another paulist speech hypocrite
this time: YouTube user ScaningTheWaves (you know — scaning, as in “to scane”). read his lament:
STOP THE CENSORSHIP OF RON PAULSTOP CENSORING RON PAUL FROM THE MEDIA!
Orwell Rolls In His Grave
yet ScaningTheWaves is apparently a rabid censor of anti-paul comment. i left at least one relevant comment on this vid, and it was axed (my username also blocked from commenting further). there’s little anti-paul material in the thread of over 1,400 comments.
anti-speech fanatics, active suppressors of opposition discourse, cowards, liars. paulists.
i’m wondering… let’s say RP is elected president. what will be the abuse of the power these deluded goons will assume for themselves? maybe lew rockwell gives a hint:
[...] To the other anti-Ron Cato VP who called me “one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent,” I say: See you at the inauguration.
but lew rockwell would never abuse a cabinet position or similar, would he? paulists are above all that!
i don’t trust a single one of these motherfuckers; forget their chief dipshit — ripoff con king of the “libertarian property rights advocates”. when are you going to return that stolen money, ron paul? scumbag.
December 14th, 2007 at 01:49
SaltyPig,
I’m a bit confused. Unless I’m missing something, no matter what you or I do, next November a new president will be elected. I can only speak for myself, of course, but as long as there is going to be a president, I’d rather have one who opposes taxes, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, The USA PATRIOT Act, the UN, the false doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, mandatory national ID cards, torture, etc.
Admittedly, Ron Paul’s politics aren’t my personal ideal; after all, I’m a voluntarist. But, as a voluntarist, I recognize that the primary elements that delegitimize “the gov’t” is it’s use of force and theft against The People. If we could possibly have a president, for the 1st time in forever, who would dramatically curtail the official use of force and theft against the public, I’m in favor of that.
I understand the argument from many of my fellow voluntarists, those who argue that advocating a reduction in abuse somehow legitimizes abuse, I just don’t happen to agree. And no matter how one happens to feel about participating in the process (I happen to have a hearty respect for those who withhold the “tacit consent of participation”), taking a position of special opposition to the “thug” who’s by far the least thuggy makes absolutely no sense (to me), whatsoever.
All I’m saying is this: participate or don’t participate, but don’t throw rhetorical eggs at the one guy who’d promptly pardon your ass, if you ever got hauled into court for some bogus charge like…..I don’t know….tax evasion?
For the record, I don’t agree that there’s nothing constructive a truly libertarian-minded (80%?) president could do. I’ve heard the arguments about the chaos and violent opposition that de-funding the state and abolishing multiple agencies would inspire. However, such arguments, although they have their merits, are simplistic and not well thought out. One of the most important and constructive things that a chief administrator can accomplish is to de-fang the state, by encouraging civil disobedience through refusing to enforce many bad laws, and issuing mass pardons for those who’ve been previously punished by such laws. And, if you ask me, that’s one hell of a start.
December 14th, 2007 at 14:41
as long as there is going to be a president, I’d rather have one who opposes taxes, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, The USA PATRIOT Act, the UN, the false doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, mandatory national ID cards, torture, etc.
are you supposed to be describing ron paul there? long history of men whose rhetoric got tossed in the garbage on the way to inauguration. hardly the primary reason to oppose ron paul, but your assumption shouldn’t go unmarked. before anything else is discussed, you assume that ron paul, the same guy who — rough estimate — has personally bilked countless victims for over $1M total, would oppose all those things as “US” president.
to your general criticism of my criticism of paulists, you apparently are assuming that my lambasting of those pukes is aimed directly at you. if someone holds his nose and throws the dice on ron paul with misgiving, that person is wrong and, in my opinion, unforgivable, but hardly the dunce dancing in the street proclaiming ripoff bitch ron paul savior of the universe.
re the hoped for decline of force and theft under a ron paul presidency, i think it’s not only unlikely, but describing the opposite of what would occur. i dealt with this in one of my first anti-paul posts — the dual fantasy that ron paul will have dictator powers “for liberty”, and that he won’t have his ass handed to him 5,000 different ways by scoundrels who each morning eat babes like ron paul for breakfast. which leads to another issue i’ve dealt with from the beginning: public support.
what fucking magic wand was waved in the last 6 months that transformed the american populace from pussified slave marchers to bold proponents of all that is libety? answer: not a goddamned thing. there may be true converts triggered by the ron paul campaign publicity, but having spoken with hundreds of RP supporters, i know they’re a minuscule portion.
the public. that is the problem. i’ll write more about this in a future article, but i doubt you need to be filled in if you stop and look around for 5 seconds. there was no liberty bomb dropped on these fools.
I understand the argument from many of my fellow voluntarists, those who argue that advocating a reduction in abuse somehow legitimizes abuse,
i understand you’re just leaving a comment, but that’s terribly imprecise and wrong language. you won’t find a single cogent voluntarist who’d argue against advocating a reduction in abuse. such a claim’s essentially a denial of the very method for success proposed by most voluntarists.
sane voluntarists oppose cheering and participating in — in the name of reducing abuse — an inherently abusive system. apart from the philosophy of it, it doesn’t work. all these ron paul fuckers are simply legitimizing the enemy — albeit an enemy their chief con pretends he’ll be at the helm of. c’mon. you think the power class is going to sit back and watch him derail them? get real. that’s baby politics.
speaking of babies, apart from its myriad other flaws, the ron paul candidacy is much like a baby-raping priest. such priests are naturally and correctly opposed more than the less hypocritical, less efficient, standard baby rapers.
jizzliani et al less hypocritical? damned straight. unless you’re a retard, those fuckers are pathetically obvious to see through, which brings the argument right back to the overwhelming stupidity of the general american public. in this campaign it’s only ron paul who stands to largely destroy the liberty movement built up over hundreds of years, for if he succeeds he will have converted hordes of impatient yet previous correct liberty types to the most heinous of views: “support the state. the state is a good guy now, who’ll behave himself.”
, but don’t throw rhetorical eggs at the one guy who’d promptly pardon your ass, if you ever got hauled into court for some bogus charge like…..I don’t know….tax evasion?
you mean the guy who’s robbed people for decades using that vile system? no, i’ll continue to hurl eggs and more at that puke fuck. listen to your pathetic gang language, putting that fucker as master over me — me, the guy who should implore him for mercy, and he might deny me if i pissed him off before the election. fuck him, and fuck you. you’re no voluntarist.
, I don’t agree that there’s nothing constructive a truly libertarian-minded (80%?) president could do.
don’t know who you’re not agreeing with. i never said such a thing. on net, however, it’s a disaster.
And, if you ask me, that’s one hell of a start
come back and here and laugh at me when you’re proven right. sadly, i’ve no worry that’ll happen. i have eyes. many paulists, even those of your stripe, are drawn to the process through residual brainwashing — most of it done when they were children and eagerly believed such preposterous bullshit as “the state is your friend; here’s how you can participate.”
same as at LRC. the place is riddled with only mildly converted GOP types. they love horse race politics and the ludicrous lie that is “good government guy”. i’ll wager most of ‘em got it from their daddies. it’s deeply instilled, like baseball.
December 14th, 2007 at 22:48
You actually prefer Julie-Annie and crew to Ron Paul? Your virulent opposition to Paul is motivated by the fact that his candidacy has inspired “hordes” of previously disengaged individuals to participate in the process one last time, once again, or for the first time? You’re convinced that withdrawing from the process is going to make the state go away?
First of all, in this country, even if nobody ever voted, congress would choose a president. In fact, if no one ever voted for any office, the state would just perpetuate itself. The state doesn’t require your votes or your taxes to sustain itself. If you don’t vote, a “representative” will be appointed for you. If you don’t pay taxes, they’ll just keep printing money, and you’ll end up paying the inflation tax, anyway. Withdrawing from “the process” may be a matter of principle; I’ll grant you that, but it definitely isn’t a plan of resistance. Stop kidding yourself. If I’m beating you with a club, you have numerous options, but just sitting there and pretending it isn’t happening probably isn’t the best of those options.
If you oppose Ron Paul because you think it’s hypocritical of him to accept his congressional salary (although he refused his congressional pension and returns a portion of his annual congressional budget), because that salary represents money stolen from Americans, in the form of the income tax, a tax that he claims a moral opposition to, then I can certainly respect and sympathize with your position. I believe that Ted Kennedy either refuses or donates his senate salary (I don’t exactly recall), but, of course, he’s independently wealthy, plus, as I’m sure we can agree, Teddy derives other benefits from his position. Now, if Paul’s salary were not derived from compulsory taxation, would his acceptance of it be less hypocritical?
Again, I’m really not following your reasoning. Julie-Annie and his gang are essentially telling you, as euphemistically as possible, that they intend to pin you down in the prison laundry, and take turns pretending you’re the prom queen. Ron Paul is telling you that, if he becomes warden, he’ll set everyone free and shut down the prison (don’t get excited, it’s a metaphor). But, the fact that Paul takes a salary and may not succeed makes him the worst of the lot?
There’s a theory in political science that the masses are more likely to rebel during a sudden crackdown that occurs following a period of brief relief from tyranny. If that theory is correct, and I belief there is reason to believe it might be, then Paul’s imminent failure (even if he succeeds in getting elected — a possibility far more likely than everyone withdrawing from the process, btw) works in the favor of liberty, not against it. Ironic, no?
December 14th, 2007 at 23:41
last reply along these lines until after my article comes out.
You actually prefer Julie-Annie and crew to Ron Paul?
i think the concept of looking favorably upon a criminal syndicate is fucking whacked — about as nonsensical, infantile, and self-destructive as it gets. therefore, i find overt criminals preferable to sanctimonious hypocrites. yeah, i know jizz boy’s plenty of both, but his criminality’s at least on the radar even for the average paultard.
Your virulent opposition to Paul is motivated by the fact that his candidacy has inspired “hordes” of previously disengaged individuals to participate in the process one last time, once again, or for the first time?
not sure if you’re asking me to agree to all of those or pick one. either way i don’t see the question has much going for it.
You’re convinced that withdrawing from the process is going to make the state go away?
no. you act as though you’re familiar with me and my writing on this subject, but that question highlights that you’re not. that’s fine; i’m nobody anyone needs to know. it’s just a pain in the ass to address these core subjects repeatedly. no, i think the goddamned official criminal gangs will always be around, given the depravity, cowardice, and stupidity of the average fuck.
In fact, if no one ever voted for any office, the state would just perpetuate itself.
the less public support a state gets, the more overtly criminal it becomes — thence, mass opposition (given an adequate public under those conditions).
The state doesn’t require your votes or your taxes to sustain itself.
doesn’t require a thing from me. that’s true. but generally states require mass acquiescence… hey, whatdya know — exactly what the paulists are offering up as we speak.
Withdrawing from “the process” may be a matter of principle; I’ll grant you that, but it definitely isn’t a plan of resistance. Stop kidding yourself.
stop kidding myself with the straw man you just composed? go blow a fish, rat bastard. BTW, 99% chance i know exactly who you are, pussified fuck.
Ron Paul is telling you that, if he becomes warden, he’ll set everyone free and shut down the prison
he’s lying, and you’re an idiot.
, then Paul’s imminent failure (even if he succeeds in getting elected — a possibility far more likely than everyone withdrawing from the process, btw) works in the favor of liberty, not against it.
bwahahahahaha! what a fucking dumbbell you are. i hope he does “win”. can’t wait.
December 15th, 2007 at 00:32
“the less public support a state gets, the more overtly criminal it becomes — thence, mass opposition (given an adequate public under those conditions).”
So, your plan is for state tyranny to steadily increase, uninterrupted, to the point that the spineless masses suddenly grow a pair? People who haven’t tasted freedom won’t fight tyranny, not in any large scale or overt fashion, anyway. You should reconsider the theory I put forth.