With Tea-types desperate for an "anti-establishment" candidate to counter Mitt Romney (who is hardly evil and bad), and all of them but Ron Paul foundering, and Tea-types not being able to see past their own petty lives and seeking a scapegoat (like a conspiracy), Ron Paul stands to become more and more attractive.
-
Likely conversation one would have with one of these Teabrainers:
-
TEABRAINER: "I don't like everything he stands for, but we have to have someone to oppose Romney,"
INTELLIGENT PERSON: "Well, how about someone who will defend the country and not lie based on conspiracy theories? And how about someone who stands a chance to defeat Barack Hussein Obama? The other side can try to play the race card with Romney's Mormonism, but the 'Ron Paul Freedom Report' is a freaking gift to them."
T: "Uhhhh... But, uh, Ron Paul didn't write that stuff. He didn't even read it. He said so."
I: "And--'uhhhh'--you believe a politician? A politician who opposed military action after 9/11 and believes the Afghanistan campaign was launched for a pipeline project canceled over a year before? A politician who believes a traitor who released damaging classified information is a 'hero'? And a politician who, despite the ZOG/NWO conspiracy he and his followers believe controls everything, somehow keeps getting elected?"
T: "Uhhhh. Well, Romney banned guns."
I: "Yes, and he was wrong. He is NOT a Second Amendment championer. And neither will be the sheetheads be toward us infidels, and neither will whatever foreign power takes America's place in the world and impresses its will on us. Whatever weakness on gun rights Romney might have, he's not a gun control championer. He was in Massachusetts, not a state with normal people. Or a lot of Tea Party people, either. C'mon, he's a freaking Mormon! They love guns! Look at Utah!"
T: "He did Romneycare."
I: "At the state level. Remember the 10th Amendment, and forget that dumb broad Bachmann's Teabr..., ur, I mean, uneducated ramblings. Let those liberals have their way there. Give Romney the benefit of a bit of honest analysis. Like with gun control, Romney won't press that stuff as a national plan."
T: "But, uhhh, Romney's out of touch."
I: "Hey, as long as we can trust him to stay in touch with the nuclear button and be ready to incinerate a bunch of camelfuckers [OPTIONAL: "cameljockeys"], what's the difference. Don't be so shallow."
T: "But I'm tired of all these wars. Ron Paul will make it so that we won't have to fight them."
I: "Yes, by either capitulating to the Jihadists more and more--and thus screwing over our allies--or by launching more and more covert operations with no oversight from anybody--missions bound to fail because he screwed over our allies. If the former (that means, the first possibility), then the best we can hope for is to pass on the burden of fighting them to our children--you know, do that thing you complained about regarding the debt. More likely, we will in our lifetime face that threat here at home. And I hope you're not Christian, because Israel will be toast, and your Lord and Savior Jesus won't like that. If Paul's policies turn out to be the latter (that means, the second possibility), then your libertarian hero is a lying sack of shit. For he would be opposing that which he plans to do in spades..."
T: "Wait. What do Black folks have to do with..."
I: "I just mean, he'll do a lot of what he condemns. And WHEN they are found out--and they will be--America will be completely discredited and probably facing more enemies than ever."
T: "Well... RON PAUL 2012! Woo-hoo!"
I: "And RIP America, 2013."
