Skip to main content

Ron Paul supporters: here's the ultimate reason you need to drop the GOP and go Libertarian after Tampa

Arvin Vohra, Libertarian candidate for US House in Maryland, nails it.

After pointing out all the pressure put on Rand Paul not to allow his father to bolt, and the pressure put on Ron Paul himself not to attack Mitt Romney directly with everything he had, Arvin hits the Money Quote:
The notion of “working within” the Republican Party is ludi crous. If the Repuli can establishment can pressure Ron Paul into foregoing attacks on a super-statist like Mitt Romney, then what could they do to the rest of us?

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
Kindly explain how Mitt Romney is a "super statist," yet gets attacked regularly by the Dems and the liberal media, just within the last few weeks for being an "extreme libertarian," a "Goldwater-ite," an "Ayn Rand extremist" and "like a 9/11 terrorist for his proposed spending cuts."

If Romney's a "statist" as you suggest, that would make CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Debbie Blabber-mouth Schultz, Obama, Hillary and the rest, flaming Nazi-Fascist-Stalinist-Pol Potian Genocidal Communist maniacs."
I guess I will leave it to Mr. Vohra to explain his use of the term "super-statist" for Mitt Romney.

Given that he has proposed more money for defense, left Medicare off the table for budget-balancing purposes, and proposes either continuing or expanding Federal intrusion into public education, it's difficult to see how one could make that case, huh?

Appealing to Barack Obama as evidence of Mitt's libertarianism pretty much only means you're desperate because nobody else is calling him that.
Eric Dondero said…
More money for defense, do you mean like more money for fighting Islamo-Fascists who want to force our wives/girlfriends to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe, hang our gay friends from lampposts, jail marijuana smokers for life, outlaw booze and alcohol and completely ban free speech?

Dude, I'd describe more money for fighting Islamo-Naziism as absolutely PRO-LIBERTY.

Islamism is Statist.
Eric Dondero said…
So Steve, than why don't you attack Obama for his Marxist Muslim-ism?

It's just assinine to attack someone who is with us on 70% of the issues (I'd argue Mitt is with libertarians more like 90% of the time).

When you've got someone who is with us 0% of the time.

Here's an analogy.

Yes, Communist Vietnam sucked! They were an absolute hellhole in the 1970s. Mortal enemies of the United States. Probably about a 10% on the freedom scale.

But ya know what? Right next door there was another country, a complete 0 on the freedom scale: Pol Pot's Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge.

Mass genocide. Never seen before in human history. Estimated 2 million Cambodians slaughtered in some of the most brutal ways imaginable out of a population of 6.5 million. Made Hitler's Nazis look like a kindergarten class.

Do you support the horrible Vietnamese Communists in their invasion of Cambodia to stop the slaughter. Abso-fuckin'-lutely! You don't even think about it.

Obama - Romney.

Do you support the guy who is with us 70% of the time over the guy who is with us 0% of the time?

Abso-fuckin-lutely!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...