The Black Helicopters Are Circling
May 13th, 2008 by 
Kevin
It appears to be gut check time for the Paulbots. Bob Barr is now officially running for President as a Libertarian. So do the Paulbots, of libertarian fame, stick with their dubious claims of just wanting to reform the Republican party or do their return to their roots of obscurity?
In both places they would accomplish about the same amount with their current methods.
By returning to the Libertarian Party they would effectively re-embrace permanent fringe status. Pretty much the same thing if they stuck with the Republican Party. Except the latter would be within a Party rather than the general public.
If the Ronulans decide to stick with the Republican party there is certainly a great deal they could accomplish. But first they need to abandon any silly ideas of revolt. Futile efforts that reek of bitterness aren\’t going to endear them to any of the people they purport to convert to their viewpoint.
If the Pauliots can learn to play well with others and set aside their hero worship of a very flawed man, Ron Paul, and instead embrace a reasonable set of principles and ideas, they are likely to find a great deal of sympathetic ears among Republicans….at least on certain issues.
Chief amongst them is the desire to return to core conservative principles with our Republican candidates. It\’s not hard to find many prominent examples of the abysmal state of the Party. One need look no further than our supposed chief banner-carrier John McCain, appears to be binge drinking the Gorebull Warming kool-aid.
But Ronulans also need to be prepared to accept that progress requires incremental steps. Just as we didn\’t get to our current state overnight, it will not be fixed overnight. And this is part of the reason this cult worship of The Messiah Ron Paul need to end. His way of all or nothing, accomplishes exactly that….nothing. If they insist upon that method of doing things they may as well rejoin the Libertarian Party, they\’ll accomplish the same amount and at least there people will listen to them talk about the NAU and 9/11 Truth conspiracies without snickering.
In the Republican Party, the Pauliots have a chance to emerge from obscurity….but they\’ll have to learn to share and play well with the other kids first.
[Crossposted at True North]
NOTE : I think the comments demonstrate that many Ron Paul supporters are completely incapable of accepting constructive criticism and/or handling the fact that someone doesn\’t absolutely drool with admiration over Ron Paul.
Remember what I said about playing nice with others?
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in 2008 Elections | 
36 Comments »
May 13th, 2008 at 8:50 am
It sounds like you don’t really want people who support ron paul to be active in the republican party. It also sounds like you don’t think that bobbarr will pull away other gop voters. Be careful what you wish for.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Give the ego a rest.
To the contrary, there is a lot the Paulfans can do. Help bring the Republicans back to conservatism for one. They just need to realize that their crazier ideas (Federal Reserve, abolishing intel agencies, etc) aren’t going to find a home in the GOP.
And I’m sure Bob Barr will draw off some votes. However, what you fail to understand is it’ll get the same result as Ron Paul’s method of legislating…..it’ll accomplish nothing.
Put down the pride and actually try to accept constructive criticism.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Then why do you use insulting terms like “paulbots”. My point is that this is not patry unifying. Barr will not win, but if enough rlc type folks feel insulted by McCain and his coolaid drinkers, McCain could very well loose. Most paul supporters don’t want that, but a “he is not as much as a socialist as Obama” reason to vote for McCain will only work so well, especially when we fell constantly insulted by the party leaders and people like you.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Quite the unbiased, seasoned look at Barr’s impact on the Republican race. Not a biased bone in your body, eh?
Even a cursory amount of research would have revealed to you the differences between Barr and Ron Paul. But we can’t let pesky research get in the way of a nice hit piece on Ron Paul, now can we?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Wow, you Pauliots are sure dense.
Never did I state that there weren’t differences between Barr and Ron Paul. However, do you deny that many Ron Paul supporters would be tempted to support Barr instead of McCain? As far as Barr is relevant to what I wrote, that’s all that matters.
And you do deny any thing I actually said about Ron Paul?? Or are you just throwing a temper tantrum that someone doesn’t follow your messiah?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I’m just pointing out that you’re taking the low-hanging fruit, my friend. And I appreciate the insults and the (quick) assumption that I’m a Ron Paul supporter.
And no, most Ron Paul supporters would recognize Barr’s shortcomings when it comes to true libertarianism.
Do your research. All your article says is that, in order for Paul supporters to be effective, they have to submit to the machine that governs big government politics. (Yawn) … not exactly an inspiring–much less new–thesis.
Paul supporters argue on principle, it’d do you some good to familiarize yourself with some.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Wills,
Thank you for AGAIN missing the point of my post. I’m not saying that Paul supporters need to submit to the big government machine. In fact I’d welcome if they could turn it around, and on many of those efforts they would definitely have my support.
Principles matter yes, but unless you can accomplish them what good are they?? What principle are you promoting if you insist upon “all or nothing” tactics???
THAT is the point of what I wrote…but I’m sure you’ll miss that point yet again.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Peter,
Many of those nicknames refer to the behavior of many of the Ron Paul supporters….or at least the most visible ones.
For example, Paulbots refers to the manner in which Paul supporters would spam every single poll on the internet that so much as mentioned Ron Paul, in much that same way that one would use a spambot.
And believe me, I’m not a McCain supporter. And I don’t find the “he’s not as bad as Obama” argument to be at all compelling. Depressing maybe, but not convincing.
The point of my post is that Ron Paul folks need to learn to play well with others.
1) Be willing to work in increments.
2) Accept that some of your more far-out ideas (NAU, Iraq Surrender, abolishing intel agencies, etc) are not going to get much support.
3) Everything is not a conspiracy against you.
4) In-your-face tactics may work in the short run, but in the long run it just pisses people off.
I think the Ron Paul folks do have something to contribute. However, they need to learn to play well with others.
Otherwise to the rest of us, you behave as a bunch of deranged drones following a false prophet. That is most of the reason you get the reception you do.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I’ll use your words:
“But Ronulans also need to be prepared to accept that progress requires incremental steps. Just as we didn’t get to our current state overnight, it will not be fixed overnight.
Sounds like a “work within the confines of the present system” in order to change things, doesn’t it? But I’m probably splitting hairs, right?
A principle that can be compromised is not a principle. Show me someone who claims that compromising principles is a good thing and I’ll show you a fool devoid of principle.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
There is a lot that that the state/federal government does that it shouldn’t. However, walking it back to it’s constitutional limits will take time and patience.
It may not even happen within my lifetime. It’d advocate we start with eliminating earmarks. They are the currency in which backroom deals are made.
Once we get rid of those getting rid of many other programs will be easier as legislators won’t be able to be bribed into voting for them.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t think you understand what an earmark is. Eliminating them will only allow the money to be spent at the behest of the executive (President) and not the Congress. The money is allocated for spending before it is placed in an earmark…if you abolish earmarks you aren’t cutting spending at all.
Given the President’s (any President, Republican or Democrat) penchant for increasing the power of the executive, it’s no wonder they run promising to end earmarks.
But asking someone to compromise their principles is foolish. Refusing to take part in the charade that is our electoral process is the first step to recognition of tyranny. Mindless hit pieces on principled candidates achieves exactly nothing beyond a cheap laugh…and I can tell from reading your blog that humor is not your specialty.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
So you’re okay with keeping a system that allows them to spend money on a Bridge to Nowhere??
Nobody ever said that was the only step to improving the system, just the first.
Baby steps Wills.
Your attitude might be part of the reason you’re not finding anyone willing to work with you.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Sure. I’m in favor of a system that keeps spending power where it Constitutionally belongs–in the Congress.
In the grand scheme of things, the infamous bridge to nowhere costs significantly less than what the government spends on entitlements, foreign aid, foreign policy, etc.
But you go on and get uptight about bridges to nowhere if you like…sadly, you’re missing the bigger picture.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Ah, and here we get to the meat of the issue…which is the bigger picture you claim I’m missing.
Those entitlement programs you speak of. They would be alot easier to get rid of if we didn’t have Ted Kennedy and others bribing other legislators into voting for them. And they way they bribe them is approving pork barrel projects in their districts.
So while yeah, you are correct earmarks make up a very small (comparatively) portion of the federal budget, it is the coin with which most of the other bad spending is paid for.
Now you claim to want to keep earmarks and the spending in Congress. I suggest you offer a solution for this problem.
Foreign aid, yeah, I think you’ll find alot of people would be more than happy with reducing the amount of federal aid we offer. Especially when it’s destination isn’t exactly grateful for said aid.
By foreign policy I assume you mean the WoT. That’s pretty much a deal breaker for me. And I think you’ll find most of the Republican party is solidly behind it. If you can deal with that, the door is open. If you can’t….well, it does swing shut rather hard so watch out.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Earmarks are but one small, insignificant problem in the grand scheme of spending. I suppose you could file that under “baby steps” if you wish. I’m not nearly as bothered by earmarks as the other problems I mentioned.
Every other program I mention (foreign aid, entitlements, foreign policy, etc.) is unconstitutional. Make the case for foreign aid–I’m all ears.
I welcome debate on the WoT, too. I’ve yet to read a principled, consistent argument in favor of our foreign policy. By all means, I’d love to hear your reasoning…absent the “it’s the Democrats’ fault!” and other mindless drivel.
In short, make the Constitutional case for fighting pre-emptive wars. I’m listening.
But I assume by “deal breaker” you’re incapable of making a coherent case in favor of our foreign policy. It’s much easier to insult someone and ban them than it is to engage in logical discussion aint it?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
As the one not exactly short on the snide remarks I’d check the implications that I’m only capable of insulting others rather than debating.
I agreed with you that earmarks are a small part, but they play a role much greater than their financial size.
Foreign policy is unconstitutional?? Now explain that to me.
Certainly both the President and Congress, according to the Constitution, have a role in foreign policy. You feel that one or both have stepped outside their constitutional bounds correct??
Essentially what you’re arguing is that the Judiciary is failing in it’s duties. That is certainly an argument you could make but you’re not going about it in a way that’s going to accomplish anything.
If you’re going to claim that one of the branches is outside it’s constitutional bounds, then don’t you think that that is a point to bring up to the branch that’s sort of in charge of determining that??
May 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Show me someone who claims that compromising principles is a good thing and I’ll show you a fool devoid of principle.”
Here, pick me! I have a long list of conservative principles that I hold dear, and that should not be compromised. Unfortunately, the only way those principles get advanced into law and public policy is if a candidate gets ELECTED and pursues that principle into policy. Therefore, the only way for me to advance those principles is to VOTE for such a candidate, and, since no candidate agrees with me 100%, I must compromise on some principles to achieve others.
My recent experience with Ron Paul supporters indicates that they pride themselves on never voting for a “lesser of two evils” candidate, thereby allowing the “greater of two evils” candidate to win. Talk about fools…
May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
J. Ewing,
What I find kind of amusing is that I argue with you about this all the time, and now I’m defending your logic!!
Yeah, the emotional side of me is sick of compromising principles. Dammit I should get what I want.
In reality…it’s sometimes necessary.
Although I would STILL argue that we’ve abused the “sometimes” in my above statement and it’s time to start chopping off some of our most venturous Republicans. The Override Six was a good first step.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Here’s the long and the short of it:
I don’t like McCain that much. I will pick who gets my presidential vote by who he picks for VP, as that is the only thing I can actually support him on.
It would be nice to get a lot of the Ron Paul supporters brought into the fold again, as long as some of the conspiracy theory crap is dispensed with. Under this subheading:
1)Yes, we know that there is the possibility of a North American Union. No, there’s nothing you can do about it except secede from the United States, and remember what happened the last time that was attempted.
2) The Federal Reserve System cannot be removed overnight. We cannot remove our troops overnight. And we cannot abolish our intelligence agencies overnight. The vacuum that is left behind would hurt the US much worse than if we gradually phased them out.
3) The whole “hijack the convention to make a point” is not a good way to make friends and influence people. This message is especially relevant to the delegates in the 4th, 5th, and 6th district of Minnesota.
If the Paulians, and not the Paulbots, wish to work with those of us who are disheartened with McCain…they have to give up some of their more extreme demands for the time being. They are proven not to work, and it would hurt people in the end.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Um, fascinating to hear all of you rationalize your ability to compromise your principles, but the reality is that once a principle is compromised, it ceases to be a principle.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The illusion of choice is not a choice; democracy is not the same as freedom. I don’t expect a group of people who are hung up on compromises to understand that concept, but give it a second thought before discarding it altogether.
Kevin: I said nothing of the judiciary. I wanted to hear you defend the constitutional case for pre-emptive warfare. I’m listening, but not confident a logical case can be made.
Yes, the Congress as well as the President have exceeded their constitutional limits. I think we all agree on that. Slow and steady–especially a vote for McCain, Obama, or Clinton–is NOT the way to return our government to its limits.
Go ahead and pick on the Paulbots, Paulians, etc. and their refusal to compromise their principles and vote for a candidate like McCain. That “principled” Republicans even entertain the idea of voting for a criminal like McCain is a testament to the brain-deadedness of the party.
Sakaki: Wonderful analysis, yet you’ve said nothing of substance. “It won’t work” probably won’t win you many debates. How about some proof? We can’t remove our troops overnight, we can’t abolish the Federal Reserve…care to elaborate on WHY such tasks are impossible?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Congress does have the constitutional power to authorize military action….which they did in both our recent wars.
As far as arguing that pre-emptive warfare is never okay, you have to ignore not only the last 100 years of history, but also the actions of our third President Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson despite being one of the foremost proponents of small government and many of the principles you supposedly hold, declared a war not unlike our WoT on the Barbary Pirates. Which are arguably the ideological and religious predecessors of Al Qaeda.
In fact it goes back even further than that. George Washington himself attempted to fend off the Barbary Pirates by giving them $1 million per year, a fortune at the time.
So if you want to declare pre-emptive war and foreign aid unconstitutional, then the problem started with the very people that wrote the Constitution.
Tell me, what is a principle that is never realized?? A good idea.
I’m sorry Wills, but you just serve as an increasingly good example of what is wrong with the Ron Paul movement. By refusing to work with others and accepting that progress happens in increments, you will get NONE of agenda, or principles as you call them, accomplished.
Hope it feels good….because that’s really all you have to show for it.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Never have I disclosed my political leanings. I withhold my political preferences to avoid giving you the convenience of using your pre-packaged political cliches that are mindlessly attached to someone identifying themselves as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. That you play that game without knowledge of my political stances underscores your inability to listen to what I’m saying. By comparison, it’s much easier to repeat things you hear/read on television and in print media…they’d one the homework for you. All you have to do is conform, eh comrade?
So, if I understand you correctly, your argument is that “if Jefferson did it, then we can do it today.” Hardly the stuff of mensa, Kevin. Historical precedent (one in which Jefferson and Washington were wrong, by the way) doesn’t justify ol’ Bushie’s actions in the WoT, nor any of his predecessors.
So we’re back at square one: on what constitutional grounds can we fight this WoT? It’s an impossible question to answer, because there is no constitutional ground from which to concoct your argument.
And where, pray tell, did Congress authorize military action in our previous two wars? We went into Iraq, under false pretenses, to enforce a UN resolution, at the behest of a braindead President and a complicit Congress. All illegal, unconstitutional actions–regardless of degree–are still illegal.
But please, by all means, continue to justify present conflict using hackneyed arguments rooted in “Barbary Pirates” if that’s what pleases you. Sadly, you are way, way, way off the mark.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:04 am
If you’re not going actually refute anything I say, and just resort to ad hominem attacks on me, is it really worth having a conversation??
Congress has approved both wars. Now you can certainly argue the grounds on which that decision was made, but the decision WAS made. And they have the constitutional power to do so.
But really I already know your response. Because in your narrow world view, anything outside of your belief structure has to be unconstitutional right?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Although in retrospect I do agree with you on one thing….we are back to square one.
People like you, who refuse to work with others on anything, will in the end accomplish nothing.
Hope it feels good.
You’ve heard my advice to you and your cause. It’s obvious I’m not going to convince you to change your ways and so far you’ve offered nothing to even attempt to convince me.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Understood. You’ve offered nothing to refute. You compromise principles, I refuse to do so. You cannot make a case for foreign intervention beyond “congress voted for it” … when, in fact, congress failed to declare war. THAT is the root of the argument, Kevin. Why no declaration?
You want to go overseas to die for a UN resolution? You want to engage in a practice that subverts the authority of the Constitution? Fine, I’ve no problems with that – but please, do NOT drag the rest of the country with you on your foolish conquest of other nations.
(I’m using conjecture above, I do not know whether or not you support the WoT. Based on your website and profession to vote for McCain, I’m inclined to think yes)
May 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I have provided a lot of substantive debate. You, Wills, are just not interested in actually facing reality.
There’s nothing you can do about the North American Union. It is going to happen, regardless of whether you want it.
A lot of the “It won’t work” comments fall on common sense, the fact that such a large institution (Fed Reserve) being removed in one penstroke will leave a gigantic hole and a vacuum that we will be unable to get out of for 20 years. Common sense dictates the same principles when it comes to removing our troops from Iraq. We leave, the country goes to hell. It doesn’t matter if we were not responsible for it before, we are responsible for it NOW.
And from what I see, Wills, you have neither any common sense nor a will to actually do anything more than to provide chaos to the United States of America.
Ron Paul is dead. If you’re gonna go support someone, go support Bob Barr.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I would definitely disagree that the NAU is going to happen.
I can’t see a chance in hell of it happening….ever.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sakaki:
More drivel. “It won’t work” is replaced by “won’t be able to get out of for 20 years.” Well done, I’m thoroughly convinced. Sheesh, logic is lost on people…and often.
I’m still waiting to hear the Constitutional case for Iraqi intervention. C’mon you freedom lovin’ patriots–make the case!
Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and removing troops from Iraq–and everywhere else around the world–are two of the BEST things that could happen to America.
Reason 1: I kind of like knowing my money will be worth something in a few years, let alone a few days. The Federal Reserve has failed to achieve every one of its stated goals, and failed miserably. By any other measure that institution would have dried up a long time ago…and yet economic cave men like yourself STILL see it as a good thing. My oh my how some people enjoy torture!
Reason 2: No one is saying we can’t have an “American” presence in the Middle East. If you are so concerned about the safety and security of the Iraqis, by all means, go and fight. Become a mercenary, and fight, kill, maim, rape, destroy to your hearts content. But please, don’t fill me full of crap about how our country needs to drain its coffers and kill her citizens to fight an illegal war and occupy a country in the name of “fighting terror.” Do NOT drag me–and any other citizen who values freedom and liberty–into YOUR fight against Islamofascism…a laughable term if there ever was one.
Nowhere have I stated I supported Ron Paul. I know if I repeat this often enough eventually it will permeate your four-inch thick skull, Sakaki. Repeat it to yourself if needed: I’ve never said I support Ron Paul. Repeat. Again. Repeat. Again.
Until then, I’ll expect you and Kevin to be first in line to volunteer to go to the ends of the earth to “defend” America. PT Barum was right: there’s a sucker born every minute.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
You criticize my mindless pre-packaged political cliches and then you launch right into a chickenhawk argument???
Physician, heal thyself.
Mercenaries killing, maiming, raping, destroying?? That is how you view what our troops are doing??? You show more than you think about your viewpoints. Your despicable nature is revealed.
The constitutional case for intervention. Congress authorized it as it has the constitutional right to do so, the President enforced it. The Judiciary has yet to say anything is wrong with it. Case dismissed.
I can’t say I see much “logic” in your statements either.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Yes, chickenhawk. Absolutely.
Congress authorized force, aka an invasion of another sovereign nation. I saw no declaration of war anywhere in there, did you? Did I miss something?
Ah yes, you took the bait – troops equated with mercenaries. I recommend re-reading my comment because you are clearly confused. You are about a half step quicker than Sakaki in that you know how to run a blog, but you are saddled with the same thick skull that prevents detachment from emotional response.
I’ll repeat: if you think our country is in danger from “terror” then you should sign up to become a mercenary (NOT a soldier). This way, you don’t affect anyone who does NOT want to be overseas “defending” America and instead joined the military to defend America at home. It’s really not a hard concept to grasp, Kevin. Put down the FOX news for a minute and try to concentrate on the words…and let your brain work a little.
In other words: fight your war, but don’t inhibit my life, because I want no part in this ridiculous conflict.
I eagerly anticipate your correspondence from wherever you determine America needs defense the most: Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Iraq, Djibouti, Panama, etc. Go on, brave one, fight that fight!
May 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Right now I’m not sure if the thing that America needs a defense from the most is people like you.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Snappy, well done. Insults are at a premium on this site – sadly logic is in demand.
So? Patriot, will you do your duty and become a mercenary so the (ha) rest of us can sleep soundly under the warm blanket of freedom that you provide? … Or will you sit there like the rest of the numbskulls and fight the war from your computer desk?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
And you are just as guilty as anyone.
Still on the chickenhawk gambit huh?
I suppose if your house starts on fire you wouldn’t call in the fire department either.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Great analogy. I’d call the fire department – hopefully a non-publicly funded one.
If I were you, however, the correct response to a fire in your house would be to hunt down Prometheus and kill him, his family, and anyone who used fire to his or her benefit.
If the above paragraph seems irrational to you, perhaps you should re-examine your position on the war on terror.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Wow, a guy gets busy for a few days and the wack jobs have a field day.
Kevin, you had the most brilliant point several posts ago, in talking about the Override Six. There is a positive example of how to realize conservative principles. That is, elect any Republican you can until you can find a better one. The further the one you have drifts to the left, the easier it is to find one that’s better. Replacing the Republican you /could/ have with nobody, by voting for “nobody” is…. let me choose my words carefully…. STUPID.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Right now the North American Union is nothing but a black helicopter, conspiracy theory urban legend. There is no official proposal to have one, no one has really outlined the details of what one should look like but the words are oh, so scary, reminiscent of the European Union which barely works there, and certainly wouldn’t work here having seen their example. There is no secret treaty called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” though a small bureau was established in 2005 for ongoing low-level diplomatic contacts on trade and security issues. And that’s all.
Likewise, abolishing the Federal Reserve is a ridiculous idea. The theory that this group of private bankers is inflating the currency is a valid complaint, but abolishing the Fed returns control of the money supply to … Congress! Is that really the best idea?
These are all Ron Paul ideas, and while they are (almost) all grounded in some solid conservative principle, somewhere, too many of them are outrageously impractical or downright delusional.
Those who want to vote for somebody not on the ballot in November should, in my opinion, be prepared to accept the consequences of their vote. The best person for the job is NOT on the ballot, so if you won’t choose the lesser of two evils, you will get the greater. Why can’t some people understand that?