Finally, An "Occupy Fucktard Street" Protest For All The Fucktards Who've Been Feeling Left Out

Politics & Current Events

Iowa Occupiers disrupt Ron Paul's campaign headquarters, along with other Democratic and Republican campaign sites:

Occupy the Caucuses spokeswoman Danielle Ryun, who was among those arrested at the state Democratic Party headquarters, said the goal is not to be arrested. But since campaign officials won't listen to them, protesters are willing to be arrested to get their message across, she said.

"It would be great if we could show up, issue our concerns and have the candidates acknowledge us and change their platform," she said.

Let's see what parts of the Ron Paul platform needed work to make them acceptable to the Occupy movement:

  1. Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank – oops, already on the platform
  2. End federal payouts to banks - oops, already on the platform
  3. End federal payouts to large corporations that aren't banks - oops, already on the platform
  4. End foreign aid to Israel (and for that matter every other country) - oops, already on the platform
  5. End the war in Afghanistan - oops, already on the platform
  6. Withdraw American troops from Kuwait, South Korea, and Germany - oops, already on the platform
  7. Abolish the Transportation Security Administration, along with a number of other federal departments and agencies - oops, already on the platform
  8. End the War on Terror - oops, already on the platform
  9. End the War on Drugs - oops, already on the platform
  10. Establish a National Drum Circle on top of Mount Rushmore – not on the Ron Paul platform
Still, nine out ten ain't bad, and I'll note that Obama hasn't lived up to his promise to establish a drum circle on top of Mount Rushmore, despite all the dire warnings from John McCain.  I can see why the Occupiers are protesting the Democratic Party, which is bankrolled and owned by Goldman Sachs.  But Ron Paul?

That the occupiers would demonstrate against Paul, who so perfectly embodies their professed principles, shows them to be liars, idiots, or attention whores.

Or perhaps some combination of the above.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

40 Comments

39 Comments

  1. Dan Weber  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:00 pm

    I saw the news story a few minutes before it showed up here, and I was mildly impressed that the occupiers seemed to go after all parties.

    But I was distressed that they think that
    1. they get to show up and make any candidate they want change his platform — do I have this power, too?
    2. a campaign locking the doors when a mob shows up shows that the campaign is "disengaged" instead of not wanting to be zerg rushed

    Our society has been moving steadily towards fetishizing mob power in the name of democracy over the past century. But Bush 43 so rapidly increased that fetish that I expect to wake up one day to the news that the US was found dead in an alley, wearing a rubber suit and suffocated to death on a voting ballot.

  2. Scott Jacobs  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:07 pm

    You know, I bet the campaigns would be more interested in hearing the kids out if a) the kids didn't try to do it by barging into their offices and b) didn't use that fucking idiotic "People's Mic".

  3. Derrick  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:27 pm

    I actually think the "People's Mic" is about the only cool thing about Occupy

  4. Gator  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:32 pm

    Ron Paul is about small government and personal responsibility, which is incompatible with the Occupy Fucktard philosophy of big government and redistribution of wealth.

  5. Ken  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:37 pm

    But if you don't pay attention to them, they'll die!

  6. Patrick  •  Dec 29, 2011 @8:38 pm

    Dan, I used to have an office across the hall from David Price, a rather leftwing congressman from North Carolina (he represents Chapel Hill and Durham, not exactly the Bible belt).

    And I recall the day a bunch of Iraq war protesters from UNC busted into his office, threw files out the window, and abused his secretary, to let him know that they were against the war. Mind you, Price voted against the war. But he didn't do it because he feared a few art history majors from Chapel Hill.

    If anything, they made him want to vote for the war. I know that because he told me so.

  7. marco73  •  Dec 30, 2011 @7:33 am

    They want to Occupy Iowa in the winter?
    I could get behind occupying say, Hawaii, but The One already has dibs.

  8. Paul  •  Dec 30, 2011 @10:39 am

    The answer is b) idiots.

    I met and talked to some QWS protesters in NYC and Baltimore. Left with no doubt at all of their spectacular stupidity.

  9. Christopher  •  Dec 30, 2011 @12:04 pm

    "Protesters at Paul's campaign headquarters were protesting his proposal to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency if elected."

    It says that right there in the article.

    Honestly, I'm not sure that's the best idea. So every single property owner affected by a polluter is going to have to take them to court? Air and water quality go downhill and… everyone finds someone to sue? Presuming they have the means to determine who to sue and to find representation? How exactly does that work in practice?

    And if they're attention whores… well, at least they're successful attention whores. We're talking about them, aren't we?

  10. StrangeOne  •  Dec 30, 2011 @12:38 pm

    Chris, the problem with the EPA is that its unclear as to how much of their protections are actually effective. You see quite frequently how well connected companies get extensions and exceptions to rules where smaller companies are held to very strict or even non-existent standards. I used to work for a soil and water testing facility, and it seemed a very random process that the agency had for going after businesses, a gas station with a minor leak could be fined heavily within a month, but an industrial facility would be far out of safety ranges for the better part of two years and not get much more than a strongly worded letter. The agency standards seemed very divorced from any reasonable threat assessment.

    The concept of a federal agency, which has power at its sole discretion to shut down, fine, or harass any business without judicial oversight is pretty glaring constitutional issue. In many cases the day in court doesn't come until after the damage has been done and the victim has lost their business and in some cases much more.

    None of this is saying that environmental protections are unnecessary, just that the EPA as vehicle for fairly enforcing the laws (which themselves are pretty obtusely written, but that's a separate issue) has been very bad at it. The fact that many of it's powers are unconstitutional is Ron Paul's primary concern with the agency.

  11. Christopher  •  Dec 30, 2011 @1:01 pm

    StrangeOne – OK, I see there can be/are some problems with the EPA as it is. You could say that about… well, any government or private agency really. But:

    1 – Is doing away with it entirely with no replacement really the best idea? Large businesses that pollute are going to fear smaller, less-powerful entities and somehow behave even just as well as they do now?

    2 – Why is Patrick acting like this actual point of contention is never reported in the article?

  12. Ken  •  Dec 30, 2011 @1:04 pm

    Patrick tends to operate with a level of subtlety that you may be unaccustomed to seeing around here in his absence.

  13. Dan Weber  •  Dec 30, 2011 @1:53 pm

    Always remember there's a difference between "good policy" and "constitutional."

  14. Lago  •  Dec 30, 2011 @2:24 pm

    just gonna leave this here lol. i'm all for the occupy movement, but my god the people's mic thing scares me….

  15. InvincibleIronyMan  •  Dec 30, 2011 @4:21 pm

    Let us bow down in praise of Pope Ron Paul I.

    Ah, hell. I am only halfway through writing this, but a short preface and postscript, and I'm pretty sure I have enough material to be getting on with.

    You've just basically said that people who don't support Ron Paul are fucktards, and anybody who cares about democracy and fair-play would vote for Ron Paul. Not a word against the man, no admission that he might just be wrong about anything, even slightly. No balance whatsoever.

    Even if I knew nothing about Ron Paul, I would still be suspicious of that. It's just that I'm into a little thing I like to call skepticism. Maybe you've heard of it?

    I am not saying that I'm totally against Ron Paul. Maybe you're right and he is the best candidate. Shall we say, the lesser of two evils? Or maybe not. From what I've just read, it seems like you see no flaws in the man whatsoever.

    I'd just like to ask, though: in an election between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, is suicide, in your opinion, a valid third option?

    So, here is what I have written so far, and be assured I will finish, and I'm not done by a long chalk.

    Let's see if any of the following strike you as reasons one might justifiably not like Ron Paul. You know, in the absence of mental deprivation or "fucktardery":

    Reasons to dislike Ron Paul. Let me count the ways…

    Ron Paul is bad for minorities:

    “Contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” – Ron Paul

    “I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.” – Ron Paul

    Ron Paul called Martin Luther King Jr. Day "Hate Whitey Day".

    Ron Paul voted against including “sexual orientation” as a protected class in ENDA. meaning he thinks it’s OK to fire people for being gay

    Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoptions in DC.

    Ron Paul is anti-women:

    "Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable." – Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege (1987)

    Ron Paul has a 0% by NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights.

    Ron Paul voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.

    Ron Paul voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available

    Ron Paul voted to provide funding for abstinence only sex-education.

    Ron Paul cosponsored the 'Sanctity of Life Act' to ban abortion.

    Ron Paul is anti-science:

    Ron Paul has gone on record saying that he doesn't believe in evolution.

    Ron Paul voted, several times, not to authorize embryonic stem cell research.

    Ron Paul is against church/state separation:

    Ron Paul has a 17% rating with the AU (Americans United for Church/State Speparation, meaning he almost never votes in favor of a bill that would promote church/state separation.

    Ron Paul supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer

    Now, maybe that doesn't seem like a lot, but as I say I'm not finished. I'm quite keen to hear your opinions so far, though.

  16. Patrick  •  Dec 30, 2011 @5:30 pm

    You’ve just basically said that people who don’t support Ron Paul are fucktards, and anybody who cares about democracy and fair-play would vote for Ron Paul.

    No. I've said that people from a movement which, above all else, decries the special privileges our government affords to the banking industry who break into the office of the only prominent politician who would end ALL privileges for the banking industry are fucktards.

    I've criticized Paul a plenty in the past. I'm not going to link to it because this is my blog, not a fucking serial television show where I have to provide periodic recaps for drooling morphodites who missed last week's episode in order to preserve my ratings.

    Not a word against the man, no admission that he might just be wrong about anything, even slightly. No balance whatsoever.

    You think this is Fox News? Well I've got news for you Mr. Ben-Wa Ball. Britt Hume is a blow-dried airbag, and Sean Hannity is a God-damned sea monkey living in the Land of the Lost where the Sleestacks come, every night, to cornhole him in the boltholes Dr. Frankenstein attached to his neck when he resurrected him from the dead. And don't get me started about Chaka. They shipped that fucking fleabag off to be the Fox News Special Correspondent on prison conditions in Pyongyang.

    So get away from me with your fucking fair and balanced shit, you Snickers-eating, Big Country Lord of the Dance.

    And another thing, I'm getting pretty God-damned pissed off about greenhorn commenters coming in here from Boing Boing and whatever the fuck else benighted sites Ken has been whoring his fat ass out to in my absence, of whom you're Plaintiff's Exhibit One. There's a new sheriff in town to deal with Chunkazoids like you. I'm BACK, and I'm BEAUTIFUL. I'm running up the black flag, and you can curse your metal body that you weren't fast enough.

    Now go get me my Cheez-Whiz, you window-licking chicken fucker.

  17. Scott Jacobs  •  Dec 30, 2011 @6:41 pm

    *Looks at Patrick's comment, looks at his "I <3 Ken" sign, looks back at Patrick's comment, throws his sign away, and makes a fresh "I <3 Patrick" one to replace it*

  18. Ken  •  Dec 30, 2011 @6:43 pm

    Hey! I've been doing Pilates, okay!

  19. Scott Jacobs  •  Dec 30, 2011 @7:05 pm

    you window-licking chicken fucker

    We prefer to call them chicken lovers.

  20. Tam  •  Dec 30, 2011 @8:22 pm

    "So get away from me with your fucking fair and balanced shit, you Snickers-eating, Big Country Lord of the Dance."

    My ovaries are singing Ave Maria… :o

  21. InvincibleIronyMan  •  Dec 31, 2011 @4:56 am

    I'm not coming here from Boing-Boing, I am one of your subscribers! And I normally like what you write. I normally understand it on first reading too, unlike your reply to my comment. Not a complaint, BTW, I think you should write a whole book in that style, I would buy it!

    Here's another good Paul quote, this time on campaign finance reform, to show just how serious he is about fixing this mess that we're in:

    "Campaign finance reform really means more regulations, more controls, more telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress. Your freedoms should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. The problem is that there are members of Congress who yield to the temptation and influence of money, who effectively sell their votes to those who can give them money and keep them in office."

    Now that is hilarious. He's even funnier that you are! I love the way he refers to "your freedoms". Do you think he means me? I'd really hate to have my ability to lobby congress restricted. I guess that would mean I'd no longer to be able to sit outside in the rain with my placard, freezing my butt off anymore.

    So all we have to do is elect a bunch of honest guys to office who won't yield to temptation. That should be real easy. One wonders why we didn't think of that ourselves. Problem solved!

  22. Tam  •  Dec 31, 2011 @6:01 am

    "So all we have to do is elect a bunch of honest guys to office who won’t yield to temptation."

    Well, I think hanging the crooked ones on the Capitol steps would be a lot more fun, but we can keep trying it your way, if you'd like.

  23. Scott Jacobs  •  Dec 31, 2011 @12:18 pm

    I am one of your subscribers

    Subscribers?

    Subscribers????

    Son, just where the fuck is it that you think you're commenting?

    What the fuck makes you think anyone here – least of all Patrick – gives two jolly goat-fucks about the approval of someone who's so fucking new here he isn't even aware of the fact that pretty much no one here is a Ron Paul fan?

    Someone so lazy he can't be bothered to check to make sure that his accusations of blind Ron Paul support aren't complete and utter bullshit?

    Look, Tubby McLumpkins, I really hate to point this out to you, but when your mother told you that you were special, she was commenting that she was sure you should have been wearing a football helmet in homeroom.

    You are a complete and utter fuckwit, and frankly, I'm not going to miss you one fucking bit when you get banned for being a thundering retard.

    But before you depart, tell me…

    Who do YOU think the "honest politician" is in this race? Because however much we don't care for the guy, there is exactly one in the pile who doesn't just say whatever his and his pollsters think the crowd wants to hear, but instead says what he thinks, and what he has ALWAYS said.

    The only bad part is that it's the same guy that seems to dislike Jews, seems to wander a bit close to the Truther Line for anyone's liking (that isn't Michael Moore), who ends up screaming about how the Free Masons run everything 75% of the way through his speeches, and who has absolutely zero chance of winning in a general election.

  24. Robert  •  Dec 31, 2011 @1:18 pm

    The Occupiers are also as non-diverse/white as Ron Paul supporters!

  25. I Got Bupkis, Fomenter of "small-l" libertarianism  •  Jan 1, 2012 @3:22 am

    And if they’re attention whores… well, at least they’re successful attention whores. We’re talking about them, aren’t we?

    If you're a celebrity, this works. If you're attempting to get people onto your side of an argument or question, no.

    Making yourself look like a gibbering idiot does not speak positively of your stance on an issue, and hence does not lead one to a concurrence of opinion with you.

    As a matter of fact, this has been a specious campaign tactic, having someone shout out in support of a position, acting like an idiot, a derelict, or a wino in support of a position the "arranger" doesn't support. That is, to apply a "guilt by association" mindset to the typical members of the sheeple out there, who can't form their own opinions based on the facts or reasoning about the matter themselves.

  26. Kwalxaya  •  Jan 1, 2012 @1:13 pm

    In regards to #10, if Ron Paul & the libertarians truly honor property rights (and treaties), Mount Rushmore & the rest of the Black Hills should be returned to the Lakota Nation immediately. The US is in violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868

  27. Christopher  •  Jan 1, 2012 @2:33 pm

    Thing is, I'm not convinced every member of Occupy is a "fucktard" or "gibbering idiot" just because there are people that declare it over and over.

    What I mostly see is people cherry-picking the worst examples they can find to support that view – there's that guilt by association – and you can do that with any group.

  28. Scott Jacobs  •  Jan 1, 2012 @3:18 pm

    Here's something for you to puzzle over, Chrissy.

    How many felonies were committed in the last 3 years of TEA Party rallies or by members of the TEA Party?

    How many were committed at OWS rallies?

  29. Christopher  •  Jan 1, 2012 @4:06 pm

    Scott – I don't know you, you don't know me. No need to leap right into antagonism right off the bat.

    I suppose you're trying to infer that there have been no crimes (of arbitrary level of seriousness) committed at TEA party rallies (presumably by TEA party members) and that there have been felonies committed by OWS protestors, somehow as a result of OWS… existing, I guess.

    Which even if it were true, would be another case of attempted guilt by association attack, but then there's no evidence what you're implying is true to begin with.

  30. Scott Jacobs  •  Jan 1, 2012 @4:54 pm

    OK, so the violent, racist TEA Party, which has only had such labels applied by the Left because, well, because fuck them apparently, is exactly like OWS, where you frequently had Antisemitic messages, rampant drug crime, and rape so frequent they needed RAPE TENTS.

    Oh, and the 30+ tons of garbage and bio-matter.

    Yeah, OWS is the very picture of civilized protest.

    You people would fit in well in Greece.

  31. Christopher  •  Jan 1, 2012 @5:11 pm

    I'm sorry that there have been people on the left (I guess you're just assuming I'm one of them) applying the guilt by association/broad brush attacks to the TEA party (that I'm assuming you support,) but that doesn't make it acceptable for you to engage in the same sort of bad behavior in regard to OWS.

  32. Scott Jacobs  •  Jan 1, 2012 @5:28 pm

    *rolls his eyes*

    So Chrissy, at what point does the movement get painted with the broad brush?

    After the 200th crime? the 300th? 500? How many incidents does it take for you?

    Or can it NEVER be so labeled, because there will ALWAYS be some lone person who doesn't NOTHING but show up and stand there, and therefore it is impossible to label the entire movement?

  33. Christopher  •  Jan 1, 2012 @5:32 pm

    So far all I see is you making allegations that there's been some sort of major crime spree and that OWS is somehow exclusively responsible for it.

    I have not seen you present any evidence of these things, however.

  34. InvincibleIronyMan  •  Jan 2, 2012 @7:11 am

    @ScottJacobs

    Ron Paul III

    "Who do YOU think the 'honest politician' is in this race? Because however much we don’t care for the guy, there is exactly one in the pile who doesn’t just say whatever his and his pollsters think the crowd wants to hear, but instead says what he thinks, and what he has ALWAYS said."

    Oh, so you agree with me now? The debate seems to have moved from "Ron Paul is an all-around brilliant guy" and "why, oh, why, would Occupiers not like Ron Paul?" to "Ron Paul is the least dishonest politician". And in that regard, you may even be right. Not that it makes me like him any more than I do now.

    That's all I wanted to see, a bit of balance. Thank you for your support, although I am not surprised you are now taking this position, since my original point was largely made with direct quotes from Ron Paul and facts from the voting record. Very wise, since they would be very hard to refute.

    BTW, you need to work on the rhetoric.

  35. I Got Bupkis, Fomenter of "small-l" libertarianism  •  Jan 2, 2012 @4:21 pm

    >>> Thing is, I’m not convinced every member of Occupy is a “fucktard” or “gibbering idiot” just because there are people that declare it over and over.

    No, you should be convinced that people who hang out with gibbering idiots tend to be, well, gibbering idiots. Or their keepers, caregivers, whatever you want to call them. It's not a question of guilt by association, it's a question of "if you weren't one, why would you want to hang around them?". By the 97th time you heard some dunderheaded comment that a bright elementary schoolchild could parse the falsehood out of, you'd either have become a gibbering idiot or run screaming away at the incredible disconnect all around you between reason and lunacy.

    I guess you could be more, or less, charitable (depending on your POV), and assume some people are there for shits and giggles. But even there, the rule of 97 strikes me as applicable. I'm also willing to bet there are a percentage of sharps sizing up the rubes, but they aren't really THERE, they're just wolves sniffing around the sheep.

  36. I Got Bupkis, Fomenter of "small-l" libertarianism  •  Jan 2, 2012 @4:29 pm

    >>> The debate seems to have moved from…

    Dude, read the comments, get a clue, buy a freakin' vowel.

    The posting isn't ABOUT Ron Paul, it's about the fact that he ALREADY espouses almost every point that OWS claims to be in favor of, so protesting him is exactly the sort of dunderheaded lunacy I mention above. The kind that ought to make ANYONE run screaming from their presence.

    Just because I detail a list of how broccoli already meets given nutritional rules set out by a specific nutritionist's group, and so the nutritionist group's call for "enriched broccoli" is stupid, doesn't mean I MUST like broccoli. It doesn't even mean I agree with the nutritional group's call for more things like broccoli.

    In other words, Patrick never expressed support for broccoli — He was just noting that it fit the nutritional bill already, and demanding for enhancements to its nutritional content is, well, a sign of pure fucktardism.

  37. Ken  •  Jan 2, 2012 @9:15 pm

    InvinceibleIronyMan is so upset with our poor subscriber services around here that he's complaining about us at other blogs. It's a big internet; surely someplace someone will give him a hug.

    He also believes that (1) we are obligated to provide "balance" on the things we write about, and (2) that Patrick is a hardcore Ron Paul supporter. It's possible someone has hugged him just a little too tight.

  38. Christopher  •  Jan 3, 2012 @5:19 am

    "No, you should be convinced that people who hang out with gibbering idiots tend to be, well, gibbering idiots."

    If I thought the gibbering idiots the reporters where gravitating to were an actual representative sample that might start making sense, except that ignores the fact that any group has gibbering idiots (or other undesirables) in it if you look hard enough. Especially in a group that has no choice in who comes down to protest or talks to the media.

    Talking to people personally, myself, hasn't gotten me anywhere near that 97 number you've picked.

  39. Arclight  •  Jan 4, 2012 @10:03 am

    My 20 yr old son was a big supporter of the Occupy Phoenix movement here. And he still supports their ideals, mostly. But even his "the world is unfair and someone needs to fix it" attitude couldn't make him keep going back. According to him, there was a very small (10-15) group of people that were trying to organize things, get a message out, and make a different. The remaining couple hundred people were there for free food, drugs, because they wanted to start trouble, or because they were homeless and had nothing else to do.

    After weeks of trying to turn it into a real movement even he finally gave up and moved on to look for a better way to make his voice heard. It's not that the reporters are cherry picking the worst of the crowd, it's that the crowd is really that bad. You certainly will find intelligent, dedicated people that want so bad to make things better, but according to all accounts, they are the exception, not the rule.

1 Trackback