MetaChat - We have determined

::snort::

posted by CitrusFreak12 02 January | 00:35

Ron Perot? Ross Paul? Who now?

posted by Joe Invisible 02 January | 00:44

I've never met a Ron Paul supporter. In fact nobody talks much about the election round here at all. Our primary is in March, I think.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 00:46

The primary here is just a week away, and things have been het up for a while. Since NH is the chosen Free State, there is a disproportionate share of libertarians here, many of whom support Paul. They make a point of bird-dogging all candidate appearances from either party, lugging large signs which they try to place between the candidate's signs and the TV cameras. It's kind of crappy and the supporters are aggressive, so this joke is kinda funny. Sock it away - you may need it in March. Then again, his campaign may be over by then. Who knows.

posted by Miko 02 January | 01:45

I've never met a Ron Paul supporter.

I have. It's scary.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 02 January | 01:48

No one in Europe has any idea who this little twatbag is.

posted by chuckdarwin 02 January | 03:59

Don't worry, I don't see him becoming part of the curriculum anytime soon.

He's like an ur-conservative in the Pat Buchanan mold but without so much xenophobia. Because he's against the war, he gets an inordinate amount of mindshare from liberals who have no idea the stuff he actually stands for.

posted by stilicho 02 January | 04:17

I haven't heard anything about RuPaul in years.......

posted by brujita 02 January | 04:49

Yeah, out here in Politickyland, the Ron Paul contingent is the equivalent of those frat boys with the close-crops you see in bars: no peripheral vision and a lot of 'tude wherever they go.

They're starting to make the Lyndon LaRouche folks look homespun by comparison.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 02 January | 07:08

That is freakin' hilarious, Miko. :D

posted by BoringPostcards 02 January | 07:52

LOL!!! Haven't met a supporter yet, but his signs are all over the place. Makes me want to get some spray paint and or vinyl lettering. .V.

posted by chewatadistance 02 January | 08:14

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by taz 02 January | 08:55

Ha!

posted by interrobang 02 January | 09:07

AWESOME, TAZ

posted by Miko 02 January | 09:14

heehee!

posted by taz 02 January | 09:19

taz wins!

posted by casarkos 02 January | 09:38

*falls on floor laughing*

posted by BoringPostcards 02 January | 09:54

Hilarious!

posted by typewriter 02 January | 09:58

Ha!

posted by cortex 02 January | 11:19

That's fookin' hysterical, Miko.

Wow. There are Ron Paul supporters, like, in real life?

I thought they were all automated Internet spambots or somethin'.

posted by jason's_planet 02 January | 11:35

One of my good friends is a Ron Paul supporter. When he told me, I had to ask him repeatedly if he was serious. He was; I've decided that he's crazy.

posted by smich 02 January | 12:04

Is Ron Paul really that bad? He wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, amiright? Why not go after somebody like Huckabee? And how about Romney and Guiliani? Do they get a pass? The only place I hear anything about Ron Paul is here on MeCha - never IRL or any place else I hang out on the 'web.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 12:45

No one in Europe has any idea who this little twatbag is.

I know, it's one of these odd disconnections between Mefi and real life, like how on Mefi it seems that everybody read Ayn Rand in college, whereas literally no-one in Europe has ever heard of her.

posted by matthewr 02 January | 13:10

Is Ron Paul really that bad? He wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, amiright? Why not go after somebody like Huckabee? And how about Romney and Guiliani? Do they get a pass? The only place I hear anything about Ron Paul is here on MeCha - never IRL or any place else I hang out on the 'web.

Yes, he's that bad. He's a pro-life Baptist from Texas who's against any form of gun control.

Wiki:

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Also, for the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, the bill declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."[83][84] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[85][86] Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[3] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[87]

posted by chuckdarwin 02 January | 13:27

Becoming a Ron Paul supporter is a process of elimination. The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot, while the Democrats can't hit anything -- and I'm tired of giving my protest vote to the Communist.

posted by mischief 02 January | 13:30

Chuck, that sounds like the Republican party platform to me. Also, single issue.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 13:31

Is Ron Paul really that bad? He wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, amiright?

Well, if that's the only issue. But if we also care about issues like the FDA, federal assistance programs, and maintaining a balance of power between the federal/state gov'ts and leg./exec./judic. branches and all that jazz, then a libertarian may not be the best choice. Not to mention the fact that Ron Paul does NOT support a woman's right to choose, which is an automatic deal-breaker for me and many other people.

I run in to a lot of Ron Paul supporters on some chat boards. I see signs up around here in Texas, but I've never met a real supporter in real life. If I did, I'd probably just have to laugh at that person. I do agree with some of his platforms, but how can anyone who passed their high school American History exam support a weakened federal gov't with little power over taxation? Dude, we tried that already.

posted by muddgirl 02 January | 13:32

Tim Russert's takedown of Ron Paul on Meet the Press was extraordinarily entertaining. (Link goes to a transcript.)

posted by Prospero 02 January | 13:42

Last time I checked, gun control and abortion were two issues, but let's see some of his other kooky shit:

Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.[70][120] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[121] He would eliminate most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.[122] Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation. Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,"[123] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[124] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[125] He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[126] He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to "protect the system for everyone."[127]

posted by chuckdarwin 02 January | 13:45

"how can anyone who passed their high school American History exam support a weakened federal gov't with little power over taxation?"

Because we read deeper than the fluff that is high school history and discovered the real truth.

posted by mischief 02 January | 13:48

Ok, some of that stuff sounds bad, other stuff, not so much. Some of the fiscal policy stuff is even a bit interesting. On balance, I'm still not persuaded that he's worse than Romney or Huckabee.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 14:05

Memorable Ron Paul quotes:

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.
------------------------
We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.
------------------------
The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

source: article from the Ron Paul Political Report, early 1990s

posted by BoringPostcards 02 January | 14:09

On balance, I'm still not persuaded that he's worse than Romney or Huckabee.

They all three suck.

posted by chuckdarwin 02 January | 14:15

They all three suck.
And yet, Paul seems to occupy the imaginations of Mechazens far more than the rest combined. ???

Very well. Thank you all for clarifying that. I was rather curious why so much vitriol was being directed at a person who by all accounts appears to be destined to be an historical footnote at best.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 14:24

Ok, so more thoughts on the matter: What is it about Ron Paul that fascinates you all so much? I don't think I would have ever bothered to pay him the slightest attention save for the comments on this forum.

And as a corollary, what is it about him or his messages (I haven't the foggiest idea what they might be) that motivates his supporters? It's fairly obvious why Huckabee supporters like Huckabee, and I can tell what it is in McCain's talking points that his supporters like. What is Paul saying, and why is it resonating with people?

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 14:31

My cat* has a better chance of being the Republican nominee for president than Paul does. Most of the Paul supporters I've seen resonate around his anti-war message. Others like his pro-Constitution ideas [although I don't think, except for the hardcore libertarians, have thought through completely].

Even if Paul did get the nomination, and did become president, he would be going against most likely a democratic majority Congress, who probably wouldn't support any of Paul's agenda outside the get-out-of-Iraq part. So he'd be pretty powerless to get his other wacko ideas across. Even if he vetoed all of the legislation Congress sent him, I'm pretty most would survive a veto override.

Having said all that, I think what is going on with the Republican party and the media shutting out Paul is terrible. The same can be said about the Democrats and Kusinich.

*The supreme court would probably need to rule on whether cat years counts on the age requirement, and if "personhood" applies to kitties. Even if the Constitution needs amending to make Peanut eligible, I still give her better odds of being the next President than Dr. Paul.

posted by birdherder 02 January | 14:53

Ok, so more thoughts on the matter: What is it about Ron Paul that fascinates you all so much? I don't think I would have ever bothered to pay him the slightest attention save for the comments on this forum.

Didn't I cover this? I'll be more explicit. I am a member of various other forums, one of them being the forum for the James Randi Educational Foundation. There are a few very vocal Ron Paul supporters on the Politics section of that forum who post topics like "Ron Paul Loves America" or "Ron Paul Stands for Truth", and polls like "Why are YOU voting for Ron Paul?" (Ok, in all honesty I just made these up off the top of my head, but you get the point) Honestly, it smacks of either political zombies or a very bad astroturfing campaign. It's similar to the behavior Miko has witnessed at rallies in New Hampshire, except in an online format.

In other words, if Ron Paul was just another libertarian asshole from Texas, I wouldn't care (after all, I've VOTED for libertarian assholes from Texas before). It's his supporters, who are on the whole obnoxious and way too in-my-face about him that piss me off. I don't vote for RP because of his politics. I ridicule him for his fan-base.

posted by muddgirl 02 January | 14:55

Still, if he manages to siphon away enough Republican votes to effectively Perot the election in '08, he'll be a hero in my book.

posted by Atom Eyes 02 January | 15:08

Thanks birdherder, that more or less answers my question.
Muddgirl, it looks as though my lack of understanding of your perspective is mainly due to the fact that I have no first-hand experience with Paul supporters. Their alleged behavior does sound somewhat disagreeable, however, I see little reason to pay it any attention.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 15:27

No one in Europe has any idea who this little twatbag is.
Is he a cross between Ru Paul and Ron Jeremy? Because that would be all kinds of disturbing.

posted by TheDonF 02 January | 15:30

It's difficult, sometimes, for me to be objective about Presidential candidates as I live in a state that views these things like religion but I can tell you this, every RP supporter I've seen has a wild look in their eyes, just like the look I see in LaRouche supporters - the support comes from disalusionment and frustration/diempowerment - like a fox caught in a trap. And RP himself, don't get me started. (sorry if I offend)

posted by MonkeyButter 02 January | 16:09

however, I see little reason to pay it any attention.

Well, then in the future you can ignore these Mecha Ron Paul posts too :)

Wait... Mecha Ron Paul... That's a robot I'd be willing to stand behind...

I'd like to point out that I'm not the only person in the inter-web to note that Ron Paul supporters seem to be disproportionately prevalent/annoying, given his poll numbers.

posted by muddgirl 02 January | 16:29

The Ron Paul supporters I've come across have been sort of crazy eyed. There was one guy standing on the sidewalk outside my apartment complex with a handmade large cardboard sign supporting Paul -- the get out of the war message. The sign was in the "the end is nigh/Jesus is coming back soon" style crazy to it. I thought as I drove by the scary guy with his scary sign was probably doing Paul more harm than good among the soccer moms and others driving down the street.

I remember thinking at the same time it was good that at least people were being passionate about politics [living in Austin means you have to realize that your vote at the state level doesn't count. We're just a bunch of gay-loving, pot-smoking, abortion-having, immigrant-loving, book-reading hippies living in the middle of the reddest state in the country]

posted by birdherder 02 January | 16:33

muddgirl, I hope you didn't think I was trying to attack you earlier. I didn't mean to!

Monkeybutter, your comment seems to ring true to me when I consider the question of why these people would be so wild eyed and vocal. This in particular: "the support comes from disillusionment and frustration/disempowerment." It's really unfortunate that people have been driven to that state in the first place. What I expect from a democracy is fairness in representation for all.

However, as I write this, it brings to mind my own ambivalent feelings about politics. On past occasions I've gotten into discussions where I've painted myself into a corner and ended up saying something to the effect of "I love democracy, and everyone should vote... except for the people who disagree with me on X Y and Z policy issues." I'm afraid I don't know a way around this problem. I feel that everyone has a right to be heard and to have a say in the laws under which they must live. However, some groups of people have views and goals which are anathema to my values and hopes for our society. I do not know how these phenomena can co-exist.

posted by pieisexactlythree 02 January | 17:27

Neither do I, Pie. I guess, in the end, I vote because I have an unquestioned belief that it is right and useful to do so. I don't, however, have any faith that any human government will ever be what it can be. I guess I've replaced one paradox with another. Keeps me going, though.

posted by MonkeyButter 02 January | 17:34

muddgirl, I hope you didn't think I was trying to attack you earlier. I didn't mean to!

Not at all!

I feel that everyone has a right to be heard and to have a say in the laws under which they must live. However, some groups of people have views and goals which are anathema to my values and hopes for our society. I do not know how these phenomena can co-exist.

I know what you mean. I try to remember that (a) in the US, minority opinions often have the loudest voice (this is, in general, a GOOD thing), and (b)rational people often don't think to rationally about issues that are emotionally impactful.

posted by muddgirl 02 January | 17:38

If Badnarik ran again, I'd vote for him again.

posted by Eideteker 02 January | 23:09

If Badnarik ran again, I'd vote for him again.

No gun control, no public-funded education, the Gold Standard, bulldozing the UN, and "9/11 Truth"?

posted by matthewr 02 January | 23:29

I kind of like Ron Paul. I didn't know he was pro-life. That pretty much sucks. I like him because he is a feisty guy. I loved when he stomped Romney with the lawyer/declaration of war comment at the GOP debate.

posted by LoriFLA 03 January | 05:32

02 January 2008