Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The People Have Spoken

Ron Paul was booed by the audience at the debate for his answers that come from the Code Pink playbook. The paulbots are an entryist faction of lunatics who belong in mental health treatment
and are more a cult than coherent.

Paul does not belong in the Republican Party and his followers should be encouraged to head for the door and join Code Pink where Communists belong.

Now many of us think of Liberterians as fiscally cheap guys for smaller government. They are not Conservatives in any description. There is an obnoxious subgroup that is identical in substance and lunacy to Commies. The anarcho Capatalists were racialist and obstructionists in the Cold War. The main proponent of this madness was Murray Rothbard. Rothbards inane writings are so idiotic they should be used in GITMO as punishment. Rothbard, internet loon Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul are joined in a policy of idiocy that makes a mockery of Republican values.

Many of you underestimate Mr. B. I am familiar with Anarchocapitalists from their work with Code Pink commies in so called Peace Protests. However, even I was floored when Mr B informed me of a glowing eulogy of war criminal mendicant Che Guevara by Rothbard. When Mr. B states Joe Conservative is soft on Communism he is not quite as far off as you presume.
The multi personality one is sounding more like Ducky than a genuine Conservative lately. I may not be a conservative but I know a real one when I see one.

For the record, the shcitzoid does cry a tad too much. He wants to cry over being called a Commie but calls his opponents Stalanist for wanting to expel the entryist Paulbots from the GOP. Moreover, the comments of the sock puppet are consistent with a Paulbot. The question for Paulbots is why they are part of a group that includes Nazis, Truthers and Commies. The answer is that all of the above are linked by pathological antisemitism that the Schitzoid has shown here multiple times.

The latest rant of the schitzo is the term "Concentration camp" as said by Ron Paul is not anti semitic. Paul clearly did knowingly make a Jew as Nazi comparison when describing Gaza as a Concentration camp. The multi personality loon then behaves in Truther fashion by concocting
a litany of excuses why this comment is not antisemitic. Nobody with an IQ believes Paul was invoking images of the Boer War.

The people have spoken and have booed the GOP imposter Ron Paul. Paul and his freak show belong in Code Pink jamborees and not anywhere near GOP functions.

5 comments:

beamish said...

Now many of us think of Liberterians as fiscally cheap guys for smaller government. They are not Conservatives in any description.

Gotta stomp the brakes on that one, Beak.

"The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" - Ronald Reagan

Of course, getting two libertarians to agree on a definition of "libertarianism" can get tendentious.

My own definition of "libertarianism" (I'm a "fusionist") pretty much excludes the Ron Paul / Lew Rockwell / Murray Rothbard brand on the grounds that it's pretty hard to square a non-initiation of force doctrine with inciteful revolutionary rhetoric. Ron Paul's "REVOLUTION" bumper stickers crack me up. He's no libertarian or conservative. He's a putz.

beakerkin said...

Okay Mr B. I am having a real hard time grasping the disturbing elements
of Rothbard. I have zero idea what the racial lunacy of Rothbard is based upon. It does not appear to be a quirk.

Rothbard is disturbing.

He is not a liberterian in the way most of us grasp the term.

beamish said...

"...It was a great pity, but his problem ought not to be thought of as tracing to the seamless integrity of libertarian principles. In Murray's case, much of what drove him was a contrarian spirit, the deranging scrupulosity that caused him to disdain such as Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and — yes — Newt Gingrich, while huffing and puffing in the little cloister whose walls he labored so strenuously to contract, leaving him, in the end, not as the father of a swelling movement that "rous[ed] the masses from their slumber," as he once stated his ambition, but with about as many disciples as David Koresh had in his little redoubt in Waco. Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God." - from William F. Buckley's obituary of Murray Rothbard

ouch

beamish said...

A “libertarian” who wants limited government should embrace the means to his freedom: thriving mediating institutions that create the moral preconditions for economic markets and choice. A “social issues” conservative with a zeal for righteousness should insist on a free market economy to supply the material needs for families, schools, and churches that inspire moral and spiritual life. In a nutshell, the notion of separating the social from the economic issues is a false choice. They stem from the same root. - Paul Ryan

That about sums it up for me too. We should neither be limited in choices from competing interests, nor limited in choices from how we go about eliminating competition.

Jason Pappas said...

Rothbard was went off the deep end when it came to foreign policy. His chapter in "For a New LIberty" is absurd in its acceptance of Soviet propaganda. His lame excuse for cheering the communist conquest of South Vietnam is sickening. He said he's glad when a government falls. By that logic he must have cheer out loud many times in 1939.

Rothbard is the source of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan is another conservative who goes off the deep end when it comes to foreign policy.

Foreign policy separates muscular libertarians from the pseudo-pacifist appeasers.