ron paul chauvinists and tucker carlson
recommended
tucker carlson states the painful truth plaguing the RP delusion (i.e., americans generally do not want liberty), and — in the comments for this vid — the pee-ites turn on their former idol:
kryptonite for the paulists: truth! they cringe from anyone mentioning the obvious — that any leftist supporting paul either has seen the light or has head fully up ass. you pick the likely choice. now, the former darling of the paulists is being called a “closet Neo-Con”. you can see this behavior in every RP vid at YouTube. sane, true comments are dinged if they reflect negatively on ron paul, and the most salivating tripe (e.g., “Only Ron Paul can save America! God bless America!”) sent into comment score heaven. these people are worse than stupid; they’re religious (the paul, not liberty, religion). paulist reality-deniers may as well look now at reality. no chance of that, naturally; they’ve bumper stickers to print, and shit to shout.
truth — that thing the RP squadders hate viscerally — is how ron paul, a significant populist trend, will be trounced. he wants it both ways so badly he can taste it. he wants first-come loyalists to think he will demolish 90% of the federal state, and late arrivals to not get that message in clear enough form that it’ll dissuade them from the useful idiot squad of “ron paul” screamers in grand central station and all over the US.
hardly matters for the socialists though, because ron paul, if elected, would not be allowed to accomplish fuckall. they wouldn’t let him. the fedgoon disaster train will continue to roll toward that trestle-less chasm, and who would be pointed to as a failure by both liberty and anti-liberty forces? the man with no plan other than vacuous rhetoric and retreating “commitments”. he would be sabotaged into the embarrassment chapter of history books written by the gifted and the damned. you ron paulists aren’t accomplishing anything but the further disguising of the liberty message, and the possibility that the supposed most liberty-centric candidate in decades (at least) — the man you’ve chosen as your visible totem — is smashed underfoot by forces so strong that only inevitable disaster will ease their intensity.
October 14th, 2007 at 17:05
It’s not universally as you say, even in those comments there are a lot of Paul supporters who agree with Tucker and don’t find anything wrong with what he said.
October 14th, 2007 at 17:21
hey, that was damned good on Tucker Carlson’s part, as much of a smelly lying hypocrite he himself was being right then saying he’s a “true Ron Paul man” or whatever (isn’t Tucker pro-Iraq and shit?)
“Can we all stop pretending we like Ron Paul?”
Liberal hippie douchebag Bill Maher: “Yeah.”
LOL
October 14th, 2007 at 17:30
It’s not universally as you say,
please copy/paste where i said it was universal. few things are universal.
even in those comments there are a lot of Paul supporters who agree with Tucker and don’t find anything wrong with what he said.
i just went through the whole thing. allowing for minor error, and not counting neutral/irrelevant comments and two offsetting (cancel each other) comments added after i posted this, the ratio of anti-tucker to pro-tucker comments is 15:3. if you can call 3 “a lot”, i damned sure can use 15 to write the post i did.
October 14th, 2007 at 17:31
hey, by the way, I forget who that ugly whore is representing “liberal female” to krugman’s “liberal male #2″ on the BM show, but what is the deal with women and abortion? why are there so many fucking insane, “single issue” women who go militaristic anytime the word abortion slips out of someone’s mouth, as she did here (slipped out of her mouth), but who otherwise couldn’t give less of a shit about anything going on?
do these women not realize that if they spent 5% of the effort they spend on being pro-abortion on simply leading self-responsible lives, they’ll most likely never have to face a situation in which their “right to choose” might come in handy?
pregnancy is far from an “accident” these days, aside from the occassional rape… surely you might not “want” a child when you get one at times, but you probably knew it was a possibility going into the act of sex and therefore it seems you’re responsible for the outcome. seems highly irresponsible to fuck some dumbass, get pregnant “by accident” and then just say “ah fuck it” and toss the kid with a good ol’ fashioned Roe v. Wade abortion.
btw… is Roe v. Wade constitutional? sure doesn’t seem like it. I havent read the Grand Old Parchment lately but I dont remember it containing any provisos about how to handle abortions and rights concerned thereof.
October 14th, 2007 at 17:36
addendum to paul eres: i should note that the vid poster is apparently censoring comments toward his agenda, which is anti-tucker. and regardless, the ratio i noted isn’t necessarily representative. it is in line, however, with general RP-dipshit behavior i’ve seen regularly.
taylor, tucker seems to have undergone a brain transplant about 6 months ago, transforming from what i always thought was a typical bushbot to enthusiastic ron paul semi-objective (for MSM) guy.
October 14th, 2007 at 17:43
why are there so many fucking insane, “single issue” women who go militaristic anytime the word abortion slips out of someone’s mouth,
partly for the same reason that when i want to demonstrate liberty ethics to someone, i often use the example of a woman being raped. that pussy is sacrosanct in culture, though historically it was because it was the pathway to life. a little warped when that currency’s used to give sanctity to women ripping out what would’ve been babies to be cared for. logically and by way of rights, i tend to subscribe to the rothbardian view of fetus (and babies) as parasite, but the mass attempt to laud voluntarily participatory pregant women who choose abortion is ludicrous. at best, they fucked up.
and yes, roe v. wade is a crock of bench-made legislation; not a federal matter, especially since the alleged 14th amendment isn’t law (not ratified).