05 July 2007

Who the Fuck is Ron Paul? (part 4)

A few things. I recently wrote about the dirt on the Ron Paul Internet Phenomenon. If you missed it, here's the gist. Paul's vast and inexplicable internet celebrity can be traced to about 30 or so supporters who spend a lot of time on the interent, plus their friends. They've been skewing the numbers on everything from Digg to MSNBC polls.

One of the reasons I wrote the post in the first place was an experiment to see if they'd find me here. I've had an unusual number of hits for any mention of Paul, and wanted to see if this would be borne out.

It took two hours.

I had comments posted from Gary (no website link), which read, in part:

"Interesting, but you didn't answer the question posed by your own title. Rep./Dr. Ron Paul is a congressman from the Houston area running for president. He is a constitutionalist/libertarian/republican. He is for The Constitution and the rule of law and he is against big government, The Federal Reserve baking [sic] system, and interventionist foreign policies.

If you really care about "The Idea of Progress" as the title of your blog suggests, you should know how the manipulation of inflation by the private Federal Reserve system acts as a backdoor tax which hits the poorest Americans the hardest.

On the plus side, he did at least sign the comment (unlike my good friend Anonymous, who took the time out of his busy day to chime in, "Oh lord, what a waste of space. I can't believe I clicked to get here. Next!"), but basically it showed that he was disregarding the content of the post (though he apparently read the title), and left a link to some video that I don't feel like watching.

I wasn't even harsh in my description of Mr./Dr./Rep./ Paul. I've been pretty nice talking about him, all things considering. But as pointed out by Cipher Theory, Mr. Paul has a dark side too.

From his Wikipedia entry:

"Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.

He also introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic citizenship to babies who are born in the United States to non-citizen parents, which has been in effect since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

...In order to offset the effects of Roe v. Wade, he voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

He has also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding.

Despite the fact that you are, were, and always will be an anti-war Republican...I really wish you and your cult-like followers would go away now.

1 comment:

Rakeela said...

Several things wrong here.

#1: Since when is border security and control a "dark side"? We haven't enforced those laws in many years. I ascribe to the stance that a law which is present but not enforced is just as bad as a law which is enforced but not present. Both of these things lead to arbitrary governance. Arbitrary governance is directly related to tyranny.

#2: Illegal aliens are not "subject to jurisdiction" and therefore not protected under the 14th amendment. This is an example of Supreme Court overreach. Why it needs a constitutional amendment isn't clear when the Supreme Court fabricated the justification in the first place. In its favor, the amendment would make things far more clear and specific.

#3: Roe vs. Wade made a federal issue out of what should've been a state issue. Murder is a crime handled by states, ergo, even pro-life people should be forced to admit that it should constitutionally be handled by states. That the Supreme Court doesn't respect the constitution is not news - see #2. Full disclosure: My personal stance is that abortion should be available on demand through the first trimester and then allowed if a child's birth would cause physical health problems thereafter. This is based on my analysis of the ethics of the situation for maximized protection of individual rights. I can offer you my rationale if you desire to hear it.

#4: He wants to keep the Supreme Court from ruling on things it doesn't have jurisdiction over. Why is that a dark side? Especially the marriage thing. Marriage is a private contract - it should be, like most contracts, up to invididuals to define. Get the government out of it.

In closing, I feel that you need to make sure in the future when you identify "dark sides" that they actually represent darkness in a candidate. Bush's history of alcoholism = dark side. Ron Paul's consistent advocacy of the constitution = not dark side.

Good business to you.