The Establishment Zombies Still Don’t Get It

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

I should mention that I am drinking a lot of beer and bourbon. I am also blasting old school Suicidal Tendencies. In a nutshell, I’m fired up and in the right mindset to drop some sense on the establishment zombies.

Now I’m going to be frank here and probably come across as borderline vicious and juvenile throughout this rant. If that offends you (i.e. you are a fluffy little bitch) then you need to hit the back button on your web browser right now. If you continue to read this, then you can’t say that you weren’t warned and furthermore, if you find it necessary to comment on my use of language, my tone and/or my unsophisticated penchant for name calling, go fuck yourself and grow a goddamned set. This post isn’t meant to be pretty and considering the fact that these establishment shitcocks continue to think that somehow Ron Paul supporters and libertarians are going to be persuaded enough to vote for Mitt fucking Romney means that I have to club these points over their heads like a poacher standing over a baby seal.

To start, there has been a fuck-ton of Romney zombies all over Facebook, YouTube, various blogs and out and about in society that have been literally begging Ron Paul supporters and libertarians to vote for their establishment ass clown because even though we don’t agree with Romney, the real objective is making “..Barack Obama a one-term president!” Jesus fuck, I am so tired of this goddamned bullshit point, which is soulless and borderline stupid. This mantra is just tribal nonsense, “tribal” being a word I’ve been throwing around a lot more lately, as I now see what this game is more clearly than I did before I started my journey of writing about the 2012 presidential race a.k.a. the Shitshow for Bastard Jackals.

Any-fucking-way, a lot of pundits have been pleading with the libertarian front in an effort to get Obama kicked out of the Oval Office. Glenn Beck had a bitch and rant session about Paul supporters and how they needed to get over themselves and support Mr. Mittens for POTUS. Bill O’Reilly just stares at the camera like the pissy pants dumbfuck that he is and can’t believe that Ron Paul even exists, let alone his supporters. Sean Hannity wants us on board. Rush Limbaugh wants a hot pastrami. The rest of them want us crazy liberty-loving, Constitution-representing, uncompromising preachers of freedom to bend the fuck over once again and let them stick their gristle-like RINO dicks in our asses.

No attempt at trying to co-opt us into their bullshit anti-Obama (notice I didn’t say pro-Romney) movement has been as insincere, disingenuous and ridiculous as Kurt Schlichter’s little article on Breitbart’s Big Government website titled “Time for Ron Paul Fans to Support the Constitution“. Excuse me bro? Time to “support the Constitution”? Are you fucking kidding me? Now while this article was met with great criticism, he still had the motherfucking audacity to follow it up with a second article on the subject titled “More on Why Ron Paul’s Libertarian Fans Need to Support the Constitution.. And Romney“. Good god, this motherfucker is serious? Did he not get the memo that told the establishment dickheads like him to fuck off? Is he this goddamned dense? Well, he is a Romney supporter so that explains a lot right there. Yes, I am stating very boldly that Romney supporters are indeed dense. Obama fans, this doesn’t absolve you of your denseness – you suffer from thickheadedness just as much. You see, all of you that feed into the two-party system are lost. If the truth limits my readership, I don’t give a shit. Take your dense asses elsewhere so you can be more comfortable talking to like-minded pussies that relish in their bullshit comfort zones where life is safe and unchallenging.

2. Examining The First Article:

I am not going to analyze the second article. Actually, after reading the first one, I am not even going to give the second piece the time of day.

Moving on, I’m going to get right into it; so let me run through these pathetic pleas and breakdown this dude’s contemptible argument. This maroon starts his idiot article with:

There is no more time for games, no room for hurt feelings. Ron Paul fans, you need to choose, because not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It’s that simple. And you could make the difference.

No room for “hurt feelings” you say? Good, well don’t cry then after I run over your nuts. Schlichter is asking us Paul fans to choose and by choose, to choose Romney because not voting for him is a “vote for Obama”. Again, with the tribalistic “our team versus their team” bullshit. “It’s that simple.” No, it’s not asshole and let me explain why.

Not voting for Romney is NOT a vote for Obama. All it is is not a vote for Romney. When you understand that their really isn’t a fundamental difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, other than rhetoric, you will begin to see how stupid this overused and overplayed statement is. First of all, people need to vote their conscious and choose the candidate that best fits with their own beliefs and ideals. Secondly, people need to realize that we aren’t just limited by two very bad choices and that we have to go into every fourth November with our heads down because we think that we can only vote for the lesser of two evils. Additionally, asking people to put aside their differences with the candidate you want them to vote for is really just asking them to put aside their differences. Why in the shit would anyone vote for someone that they have differences with? Now I am not talking about a few issues here or there, I am talking about differences across the majority of that candidate’s platform. But let’s let this shill make his case further as to why we should vote for his neocon butt buddy.

Schlichter adds:

Maybe Romney isn’t the uncompromising Ayn Rand hero you’d design if you could build your ideal candidate from scratch, but he’s a lot better than the guy on whose watch this happened: (this is referencing a picture of the anti-Islam filmmaker who the Obama Administration blames for the death of our Libyan ambassador and the anti-American riots around the Arab world).

Really dude? How weak of a point is this to start your fucking argument? I’m trying to read between the lines here and determine what picture you are trying to paint but regardless of whatever it is regarding this example, it’s fucking moot and a waste of time. Furthermore, the filmmaker isn’t to blame. Muslim extremists have been pissed for a while and they are pissed over our foreign policy, a foreign policy which your guy, Mitt Romney, wants to expand on. Is Obama weak? Yes, he is. Would Romney be any better? No, he wouldn’t. He plans to continue us down a path of foreign policy moves that will generate more blowback and thus, more hatred towards the United States. This is such a shitty example to use in an effort to appeal to Ron Paul supporters that it boggles my fucking mind and immediately tells me that this guy doesn’t have the first fucking clue about what any of us actually stand for, especially from a foreign policy standpoint.

The article continues:

Making no choice in this election is a choice – it’s a choice for a collectivist who will get two or three Supreme Court picks over a man who picked a guy, Paul Ryan, who understands capitalism and its unbreakable link to human freedom.

Now, this is a two-way street. Romney and Ryan need to reach out to libertarians over their common ground. Fortunately, there is lots of common ground.

Implying that Paul Ryan understands capitalism is like implying that Snooki understands the alphabet. Using the word “collectivist” is just a sad attempt at trying to tap into our libertarian hearts. He then suggests that there is common ground between the Romney-Ryan Coalition and libertarians. Oh Mr. Commentator, please explain:

No, the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, but it is the only party with any libertarian element. It’s the only place you have any chance of being heard. And with guys like Rand Paul and the libertarian-friendly Tea Party elements, you can be in the GOP.

Sure, the Democrats posture as guardians of freedom on a couple of issues – abortion, gay marriage – but that’s just a pose. It’s not part of any philosophy of human freedom; these are one-off policy choices made not because of a love for the Constitution but because they are demanded by the interest groups Democrats need to win elections.

When freedom becomes inconvenient, Democrats drop it like it’s hot.

There is so much wrong with this. The Republican Party is not “the only party with any libertarian element”. Are you fucking high bro? Have you ever heard of the country’s third largest political party aptly named the Libertarian Party? So the GOP is the only place that libertarians “have any chance of being heard”? Um, I think the Libertarian Party would listen to us much better than the Republicans who physically assaulted Ron Paul delegates at polls, had them arrested and committed election fraud in multiple states in order to keep Ron Paul down below Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Yes, that same Republican Party who just last month refused to sit Ron Paul delegates, treated them like shit and changed the rules of the Republican primary delegate process so no such fringe elements could ever make an impact again. Really, you are trying to make an appeal to us that your party is where we belong? Give me a fucking break.

You go on to mention Rand Paul and the Tea Party. Well, Rand Paul has lost a lot of respect from libertarians, even though he is still one of the good guys in my opinion. The Tea Party has disintegrated into a pro-Republican voting machine and has actually become the “astroturf” movement Nancy Skeletor Pelosi called it. And if you disagree with that, in your own words, you just admitted that the Tea Party was a part of the Republican Party.

Taking a shot at the Democrats, Schlichter attacks them on social issues and says that it’s “just a pose”. Okay buddy, how is this any different than the Republicans’ stance on fiscal issues being “just a pose”? This goes back to calling Paul Ryan a capitalist, as if his infamous Ryan Plan is going to change anything, it won’t. Hell, the plan takes decades before it even balances the budget and that’s not taking into account any roadblocks or the fact that Democrats, if they rule all branches of government again, could get rid of the thing. Republicans are just as guilty of talking bullshit on their important issues, because just like Democrats, they too have to appeal to interest groups that help them win elections.

Schlichter ends this portion with the words “drop it like it’s hot.” Does he assume that all libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are also Snoop Dogg fans? Maybe he assumes this because he assumes that we are all potheads.

Schlichter continues:

You can say a lot about libertarians, but they are principled about their view of the Constitution. They don’t compromise, and in many cases they earn the respect of conservatives (though never, ever, of Democrats).

It’s hard to count how many times conservatives have watched GOP debates and muttered “Damn, I’d vote for Ron Paul if he’d just stop talking about foreign policy.”

There’s overlap with the Republicans but there is none with the Democrats. And that’s not surprising. Libertarians believe in principles of liberty, as they see them. Liberals believe in raw power to impose their will as they see fit.

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Virgil Goode do not stand for collectivism. But right now, they stand in the way of stopping collectivism.

Jesus my eyes hurt from rolling them so much! Yes, libertarians are “principled about their view of the Constitution”. He then says that libertarians “don’t compromise”. Well okay, if you believe that then why the fuck are you begging us to support your boy? He then claims that they “earn the respect of conservatives (though never, ever, of Democrats)”. This is fucking wrong on both accounts. When he talks about the “respect of conservatives” is he talking about the time the GOP spat in our face at the Republican National Convention? Maybe it’s all the times they pulled shenanigans during the primaries in order to keep the Golden Boy afloat and Ron Paul at the bottom. Maybe it’s all the times I have been to Republican meetings and events and have had people get irate with me because I wasn’t going to just toe the line like the rest of the drones without questioning why. I can find many more examples of Republican disrespect than respect towards Ron Paul supporters and libertarians.

As far as Democrats go. Yes, most of them don’t show us respect but it is probably on less of a level than Republicans – the only party that Mr. Schlichter tells us that we can call home. In fact, many Democrats left their party during the Republican primary process in order to vote for Ron Paul over Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and all the other GOP stooges. Has Schlichter never heard of the Blue Republicans Movement? Additionally, has he never perused Facebook or YouTube and seen the countless comments by vigilant and knowledgeable Democrats who have publicly admitted that they wished Ron Paul would have won the primary because he speaks the truth. Many of these people claim that they would vote for Paul over Obama. A lot of the Democrats I call friends have told me, after watching the dozens of GOP debates over the last year, that Ron Paul is the only sane person on stage.

Schlichter then takes a shot at Paul’s foreign policy but again, this is something that Paul supporters and libertarians will not compromise on because Republican foreign policy is warmongering destructive global policing madness that perpetuates the current problems that we have with most countries. Schlichter and the GOP are too dense to realize this and to stop either buying into the fear or manufacturing it.

To say that there is overlap with the Republicans and none with the Democrats is just fucking asinine. Have you ever heard the term many libertarians use to describe themselves? That being, “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”. We have many social issues in common with the Democrats. Of course, going back to what you said earlier, the Democrats stance is just rhetoric. Well, how is this any different than Republicans? You add that “Liberals believe in raw power to impose their will as they see fit.” Again, how is this different than Republicans?

You say that Paul, Johnson and Goode are against collectivism, they are. However you say that supporting them and not Mitt Romney is just standing in the way of stopping collectivism. So was RomneyCare not a form of collectivism? Is continuing to force young people like me to fund the Republicans’ sacred cow programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) that will collapse before I get to reap their benefits also not collectivism? In 2005, Paul Ryan, in front of the Atlas Society, referred to such sacred cow programs as “collectivist”. In his own words, Paul Ryan admitted that such sacred cows that the Republicans tout constantly are “collectivist” and therefore how is supporting the Republican Party going to stop collectivism?

Here’s Paul Ryan’s quote:

In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill…it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism. That is why there is no more fight that is more obvious between the differences of these two conflicts than Social Security. Social Security right now is a collectivist system, it’s a welfare transfer system.

On the issue of Social Security, Mitt Romney’s campaign website states:

President Obama has had three years in office, during which time he has attacked every serious proposal to preserve and strengthen America’s entitlement programs. Mitt Romney has laid out the approach he would take to modernizing America’s entitlement programs, guaranteeing their continued vitality for future generations. Mitt’s proposals will not raise taxes and will not affect today’s seniors or those nearing retirement. He proposes that Social Security should be adjusted in a couple of commonsense ways that will put it on the path of solvency and ensure that it is preserved for future generations.

Yes, Mitt Romney wants to work towards preserving this (in his running mate’s own words) “collectivism” for future generations. The point is, to say that a vote for anyone other than Romney is standing in the way of stopping collectivism is completely fucking retarded. Republicans assuming that they aren’t collectivists or even socialistic in their actions, goes to show that they can’t even comprehend the nature of their own existence.

Getting back to the article, Schlichter goes on to say:

Let’s not sugar-coat it – there are some real differences between libertarians and conservatives. Foreign policy comes to mind; we conservatives see libertarian foreign policy as naive, while libertarians see conservative foreign policy as overseas adventurism. The drug war is another difference of opinion, though one the libertarians would have a hearing on in the GOP as their influence grows. We don’t need to agree on everything.

With the Democrats, you agree on nothing. We all saw the Democrat convention. It was a collectivist congregation worshiping at the altar of big government. Free this, free that, bailouts this, bailouts that.

There was no there there for principled libertarians. Nothing.

Again, here this guy goes comparing apples to apples, except he’s painted one to look like an orange. He calls the libertarian stance on foreign policy “naive”. He says that libertarians see the conservative stance as “adventurism”. Well okay nimrod, first of all, our stance isn’t naive. Read books like Chalmers Johnson’s “Blowback” or John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and then listen to what the terrorists actually say about us, not what the media and the politicians say that the terrorists are saying about us. We do our fucking homework, we understand the concept of blowback and the consequences of our conquests. Don’t even get me started talking about the fucking War on Drugs.

He goes on to knock the Democrats’ convention, saying that they wanted bailouts for everything. He calls it “collectivist” – seemingly his favorite word to throw around. I guess he has conveniently forgotten about Mitt Romney and Mr. Capitalism Paul Ryan’s support of the Wall Street bailouts, eh? Now of course, Romney and Ryan have soured on the bailouts they once supported but am I too assume that these two Masters of the Capitalist Universe really feel this way? I mean, if it wasn’t for the Tea Party getting all pissed off about the issue, would the Republican Party even care? Probably not. Now, Romney and Ryan are just pandering to what their supporters want and it just adds more ammo into the tribalist gun to fire off at the Democrats: creating the illusion that one group of bastards is morally superior to the other group of bastards. Mr. Schlichter really needs to stop throwing the “collectivist” term around until he looks in the fucking mirror. He also needs to proofread his shit because the sentence “There was no there there for principled libertarians.” doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.

He still has more points to make and continues with:

The Republicans are not libertarians, but at least libertarian-conservatives make up an influential and growing part of the party. There are exactly zero “libertarian-liberals.” Nor can there be; Democrats embrace everything libertarians oppose.

That’s why it’s silly to dismiss Romany as no different than Obama. Some wave off their obligation to choose with a cliché, that Romney is just “the lesser of two evils.”

Even if that’s true, the key is “lesser.” If you have to choose between encountering a hubcap thief and an axe murderer, you’d be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the hatchet.

“Romany”? Again, proofread your shit!

But anyway, you are right Mr. Schlichter, “the Republicans are not libertarians”. And yes, “libertarian-conservatives do make up an influential and growing part of the party.” However, to say that there are “exactly zero libertarian-liberals” just proves the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about and you did absolutely no research before writing your half-assed plea for support. Have you ever heard of Google? I already mentioned Blue Republicans and the fact that many liberals have come out in support for Ron Paul and even Gary Johnson, as is apparent in the polls of some states, but I’m going to go even further with this.

I wonder if Schlichter has ever heard of the Democratic Freedom Caucus? Probably not and for those of you who are unaware of this branch within the Democratic Party, here is their mission statement:

The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) promotes the values that the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility. We support the Bill of Rights, which describes what is meant by individual liberty and constitutional limits on government.

Sounds fucking great to me! Yes, “Democrats embrace everything libertarians oppose.” Check your math bro. Now while being objective, this group and their way of thinking is definitely not popular within the Democratic Party. At the same time however, it also isn’t popular within the Republican Party, otherwise Mr. Schlichter’s article would’ve never needed to be written.

This idiot then goes on to call the idea that there is no real difference between Obama and Romney as “silly”. He cites the “lesser of two evils” argument and wants the reader to understand that the key to the statement is “lesser”! Yes, he actually fucking wrote that! He is arguing for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama with this sentence, “If you have to choose between encountering a hubcap thief and an axe murderer, you’d be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the hatchet.” What the fuck?! My forehead is hurting from all the facepalms I am giving myself for subjecting my brain to this neocon establishment hack’s nonsense.

The next section of his article reads:

This is no time to “make a statement” or pout that Ron Paul got treated badly in Tampa. He did get treated badly in Tampa, and that was stupid and unnecessary. But if you are truly dedicated to the Constitution you won’t let it be trampled in order to make some soon-to-be-moot point to the anonymous GOP party hacks responsible for not giving Ron Paul a primo speaking slot.

Priorities, people. Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here.

So he says that there is “no time to ‘make a statement’ or pout” over Ron Paul’s treatment at the RNC last month. Wrong, Dr. Paul’s mistreatment along with the Republican Party changing the rules and rigging the system in the establishment’s favor was a statement in and of itself. It was a statement that pretty bluntly stated that they don’t want us around, making decisions and changing the party from the inside. They made it perfectly clear that they would not allow us to have any influence over them and that they would use every single underhanded trick that they could get away with to cement themselves as the GOP masters. Well, they can’t make such an epic statement and not expect a response! No, they just expect us to fall the fuck in line and shut the fuck up. They don’t want our minds, they just want our fucking votes and that is more reason not to vote for the Republican Party. They don’t deserve the satisfaction of being able to count any of us as their supporters when they have no intention of ever listening to OUR pleas and ideas. Truthfully, even if a libertarian is in a position to talk to the GOP, they are usually ridiculed for it and called crazy. We’ve all seen it happen to Dr. Paul for years and we aren’t going to keep playing this game by the Republican Party’s ever-changing rules.

Schlichter says that if we really love the Constitution, that we won’t let it be “trampled in order to make some soon-to-be-moot point”. Fuck off man. This douchenugget actually thinks that Mitt fucking Romney isn’t going to trample on the Constitution? Do I need to keep running down Ol’ Mittens laundry list of unconstitutional bullshit? Do people really believe that Mitt Romney will actually be a real defender and protecter of our founding document? “Priorities, people. Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here.” Yeah dickhead, so why are YOU supporting Mitt Romney?

It still gets better:

No choice is a choice, and with the polls showing a dead-even race every vote that does not go to Romney is effectively a vote for Obama. There’s no debate here; you opt out and you support Obama by default. How can any principled libertarian do that?

He says that every vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. Goddamn I’m sick of that lame ass argument. No, every vote that someone makes (or doesn’t make) is the choice of that individual, regardless of the outcome. It is their decision and their decision alone and their vote is a vote put in the place that they want to put it, it is their voice and their choice and to plea with someone to ignore their principles in an effort to pick a “lesser of two evils” is evil itself. It is politics at its worst and frankly, Mr. Schlichter is just one person on a long list of pimps selling dirty politics. He says that there is “no debate here; you opt out you support Obama by default.” That’s a pile of dogshit. If you opt out, you’re telling the two-party system that you are no longer willing to play by its skewed and biased rulebook. “How can any principled libertarian do that?” Um.. because of our principles you fucksack.

Continuing:

Obama’s spent nearly four years trampling the First Amendment. Filmmakers who embarrassed the regime are rousted by cops at 1:30 a.m. Administration diplomats work with the UN to put in place blasphemy laws that give foreign mobs veto power over our right to speak. Religious organizations are told they must act contrary to their conscience as commanded by the government.