America"

Speaking of patently offensive, here's the full text of the article that quote comes from.

Some more quotes from the wonderful world of Ron "I Can't Believe I Never Read The Shit I Published With My Name On It" Paul lurk below:

even though paul clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of being the republican nominee, much less being elected president, the more people who see this shit the better.

what a douche nozel. The republican party is full of people who either think that god is the law or money is the law.

He would fit in great in the libertarian party. They love not wanting to give help to anyone not white.

Ouch. Okay, that was a pretty damned stupid thing to say. Now, how many politicians have you voted for who've *thought* something that stupid but been smart enough not to say it? And how many politicians have you voted for who've never thought anything that stupid?

Wow. What a nut job.

I had always suspected, and now I know for sure.

Vote Fred Thomas, if he's running yet.

He is a libertarian... He just says REpublican so that he can get in on the debates. He'll go back to the Libs once he doesn't get the republican nod.

i lol'd. oh lordy, how i did lol.

Ugh. He was on The Daily Show on Monday and I actually thought to myself, "Now that seems like a reasonable Republican..."

I feel dirty.

merci

Loved it!

Hey, FTR,
Do you think you could write a "Fuck emotedcreations" piece for good measure? And just to make the analogy apt, I'm officially declaring my candidacy for presidency here on SG!

JK, very good article. I appreciate how you shed light on the fact that his popular anti-war stance stems from the fact that he's a lunatic and not some level-headed clairvoyant.

You're a libertarian, aren't you?

Oddly, I do not have the capacity to read peoples thoughts. But sometimes, if they are really really stupid, I can just tell they are having stupid thoughts.

* cough, cough *

No, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. I held my nose and voted for John Kerry in the last election. I'm in favor of a graduated income tax system, social security, socialized medicine, and publicly-funded science. I'm against the patent system, because it limits innovation, and I'm against war, because the ends, which are frequently not achieved, do not justify the means, which sadly always are.

I don't agree with Ron Paul's solution to the world's problems. I just think it's less harmful than Bush's solution. I would much rather have Ron Paul as the Republican Party candidate than Giuliani, who seriously puts forth the proposition that the only reason people are attacking us is because they are assholes - that we have done nothing to provoke them.

Things come from causes. The reason Ron Paul is getting as much press as he is right now is not because people agree with his politics in general, but because they see him disagreeing with Giuliani and see that Giuliani is clearly in the "rational thinking is bad" camp.

I'm really, really sick and tired of the "that person is bad" method of making the world a better place. Like "if you can find something positive to say about Ron Paul, you must be a Libertarian, and therefore on the side of bad people, and therefore you yourself must be bad, and I will denounce you, and once you have been removed from the public sphere, we will all be richer."

Finding and eliminating all the bad people doesn't work, because nobody is all good or all bad, including you and your political opinions. If you were personally running the world, would it really be a better place? Eliminating dissent makes us *poorer*, not *richer*.

If it's political suicide to say something stupid, then you wind up with politicians who won't say what they think. If saying something stupid gets you into a debate, and you have a real debate, that's a better outcome, because you might actually change what you think based on the outcome of the debate. That's, in fact, how government is supposed to work, and how the late lamented founding fathers came up with the government we have.

You are playing apologist for a racist wingnut. His remarks aren't "stupid", stupid is not thinking through the implications of your toast to Strom Thurmond. What his remarks are are fucking odious. As for "better" than Bush, I think its rather foolish to say that choosing a man who doesn't believe in the federal government as its chief officer can be compared, even hypothetically, to the war in Iraq in any way.

geez. scaling down government. what a terrible thing.

personal decisions and personal accountability; communities taking care of themselves; awful stuff.

on the idea even, of Ron Paul.