Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Wed, 2012-05-02 16:12

Ron Paul should have answered that first question by saying something like, "I'm an advocate of libertarianism in politics, capitalism in economics -- and liberty in general. Paul Krugman is an advocate of slavery in politics, socialism in economics -- and tyranny in general. I like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, while Krugman likes Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. I want everyone to be free, rich, and happy; Krugman wants Big Brother to enslave and impoverish us all, and make our lives an infinite hell."

It's sad that Congressman Paul immediately starts off with trivia -- and doesn't focus on essentials, as I did above. I think he lacks both the ability and the desire to stick to the central political, economic, and sociological issues. Paul is psychologically and spiritually weak, in my opinion. This whole debate could have been a magnificent and enjoyable Clash of the Titans. Instead, it's merely boring and annoying. And it's almost infinitely frustrating.

Paul needs to study philosophy more -- starting with Rand. But also Locke, Smith, Voltaire, and Jefferson. And certainly the economic giants Von Mises and Hayek.

Marx, Lenin, Mao, Keynes, Galbraith, Stiglitz, and Krugman are the anti-human, pro-slavery, economic scum of the earth -- but you wouldn't know it to witness this lame, useless, hopeless debate.

( categories: )