oh, i guess it's okay then

for months i've been commenting on ron paul videos at YouTube. because i don't like ron paul, and have a foul mouth, fanboys tend to assume (hope) that everything i say is automatically full of shit and, of course, anti-liberty. though i'm obviously more pro-liberty than ron paul and his supporters, i have been called a communist, nazi, CIA-operative, etc. The cold sense in advocating that someone like hillary clinton be the next US president tends to elude the RP dumbasses, and even some people who should know better (people who supposedly knew me well). this is not an idea original to me, nor should it be at all shocking if you don't have your head up your ass and assume that political systems operate mathematically.

i'm wondering if steven greenhut, who on tomorrow's LRC proposes that hillary clinton would be a good choice for president, will get the same outlandish responses i've been getting for saying it. or will it be okay now that an LRC-certified guy announces the obvious?

sorta depressing that of all major political groups, the ones formerly identified as libertarians (a word now used for "less rabid socialist") have been the most in tune with the subject of unintended consequences (or, as i like to grab an aviation term, the "region of reverse command"), yet these lunkheads can't wrap their programmed heads around the obvious truth that results are often the opposite of presidential fantasy platforms (AKA lies).

even with the obvious and important contradictions flowing from ron paul's shit history as a scoundrel thief, feeding himself and his family on wealth stolen from others by force while he preaches liberty, i think it's likely he's the most truthful presidential candidate since harry browne (who was not a career thief). this and his supposed advocacy of liberty do not immunize him against unintended consequences. could make things much worse, in that he would be opposed strongly on crucial issues by pretty much every parasite in DC. i've covered repeatedly the subject of his claims (now tempered) regarding IRS and many of the other criminal departments his supporters are close to swearing will fall within weeks of his ascent to the throne. these assertions of his supporters are unfounded.

nobody knows what would happen under a RP presidency, but if one notes history and the increasing sovietization of both the official US criminal syndicate and the people those criminals rule, all signs point to RP having socialism shoved up his ass, not the other way around, and the blame for all disasters already brewing thrown onto his shoulders and, therefore, on the shoulders of the idjit public's perception of liberty. while that might hasten the decline of the criminal empire, i don't see the up side of having that decline blamed on what some of us hold as dear as life. plenty of that already. much better to let clinton have liberty shoved up her ass (albeit less), and put the RINO dogs and their natural hatred of her at her throat. let them consume one another. yeah, things have changed a bit, as she's become the conditional darling of the neocon ploodge association, but i suspect that would be adjusted backward as soon as she were coronated.

can ron paul be elected president? yeah, i think so. could be the worst election result ever hoped for. in the end, i couldn't give a fuck less. just annoying to see stupid fuckers prancing about without a clue how lost they are. any aggressive political system that relies on electing "good people" cannot succeed. the best choice, given such a system, is always to elect known scumbags and treat them accordingly. sadly, this easily understood, logical truth bypasses those who betray what they really desire — a benevolent parent.

bad news for wannabe perpetual children: no such option.

Labels: emperor factory

posted by saltypig @ 23:38