liberty student: No, it's calling a toad a toad. It's pointing out the Frank is in fact a vacuous moron, who only has survived this long by being an ignorant tool of the establishment. It's also highlighting how unfit this man is for any position he pretends to. His inability to articulate, to speak clearly just amplifies the fact that when he does speak, nothing he says makes any sense. Perhaps you like being ruled by morons, but I would rather laugh at and mock them.
No, it's calling a toad a toad. It's pointing out the Frank is in fact a vacuous moron, who only has survived this long by being an ignorant tool of the establishment.
It's also highlighting how unfit this man is for any position he pretends to. His inability to articulate, to speak clearly just amplifies the fact that when he does speak, nothing he says makes any sense.
Perhaps you like being ruled by morons, but I would rather laugh at and mock them.
It's all good and swell to call "a toad a toad" as you say, and I'm all for laughing at the sheer stupidity of government, but there is absolutely no substance to this post. She doesn't cite a single thing he's said, doesn't elucidate a single one of his ideas or arguments, and doesn't provide links to any articles about him or youtube clips of him speaking. The post consists entirely of name calling. Why would anyone who doesn't already believe that Frank is a buffoon take DeCoster seriously? Ad hominem attacks cannot be a substitute for genuine, serious discussion; without substance DeCoster is just bitching.
I do find Karen DeCoster quite rude and although she is probably justifiably less than respectful of most public figures, I think that her ad-hominem attacks end up doing damage to the libertarian movement.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024070.html
This one for example.
I couldn't agree with you more and that blog post is an excellent example. The title of the post is "Why Can't We Understand Paulson When He Talks?" and if DeCoster provides any answer to her question it seems to be because he's "a retard."
Very profound...
nameless:I do find Karen DeCoster quite rude and though probably justifiably less than respectful of most public figures, but I think that her ad-hominem attacks end up doing damage to the libertarian movement.
1. The libertarian movement does not "own" it's reputation. I would say that Alan Greenspan is worse for libertarianism, than Karen DeCoster, but typically libertarians like to whack away at the low hanging fruit like it's a pinata.
2. Where is the damage? In order to claim damage, surely you have a specific instance in mind?
3. The libertarian movement lacks courage. While bravado and courage are not necessarily the same thing, I cheer for DeCoster when she calls Paulson a retard. When there is no food and unemployment hits 20%, people will be calling him much worse. There is no benefit in going easy on a mountebank.
This is part of the branding issue. If we don't get IN YO FACE and assert ourselves, we will always be the nerds in the corner, no one listens to until it is too late. Politicians should be mocked and laughed at. They have no dignity, and they should expect none considering that nearly every single one is a thief and murderer.
It's time to get over our collective Stockholm Syndrome. The biggest issue libertarians face, is that they are ashamed to make a stand against the state. I don't know if it's fear of isolation, mockery, or the threat of state power in response but we will never get anywhere making threads to attack DeCoster, when there isn't a larger and more active thread criticizing Paulson.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
If we really cared about our reputations, we wouldn't be libertarians. It's simple.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Let's unpack that entry by Karen:
Caroline Baum on Paulson.
And I know that, no matter how hard I focus on what he says or how many times I read the press release and accompanying stories, I won’t be able to get my arms around the details. And then it hits me. There are no details. Only a set of loosely linked concepts -- something between a trial balloon and a hot-air dirigible -- that flows out in a stream-of- consciousness format, with the details to be filled in later.
And I know that, no matter how hard I focus on what he says or how many times I read the press release and accompanying stories, I won’t be able to get my arms around the details.
And then it hits me. There are no details. Only a set of loosely linked concepts -- something between a trial balloon and a hot-air dirigible -- that flows out in a stream-of- consciousness format, with the details to be filled in later.
When I listen to the inarticulate Paulson, I am perplexed as to how this man came to head up Goldman Sachs. He has never said anything that has led me to believe that he is intelligent or has any special charisma. Everytime I listen to the hearings, there he is, bumbling like a retard, and then Bernanke comes up right behind him and nervously stutters his way around simple questions, as if he can't fathom why he might have to explain what the two of them are doing with their unprecedented, unchecked powers and trillions of taxpayer dollars.
__________________________________
This type of writing doesn't exactly make me fall out of a chair. I say worse in person. "Like a retard" is surely one of the kinder things one can say about a guy who robs everyone of $700 billion and gives it to his former business partners.
So ... exactly what is everybody's beef with Karen? That she's a businesswoman with a far better grasp of finance and accounting than most economics majors? That she's physically fit? That she's someone you might actually want to have a beer with instead of a nerd with Aspberger's?
nameless: I do find Karen DeCoster quite rude and although she is probably justifiably less than respectful of most public figures, I think that her ad-hominem attacks end up doing damage to the libertarian movement. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024070.html This one for example.
They are not "public figures". Stop falling for their tricks. They are crooks, parasites and criminals. They do not deserve respect. Showing respect for them is an insult to good people. You do not show respect for John Gotti do you!
Hey nameless, sorry I came on so strong, but we have to stop tip-toeing and whispering around our rulers. We might as well exploit this political free speech as long as we have it. Oh, and Bush is also a retard. And Obama is a mountebank just like Bernanke and Biden.
I guess this is why some people call her "Karen DeCaustic" and her blog posts occasionally get deleted, but I often find her posts entertaining.
Telpeurion:It is that I have yet to see a person who advocates such policies because they know they are wrong. Isn't "evil" usually associated with doing something you KNOW is wrong?
Nor have I. BUT, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. They did great evils, and they thought they were right. It may be that Obama and some others are planning some Hitler like things and think they are doing the right thing. I'm not completelly convinced, but we shouldn't brush it aside. We should look at the claims and do some research.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap