Scientologists for Ron Paul

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
TAMPA -- Most people who've spent afternoons walking in crowded cities know what the sign means. FREE STRESS TEST? Here there be Scientologists. The church founded by L. Ron Hubbard took up decent real estate at the P.A.U.L. Festival, an unsanctioned tribute to presidential candidate Ron Paul. Walk past the booth for a new alternative currency in Breckenridge, Colorado (the "Mile High Hour," or "Rado") and you'd see many copies of Dianetics and four e-meters, manned by church members, checking Ron Paul supporters for thetans.


This was a crowd of people familiar, and fed up, with being labeled kooky. "I asked them if they'd ever met Stan Marsh," snarked a Texas-based Ron Paul fan named Danny Bessoms, referring to an episode of South Park in which the character becomes head of the church. So, why did the Scientologists fork over $500 for a booth and court Ron Paulians?
I approached the both and joined reporter Garrett Quinn in an obviously unwelcome Q&A session with the Scientologist manning the booth -- a fit young man dressed in white and black and a Sea Org belt. (Nearby Clearwater, Fla. is a nexus of Scientologists.) "We'll get Aaron over here and he'll talk to you," he said. Soon enough, Aaron Doerges returned to the booth to explain why Scientologists and Paulians could be friends.

"The bottom line is that the guys who are Ron Paul supporters are free-thinkers," said Doerges. "They're more literate. They're able to actually look at data, and make decisions about it. That's sort of the keynote of Scientology -- it literally means 'the study of knowledge.' The think on it, as we decided to do the both, was: Look, you've already got guys here who actually know that the mainstream media is full of crap. They actually know that there's more out there than what you're being fed. Let's get in front of some of those people, get in front of some of the false data they have on the subject, get them interested in something that actually helps able people become more able."

Doerges said that a fellow believer had turned him onto Paul. "From being a Scientologist, and knowing Scientologists, a lot of Scientologists support Ron Paul," he said. "A lot of them look at it and go: Look, the bottom line is the system we are in right now in supressive. It actually rewards non-production and punishes production. And so you have an economic crisis -- like, go figure! If you reward non-production, you're going to get non-production. Scientologists realize that. They tend to be independent thinkers."

Doerges's companion interjected: We were hearing one man's personal beliefs, not any statement from the church. As Doerges described how he got turned onto Paul, though, he kept mentioning libertarian stances that would be good for new-ish religions that want as much protection as possible. "You have some basic principles of what the role of government is," said Doerges. "You have basic principles of the viewpoint on taxes, on governmental control. There's enough going on that he's right about that I think he's excellent." Scientologists were onboard with libertarian critiques of psychology (this is an understatement) and were right in step with the Christian homeschoolers who back Paul. "The education system has been deteriorated to the point where it's not education," said Doerges. "The data is actually false data, and it's destructive."
Doerges was basically finished. The less smiley Scientologists politely asked the journalists who'd talked to him (me, Garrett, and Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray) to write down our contact info, and then, just as politely, suggested that we'd been blocking the booth.
"As you can see," he said, "we're empty now."

I walked by 10 or so minutes later. The booth was full again.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...religion_shows_up_in_force_at_convention.html

I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Paulite (small government / Austrian economics) then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Scientology.
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...religion_shows_up_in_force_at_convention.html

I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Paulite (small government / Austrian economics) then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Scientology.

LOL.

There is also a group called atheists for Ron Paul.

"I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Paulite (small government / Austrian economics) then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Atheism."

As you know, I'm an atheist. Just pointing out how illogical and contradictory your criticisms are, since according to you logic (The fallacy of guilt by association and ad-hominem attacks) once again you are guilty as those you are attacking. (Second time I've caught you out using your own fallacy).



PS: It's also ironic that Paulites are the most likely people to now switch and vote for Gary Johnson seeing as the GOP is ostracising them from the party. I do think Romney won't win due to how the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party is being treated by the GOP. Hell, Paul himself has said endorsing Romney would undo everything he has stood for, for the last 30 years. When asked about Gary Johnson he basically said there is no other candidate he could vote for.

PPS: I'm pretty sure there are some religious people who support the DA Ghoti, I imagine that it is conceivable that there are scientologist supporters too... :)
 
Last edited:
LOL.

There is also a group called atheists for Ron Paul.

"I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Paulite (small government / Austrian economics) then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Atheism."

As you know, I'm an atheist. Just pointing out how illogical and contradictory your criticisms are, since according to you logic (The fallacy of guilt by association and ad-hominem attacks) once again you are guilty as those you are attacking. (Second time I've caught you out using your own fallacy).

PS: It's also ironic that Paulites are the most likely people to now switch and vote for Gary Johnson seeing as the GOP is ostracising them from the party. I do think Romney won't win due to how the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party is being treated by the GOP. Hell, Paul himself has said endorsing Romney would undo everything he has stood for, for the last 30 years. When asked about Gary Johnson he basically said there is no other candidate he could vote for.

LOL.

Just a quick FYI. Could you show me an atheist recruiting store or atheist booth at these Paulite conventions. I know there are some atheist paulites. I just dont see atheists groups setting up a booth and recruiting from the Paulite faithful.

Paul Ryan is a pleb. Even libertarians think his an idiot. They can see he is a Koch brothers product. Well at least the smart libertarians like Nico can see it.
 
Last edited:
my opinion on Ron Paul has changed a lot lately
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...religion_shows_up_in_force_at_convention.html

I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Paulite (small government / Austrian economics) then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Scientology.
Lol, classic ad hominem fallacy... again from the same chap. I suppose using this "logic" I can say:

I suppose if you suspend rationality enough to become a Big government/Keynesian fundie then it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Stoners for Obama.
 
it makes perfect sense that you are highly recruitable for Stoners for Obama.
I would take the company of stoners for Obama 100000x times over a Paulite convention. At least with the stoners you know theyre mostly good chilled people :) Also even though theyre stoned the IQ levels with stoners group is probably double that of a Paulites convention :D.
 
Last edited:
I would take the company of stoners for Obama 100000x times over a Paulite convention. At least with the stoners you know theyre mostly good chilled people :) Also even though theyre stoned the IQ levels with stoners group is probably double that of a Paulites convention :D.
Sheesh dude, do you still not know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
 
Red herring. Just look on Facebook for the atheist for Ron Paul group.

The fact they don't set up a group isn't relevant to the principle you applied.
 
Sheesh dude, do you still not know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

Its my own personal preference. Deal with it. I would prefer the company of stoners for obama than paulite faithful any day of the week. I personally believe I will be in the company of more rational and more giving people than I would with randroids.
 
Its my own personal preference. Deal with it. I would prefer the company of stoners for obama than paulite faithful any day of the week. I personally believe I will be in the company of more rational and more giving people than I would with randroids.
LOL!
 
Its my own personal preference. Deal with it. I would prefer the company of stoners for obama than paulite faithful any day of the week. I personally believe I will be in the company of more rational and more giving people than I would with randroids.

In a nutshell, what, in your opinion, is wrong with Paul?
 
In a nutshell, what, in your opinion, is wrong with Paul?

His faith based economics based on the debunked Austrian school of economics (An adherent to the Austrian school of economics has to give up on things like empirical evidence). I actually agree with him on a lot of stuff. As I am a liberal. Its just when it comes to the economy. I prefer mainstream tried and tested economics used by just about every successful country, as opposed to his fringe Austrian school of economics which is used by no countries and has no proven track record. Anyone who knows me knows I dont have faith for anything. Not religion, not science and not economics.

That whole "small government" mantra is a load of cods-wallop. Big business want smaller governments for the same reasons crooks want a smaller police force.
 
Last edited:
His faith based economics based on the debunked Austrian school of economics (An adherent to the Austrian school of economics has to give up on things like empirical evidence). I actually agree with him on a lot of stuff. As I am a liberal. Its just when it comes to the economy. I prefer mainstream tried and tested economics used by just about every successful country, as opposed to his fringe Austrian school of economics which is used by no countries and has no proven track record. Anyone who knows me knows I dont have faith for anything. Not religion, not science and not economics.

That whole "small government" mantra is a load of cods-wallop. Big business want smaller governments for the same reasons crooks want a smaller police force.

But isn't the current global economic climate indicative of the fact the "mainstream tried and tested economics" is part of the problem? Spend, spend, spend, boom, spend, spend, BANG!, spend, BANG!.

I understand that you do need to spend to create, but there comes a time when you have to tighten your belt so you get to fight another day.

Austerity is the order of the day now. Granted his policies hinge on the extreme but I believe he has set a precedent as evidenced by his strong support base amongst university-aged Americans.
 
But isn't the current global economic climate indicative of the fact the "mainstream tried and tested economics" is part of the problem? Spend, spend, spend, boom, spend, spend, BANG!, spend, BANG!.

I understand that you do need to spend to create, but there comes a time when you have to tighten your belt so you get to fight another day.

Austerity is the order of the day now. Granted his policies hinge on the extreme but I believe he has set a precedent as evidenced by his strong support base amongst university-aged Americans.

You could do both you know. Let them go bust and still have social benefits.
 

I think its a bit misleading the way you put, but Iceland was correct in letting the banks fail, which is what us free market "radicals" have been saying for years. That it is better for everyone if they go bust.

The reason why I'm saying the way you framed it is wrong, is because a social welfare net requires spending. Cutting spending (Assuming those cuts are made evenly across the board) thus means you have to have less spending on social welfare.

Bottom line is you cannot create wealth from thin air, you can only redistribute it. Libertarians are not in favour of any class or group getting special treatment, certainly not "big business" or the big banks.

PS: I'm fairly certain that "Schrodinger" Krugman has in that article turned 180 degrees from his previous position which was pro-bailout...so it is difficult to follow him.
 
But isn't the current global economic climate indicative of the fact the "mainstream tried and tested economics" is part of the problem? Spend, spend, spend, boom, spend, spend, BANG!, spend, BANG!.

I understand that you do need to spend to create, but there comes a time when you have to tighten your belt so you get to fight another day.

Austerity is the order of the day now. Granted his policies hinge on the extreme but I believe he has set a precedent as evidenced by his strong support base amongst university-aged Americans.

There are ganna be bursts and bubbles. Thats how people are. They get greedy and they over spend or something. The bubble bursts. This happened under the gold standard (which paulites have a hard on for) and under fiat money system. The fiat money system allows us to get through the bursts with less damage. Under the gold standard the entire worlds economy went pear shaped. This resulted in the Great Depression. The new system still allows for bubbles and burst except with the consequences being a lot easier to manage.

Im all for a better system, but show me a proven track record. Keep your faith based economics for yourself thanks. Dont test your faith on my countries economy. I somehow think if it your faith based economics was so great. The worlds economists would have picked up on it and it would be main stream. With empirical evidence to support it.

Basically Paulites want the following applied to our economy:

Mainstream economists generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.

If you are happy with a Paulite running your economics you will be happy with a creationist running your biology classes.
 
What is more interesting that a disproportionate number of libertarians are atheists, which is why sweeping generalisation and arguing guilt by association don't work.

Specially when you consider the massive similarities between groups, such as the fact liberals and libertarians are 99% in agreement on social issues and only but heads when it comes to economics, it should be a no-brainer not to argue that somehow person X is a nutter because his group associates with this group which associates with another group who are clearly nuts and thus the first group is nuts to.

It is SUCH a bad and stupid argument to make, why it is repeated here so often is beyond me, particularly when the accuser himself becomes guilty by his own logic...
 
Im all for a better system, but show me a proven track record.
This sentence caught my eye. Not to nit-pick, but how can you try something new if you insist in sticking with the status quo?
BTW, what did you think of the Iceland example? Seemed to be a nice balance to me.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X