Bitterly stupid citizens against Ron Paul

This letter to the editor at the Baltimore Sun is so seething with venom and, well… wrongness, that I have to share:

I can’t help but marvel at the irony of Ron Paul calling foul over getting the short end of the debate stick on CBS (“Republican debate is the media’s latest failure,” Nov. 15).

Dr. Paul is usually more consistent with his arguments. Clearly the free market has determined that his campaign is not worthy of the amount of time the other candidates get.

The Republican line is that he should just work harder. Why should CBS just give him a handout of more exposure? Is he advocating for some kind of affirmative action so that his minority share of the polls earns the same as those in the majority?

Hopefully he can learn to empathize with the majority of Americans who have only been getting “89 seconds of time in a 90 minute debate” for a long time now.

Sydney Nusinov, Rosedale

Well, I’m not entirely sure s/he’s bitter, but I certainly read it with an accent of stupid.

Where would I start to rebut this? Oh yes, the fact that there’s no irony here. None whatsoever.

posted Nov 25th, 2011 by vforvandyke
  • Anonymous

    There is a reason they are called Baltimorons ya know.

  • Ta Zorek

    deh hurr… media isn’t politics. Candidates aren’t chosen by free markets.

  • Greenemerald-

    If that were true that free markets determine speaking time then ron paul would be only one speaking

  • Anonymous

    Well unfortunately it’s not a free market.

    McCain-Feingold and so called “campaign reform” has given the media more and more control over the elections.     While these reform bills are supposed to make things more fair, it actually limits the amount of money people can donate.

    In a 24 hour news cycle, it enables the media to give the candidates the equivilant of MILLIONS of dollars of face time for free.     So while the people themselves are limited, the media is able to boost up any candidate they want.    Which we have seen repeatedly happen this election cycle as the media gets behind a candidate and they rise to the top and so on.

    You can’t compete with that via campaign contributions.  

    The sad part of the letter is the person probably thought they were being clever, but really just exposed themselves as being ignorant to the meanings of their words.

  • Scott

    Stephen Van Dyke, Ron Paul has been 3rd in the polls but Santorum who has last or close to last consistently more time. Same thing goes for Newt. He was near the bottom – well behind Ron Paul but got more a lot more time which explains his rise. Despite getting 87 seconds in the foreign policy debate he maintained his position, and the the truth comes out that he is in 2nd of a “four way” tie which proves that if he can maintain these numbers like he has despite the media & establishment stacked against him then he is actually the front runner

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Michael/100002314835409 Paul Michael

     It’s actually quite dangerous for the Republican party NOT to choose
    Ron Paul. If he runs as a 3rd party he’ll take a huge base of
    supporters with him. And if you know anything about Ron Paul
    supporters you know they’re Ron Paul or nothing. Thus making it
    almost impossible for whoever the Republican nominee would be to get
    the votes needed to beat Obama. Like him or not, if he’s forced to
    run as a 3rd party I don’t see how Republican’s take take the vote
    away from Obama. So if your main concern is just getting Obama out,
    you really need to take another look at Ron Paul.

  • http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet Tom Dybowski

    Ron Paul vs. Big Brother 2012
    the choice is clear

  • http://profiles.google.com/sanjaysingh.boston Sanjay Singh

    Obama = Romney = Perry = Cain = Gingrich = GOP = Democrats. Different puppets, same deceitful/ traitorous Federal Reserve/Bankster masters.

    Gingrich = endless wives, $1.8-Million Freddie-mac bribe, commie Gingrichcare, 3rd world amnesty/welfare, $16-Trillion/bailouts, endless wars/empire.

    Cain = Kansas Federal Reserve thug, “Libya swirls in my head”, unauthorized finger in panties, $16-Trillion/Bailouts, endless wars/empire.

    Romney = commie Romneycare, racist quotas, $16-Trillion/bailouts, abortion, gun control, endless wars/empire, campaign funding by Banksters.

    Perry = Gardasil for little girls, free health/ education/house/food/amnesty for 3rd world invaders, “niggerhead” on farm, “oops, whats the 3rd one?”, “Bank-of-America helping him out”, endless wars/empire.

    End the wars/empire, end the federal reserve/IMF/World Bank/BIS/UN/WTO, end racist quotas/unconstitutional departments, end TSA/DHS/ADL/SPLC and other Orwellian crime syndicates.

    Ron Paul will restore sound money, strong national defense, liberty, free enterprise, local government, strong traditional families, Western Civilization.

    • Mad Hater

      And it won’t be a campaign of lies, like Obama.

  • Anonymous

    He’s slowly growing on me, he’s finally justified his attitude toward Israel in my eyes.

    I still can’t stand his stance on weed. Being a business owner I’ve had to fire two unproductive young men in the past, each of who were proud weed smokers. I just can’t bear the thought of having to close my business due to a lack of ambitious employees. My irritation at his drug stance is slightly lessened by the fact that he would do away with welfare so at least my tax dollars wouldn’t be going to lazy potheads.

    I like his ideas on isolationism in politics, hopefully he doesn’t want to be an isolationist when it comes to trade. I do however wonder if it would take a full blown nuclear attack to draw him into a war. He seems a little too pacifist and feeble.

    • http://vforvandyke.com vforvandyke

      It sounds like you hired a couple of lazy slackers. Whether they smoked marijuana is merely a corollary to their lazy outlook on life.

      I’m not going to begrudge you on hiring and firing whoever you want since that’s your business, but I know a lot of very productive people who can smoke and drink without any negative effects on their accomplishing great things (Olympic gold medal swimmer Michael Phelps being the Weedies poster boy). I also know plenty of lazy pieces of trash who have never touched an illicit substance in their life.

      And FWIW the term you’re looking for is “non-interventionist,” not “isolationist.” If anyone dared attack our nation, Ron Paul is one of the few commanders I would trust to handle the situation. But we’re talking in silly hypotheticals now.

      • hiitsmescott

        FWIW isolationist and non-interventionist are synonymous.

        http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=isolationism

        http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/isolationism

        “I know a lot of very productive people who can smoke and drink without any negative effects on their accomplishing great things”

        I hear that a lot, but only from weed smokers.

        • http://vforvandyke.com vforvandyke

          Probably because they’re so often — and so unfairly — maligned.

          If you don’t believe in the greatness of known weed smokers, go ahead and take at least half of your record collection and throw it in the trash. You wouldn’t want to hypocritically support the prolific record catalogs of marijuana smoking musicians or anything.

          And be careful what television or movies you watch, Hollywood is rife with tokers.

          While you’re at it, go ahead and throw out your Shakespeare, there’s evidence that even he was a pot smoker: http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/03/01/shakespeare.cannabis/

          • Anonymous

            Fiction writers, actors and musicians, friend. Not exactly the people you want to depend on to fix your car, grow your food, or build your house. I can honestly say I’m not deriving too much inspiration from Shakespeare, that guy was obviously messed up. Like many of the successful people I know, I don’t watch TV, but if I did I wouldn’t feel that watching a pothead actor was hypocritical or a breach of my opinion seeing how I wouldn’t be counting on him/her to do anything but entertain me.

            I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. Though it’s been my experience with weed smokers that it’s never that easy.

            I’d love to go back and forth forever, but I have a business to run. But I’m leaving this conversation well reminded of why I didn’t like Ron Paul in the first place….his followers.

          • http://vforvandyke.com vforvandyke

            I’d love to go back and forth forever, but I have a business to run. But
            I’m leaving this conversation well reminded of why I didn’t like Ron
            Paul in the first place….his followers.

            I’m leaving this conversation humorously reminded of why I titled this piece “Bitterly stupid citizens against Ron Paul.” It’s been swell, good luck with your angry business.

        • Chickaloo28

          No, they are quite different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Angela-Denise-Rogers/577848790 Angela Denise Rogers

      May I suggest you read one of his books?  It would give you the information you need to really know about his positions and why they would be good for America.  “Liberty Defined” is his most recent and has his issues laid out in an organized fashion, I found it at my local library. As for his “isolationist” stance, he is not an isolationist but a non-interventionist and there is enough difference that you will be interested in learning about that some more as well.

      As far as being “feeble”, let’s just say I have watched the other candidates change their stance and try to compromise for the sake of voter popularity but never will you find Ron Paul doing that, so “feeble” insofar as character is concerned is no issue with him.  And as for being a pacifist, I do not condone unjust wars, which are wars of aggression and I do not believe that as a Christian nation we should be engaging in them.  Thus his unwavering stance in the face of so much fear mongering within the body politic and the media is just another reason to trust him, in my opinion. I wish you well on your journey of discovery of Ron Paul, it seems he has piqued your curiosity!

      • Anonymous

        Thanks Angela. I’m an avid reader but didn’t realize he had written any books. I don’t advocate war for the sake of war either, but having traveled abroad and had people tell me their stories and their parent’s stories I am glad we are willing to step in to take care of a bully.

        I meant feeble as in frail/elderly. He seems to be plenty strong enough in character and I appreciate that he doesn’t like waffles.

        If Ron Paul had more supporters like you I think he’d have more supporters.

        Thanks for the book suggestion.

  • Anonymous

    It’s scary that people are so desperate for change that they run to the guy who would destroy our environment and leave a desolate wasteland for our children, well, the ones that don’t end up dying in a sweat shop when they should be in school. But that’s OK because you’ll have the opportunity to die next to them in the unsafe working conditions thanks to his plan to get rid of OSHA, that’s if you don’t die from pollution first.   

    And if you don’t believe that, go back and look at his website and look at his stance on the environment. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the right to pollute, a vote to remove the shackles on already reckless corporations, a vote that legalizes the very corruption that you’re trying to vote against. All you need to do is look at American history at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to see Ron Paul’s vision for America. Sounds great, right? Prosperity, something for everyone? Not quite, unless your dream is to “owe [your] sole to the company store”, to be in exponentially debt because your cost of living will always exceed your income, even when you have your children working beside you, well the ones that don’t get mangled in the machinery or die of a preventable disease by today’s standards. So yeah, if that sounds good to you then by all means go for it.

    • Anonymous

      You realize workplace injuries were in decline BEFORE OSHA was formed right? I worked on my parents farm so that we could eat. It didn’t kill me and it gave me a better work ethic than most folks I know.

      OSHA taking credit for the decline in workplace injuries is like someone jumping in front of a parade and acting like they’re leading it. My boy Dave Ramsey said that.

      Anyhow if the enviro-nazis are against Paul a lot of us will vote for him out of spite.

      Not sold on Ron Paul quite yet,

      Scott

      • Anonymous

        Your experience is not a typical one, but it does seem to have left you with the inability to open a history book. Ron Paul would have been the only guy in DC to say that the dust storm blowing through there was a naturally occurring event and that the best way to help the farmers is let them wait it out and let the kids keep dying from dust pneumonia. 

        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

        • Anonymous

          I guess you’re talking about the Dust Bowl? I have to guess because you didn’t form a complete thought. I think it’s safe to say we know a bit more about that situation and how to handle it now than we did back then.

          “You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your
          child… Do not remain nameless to yourself — it is too
          sad a way to be. Know your place in the world and evaluate yourself
          fairly, not in terms of the naïve ideals of your own youth…” 
          -Richard P. Feyman

          nameless – i have no name

          I see what I did there.

          • Anonymous

            Merely testing the depth of your knowledge of history and actually surprised you got the reference . But just because we know how take care of the land and prevent another Dust Bowl doesn’t mean we’re going to. Just as we know how to think for ourselves doesn’t mean we won’t take the easy answers to complex problems, without considering the consequences of our actions. Environmental recklessness has consequences. The land is only going to take care of you as well as you take care of it. Doesn’t matter if you poison the land, Ron Paul is fighting for the right for anyone or any business to do it for you so that you can in turn sue that person or business. Whether or not you win will depend on the ability to prove guilt. And let’s not forget that pollution doesn’t even have to come from your immediate area and that it can come from other areas by wind, rain or whatever. Ron Paul also wants to have more nuclear plants. So what if we have no place to store the waste. So what if the plants themselves rely on clean water to operate or if he removes the regulations and oversight of these plants and the companies that own them maintain them with duct tape and bailing twine as long as not that many people get hurt and have the right to sue if they do.  The man still thinks BP’s gulf oil disaster wan’t that bad.