Ron Paul vs. the Neocons II

My favorite neoconservative, Donald Douglas, is once again going off the deep end about Ron Paul. He can't seem to decide whether Paul is a major threat to the Republic or a joke with no chance of electoral success. These are, of course, mutually exclusive positions, and the strain of holding them both at the same time is causing him no small amount of cognitive dissonance.

I've addressed this subject before but Donald seems to have forgotten, if he ever understood in the first place. Someone who is actually interested in a reasoned discussion would try to understand the opponent's position in order to refute it more convincingly. Donald does not do this. Instead he stands by the side of the road like a bag lady, shouting insults at passers-by. Nothing he says makes sense but he seems totally convinced of his own genius. That such a person managed to get a Ph.D. is a serious indictment of graduate-level education in this country.

Read the comments from this post and you'll see what I mean. Numerous people - including me - try to talk sense to Donald but none come close to succeeding. Donald is hung up on the fact that people from assorted fringe groups are uniting behind Ron Paul instead of a "legitimate" candidate. A more rational person, assuming he wants to see the White House stay in Republican hands, would quickly realize this is actually a good thing. The GOP needs all the help it can get. Another commenter named Rhys had this to say:

It's not hard to explain Paul's support among fringe elements. He stands for freedom and liberty, and fringe elements feel oppressed.

I think that it is amazing. What other politician today takes donations and claims support from both racists and integrationists, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, military and civilian, Democrat and Republican? It's not hard to explain Ron Paul's ground-swelling of support from all sides (with the exception of big government and socialist interests) because it is the natural consequence of standing up for the values that united us over 220 years ago.

What I would like to see explained is why Republicans are not rallying behind the only Republican who seems capable of enticing Democrats to cross party lines in the general election? I'm starting to think that Republicans don't want to win. Maybe, they want to be in the minority party and lose the office of the president. I want to vote for a Republican that has a semblance of a chance at beating the Democrats in the general election.

This makes such breathtaking good sense that Donald will probably ignore the actual substance of it and instead accuse Rhys of being a neo-nazi sympathizer.

Donald also can't process the idea that Ron Paul as president is the last thing any real neo-nazi (as opposed to people who are just racists that like to wear brown shirts) should want. His philosophy is the polar opposite of state-centered fascism. To the extent any such people are supporting Ron Paul, they are working against their own interest.

Not content to attack people only on his own blog, today Donald pursued me back to Driving Out The Snakes and, for some unknown reason, chose my recent Feline Music post as the best place to resume haranguing me about Ron Paul. Hopefully this post will serve as a more relevant place to leave future incoherent arguments and insults.

5 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

I'm not laughing now, Patrick. You're making yourself look really bad.

I invited you for reasoned discussion, but you declined. I leave an evidence-based argument for you to rebut, you ignore it. Now you're over here misrepresenting my views, and making cheap ad hominem attacks.

Not good, again, but characteristic.

Rhys doesn't know what's he's talking about, but at least he tried to make a case, as flawed as it is.

Not only that, I've never called anyone in my comments section a neo-nazi. I have asked people to denounce Paul and his extremist support, but not one has yet to do it.

Paul likes the fringes, who buck him up and make him feel important. All the while he's a bottom-feeder in the polls.

Good thing I quit waiting for a rebuttal to Charen's post. Once I called you on the Stalinists you've been busy squirming out from anything near a coherent argument. Comparing me to a bag lady does not indicate any high-powered analysis over on this side.

This could go on forever, the namecalling, etc. I've said it before: I don't like Paul. I don't like his positions on the war, and on the size of government, and I don't like his cultivation of lunatics.

Let me borrow from Colonel Nathan Jessup: You can't handle the truth. You avoid it, and you're flummoxed when confronted with my opposition, and that's sad, especially for someone so quick to belitte graduate education (you could sure use some).

Let me know if you ever actually write something of substance. I do indeed enjoy engaging in it, although I'm not against slapping down hucksters when confronted.

Donald Douglas said...

I'll give you another chance: You asked where my "neocon" commenters were yesterday. Well, they don't troll online for Ron Paul posts in an effort to intimidate, but a couple of guys did stop by tonight.

G-Man left this:

"Paul is a pansy pacifist just like Gandhi, but he has far less personal appeal. I mean at least Gandhi had the cool lilting accent thing going on... RP on the other hand sounds like Donald Duck on Helium or fingernails on a blackboard.

I mean how can you possibly chant white power with any conviction when the power you're chanting about is the power to turn tail and hide behind our borders like a French maid facing a huge spider.

While you may have some token real issues mixed in like illegal aliens, abortion and governmental corruption the involvement of your candidate in the whole conspiracy theory/foil hat subculture absolutely negates his credibility. Your espousal of him negates yours."

This comment was directed at Juegenen, but certainly applies in your case as well.

Come on over, read the whole thing, and offer a rebuttal. In this post you say you'd like to find someone "who is actually interested in a reasoned discussion."

Well, I've got your match.

I'm not going to wait forever. I'm sure you'll keep writing your ad hominem slams on your blog against those you're too befuddled to actually rebut. But again I'm offering you a chance to save face. You definitely need it.

Patrick said...

Donald, your first comment above is the longest thing I've ever seen you write that doesn't include a block quote from someone else. Congratulations! See, original thinking isn't so hard.

Regarding graduate education, I actually have quite a bit of it. I was on my way to a Ph.D. with a fellowship at a prestigious private university (where your application would have been tossed quickly, I suspect). A job opportunity presented itself that included more money than even the full professors in our department made after 20+ years on the faculty. That made me realize how pointless a career in academia would be, so I bailed out with a master's degree and have never looked back. Good thing, too, or I might be stuck teaching bored teenagers in a community college somewhere.

On the bag lady line I actually thought it was pretty clever. It's no more ad hominem that when you call people things like little man, crybaby, limp, impotent, kooks, nuts, and whacked out. The fact is you love to dish it out, and that's fine, but please stop whining when other people shoot back. What I said was, if anything, unfair only to bag ladies.

As for rebutting the Mona Charen column, I don't need to re-invent the wheel. People in your comments have done so quite well, not to mention almost 200 comments following Charen's column. One of your pals quickly deals with this resistance by calling them "Paulbots" and averting his eyes - typical of neocon discourse. Faced with any sort of argument you can't answer, you either 1) ignore it, 2) dismiss it, or 3) insult whoever said it.

So, your demands for rebuttals and evidence from me are pointless because you have no intent of actually addressing them. I explained my position here some time ago. You ignored it because you have already decided that anything, I, Ron Paul, or anyone else on this side of the river says is stupid and foolish. Nothing will shake you from that belief. So this is no longer an argument; it is entertainment for you and your sycophantic sidekicks.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with holding fast to a position you think is correct. The problem is you deny everyone else that right. If you would just admit that not all Ron Paul supporters are from the lunatic fringe and try to be charitable in your arguments, you might stand a chance of actually changing someone's mind. That's how democracy works best.

The heart of the problem is that you and I have radically different worldviews. For you, it is all about Power. It is your overwhelming goal, it is the name of your blog, it is your god. In the political sphere, this is manifested most clearly by War, and domestically by the expansion of government into more and more facets of everyday life. You are like Gollum, forever chasing the One Ring.

All the candidates for President share your desire for Power. Even the Democrats are with you on this, though they differ a little on tactics and priorities. The only candidate who doesn't seek Power, and indeed wishes to return it to the people from whom it came, is Ron Paul. This is incomprehensible to you. He may as well be speaking Sanskrit, as far as you're concerned. Nothing he says penetrates your armor. All you know is that he is a threat that must be destroyed by any means necessary.

This is why you have no interest in actually engaging Ron Paul supporters. They aren't really people, in your view. They are Enemies of the State and deserve your wrath. They only brought it on themselves, you will say.

In the end, of course, Gollum got the Ring. The Power it brought him did not last long. I do not expect you to abandon your quest. I suspect it will take you places you do not wish to go, but that is your decision to make. I wish you peace.

Anonymous said...

The Charen article is a hit piece. She didn't even check out her facts. Here's the real story.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php

Anonymous said...

Thanks Patrick, for the script. I'm late in posting but can't resist some silliness of my own.
DD says he's "not against slapping down 'HUCK-sters'..." why doesn't he pick up from there?
He pretends to channel Dr. Paul who "likes the fringes, who buck him up and make him feel important."
This is one pathetic man in rut. Apparently his blood has left his brain and headed south. What fear! So much melodrama and desperation to assault the only candidate with morals and intelligence, the lone honest gentleman who HASN'T sold his soul to the New World Order, of being a 'bottom-feeder'.
Donald is both Snidley Whiplash, Coyote and, like the rest of his poser manly men ilk (Hillary & Moan-a included) hopelessly stuck in the "He-man Woman Haters Club" mentality.
What we need today is another revolutionary like Martha Mitchell to set these bubbas straight.