Do you think this review of Ron's book is done tongue in cheek? I thought it was straight

[sailingaway]

and that the guy hated Ron, but now I'm not certain:


Saturday Book Review: Liberty Defined by Ron Paul: Assassination
by wisdomhunt

If I can stomach it, I intend to review Liberty Defined chapter-by-chapter so that you never have to.


It appears that many people in government want us to believe that the greater danger is coming from people like the underwear bomber rather than from our own government

And it is with statements like that in which Ron Paul begins to expose his true kook-self as a hater of everything America currently stands for.

As the title suggests, the focus of this chapter is assassination, specifically the assassination of those that want to destroy America. In the opinion of most non-kooks (such as myself), if you hate the American government then you are an enemy of the state and deserve to be assassinated (at best and only if you have no other information to give us).

Ron Paul obviously disagrees. He thinks people should be entitled to their own opinions, no matter how asinine those opinions are. He also seems to think that things like extrajudicial killings and torture of those that oppose the American government is a self-perpetuating cycle that only results in more and more terrorists. The government (and patriotic non-kooks) would argue that is only true if you run out of drones to eliminate these terrorist threats.

This does get a bit tricky when you consider that, in order to protect us from evil terrorists, sometimes it is necessary to assassinate American citizens such as Anwar-al-Awlaki as well (also his 16 year old son and everyone else stupid enough to be within his immediate vicinity – collateral damage). The writ of habeus corpus may have been around for 800 years, but if the US government decides that you are now an enemy, you do not deserve a right to trial.

And in the end, it makes us all safer (and by us, I mean us non-kooks that agre with the government at all times forever and ever).

Previous chapters reviewed:
The Introduction
Abortion

links to prior chapters reviewed here: http://wisdomhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/saturday-book-review-liberty-defined-by-ron-paul-assassination/

[eleganz]

what the....I can't believe I read his reviews, all 3 of them...


This third way has led to amazing wealth for the fortunate few that wield and influence power, yet Ron Paul wants to take away the trough while similarly also allowing us to practice free will in all aspects of our lives.

We will see how he intends to do so in the coming chapters, but any child knows that we cannot make rational choices on our own without supervision.


http://wisdomhunt.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/saturday-book-review-liberty-defined-by-ron-paul-abortion/

Therefore, the federal government is doing the right thing by dictating what is moral and what is immoral to its citizenry. It is the only way to prevent the chaos of individual choice.

[sailingaway]

that's what I was soliciting opinions about, that and things like:


As the title suggests, the focus of this chapter is assassination, specifically the assassination of those that want to destroy America. In the opinion of most non-kooks (such as myself), if you hate the American government then you are an enemy of the state and deserve to be assassinated (at best and only if you have no other information to give us).

Ron Paul obviously disagrees. He thinks people should be entitled to their own opinions, no matter how asinine those opinions are. He also seems to think that things like extrajudicial killings and torture of those that oppose the American government is a self-perpetuating cycle that only results in more and more terrorists. The government (and patriotic non-kooks) would argue that is only true if you run out of drones to eliminate these terrorist threats.


could that possibly be serious?

[eleganz]

His writing directs me to believe that it is satirical (like labeling himself as a statist) but if you read into enough of his different posts, he does seem to be entirely serious.

Conventional wisdom my ass.

[timreichstein]

Tongue in cheek

[sailingaway]

well, I gave you rep as payment for wading through it... :o:

[Occam's Banana]

Looking at some of the other blog entries on the site (http://wisdomhunt.wordpress.com/), it's definitely satirical.

There was this on the fiscal cliff:

Taxes are going up for every single working American (due to the expiration of the 2% payroll tax break), but they are especially going up for the rich. This should help shift money out of the unproductive labor and capital sector that supply things people want and need into the government sector where it can be spent more productively.

And this on Iran sanctions:

US economic sanctions against Cuba and North Korea (among many others) have worked incredibly well to eliminate those brutal regimes.

Similarly, the opening of relations with the brutal communist regimes of Vietnam and China have been horrific disaster as the dictators there have managed to maintain power and become even more brutal over the years.

I have to say, though, in the stuff SA quoted, it's a bit overdone. Not sure whether that's good or bad.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Pretty sure it is satire.

Statists normally have different talking points than we do. What he is doing is fllipping our talking points on their heads.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Now this person is for real, and is a member on another forum: http://www.antipaulbot.com/

[Carson]

Do you think this review of Ron's book is done tongue in cheek? I thought it was straight

and that the guy hated Ron, but now I'm not certain:

Interesting. It is almost as if he supports Ron Paul's positions but does it from the safety of attacking them from the oppositions strong hold.

^If that makes any sense.


I've often wondered if at times I could do more good for my side by being on the other, but that's sort of a whole different story...

or is it?

[Britannia]

I'm not a kook or a conspiracy theorist. Are these qualifications to be a "Paultard"? If so I may no longer qualify to be one of the good Doctor's merry-men :p

[acptulsa]

Both?

Is someone playing to the choir for hits and/or possibly for pay, while overdoing it just enough to ensure that anyone who uses his arguments can be pwned with ease? A way to make a buck and maintain a clear conscience?

Blatant or subtle? Interesting stuff.

[July]

It is definitely satire... but looks like a libertarian wrote it, judging by the sense of humor, IMO. The title says "combating disinformation with conventional wisdom", and that's what it appears to doing.... The author takes on the role/point of view of the statist and attempts to discredit the kooks.

Here he is admonishing (praising?) Rand,

http://wisdomhunt.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/rand-paul-half-kook

I could be wrong, as I've never seen nor followed this blog before, but after reading a half dozen entries, that's my impression. I thought it was pretty amusing.