Monday, December 12, 2011

VICE: Ron Paul, Part III: The Enpaulening

Today, on Vice, we have to deal with Ron Paul, Part III: The Enpaulening. There was the first version, and it was ugly and real, not like what we expected. It was like First Blood.

Then the replies made it all a vengeful, direct attack on something that was right. Like Rambo: First Blood Part II. We had to kill — even the made-up crap. We had to look the bad thing in the eye and say, "Aaauughhh!!!" Now, the third part, like Rambo III, it's about Afghanistan. We need to get the bad guys out. We need to fight them. Only the bad guys are us and Ron Paul is... right?

He is. Click the man who has delivered over 4,000 babies to be delivered to the Vice article that reconsiders Ron Paul:

One thing that couldn't be addressed in the Vice piece, for space constraints, is that Paul is the only major politician on the radar of the 24-hour news who rejects any premise for invading or interfering with Iran, which pairs the most sensible attitude on the matter with the most easily maligned candidate. The United States either has troops, drones or sympathetic regimes surrounding Iran, and American foreign policy wonks daily advocate either an invasion or terroristic strikes on sites within its borders.

Increasingly, our justification for striking at Iran is its angry opposition to the fact that we surround Iran, threaten to bomb it and may already be doing so via clandestine strikes and assassinations. We practice a bullying foreign policy, and then we act surprised when that policy backfires. Our only solution is to double down on that bellicosity and violently eradicate the same antipathy that we've directly engendered.

Lastly, while you're there, feel free to keep clicking the MORE button and dig on those comments. There's probably a 5-1 ratio of negative to positive responses, which is sort of entertaining when it's not a stone bummer.


  1. The comments suck, but it's Ron Paul. You have been dealing with those people long enough to know that they are completely incapable of changing their beliefs based on evidence.

    PS This isn't here or there, but a Twitter friend of mine apparently succeeded in getting #RIPRonPaul trending, and it's pretty funny.

  2. Yeah, I was in on that last night. That was hilarious. So much fun for about half an hour there.

  3. It's hard to see Ron Paul supporters as a political movement instead... say... a cult since not a single one of them will argue in good faith. I've seen Ayn Rand readers willing to admit their opponents aren't crazed agents of the government. But for Paul supporters, any disagreement with the Sacred Creed of of Paul means the INFIDEL must be attacked.

  4. Isn't all this irrelevant, what with Paul being dead?

  5. The PaulTards in the comments on Vice really are quite amusing.

  6. As much as Ron Paul makes the GOP squirm, you sure have a way of making the Ron Paul Internet Cult squirm.

    Because I hate the world and everything in it, I actually read through all of the comments on that story. Here is what I've learned:

    You are sheep and an agent of the mainstream media. You are a racist scumbag. You are spreading Fox News talking points. You should probably spend more time researching the truth instead of shopping for skinny jeans and non-prescription eyeglasses while spreading your NWO propaganda. Oh, and by the way, even black folks are tired of people calling things racist. If you understood the philosophy of liberty, you'd know why Ron Paul never could have written that newsletter. And no racist could ever support ending the drug war.

    Also you aren't very good at taking criticism (which of course assumes that all of the above is legitimate criticism).

  7. I think all the colloidal silver the Ron 'Paulogists have been drinking has messed with their ability to reason.


  9. Guess who sponsored the Iranian Student Expulsion Act of 1979?

  10. Paul is the only one smashing through the wall of what is and isn't allowed to talk about in US politics. The false left-right divide. I support anyone who speaks truth to power and busts open communication channels.

    It's really funny: read a conservative web site. "I love RP's fiscal solutions, but I HATE his foreign policy! I would never vote for him!"

    Liberal: "I love RP's foreign policy, but I HATE him for his domestic views! I would never vote for him!"

    Divide and conquer. We need to stop thinking this way.

  11. His foreign policy isn't all that fantastic either. Letters of marque and reprisal: a nice olde-tyme euphemism for licensed piracy. It figures.

    Also: I really love (read: loathe) the loaded word 'truth' used in the context that members of Paul's personality cult constantly use. Along with words and phrases like 'open your EYES', 'wake up!!!!' and 'sheep' (as well as its variants thereof), 'truth' is sort of a dog-whistle term in that it's a good signal for me not to take the person using it seriously.

  12. The comments are indicative of the ability to half think on behalf of the Tards that follow Paul and Paul himself; He 'educates' them, and they go forth with this new 'knowledge' thinking to educate others.

    The problem is that both are lacking in knowledge and the ability to critically think. Its like the top idiot preaching to his underlings; essentially they remain all idiots.

    Case in point, Paul's repudiation of racism by this absurd position that the drug legislation is inherently racist. Paul sheep nod wisely at these words, obviously Paul cannot be racist. The drug laws undoubtedly discriminate disproportionally against black people right? Right.

    But wait. Isn't that the implementation of the drug Laws, rather than the drug laws themselves? Don't other Laws discriminate against black people too? Isn't the issue institutionalised racism within the American Criminal Justice System, rather than individual laws? So why focus then on drug laws and link them to black people? Why not the murder laws instead for example? Don't they likewise discriminate?

    Nevertheless the Tards nod sagely. Smoking Weed is a minor crime. Why target a 'community that regularly smokes it' are the unstated words. This is Paul's defence against personal racism and no-one seems to think it is an issue, but instead a sound and constructive reply to accusation.

    Of course, its just a ploy to push forward one of Paul's stances. To even suggest that his reasons for pushing the legalisation of drugs is in some way to assist the minorities discriminated by drug laws is ignorance. Paul doesn't care about that; he cares about his issue.

    What does Paul even understand? What is he campaigning on? What does he want to do or feels skilled to do? It seems to me nothing. He has no real foreign policy as his policy is non involvement practically everywhere. He wants domestic government trimmed down to semi non-existence and the remainder to run on a shoe string budget with powers handed to the States. So what role does he see himself doing?

    Even if Paul were lucky enough to land the role of President, I'd imagine he'd be around long enough to fuck up the US with insane legislation almost sending the country into the dark ages, before he kicks the bucket.


Et tu, Mr. Destructo? is a politics, sports and media blog whose purpose is to tell jokes or be really right about things. All of us have real jobs and don't need the hassle that telling jokes here might occasion, which is why some contributors find it more tasteful to pretend to be dead mass murderers.