Feeding The Trolls
Every once in a while, I give in to the temptation to respond to some negative email. Here’s a recent email exchange that you might enjoy. The subject line : Wow, you got a blog!
Amazing. You managed to do what millions of others have done. Now put something on it that matters.
Ron Paul fan, I presume?
Greg,
I would only say this, in the words of a once great Roman writer, “He cannot be strict in judging, who does not wish others to be strict judges of himself. It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.”
First, I didn’t write anything there that you didn’t invite on yourself by your criticism of others, but why don’t you promote your own great ideas? If you have them, then speak up and let the world hear! It solves nothing to simply attack others for their honesty and integrity if you have nothing to fill the void. So, go ahead, write more epithets if you will, but I think you owe it to yourself to find the positive vein of your thoughts and put those out instead. It’s obvious you’re intelligent, now let’s see your courage.
Ron Paul supporter and Constitution worshipper,
xxxx xxxxxxxxx
Was the national anthem playing in the background when you wrote that email? There’s a righteous fury in your writing that seems like it’s begging for an overture of strings to accompany it.
I’m a little confused by your statement “I didn’t write anything there that you didn’t invite on yourself by your criticism of others”. Well…yeah. In case you hadn’t noticed, my site is full of comments by people who think I’m a freedom-hating dumbass who doesn’t understand how America *really* works. Not only do invite criticism, but I provide a forum in which people can publicly express their outrage at the things I’ve written.
Also, to speak to your suggestion that I promote my own “great ideas”, feel free to dig through my archives. I’ve been blogging for almost five years now and in that time I’ve written on topics such as healthcare, tax policy, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, gun control, poverty, and any number of issues.
Finally, mad props for the Cicero quote. Kinda reminds me of one of my favorite Cicero quotes, which applies nicely to Ron Paul mania :
“He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.”
I can understand the enthusiasm Ron Paul has generated to a degree. I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war since day one, but beyond that, a lot of his positions are as faith-based as anything out of the Bush Administration. Whereas the President’s faith is in God, Paul’s is in the free market, yet neither seems to hold up to scrutiny. We’ve already had the kind of laissez faire utopia that Ron Paul thinks will cure this economy’s ills. It led to the Gilded Age, industrial monopolies, children working in factories, etc. I’m open to the idea that various regulations are overly harsh or that government agencies aren’t doing a good job tackling the problems they were designed to address, but dismantling the government isn’t going to make these problems go away. Or to put things another way, you can’t save the country by replacing cumbersome bureaucracy with wishful thinking.
Ron Paul and his followers look at a vision of America with an incredibly limited government and call it “freedom”. I see the same thing and see “open season on the American public by moneyed interests”. Obviously there’s a balance that needs to be found there, but is Ron Paul the man to find that balance? From everything I’ve seen, he’s such an absolutist in his views that the answer would have to be “no”.
I like the constitution too,
Greg
11 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Thanks Greg, i think i have a better understanding of your concerns, and i truely enjoyed your post.
Comment by pogo — December 21, 2007 @ 6:15 am
two question…is it not open season on the public now, by goverment bureaucracy,and moneyed interests? Will any of the other mainstream candadates even try to restore some balance between the power of the goverment,and the rights of the individual? I don’t know how many of Ron Paul’s goals he could achieve, i would hope he ,or whomever our next president might be,would start by understanding that many Americans are sick of a goverment breathing down thier necks,picking thier pockets,and destrying thier inalienable rights. Ron Paul is the only one really talking about personal liberties, so maybe it takes a firebrand to make any changes at all.After all none of the mainstream candidates will even touch the subject,they run the goverment,the goverment runs your life,and to them thats just fine,thats just the way they think it should be,no problem to address.Its no wonder Ron Paul has draw the interest of so many.I do find great discomfort with some of his platform,but on the issue of personal liberty,he seems to be the only candidate who understands there is a prolblem.So if your personal liberties are important to you,its difficult not to consider Ron Pauls message,in a careful manner.
Comment by pogo — December 21, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
It is utterly naive to compare the effects of government bureaucracy on the public to the effects of moneyed interest on the public — the latter is infinitely more threatening to our standard of living than the former could ever be. Moneyed interests are driving the middle class further toward poverty and keeping our national health system in its current disreputable state.
These moneyed interests — the free market forces that Libertarians are convinced will solve all our problems — have gotten where they are by making the world a shittier place to live for the bottom 98 percent of the income scale. Government bureaucracy, flawed though it may be, is in many cases the last, fragile barrier keeping working people from getting completely fucked over by incredibly wealthy, incredibly greedy interests. The minimum wage, as pathetically low as it is even after it rises to $7.50 an hour, exists because of government regulation, and it is patently ridiculous and utterly naive to assert that it’s some sort of impediment to our liberties. Incidentally, “free market forces” are what keeps said minimum wage so continually, pathetically far below a living wage.
By the way, what “inalienable right” is the government taking from us? I’d love some clarification on that.
Finally, a word on taxes. Let’s get something clear here: The unbelievably wealthy top 2 percent of our nation got where they are today because the United States created an environment where their businesses could flourish. They would not be rich without this nation. As such, it is entirely fair to tax them at a higher rate, among other things because after being taxed at a higher rate, THEY’RE STILL INCREDIBLY RICH. If your tax bill is higher than you feel it should be, it’s in no small part because the concentrated lobbying by this obnoxiously wealthy minority has shifted the tax burden inordinately to the disappearing middle class.
That said, ordinary, non-obscenely-wealthy Americans are not, in fact, having their pockets picked by the government. We are, in fact, paying our fair share to enjoy a preposterously high standard of living, one we would not be able to achieve in nearly any other country on the planet. It takes money to maintain a great nation, and while I agree the tax burden is not appropriately distributed, it is ludicrous and infantile to assert we should be able to enjoy the myriad rewards U.S. citizenship has to offer without having to contribute financially to its furthering.
Comment by briantologist — December 21, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
I would have quoted “seni supino colei culum tegunt” myself. But AW SNAP! Good one Greg. Youre one of the Boni homines.
Comment by Ross Lincoln — December 21, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
You draw them like moths to the flame, Greg.
Comment by iamspam — December 22, 2007 @ 2:54 am
Have you not noticed the detruction of personal liberties?The “free speech zones”,the demise of habeas corpus ? Have you missed the protest nation wide for the last twenty years while protesters have been beaten,maced,tazered, and imprisoned?Have we not seen the right to a trial ,a lawyer,or even a public charge,overruled by the Patriot Act? Do you think all these goverment decrees are just for bad old foreigners and not for you? If you do i hope you are right,but i definitely feel the constitution has been thrown out the window by all three branchs of goverment,the fourth estate,and most unfortinate,the very expectation of an inalienable right to liberty,has faded from the minds of many citizens. People desire limited funding of goverment, not out of greed,or selfishness ,but as a method to curtail an all seeing,all knowing,all powerfull,bearucracy.They see the monies collected thru taxs,fees,and fines,used to purchase more tazers,cameras,domestic spy technologies ,and an army of federal,state and local law enforcers hired to protect the system and persecute the people.They watch a goverment collect thier money in the name of the common good,then spend the lions share on it’s own bearucracy ,as it employs wastefull,ineffective polices,doomed to repeated failure,which somehow entitles this enterprise to demand even more money.I can understand that drastic defunding of the goverment is a scary proposition,but this idea is’nt just shared by mean spirited,selfish old hermits who just don’t want to pay thier share,it is also entertained by those with a genuine fear,that taxation without representation has become the govermant dictated law of the land.Limited goverment funding could be a great idea,or a disaster,but the advocation by so many,reflects a deep distrust,which should suprise no one.
Comment by pogo — December 22, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Pogo, you’re obviously being deliberately obtuse, or at least I’m charitably assuming that you are because no one could possibly be as incredibly fucking stupid as you’re pretending to be. Go back and read Greg’s site for the last 4 years. After about 3 seconds you’ll figure out that you’re on a liberal blog and that liberals, not “libertarians” have been screaming until we’re hoarse about the very things you’re mentioning since these very things began to creep up on us. In fact, I’d like to point out that we’ve been doing it since long before Libertarians suddenly rediscovered their so-called principles (which, coincidentally, seems to have happened right around the time Bush’s poll numbers went through the floor and it began to look like perpetual tax cuts weren’t going to be perpetual after all, at least, not with Cokey McGee in the Oval Office. Imagine that!)
The fact is, all of you so-called libertarians don’t actually give a shit about “liberty,” or you would have been doing something about this shit when it started. Where were you during the protests? Where were you in the 2000 and 2004 election. Where were you during the Schiavo debacle? During the AG scandals? During the Abu Graib nonsense? When you first heard about Guantanamo? During the lead up to this fucking unforgivable war. If you’re like most libertarians I’ve ever met, you were whining like a cowardly little baby about how the terrorists are going to attack any minute now, moaning about how naive people like us are, how “everything changed” after 911, and lapping up tax cuts after fucking tax cuts as the war and right wing ruined this country.
I’d be much more willing to believe you if you can show me proof that you either voted for Kerry or abstained in the general election in 2004, ditto for Gore in 2000. But nope, I bet you voted for Bush twice. So stop your sanctimonious whining about liberty and actually examine how you and your morally bankrupt so-called philosophy is nothing more than selfishness elevated to the highest value. Libertarian? Please. I’ve never met a libertarian who wasn’t nothing more than a greedy, angry white guy who couldn’t get laid. you brought George Bush on yourself. Fucking deal with like a grown up and stop insulting the people who had the actual courage to say something before it was cool to.
Meanwhile those of us who have been doing the real work of fighting this shit that you and you so-called libertarian friends have spent the last 7 years enabling have some fairly sincere problems with Ron Paul that have nothing whatsoever to do with his long overdue and extremely insincere sounding opposition to Bush’s (and by extension, both party elites) Orwellian obsessions. We applaud his opposition to these things. But we’re also capable of seeing past your pathetic black helicopter fantasies and your sad obsession with tax cuts, and we can read through history enough to know that his economic policies would cause a depression, his policies on sexual freedom (which I would argue is as important as economic and political freedom) are reactionary to the point that they could be called medieval, and his view on America’s role in the world is retarded and dangerous.
But like most libertarians, you’re probably also incapable of abstract thought so you’ll ignore everything I said and sputter about how we don’t care about liberty, or how we’re close minded, or how we’re a bunch of socialist nutjobs something. Whatever. When you’re spent 7 years fighting these monsters, you can have a place at the table. Until then, go back home to your mommy’s basement and keep playing Rome: Total War while fantasizing about the perfect libertarian country.
Anyway, you keep drooling on yourself and pretending you care about liberty. It’s kind of cute, like a baby who laughs after shitting its diaper. The rest of us who actually do care about real liberty and real freedom, and the actual Constitution, will keep doing the work you’re too lazy and too cowardly to actually do. Now please fuck off and let mommy and daddy figure out how we’re going to pay for your school supplies, m’kay?
Comment by Ross Lincoln — December 22, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Well i thought this was a political disscision,but it seems to be a name calling forum, which is fine,if The Talent Show only wants to preach to the choir,thats ok by me.I was aware this is a liberal blog,i’ve found the recent debate informative,but since you decided i’am a libertarian,you launch and attack against the sterotype in your own mind.I will not reply in kind,and if I have offended anyone here personnly,I’am truely sorry.My only intent has been to join a friendly debate concerning the issues surrounding Ron Pauls platform.Since it appears my participation has invoked a lenghty list of cruel assumptions concerning me personally,I must recognize the segregated neighborhood i have wandered into ,where it appears that anyone precived to be a libertarian(even a registered Democrat of 40 years) must be subjected to a most foul verbal stoning.As long as we base our arguments on the misguided notion,that those we disagree with,are stupid,or evil,or lazy,while we are smart,good,and hardworking,then no understanding or comprimise is possible,so I won’t waste your time, or mine. Merry Christmas to you all,From the cresent city…yall come see us at Marde Graw
Comment by pogo — December 23, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
“one of (your) favorite Cicero quotes”? How many favorite Cicero quotes do you have? I mean, who needs more than one or two?
Comment by bleech — December 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am
People who rave over how swell this guy is just creep me out; it literally doesn’t matter how many dire flaws one points out - they either shoot the messenger, or just look the other way, & pick up their ideological pompoms for yet another Moonie-like session of “RP 2008, Ron Paul FTW” yelping. Ironically, his crypto-fundamentalism isn’t his Achilles’ Heel but many of his ardent fans sure are.
Ron Paul voted for the FISA Act & against the 1965 Civil Rights Act, arguing in effect that the right to disciminate trumps the rights of minorities to live free of discrimination - which may explain why he’s got a nice fellow like DAVID DUKE on his side … he’s a libertarian like I’m pregnant.
Comment by jim — December 28, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
I think we need to stop using the word Libertarian to describe support for Liberty. It’s just a made-up marketing term anyway, like “communitarian” (Instead of socialist,) designed to let conservatives feel like they’re not dour old weirdos without having to use the dreaded “liberal” moniker. It annoys me that every time I end up in a conversation with a fellow lib, when we discuss our commitment to civil liberty and general social freedom, they end up saying that in “these ways,” they have libertarian principles. Since when was opposition to tyranny and a police state not a liberal value?
I challenge anyone who claims to support liberty to stop letting pro drugs conservative spretend they do too. Libertarianism isn’t a reasonable, well thought out political philosphy. It’s adolescent psychology. Libertarianism isn’t about liberty, it’s about property. And the two aren’t even remotely related.
And once again, will someone explain to me where these vaunted defenders of liberty have been all decade? Oh yeah, they’ve been calling people like us faggots, traitors and insane.
Speaking of Libertarianism in practice, last week was the anniversary of the day South Carolina decided to secede from the Union, rather than let the government take away their states’ rights to own slaves. Why we didn’t just let the south have their third world libertarian shithole, leaving the rest of us alone, I’ll never know. The rest of the country would be better off without Texas anyway.
Comment by Ross Lincoln — December 29, 2007 @ 11:50 am