Blogcritics Comments on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Tue, 13 May 2008 01:38:45 EDT

Never mind Al, the bulldog is loose, and I dont have anymore time for you. Like I said before your about as libertarian as Goebbles. Bye Bye. Enjoy your ignorance Al, I do.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Tue, 13 May 2008 01:36:14 EDT

Never mind Al, the bulldog is loose, and I dont have anymore time for you. Like I said before your about as libertarian as Goebbles. Bye Bye

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 23:31:28 EDT

Pablo- I mostly generally pretty well do know what I'm talking about. That does not, however, mean that you get to arbitrate what things I have to read to say I know something, or that I have to take any interest in any sub-topic you demand. I don't give a rat's ass about your Muslim Brotherhood - nor do I claim knowledge of them. So, you're saying that this Muslim Brotherhood was really responsible for 9/11, and thus the British? That's cute. Of course South Park already went there with the snuke episode. As to corporations being inherently un-libertarian, I disagree. Now, there can be and probably are some funky abuses of law to avoid responsibility through corporations. Show me a specific example, and maybe I'll condemn it and say that the law should be changed. But lots of folks just hate the boogeyman word "corproation," which is just dumb. At root, the idea of a corporation is perfectly reasonable as a point of organization for free people. It's a limited liability partnership, in that individuals are not responsible for the company's debts. But that's a legitimate point of contract. When the bank loans the Widget Corp money, it is specifically understood and agreed that the bank has no recourse to individual stockholders if their loan goes bad. That's a mutually agreed business deal. Not a thing wrong with that. Now, if you get to a place where people are doing criminal stuff on behalf of their corporation, then they should be held liable. If the board hires thugs to beat up competitors, then the individuals should be held personally criminally liable for their acts. That's different than the limited liability that investors know about and agree to.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:25:20 EDT

Al, It is more a question to me of understanding your enemy. As far as I can tell you are absolutely clueless about the muslim brotherhoods known affiliation and inflitration by british and us intelligence agencies, that is why I put in several people for you to google is you had an interest, as you might have learned something new, god forbid. I said I was not surprised because the way that I interpret your writing is that you are a typical know-it-all, thus your mind is closed, so I was and am not surprised by your lack of interest in things that you obviously have no knowledge of. I also in one of my comments on this article mentioned to you my opinion about libertarians and corporations being viewed by the law as individuals, either you did not see it, or didn't care to comment on it, again I was not surprised. There is not libertarianism as long as this charade continues, that General Motors or Microsoft are treated as individuals. As to 9/11 I certainly will not attempt to change your mind, but I will respond to your characterization as people that question the event , and suspect inside cooperation as losers. Just another typical closed minded, fearful comment, from someone that by his own knowledge only dabbled in looking into it. If there is any "losers" here Al it is people such as yourself who blindly adhere to government propaganda, and yet have the audacity to cast stones in the other direction. I also never said nor claimed that the towers were not attacked with airplanes, or even that they had moslem brotherhood members inside. I do claim however that that Islamic brotherhood is nothing more than a creation of UK and US intelligence agencies, and umm Al? I have done my homework, you have not, and quite frankly do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 19:13:47 EDT

Pablo- You are correct at least once in this conversation. I am not interested in studying the muslim brotherhood, and indeed I'm only marginally interested in studying the Koran and Muslim culture in general. You say this ("I am not surprised") as if this indicated something bad about me. It does not. I do not feel that it is my responsibility to have some deep multicultural studies. There's a certain amount of needing to understand my enemies, but I don't need or want to spend my time bending over backwards trying to understand them. Muslim bullshit just doesn't get my rocks off. Maybe the goddam muslim brotherhood needs to study on the history of America and the Libertarian Party. Maybe the whole Muslim world needs to learn English and get with the program. Or at least they could get the minimal understanding of US that they better get a grip on themselves and stop their own from trying to kill Americans, lest we have to start thinning their ranks. I'm fairly infophilic, and I dig learning about other cultures. I like Indian food, and groovy African folk stories and all kinds of brotherly things. But I'm less inclined to start working up empathy and understanding of people and learning their culture just because they're a threat. Threatening people can just be killed.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:54:52 EDT

Al, I guess that meant your not interested in the history of the muslim brotherhood, I am not surprised.

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:54:14 EDT

Brother Troll! Happy to see you come out from under your bridge. I would definitely think that the best minds of our generation becoming businessmen, real estate and insurance executives and such, is MUCH preferred and more useful than the nonsense that Michelle Obama for one says about how folks should skip business jobs to be jerk-off "community organizers" and such. Pablo, I saw multiple pictures of the damned planes flying into the buildings. Many thousands of people saw it, which largely pretty much settles the question. I checked out a little of a few of the most common truther claims several years ago when they first started gathering steam, just on general principles. I found nothing the least bit convincing to me. But you seem to think that you can just argue out the point forever by making first one claim and then another and then re-hashing the first one - then demand that normal folks have to follow out every lame-ass claim you want to make forever and ever and the issue can never be resolved other than for the skeptics to drink your bitter kool-aid. Whereas when I see the obvious explanation ie pissed off Muslims flying planes into buildings, and basically nothing more, at some point pretty quickly I'ma call the issue settled, and I'm not going to waste my time on dumb shit just because a couple of hateful losers on the net insist that the issue is still in doubt. It isn't.

Comment by Clavos on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:48:45 EDT

I don't know, Stan, they remain anonymously in the shadows; the only response I get is censorship.

Comment by troll on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:58:15 EDT

...you mean like why have 'the best minds of our generation' become real estate and insurance sales...people - ?

Comment by silver surfer on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:54:46 EDT

You are not still trying to have a battle of wits with someone who has no ammo Clav, are ya??

Comment by Clavos on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 11:45:35 EDT

I asked a question.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 02:07:27 EDT

Al, Sigh, I guess that means you wont google the lineage of the Brotherhood. Oh well what did I expect, an actual engaging human being instead of another closed right wing mind. Like I am sure you know who those guys are Al. I just love opinions of guys that know jack shit about what they are talking about. Big Al running for the libertarians in Indiana........how cute. Gotta watch out for Dr. NO. Oh noooooooo hehehehe. Do yourself a favor Al and stay asleep, the dream is so much better than the reality.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 01:50:35 EDT

Al, Cute. The best you can do is quote Lumpy lol. My oh my.

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Mon, 12 May 2008 00:36:58 EDT

Pablo- I didn't say anything about you. Did you somehow see yourself in my description of the schmucks? Lumpy sez: it's kind of surreal to read Pablo's dribbllings of idiocy while listening to alex jones on the radio. kind of like being mentally gang raped by retards who keep putting their dicks in the wrong holes and then claim that the government hid the normal ones I about fell out my damned chair at "and then claim that the government hid the normal ones."

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:20:40 EDT

Al, Hateful? Hardly. Sneering, you bet I am, particularly after your equating 9/11 truthers with pedophiles and racists. I looked at your blog, I have read enough of your stuff to see what kind of libertarian you are, not to mention your bulldog approach to communicating, and I responded in kind. I did not call you a Nazi, I compared you and Davey to a person who was in the nazi party, and who was the chief propagandist for them. I find your writing and Daveys to be nothing more than propaganda, without reason, and disparaging those that you do not agree with, rather than debating on the issues. Now someone like Davey boy will come along and say that there is no reasoning with them hence the condescension and disparagement. He only fools himself, but as I firmly believe that he is nothing more than a shill, he is not fooling anyone. Do you for a moment actually think that I give a good god damned what you or your cronies think about ANYTHING? I dont, I write on here because I can, and for those others that may have an open mind. I probably would spend the time debating you guys, but since all you can ever do is cast stones, it is frankly not worth the effort. You believe in the Easter Bunny, I don't, its about that simple. Why dont you take the time to study the Moslem Brotherhood as I have, from their roots in National Socialism through them being acquired as an asset of MI6, to being sold to the CIA. Google the Bank of Al Taqwa, Francois Guenet, and Hassan al-Banna. My sense is that you probably have never heard of any of these individuals and their connections with Islamic (cia sponsored) fascism. Surprise surprise. As to the political season upon us. I think the whole thing is rigged from the top to the bottom. I far prefer a wolf to a wolf in sheeps clothing which is what the Democrats are offering, that being said I would never vote for a CFR member for anything, let alone President. If they were any more in bed with each other it would be one homely orgy, not my sort of voyeurism. Libertarian my ass. Oh and Al? I find nothing civil about any of your writing sir.

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sun, 11 May 2008 15:22:42 EDT

Dallas- I want to concur with Baronius about you. On the one hand, I'm less than impressed with your epistemological stance. However, you're not behaving in a personally objectionable manner like some of these hateful jackasses. I can't say that you're entirely reasonable, but you're not hateful and sneering down your nose at us sheeple and calling me a Nazi. Your civility is appreciated.

Comment by Pablo on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sun, 11 May 2008 14:07:37 EDT

"It's obviously not useful or productive to try to talk to Al here, cause he's simply not open to facts and reasoning that don't fit with whatever silly stuff he chooses to believe." Dallas, You are truly wasting your breath on these guys. I rarely bother anymore, except to get a few snippets in of sarcasm. None of them has done their homework, and they all cling to the party line, as the alternative view is too much for them to handle, i.e. their world view and of America in particular of being behind false flag terrorism, is just too much for them to bear. Have pity on them, I do, as all they can do is disparage rather than debate, and Davey is their king. Barger, Davey boy, STM, Clavos, and Baronius are all made of the same cloth, ignorance. The root of this word is "ignore", and that is precisely what they do. It kind of reminds me of when Galileo came around, and all the guys similar to those abo ve ridiculed and put down the obvious. I wish it was Osama and company, that did this horrible act, however wishes dont make reality. None of these guys has bothered to really look at the evidence and facts surrounding 9/11 other than the lying msm. They are also in denial about how many americans, well over half, do not believe the official line. But these guys do!! Barger and Dave are about as libertarian as Goebbels, and have absolutely no idea about true sovereignty. They are just red-necks pretending to be erudite. I do not even bother engaqing them anymore, as all they can do is make fun, when their ignorance is there for all to see. Cheers Pablo

Comment by Dallas on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 22:11:11 EDT

Baronius, I'm delighted you addressed my concerns. I have never heard of the lack of heat dispersion as a reason for a collapse and I admit it makes some sense. That is the first explanation I have ever heard that came from the rational side. On the contrary I have heard many alternatives from that fall on the conspiracy side of things. My point from the beginning is that no one addresses and dispels the questions except you seem willing. That is all anyone is asking. Some people do not seem to understand all I wanted to do was start a debate not change minds. Uniform opinion is is never much fun but I would never hit and run. Ontologically speaking, Platonism is no more than glorified Judaism. The idea of imperfect earth and a perfect other world is the basic of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I just never much cared for that type of belief system. I think Aristotle was closer than Plato. The prefect version is inside the physical manifestation and imperfection exist based on the physical world's limitations. Existentialism is my preferred cup of tea. That kidney stone may hurt for you but someone may not feel it at all. Reality is a construct based on one's perception, the brain's interpretation of the body's senses. You and I may see a tree but a "crazy man" might see a building. Now who is observing the objective reality. Is it us because there are more of us seeing the same thing? Who is to say who is right and wrong. That "crazy" may walk up the the tree turn around and walk away. Then turn to you and say he withdrew 50 bucks from his bank account. To him that money is as real as the tree is to us. I'm sure you have read Samuel Beckett's plays. "Endgame" is a perfect example of this. By the way, I'm a questioner who believes in nothing but questions.

Comment by Baronius on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 17:35:04 EDT

Dallas, that was a little snippy on my part. You've got to understand that many of us post frequently on this site, but the average "truther" strikes once and runs away. They haven't seemed interested in engaging in conversation, for the most part. When they do, I'm there. I wouldn't expect you to know that Al Barger and I disagree on a lot of things. I shouldn't blame you for the actions of all the other "truthers". (Although your comment about us ignoring you and damning you to hell was a bit over the top.) I actually wrote a reply to you about the temperature in the Towers, but I didn't submit it because I figured that you weren't interested in discussion. The point of my comment was that there wasn't any heat dispersion when the two biggest buildings in the world were on fire, right next to each other. We've studied the effects of airplane impact on buildings before, but never anything like what happened on 9/11. In my experience, when 9/11 conspiracy people get cornered they say that there are more questions than answers. But that's not true. They simply refuse to accept the answers. You've taken the ultimate position with a philosophy that doesn't accept the possibility of answers. We've all been there: in my youth, I worked existentialism from every angle I could think of, and here I am today practically a Platonist. You'll find the persistence of reality to be an obstacle that your philosophy just can't account for. By taking it to its extreme, you've revealed the fallacy in conspiracy theories. You're a "truther" who doesn't believe in Truth.

Comment by Baronius on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 15:28:25 EDT

Anyone who's ever had a migraine or a kidney stone knows that there is an objective reality which cannot be dispelled by nonconsent. But it does raise the question of why Dallas believes that anyone destroyed any towers on any day.

Comment by Clavos on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:11 EDT

Dallas begs the obvious question of why Existentialism is invariably more popular with students than it is with their older brethren who have emerged into the quotidian world and found they have to cope with realities over which they have no, or at most little, control.

Comment by Al Barger on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 10:40:37 EDT

It's obviously not useful or productive to try to talk to Dallas here, cause he's simply not open to facts and reasoning that don't fit with whatever silly stuff he chooses to believe. And right here is precisely why: if you must know I am an existentialist and I do not believe in an objective reality only an agreed reality, a contract like anything else. Again, he's set himself up to be irrefutable by insisting that reality is reality only if he agrees to it. This is absolutely the most obviously and overtly foolish nonsense that you could say. If you're standing on the railroad tracks and a train is coming, just try disbelieving it like an illusionist spell in a game of D&D and see what it gets you.

Comment by STM on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 08:58:54 EDT

Dallas, in regard to that essay: I believe the United States is a far aggressive nation than most Americans realise, and certainly an imperialist nation in a near-identical mould to Great Britain (no prizes for guessing why on that one). There are sound reasons for this, and one of those is to maintain the lifestyles we enjoy. Civilisation is civilisation. The British Empire and the American "empire" aren't that different. True, the British went to the four corners of the globe and planted the Union Jack. But they did it for trade mostly, because it benefitted their economy. Before the US took over as the world's major economic power, that spot was occupied by Britain. In a bizarre kind of nod to anti-imperialism, the US doesn't plant the Stars and Stripes everywhere (although, it has in some places, including Hawaii and in the territories it annexed that are now part of the US), but the end result is the same. It just plants corporate HQs everywhere instead. The end results, mainly, are good rather than bad. So they are just two parts of the whole, occupying different periods in history, but mark the domination of the world by the English-speaking nations since the early 1700s. My view on this is that it isn't that bad, always. The whole world benefits from US imperialism dressed up as capitalism, but only in those countries that want to embrace it. There is no doubt there are huge benefits on offer. Those that don't want it suffer. However, I reckon it's their problem. I feel the same way about the British. In most of the countries they've been, there is a) democracy, b) rule of law, c) grand institutions, and b) an emphasis on personal freedoms and liberties like freedom of speech. Mostly, too, there's also a decent standard of living. I'll cite places like Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, which are in my neck of the woods, and the places in Asia with the highest standard of living. Malaysia is a muslim country, too. Compare the overall standard of living in a place like neighbouring Thailand to see the difference. We have all benefitted from this, and that includes the US which also gets its rule of law, and most of its laws, and even its constitution from them as most of the thinking contained in that wonderful document comes from English law dating back near a thousand years, the constiutional changes of the Glorious Revolution and the common laws of England. It's also why, try as it might, the US has never really been able to shed its ties to the other English-speaking nations. And why should it? We all have common values. I don't understand Americans who feel ashamed of their country, or believe that the best way forward for America is to cut its allegiances and isolate once more and to believeb that Americans can have the same standard of living if they remove the influence of big business from the dealings of government. So how is any of this bad? I would rather be in the pocket of, or a friend of, the United States or Britain and have benefitted from their legacy than living in some tinpot dictatorship somewhere. The world should be glad of these two nations and their offspring, particularly as they were the only ones that really stood up against tyranny in the 20th century. And if that's meant that business and industry has some influence, in this case in US govt policy, what's not to like about that, and why is it such a worry? It's the reason you, and I (living in a country very closely tied to the US), live the kinds of lives we do. Without all that stuff, we'd all still be pissing in the gutter. What alternative do you propose?? Back to the woods, hunting and fishing for our food and riding around on horses we've been lucky enough to catch?

Comment by Dallas on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Sat, 10 May 2008 04:13:31 EDT

I said I was finished but alas I am not such a strong man. Al, if you must know I am an existentialist and I do not believe in an objective reality only an agreed reality, a contract like anything else. STM, you are right we have increased spending for security in airports but I would suggest that the politicians are happy to spend more of our money if it makes them look good. Government money is stolen from it's citizens first. My point was not that we have not done anything but that we maybe able to do more by examining the details, possibly to prevent such catastrophic structural failures from occurring in the future. So I have said my peace. I really just wanted to leave you with a passage from Murray Rothbard; "Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy theorist" himself." Futhermore; "It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse." I encourage you to read the rest of the essay. Just click on my name.

Comment by STM on My Libertarian Blues and Ron Paul in Disgrace (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hillary Clinton)

Fri, 9 May 2008 22:47:42 EDT

Dallas: "I cannot debate this here as Dreadful has been the only one to address and rebut one of my points." You didn't answer my point about the billions of dollars now having to be spent on airport/airline security around the world in the wake of 9/11, which didn't previously exist. It's a direct result of 9/11, but you might even think that's a conspiracy - a way of earning the security companies extra money. Except, it's governments that have pay it. I don't know how much the US govt spends, but you can bet they'd rather not be spending it and it would be a huge amount given the amount of air travel in the US. Just that fact alone should ding some bells in your mind, but I suppose we shouldn't hold our breath for that.