Maybe Ron Paul Supporters ARE "Paultards"

At first I could not understand how people could possibly ridicule Ron Paul supporters. Never mind political affiliation of party or presidential candidate, there is no use in verbally flogging the supporters. As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I personally took this as an insult. They even came up with a name for it and I began seeing it circulated time and time again throughout the blogosphere - "Paultards". Man, what a cheap shot; right below the belt. Don't you have anything better to do? Why get pissed at Ron Paul supporters AND call us retarded at the same time? Unfortunately, as the wheels keep on turning and as time keeps on ticking, I might just have to agree that a lot of Ron Paul supporters are just plain Paultarded.

If simply reading that causes your blood pressure to rise and your knuckles to crunch white then you're probably Paultarded. If you now feel the insatiable need to retort in complete anger - you're a Paultard. Hey, don't blame me. Blame yourself. After all, I'm not the Paultard, you are. It's kind of catchy too. It just rolls off the tongue. P-a-u-l-t-a-r-d.

No, I haven't stopped supporting Ron Paul and I haven't succumbed to negative peer-blog pressure. I have simply come to the realization that my candidate of choice has been misrepresented by a lot of overly emotional and blindingly passionate zealots who have no real rhyme or reason, nonetheless understanding of exactly why they are pushing the Ron Paul ticket so vehemently in the faces of unsuspecting innocent bystanders.

A few days ago a friend of mine that lives in the downtown area of Atlanta, Georgia called me on the phone and asked -- as if to be reassured -- if I was indeed a Ron Paul supporter. I answered that yes, I indeed am a Ron Paul supporter. She began to ask me a few questions about Ron Paul and his policies as well as his personal opinions about certain social and moral issues, all of which I answered easily (I am a supporter after all). After the strange Q & A session ended she then exclaimed over the phone "well why in the hell didn't the other supporters just say that?" Good question.

Apparently what had happened is that my friend encountered a group of very loud and emotional white-shoed college kids with Ron Paul signs. They were handing out brochures labeled "50 Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul". My friend proceeded to quiz them as to the reason why they were supporting ol' Ron just as she did with me over the phone afterwards. Yet, instead of yielding any kind of logical answers, the so-called Ron Paul supporters simply threw out responses like "he's for America" or "like, he is totally all about America and stuff, like he believes in what America is all about." I don't know about you, but I figure that's a pretty uneducated way to respond to questions about a man's character, policies and political platform. Basically, my poor unsuspecting friend had encountered a cultish mob of Paultards. They ARE real! Scary.

If the responses weren't bad enough, she read me some of the 50 Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul. Three of them were "He isn't married to Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Clinton isn't his wife" and "He's been married for over 50 years, and not to Hillary Clinton". I cringed. I buried my head into my hands and shook my skull around wildly just trying to understand the lunacy of it all. I did not succeed.

According to USAElectionPolls.com the Internet demographic data of Ron Paul supporters is primarily made up of the 18 - 24-year old age range. Although I am 21-years old myself, this is actually my worst nightmare. This means college kids. You can call me a pompous stereotype-spewing prick, but I just can't stand most college kids. I think they're overly idealistic, needlessly emotional, pseudo-intellectual brats looking for any kind of spark or reason to feel as if they are doing something acceptable by the café coffee crowd standards of false bohemia and stupid 60's hippy cult movies (not the good ones either like "Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill!" or "Head").

Now I understand. There is a massive cult-like Paultard uprising effectively soiling the good name of my respected chosen candidate. These chronic masturbators flood the streets with homemade signs and bumper stickers scaring away logical voters whilst recruiting other lost youth with low self-esteem to the Ron Paul doctrine. I would not be surprised if they hold rituals and sacrifices in front of a wall of campaign buttons within their dormitories in between spamming YouTube channels, blogs and online polls.

It isn't just the lack of rhetorical skills that make these Paultards…well, Paultarded; it is also their completely vapid reasons for supporting the man in the first place. They have no real idea as to why they're supporting Ron Paul so passionately. I figure they're caught up in some kind of existential popularity high.

Because of these Paultards, those of us with real knowledge and reasons for supporting have become laughing stocks among many various political opinion pockets throughout the Internet. We've been labeled and weighed and found knowledgably dead concerning such arbitrary issues a facts, reasons, understanding and purpose for our passionate support of Doctor Ron Paul and as much as I dislike being lumped into the pile, I just can't bring myself to blame the tomato tossers.

The worst thing that I've noticed is that a lot of Paultards seem to have entirely missed the point of Ron Paul's message from the beginning. They look to the man as a demi-god and speak of him as though he will save us all from evil big government when and if elected. Yet, the reason I'm a Ron Paul supporter is because I want someone in the White House fighting to restore my power and my opinion within government. I'm a supporter because I see Ron Paul as a consistent, transparent and virtually non-self-interested candidate who will fight harder to help me regain my rightful influence within government instead of promising to change everything himself. I see him as someone that will allow the people a little more elbow-room and hand us a mega-phone so we won't have to try so goddamned hard to be heard. These Paultards seem to think Ron Paul is going to do it all for them - the exact opposite of the man's political platform.

I want to know if these poor young delusional souls have considered the fact that they are voting for a candidate that supports small government. I wonder if they understand that this means they will have to take care of themselves. They will have to be educated and fight a little harder to get things done. I wonder why they support a man who wants to abolish the IRS and Income Tax if they probably don't even understand how our tax system works. They probably have never even had to deal with the IRS or bills beyond their cell phones, car insurance and college tuition. Are they really prepared to take the reigns as American citizens? Are they really prepared for the inevitable uncomfortability that will come with self-sufficiency? Do they really grasp the fact that they are supporting a man who wants to withdraw Federal Government's constant pampering? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

I researched all the candidates before finding my main squeeze, and I have several that I have decided to fall back on as great choices if Ron Paul drops out or does not receive the GOP nomination, which is a very realistic situation. I know why I support Ron Paul and I research his policies. I don't push my support on anyone and I don't yell it at the top of my lungs and I certainly don't think all that Ron Paul says is the word of god. Most of all, I do not consider Ron Paul a solution nor an end-all-be-all fix. I consider him honest, straightforward and transparent. Whether or not I agree with everything he says is beside the point, the point is that he seems like he'll let you, me and we as Americans gain more sway and pull within the government. That is why I support Ron Paul; that is why I am not a Paultard. Sadly enough, many supporters are and that's a black spot for the rest of us.

Know why you do what you do. Know whom you support. Just KNOW. If you don't know, then you have no right to be a supporter. If you don't know then you have no right to care - you'll be doing more damage than good for any candidate if that is the case. We support, donate and vote not because we like the way a person looks or because we fall under the sway of how a candidate speaks or because we succumb to our friends' whims. We support, donate and vote because we believe in our candidates only after researching and understanding all the candidate stands for. We do these things because we spent time and effort to be self-educated and because our research has led us to a candidate we see as the best fit for America and our personal socio-economic situation.

All is lost if supporting a candidate has truly transformed into nothing more than a whirlwind popularity race. Whatever candidate it is that you currently support, you better be able to answer intelligently all questions concerning the reason for your support, else what is the point? Stop being a tard and start being intelligent or we're all doomed to be suckers.

(if you feel like it, you can read some other stuffs at ThisWeekinTime.com)

Ronpauloompa works much better for me when thinking about you.

Summary?

i would think some of the posts on the boards were evidence enough.

Wait, you want to vote for a guy who would supposedly give all those fanatics more power within the government?

I actually found this rather amusing and moderately enlightened. Obviously, I disagree with the OP's choice of candidate - largely for the very reasons he supports Dr. Paul (though the racism thing is pretty influential there, too), but he has correctly and critically identified the cult of personality that has emerged around this odd little man from Texas.

A cult of personality is not unusual. It is, in fact, historically the most common form of human government. And it is very probably instinctive (not insurmountably so), as shown by its enduring persistence even in the political life of the world's oldest secular republic. Third-party candidate-cults have been a feature of the American electoral system very nearly since the Republic's inception, yet even the attenuated survival of this form of essentially religious (and profoundly antidemocratic) personal veneration outlines the fragility, and as one might say even the unnaturalness or inhumanity of democratic self-government.

Far from being a form of government to which all humanity inevitably aspires, democracy may be more accurately described as the known pinnacle of human political artifice, requiring constant vigilance to protect and maintain it against the corrosive effects of unilluminated human nature.

That artificial character does not entail undesirability. Democracy is intrinsically superior to authoritarianism for several critical reasons (chiefly accountability and equity). But the myth of it reflecting human nature, which ironically has its source in a desire to preserve it, is itself destructive of democracy in the end, by almost invariably promoting a foolishly overreaching imperialism and chauvinistic complacency.

Anyway.

As joker_ mentioned, "Ronpauloompa" is the preferred phrase on SG. You may have to get used to that.

Tl;dr.

I for one, welcome our non-human government overlords. Let them be reminded that I can be useful in rounding up the other humans to toil in their mines

Divine kingship. Surely even a blinkered law-peddler like yourself must have heard of that. States as diverse as Pharaonic Egypt and the ostensibly Marxist Soviet Union have employed some form of it in their political organization.

I am sorry, but if you actually "knowledgeably" support him.. that makes you a Ronpauloompa or a Paultard.

Who is John Galt?

Thanks for an intelligent response. Something I've been toggling back and forth is how to remove humanity in the passion-blind, overly-emotional, personal moral sense from politics all together. I don't believe that passion, emotion and feelings have a place in politics or government or any decision making situation remotely related.

I believe that these things should only thrive off of pure fact and un-biased reason from the beginning. Won't happen though, but that's how I approach everything. It's just silly to allow yourself to get riled up by what a candidate says either negatively or positively, and it's even worse to vote or offer support or withdraw support under the same blind emotion.

I hadn't heard of RonPauloompas -- "Paultard" seemed to be the more general label. I like the SG version better though, just because I can't stop thinking about college supporters picketting whilst singing the song. Tee hee,.

Yeah, I get it -- you don't dig the Paul. Give it a goddamned rest. No need to take the time to comment on the fact that you have different political ideologies by picking the same scab as everyone else on this Board who feels the same. Perhaps comment on what was actually written and the subject written about.

It's old.

Oh I guess I will take my ball and go home then.

I also look forward to sentient machines rising up and enslaving humanity. I mean, how else could one make the great leap forward of removing any traces of actual human passion, emotion and morality from government? I mean, what could be the downside?

I am fascinated that you consider people who base their support or lack thereof for a political candidate on what that candidate says are "silly". Did you decide to support Ron Paul based on what he doesn't say?

In all honesty I'm not sure that those things are even desirable, though I'd agree with you that they aren't attainable anyway.

Well, you've got to admit that Cylon chicks are hot.

Basically, we shouldn't allow our emotions to control or sway us, instead we should rely off of well researched and un-biased fact, or as close as we can get to being able to do that.

It isn't to say that these things should be completely removed, but I believe that passion is often a blinding thing and I believe emotions alone cause us to make stupid decisions.

In reference to the Paul supporters I wrote about in this piece, they allow themselves to be ruled entirely from emotion instead of reason, facts and research to back it.

Political party affiliation based off of this is another qualm. I may be a supporter of Ron Paul, but I do not believe he will get anywhere close to the the point of me actually being able to vote for him as a potential president. But, I have not allowed my emotional side to bar me from thinking seriously about other Republican candidates like Fred Thompson and Huckabee or even democratic candidates like Kucinich and Obama. I believe it's important to remain factual and reasonable on all sides.

Just like we should separate church and state for the same reason, I believe that emotions themselves should be separated as much as possible from governmental action so that facts based on what is good for the general majority is better represented. Zeal alone is dangerous and misleading.

Maybe that better explains what I meant.

Now they're indirectly titularly associating Ron Paul with Hunter S Thompson? I think I need to lie down.

To be fair, Ron Paul is, or at least was, an actual medical doctor.

Which is nowhere near as hysterically badass as -

Eh, not important enough to discuss.

I've extensively researched his policies, personal belief, voting record and so on. I got it covered, I've also written extensively about his policies.

One of the things I have a hard time grasping is the return of a gold standard -- that is something that I don't believe will work. However, I also believe that the Fed has a little too much unchecked control, which causes me, as an American, to be very weary of it. So, that is one of the things I do not necessarily agree with, and I'm using it as an example to show that I have researched this candidate. However, I like the fact that Paul is open towards thrusting more scrutiny upon how our money system is controlled. The big fix? I don't know it yet. As it is, things are going alright.

Anyway, I wasn't going to write extensively about why I support Ron Paul, that isn't what this article is about. It's about taking the time to reasearch and know your candidates instead of doing whatever college cool shindig is popping up on the psuedo-intellectual radar.

Ya dig?

Hunter is "The Good Doctor" big difference. I'm a huge fan and avid reader, so don't think I'm switching the titles.

Actually, just good-ole fashioned 'retard' works just fine.

What else would you call some one in 2007 who supports a candidate that opposes the Civil Rights Act and wants to overturn provisions in the 14th Amendment?