I thought personal attacks are NOT allowed. This entire piece by Barger IS a personal attack. And a poor one at that.

Barger really doesn't get the concept of "blowback"? He really doesn't understand WHY so many people resent the US at this point in history? Does he think things happen in a vacuum?

Only Ron Paul is addressing the issues. If Barger hasn't the wit to get it, he ought to just be honest and admit that. He needn't try to spread these ridiculous personal attacks on a man whose policies he can't factually disagree with.

And in that he's no different from the other angry little Ron Paul haters out there.

Bipolar episode?

Nah. Didn't even bother finishing reading your lame essay.

Not convinced, sounds like a Hillery Lacky, What a waste of time!! Barger doesnt understand "blowback" and thinks america is in a great position,
Wake UP and look around, were headed for crisis!!

This is why we need to institute IQ testing in order to vote.

Hey Barger we've all sinned, it's forgiveness that's divine. I'm not going to hold something that happened years ago against somebody I agree with on everything else. Ron Paul is the ONLY politician that knows why this country is slipping to banana republic status and has the COURAGE to say so. As far as "blowback", I was saying myself twenty years ago if we kept messing around in the Middle East we would have terrorism in this country. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You've got some wacky ideas if you think otherwise.

Are you serious? Do you know how many scandals the Clintons have been in? Do you like how Hillery just laughs about her "baggage"? You know how antithema Socialism is to Liberty? Guess what? Obama and Hillery are both Socialists, so it's obvious you never were a Libertarian. McCain... well he'll be the fascist liberal the neo-cons can't wait to get, although will never have cause the Dems will beat him without a doubt.

It's ironic people can't forgive Ron Paul for failing to put enough supervision towards his multiple news articles, which he also publicly took personal resposibility for. This is the same guy who is friends of 20 years with Nelson Linder, NAACP Director in Texas. Yet when McCain publicly calls Asians gooks, nobody makes an uproar or demands an apology.

FYI - Yeah, vote for Hillery then. I just can't wait to pay for your medicals bills since you're obviously too inept to take care of your own self. Use my tax money to get an education while you're at it too.

Curious. He's willing to blame every weirdo in the libertarian movement on Ron Paul and overlook every atrocity committed by Hillary Clinton....

Al Barger's article is a disgrace. It's always funny when narrow-mindedness is on display like Barger's. What a hoot! Dr. Paul will be proven to be right when it's too late. The fake dollar will crash and the son of Cain or two other socialists like Obama and Clinton get in office.

Too much of that Mecical industrial complex? Get yourself some more of the Hillary stuff..When you finally wake up from that, you'll come back to free thinking and screaming, "I'm free!"
The Ron Paul republican message has open arms.

What a Dumbass! Stick your head back into the sand... don't worry, us REAL Americans will make sure this country rights itself.

Oh, Al, look what you've started now. It's like you revel in the attention.

Priceless responses so far though.

Admit it - they've got you nailed. Yes siree. You're a shill for Hillary. Must have been calling her a 'giant douche' that gave the game away...

How many times do we have to tell bloggers on this site to STFU?

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is NOT a disgrace to this country.

Learn, love it, live it.

Moron!

But Frank N Stein- If we had IQ testing for voting, we'd have a LOT less votes for Ron Paul. I mean, how dumb do you got to be to think that Paul-bots descending like a toothless version of brown-shirts to harass and villify anyone who disagrees with them is going to get you votes?

Particularly, how you think being crappy like this with staunch libertarians such as me is going to get you votes. Perhaps you might put down the kool-aid for a minute and consider that there might actually be something wrong when the supposed "libertarian" candidate so thoroughly alienates someone like me.

And y'all can shut up your pussy whining about my "personal attacks" on Ron Paul. I'm not criticizing him for irrelevant personal behavior. He's publishing really crazy, stupid, bad things and trying to legitimize the Birchers. Those are totally legitimate public actions for which to criticize an elected public official. As my hero Michael Corleone would say, it's nothing personal. It's just business.

Jaynh- No, I'm not saying the country is in GREAT shape, but I'm an optimist by nature. But the point here is that if that we'd REALLY be screwed if somehow the Birchers and various NAMBLA lobbyists and 9/11 conspiracy schmucks took the wheel. That'd be far worse than EVEN HILLARY FRICKIN' CLINTON. Also, the wake-up-sheeple theme ain't impressing any mentally healthy adults - though obviously any rational person would realize that the Jews and the Trilateral Commision are conspiring with the communists to crash the dollar while the Negroes take over. Whatever.

Also, Simon9 back at comment #1 is re-inforcing my original point about blowback. In truth, despite claims to the contrary as I carefully explained in the original piece, Paul and his supporters like Simon are saying that we brought it on ourselves. If you want to have THAT debate, then address it straight up rather than pretending that these words and arguments don't mean what they clearly do. Paul says we brought it on ourselves. I say HELL NO.

By the way, readers interested in my idea of a pro-constitution libertarian message for contrast can consult my 2004 campaign archive.

al: "Paul says we brought it on ourselves. I say HELL NO."

now, you know i'm no paul supporter. and he has said and done some stupid things. some of his principals are okay. his supporters are little rabid dogs in need of a good swatting/euthanasia. that's neither here nor there.

but... he's right about blowback. it is, without a doubt, our policy and actions in the middle east that got the terrorists all riled-up. you think they did it just for fun? you think they didn't have a reason (no matter how fucked up it was)?

why do you think the terrorists did it then, if not because of our interventionist and money(oil)-grubbing ways?

saying that it was our actions that lead to the terrorists decision to take action of their own, of course, isn't saying that we deserved it, it's just recognizing the cause and effect nature of the issue.

"What a Dumbass..."

"please do us all a favor and quit writing blogs..."

"How many times do we have to tell bloggers on this site to STFU?"

Ah, insults and attempts to silence dissent. The sure signs of an argument lost.

Such grace. Yep - behavior like this sure makes me want to support Ron Paul...

And you are in the Libertarian Party why Al? So because Mary Ruwart actually defends freedom and liberty for all, she is somehow not a libertarian? You're rant and people like you, are the people who put the LP to shame, not Dr. Ruwart.

You sir, are an idiot.
You are also nowhere near being a Libertarian.
Don't worry about the Government, they're here to help, right?
Dumbass.

Oh my gosh, this is insane. And three pages of it! All easily refutable! Wow!

All I'm going to say is Libertarians and Hillary Clinton are complete opposite. How you can go from one to the other without having some sort of mental problem is mind-boggling.

It's actually saddening to see how the minds of so many people work. I don't understand how it's so rare for people to actually execute a rational thought process.

Ineffective arguements. Ineffective post.

You people are NOT getting it here. It's not Al Barger's libertarianism which puts him at odds with Ron Paul, it's his sound grounding in reality and common sense. It is possible to agree with Paul on every major political issue and still find his positions on fringe ideas horrific. I know I do.

That said and although I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns about Paul, I'm not buying the support for Hillary, sounds like a poor excuse to join Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' to me.

Dave

Al, I see none of your critics who are willing or able to address your specific statements about Paul's slide into the mud, or the strange drift of the LP you document.

Until they do, I commend you on your analysis and interesting read. This year, even more than most, it's the lesser of 2 or 3 evils.

zing #15,

but... he's right about blowback. it is, without a doubt, our policy and actions in the middle east that got the terrorists all riled-up. you think they did it just for fun? you think they didn't have a reason (no matter how fucked up it was)?

Perhaps, to some degree. But radical Islamists have had it in for Westerners for centuries now.

Remember the Barbary Pirates?

True, Clav. But it's not the radical Islamists who are strapping bombs to themselves and flying airliners into things. It's their footsoldiers: young men who are far easier to recruit and brainwash in an atmosphere of poverty, Western intervention and Israeli regional hegemony, all of which they perceive to be keeping them down.

Al - This article is well-written, well-argued, and informative. Nice work.

DJ - As near as I can tell, there is no such word as "antithema", at least as you used it. You've combined "anathema" and "antithetical". The actual word antithema is architectural jargon.

You write about how egregious the Ron Paul newsletters were in terms of the racist remarks. Yet you voted for Pat Robertson in '88 even though he is a known bigot? I mean, sure, nice middle finger to Bush and all... but it kind of shoots the whole voting on principals/beliefs to crap.

The thing is, what you've written about Ron Paul is no different from what other RP detractors have written. And, at least as far as I can tell, you have just regurgitated previously written thought and packaged it as an entry in your blog with nice little euphemisms like "giant douche" and "turd sandwich".

Yes, we Ron Paul supporters know about the newsletters, but (and perhaps to some fault), we don't allow our cynicism to cloud our judgment of them. Ron Paul has been trustworthy in his role as a Representative, voting constitutionally and not letting special interests get in the way of his constituency in Texas. Paul has also time-and-time-again renounced those newsletters and the bigotry in them. You can call me stupid, or whatever names you've got, but I trust the man -- he's given me no other reason except that in his job he has always been honest.

I like to believe that I am a reasonable woman who supports Ron Paul. I like his views on limited government, especially his foreign policy of non-interventionism.

Also, it's kind of sad to see someone who, at least to me, appears to be intelligent, waving off blowback. I see that you're in the same camp as Gulianni and McCain? That we're free and prosperous and thus they hate us and attack us for it? Blowback doesn't mean that we -- as in, "We the People" -- caused it ourselves. It means it was caused by foreign policy set at the federal level. The way you scoff at it is kind of sad, seeing as how the concept of blowback is supported by the CIA and various scholars who understand the nuances of middle-eastern thought and politics.

But anyways...

The overarching problem here, as I see it, Al, is you're dishonest. I don't believe for a moment you are a libertarian who would rather support Hilary over Ron Paul. And neither does anyone else apparently. It simply makes no sense.

Nope. Don't buy it. You're a shill. It's an old tactic to attempt to discredit a group by pretending to be a member of that group that has "seen the light" and now thinks 180° different. Because Hillary is 180° from Ron Paul.

The attempt to paint Ron Paul as a racist (the personal attack which will have to do in place of an issues attack) has been covered by others and more or less as lamely as you have done it.

It's lame because of what you leave out.

Don't mention he fired that editor who hired the jerk who wrote that column. Don't mention it happened while he left Washington and had returned to his medical practice. Don't mention the writing was clearly NOT Ron Paul's style as various critics have admitted. Don't mention ANYTHING which might shine the light on your intellectual dishonesty. If I appear to not treat you with respect, it's because your sort does not merit it.

Your pseudonym self praises above aren't fooling anyone either, "Baronius". You're outted.

Al, a government made up of truthers and Birchers would be preferable to what we have now. We've got incompetent and economically illiterate adult children running the country now and the ones running to take their place aren't any better. At least the truthers and Birchers have foreign policy and economic common sense. Plus they would restore and respect the constitution. The truthers might be out in space on 9/11, but hey, what does that have to do with the price of gas? And the Democrats and Republicans are out in space on everything else.

Brother Nalle - I thought about working a little Operation Chaos riff into it, but figured it would be distracting. De facto, I might be seen as filing something of a concurring opinion to Rush.

But I have somewhat different reasons. Granted, I share Rush's joy at getting goats, but I'm not doing it to sabotage the Democrats. In fact, I believe that she would be a much stronger candidate in the fall against McCain.

Partly, it is a gesture of my utter contempt for Ron Paul. I absolutely voted for even Hillary Clinton rather than Ron Paul. Even a Clinton is not as bad as John Birch stalwart Ron Paul.

But I also have in this case what even Democrat partisans should regard as a legitimate, good faith reason for voting Hillary. It's entirely possible and understandable that the country will insist on electing a Democrat this year. Given the choices, I totally and sincerely substantially prefer President Hillary to President Obama, if it comes to that.

Clavos -- not necessarily. Much of the turmoil in the middle east today, in terms of their relationships with western countries, can be attributed to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

Arabs revolted (aptly named the Arab Revolt) against the Ottoman government during WWI, lending their aid to the Entente powers (France, UK, Russia) in order overthrow their own government who had aligned themselves with the Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary). They were promised sovereignty but got screwed when the Entente dissolved the Ottoman Empire and divided out the lands to themselves for their own, instead of fulfilling their promises to those involved in the Arab Revolt.

Al, maybe you should cite your credentials for those newcomers to Blogcritics.

Alright Baronius, here's a little FYI to newcomers to the BC regarding my background and perspective on the Libertarian Party and movement. Broadly, I would describe myself as a "Goldwater libertarian." Alternately, I sometimes describe myself as a "libertarian hawk."

I've been involved with the Libertarian Party since I cast my very first vote for Ed Clark back in 1980. I've been a Libertarian candidate for office four times, most recently as the Indiana Libertarian candidate for US Senate in 2004 against Evan Bayh. Folks that somehow think that I'm a Hillary stooge or want to see my idea of a libertarian philosophy or how I would propose to present our agenda to voters can dig into my campaign archives.

Courtney,

Your point about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is relevant, in that it certainly contributed to the modern situation we face, but I stand by my original point, Islamic aggression against non-Islamic entities long predates anything that might have exacerbated it during the Twentieth century.

Since its inception, there has been a faction of Islam which has been bent on conquest of all Infidels.

That's a documented fact; to blame ourselves and our actions as the stimulus for their aggression is to play right into the hands of that faction, and assume (in their eyes) a state of dhimmitude.

They are dangerous, resolute and implacable.

We placate them at our peril.

Brother Al,

I'm copying a comment I made at Desicritcs to this article, as it seems most appropriate, except for the first para, which I edited out as irrelevant.

Oh yeah. That reminds me. Remember that e-mail about calling you a stupid SOB with a brain smaller than a mustard seed whose ancestors should have been killed by the Injuns?

I was just joking; I read some of the idiots' fine opinions of the new commenters here at Blog Critics Magazine (gotta make 'em all feel loved, you know - customers count!), and concluded that anything I said was far too eh outré.

XOX
Ruvy


Each of the candidates has been torn to shreds by the work of opponents who have done ax jobs on them, so much so, that it is hard to tell which one stinks from the most slime.

McCain, for example, who would like to sell himself as the latter day version of Barry Goldwater, has been torn apart by a book that reviews Barry Goldwater's life - and notes that John McCain is no Barry Goldwater. As if that weren't enough a man named Schechter has lived up to his name (schechter is Yiddish for someone who slaughters steers, bulls, cows and poultry), and revealed to the reading public that John McCain once lost his temper and called his wife a very nasty name in public (in front of two or three folks at a school board meeting or something like that). Given that McCain was tortured by Vietnamese as a POW, one has to wonder how he would deal with a Vietnamese ambassador if he has access to the nuclear briefcase.

Clinton's duplicity as a human being has been adequately covered in your article.

Obama is surrounded by people who would like to see the destruction of Israel and who hate Jews. There is nothing wrong with that per se. After all, Hitler also had a policy of killing off Jews and nobody really raised a ruckus about that then, and Ahmadinejad has a policy of erasing Israel from the map, and while lots of folks make a big ruckus about Persian pretensions to a nuclear weapons system, nobody really cares about Israel being wiped off the map - not in the American State Department, anyway.

Indian and Pakistani readers ought to be worried over the possibility of a nuclear exchange in southwestern Asia, by the way - the nuclear fallout will blow their way and kill millions of people. It appears that Obama does not really oppose an Iranian nuclear bomb.

This is the point where the reader should expect a roundhouse denunciation of Barack Hussein Obama, the white man in black skin who promises change in America.

Surprise!

As an ex-pat American, I see no significant difference between any of the candidates. America is stuck in Iraq. She cannot afford to withdraw and she cannot afford to stay. This problem is sucking her money supply dry, and is impacting negatively on her economy. That is the big overriding problem the country faces. None of the candidates above can pull America out of the quicksand she is stuck in.

None of them know how. I don't either, so I'm not looking down my long nose at them. I feel sorry for whomever is president of the United States in 2009.

Anyway, to make a long story short, all of the candidates running will continue the present policy of slowly emasculating and weakening the country I live in, Israel, so the issue that matters to me is which one will be the most obvious enemy. That's the fellow to have in office, as that way Israelis will be willing to kick out the American puppets who are the "power-holders" here (the term leader no longer fits any Israeli politician), and put them on the butcher hooks they belong.

So the fellow the doctor ordered is Barack Hussein Obama. As an American citizen, I'm entitled to vote in American elections, even though I do not live in the United States. There was no significant choice in 2004, so I blew it all off, and told my friends to do the same.

But this year, there is a real possibility that choosing someone will effect a change - even if it is not the change that the fellow running for office envisions.

So, if I do vote this year, and I might, it will be for Barack Hussein Obama.

Blessings from liberated Samaria,
Ruvy

By the way, y'awl, Libertarians never turned my crank, so I never voted for them when I lived in the States, but until I learned about what Ron Paul really thought from that New Republic article, I was willing to give the putz a chance. At least he wasn't rubbin' the bacon with the CFR like all the rest of the shmos. Fortunately, the only Jews in danger from that asshole live in his congressional district.

Blessings from Liberated Samaria,
Ruvy

Another Beltway Libertarian hit piece on Paul. *YAWN*

Clavos,

True, there has been a long history of small Islamic factions who were violent and prided themselves on killing "infidels"... but throughout history, there have been other cultures/peoples with similar factions who would kill exactly for the same reason -- because someone was different and didn't subscribe to the exactly same beliefs.

The concept of blowback, as far as I can reason, is that Western foreign policy for Middle-eastern countries started the ball rolling for terrorist attacks such as 9/11. The Islamic fundamentalists use this western foreign policy in order to fill their ranks with people who have been affected by this foreign policy -- the foreign policy of supporting known dictators or providing weaponry to groups of people wanting to overthrow a government, which in turn causes deaths of innocents or the loss of the innocents' homes, families...

Blowback is BY no means a term for placating terrorists or saying we as Americans are responsible for 9/11 (if it were, you can sure as hell bet I wouldn't be talking about it like this). It's a term that explains that with every action, there is a reaction -- good ol' cause and effect. Because of our government's heavy hand in the middle east, in terms of ensuring sympathetic leaders or a constant supply of oil, the small group of Muslims that hate everybody who is different, were able to manipulate and convince people to do acts of terror. If we take away/lessen the main motivator, it will give these crazies less leverage to work with. I'm sure they'll still find ways of killing people, but by changing our foreign policy, it will work in our favor by reducing their "pool of applicants" and cool the general displeasure of westerners.

If this is placating, then I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this. I don't see changing an invasive foreign policy to a non-invasive foreign policy as trying appease "infidels". I see it as a means to take away the power of these "infidels" by taking away a huge recruitment motivator.

yet another JBS obsessee kook, yawn x2. guess what, it's not the 1950s anymore.

Al, I just don't buy your argument in #29. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the Islamic threat and ignoring domestic policy. Frankly, if we end up in a Clintonesque socialist state I won't much mind being overrun by Moslems. It might be an improvement.

As far as I can tell there's no difference between Clinton and Obama except that you're choosing between two different brands of statist socialism. Obama's might be marginally more humane domestically and inept in foreign policy, while Clinton's will be full-on domestic repression and a stronger foreign policy. Bleh. I don't want to have either of those options forced on me.

That being the case, and having voted for Ron Paul in the primary, I'll take McCain. Frankly, I'd take another 8 years of Bush if we could get a congress which would stand up to him and if we got out of Iraq.

Dave

Simon @ #27:

As one of the comments editors for Blogcritics, I can assure you that Al Barger and Baronius are not the same person. However, they do hail from the same state, I believe.

Dave, it continues to astonish me that a person who once lived in both the Soviet Union and late 1970s Britain should persist in this strange delusion that Clinton and Obama are socialists.

All:

Dave and Al are "wannabe" establishment lackeys. They want a seat at the table so they write hit pieces against real patriots like Ron Paul and members of the John Birch Society (www.jbs.org) to get attention.

Dr. Paul will be speaking at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society on Saturday October 4 in Appleton WI. Good chance to hear the doctor speak, visit the world's largest all private research library owned by the JBS, visit the grave of "Tail Gunner" Joe McCarthy, and much more. (Before Dave/Al/Establishment lackeys poke fun here, remember that even Neo-Con master WFB liked and respected Senator McCarthy). Tickets are $65 each.

Search the term "Behind the Big News" on Google Videos for a brief primer on how the media is controlled. Also, on www.youtube.com, search the term "Larry McDonald" and look for the 1983 "Crossfire" video with CFR member Tom Braden (the guy that Dave and Al wish they were).

In the event that the establishment is able to keep Dr. Paul off the ballot in November, consider voting for Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

As shills go, Dave and Al are not very convincing. However, the editorial standards around here are so low they can get attention by calling black people white supremacists and Jewish people anti-Semitic. Hard to imagine but they do it!

clavos: "Since its inception, there has been a faction of Islam which has been bent on conquest of all Infidels."

and since western civilization came out of its dark ages' shell, we've been bent on trade and capitalism (not bad in itself) that has mutated into imperialism and exploitation. our greed has the same overall effect as islamic fanaticism. each exacerbates the other as well.

the material resources and size of that "faction of islam bent on conquest" (which DOES, i'll admit, exist,) has been bolstered by our willingness to profit the corrupt leaders with oil money, our interventions (i'm thinking plopping israel in there 2,000 years late), and our general antagonistic attitude towards the culture.

"That's a documented fact; to blame ourselves and our actions as the stimulus for their aggression is to play right into the hands of that faction, and assume (in their eyes) a state of dhimmitude."

no, to recognize the connection between western action and islamic aggression is just common sense. we don't have to "blame ourselves." we didn't pull the trigger, we just kept pushing them. do you think they only started getting angry at us after we started pointing out our own faults?

which do you think has more effect on radical islamic recruitment:

1) some people in the west think we should approach the middle east differently, as things we've done in the past have not worked out so well.

-or-

2) we're bombing the shit out of them and taking over their countries and torturing them... ("an eye for an eye," you'll say, while i say, "violence begets violence.")

It's a lovely sign of the mindset of the Paul-pods that they start wanting to spin conspiracy theories against me. They can't just accept that perhaps someone really honestly disagrees with them and wrote a story about, and in just the words I've used. No, it must be some elaborate Hillary conspiracy setup, and I'm of course using multiple pseudonyms to praise my own article.

Brother Nalle, my preference for Hillary over Barack is only partly directly policy based. It's more an idea of them as personalities, and whose judgment I would least distrust. Between the two of them, yup, I'd in fact much rather have Hillary answering that 3 am phone call than pitiful little Barack.

Zing,

While I agree that violence begets violence, Clavos is completely right in his points, and you are doing the relativism thing.

Bent on trade? Yeah, let's stop all that nasty trade that has been the foundation humanity since caveman days. The point lefties continue to ignore is that trade lifts up populations. When you consider the quality of life in virtually every mid east country run by a despotic regime, demonizing trade is just ignorance.

"we didn't pull the trigger, we just kept pushing them."

Oh please. First off, most muslims don't agree with what OBL and his "ilk" did. But when you say things like this, you not only give these people an excuse, but you defame all Muslims by suggesting that terrorists were actually fulfilling the wider muslim will. Which they aren't.

Let's try blaming people who actually kill, for killing.

ob: "Bent on trade? Yeah, let's stop all that nasty trade that has been the foundation humanity since caveman days[...] demonizing trade is just ignorance."

you'll see, if you reread my comment, that i didn't demonize trade (which i said was a fine thing). i did demonize the fact that it "mutated into imperialism and exploitation." so... yeah.

"First off, most muslims don't agree with what OBL and his "ilk" did. But when you say things like this, you not only give these people an excuse, but you defame all Muslims by suggesting that terrorists were actually fulfilling the wider muslim will. Which they aren't."

i said nothing of the sort. and i certainly would presume to know the "wider muslim will." the terrorists that did this had their reasons for doing it (whether those reasons were valid or not). they also had to have an angry population of people, willing to die in order to strike back at western culture. where did they get this? a book? nope. they got it from centuries of western exploitation, interventionism and greed.

i'm not saying all western involvement in the middle east is exploitative. but there have been, and this is undeniable, plenty of times where western interests ($) have trumped any diplomatic conerns we have towards islam.

we've done things over there that deserve a response, and the economic realities of many islamic countries leaves the window wide open for a terrorist answer to what are unaswerable questions.

we should be smarter.

This has to be the absolutely most disgusting, uninformed piece of drivel I've read in ages. He was right about our mistakes in foreign policy, and one of the few people involved who is willing to admit that things like that are a mistake. Unfortunately, I couldn't read any farther than this, so I'll just have to assume the rest is bad. But ok, lets put this into terms you might understand. Lets say you're at school, and you're hanging out with your chums on the playground, and a girl you kinda like comes over. You don't throw a rock at her. When you do throw a rock at her, is it really that outrageous for her to hate you forever? Well, the U.S. foreign policy is roughly the same. There's a country we decide needs help, and we go in, shoot people, and kill their leaders. You can't say that that sort of policy is going to win us favor with anyone anymore. It worked great in the 40's, but that's no longer the case, and not the right way to go about bringing peace to the middle east.

Zing,

I totally disagree (big surprise). Trade is and always will be exploitative, that's how it works. We are all humans, all equal, and it's not like what little trade we've managed to bring to the middle east hasn't helped the people (when the governments of those people let it). Imperialist? please.

As far as convincing people to die or kill, wow thats tough to do in an impoverished nation with limited access to news and information. Sorry but since when was propaganda the fault of those being lied about? Bottom line, the people that follow AQ do so because they lack a moral compass. Growing up in a dictatorship can have that effect on people.

Should we be smarter? Always. But I'll give no quarter on this nonsense blame the victim talk. And in terms of Islamic inspired terrorism, yes, it is the westernized nations that are the victim.

It irks me to see self-proclaimed libertarians that are anything but libertarian. If you deny that terrorists want to attack because of the actions of the government, then you have a serious disconnect with reality. If you accept the official story about 9/11, again, you have an inability to tell the difference between reality and fiction. After reading and watching some John Birch material, it has become clear that these people are good constitutionalists, in general. Ron Paul is obviously the most honorable Presidential candidate out there. Basically, you are wrong about everything. Congratulations! I'm sure it took some effort. Also, you should be sanctioned by blogcritics.org for the personal attacks in your article.

"If you deny that terrorists want to attack because of the actions of the government, then you have a serious disconnect with reality. "

You mean we have a disconnect with your reality. In Real Reality land, where the rest of us are, it's pretty clear why groups like AQ exist, and what they are trying to accomplish. While we have been a victim to terror (as has virtually every other country in the world including in Asia AND the middle east - is everyone guilty of this original sin that inflicted terror?) the reason we were attacked has a lot less to do with what we did, and a lot more to do with the aspirations of the leaders of these groups.

Ever consider that the root of terrorism is in a blind quest for power by those promoting it? Try that alternate theory on for size. Try and apply akkam's razor to your theory, then to what I just suggested. It's amazing how much sense it all makes when you think in rational terms.

It's enlightening to see the commenters who say, "I didn't read this article, but I completely disagree with it."

"My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

Ruvy-

Wouldn't you like some of the foreign policy Ron Paul has? The fact that he'd rather pull back much of the US out of foreign affairs, which would in turn, release the US' stranglehold on Israel's sovereignty?

I'm curious as to your thoughts.

#40: Dave says, "Frankly, if we end up in a Clintonesque socialist state I won't much mind being overrun by Moslems. It might be an improvement."

That has to be one of the most ill-considered, hysterical, and hyperbolic statements he has ever written.

The destruction of America by foreign enemies is preferable to Clinton winning the election? We're now at the lunatic fringes.

Dave sez "Frankly, I'd take another 8 years of Bush if we could get a congress which would stand up to him and if we got out of Iraq."

So, you want 65 Democrats in the Senate? Me too!

...and a Hillary/Obama approach to the "wars" in the middle east, by our incoherent George and his cronies?

Bah! You flip flop and spin your BS in a different flavor each week. You have no integrity Dave. You contradict last weeks spin with this weeks spin.

"The economy's fine, there is no housing bubble to burst, and, oh, did you see how well the US Dollar is doing against the Ugandan Dollar?"

As long as you're able to connect the words "Democrat" and "Socialism" in a sentence somewhere on the web, your day is a success.


Pitiful

Hey Mister Barger, I just read your blog from May of 2007, regarding Ron Paul's effect on the Republican debates, and I see a marked difference in your language, your temperament, and your level of professionalism. It is as if you yourself have slid down your own professional ladder several rungs, from some level of ideological standards to blatant mediocrity. This latest article reeks of mediocrity and smacks of "fight or flight". I see no frontal lobe involvement in this piece. My question is this... what's transpired in the year between these two articles? Tell us what has turned you into a more fearful individual. I enjoyed your 2007 article, and I could support your concern about Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs. However, you seem to forget that a strict Constitutionalist would be abiding by the limitations in the document itself, therefore transforming his ideological wishes into practical applications. Yes?? Yes.. You claim to be a Libertarian, but I ask you...if there were a Libertarian coin, and Lady Liberty herself were on one side, what would be on the flip side? Give up? Perhaps a parent standing over a child, symbolizing "Responsibility". I gotta tell ya, Bud... that article was trash. The ideology you attack in Ron Paul is the same ideology we should all instill in our kids. Got kids, Al? Shoot for the sky with your kids, shoot for the top of the dumpster with your country? Is this what you're suggesting? Whatever latent fears you have that cause you to attack Ron Paul like you did in that article are far more dangerous to MY future liberties than anything Ron Paul could realize in his presidency. I think you should own up to being a Democrat/Socialist. With all due respect, and apologies for questioning your frontal lobe activities. Have a good one. Oh-you need to clean it up in the respect department-it reads like a deposition about your ex-wife. Truly.

That has to be one of the most ill-considered, hysterical, and hyperbolic statements he has ever written.

The destruction of America by foreign enemies is preferable to Clinton winning the election? We're now at the lunatic fringes.

Lee, it IS hyperbole. Good call. Exaggeration for effect. Try to loosen up and relate to the rhetoric a bit better.

And my point was that governance under Islam would not be any more alien to America's basic values than the statist socialism which Clinton offers.

I realize that you may not agree, but let's see how things stand after 4 or 8 years of Hillary.

And Bennett, you're hysterical. Take some deep breaths. Irrational and full of rage is no way to go through life.

Dave

Al,

I looked at your blog, and your photos. You look about as nice as your writing is, and from Indiana too hehe.

One thing that "libertarians" like you, and I do put it in quotes, don't quite seem to grasp, is that there can NEVER be real liberty as long as corporations (groups, that have limited liability) are treated in the eyes of the law as individuals. I looked at your "What is a Libertarian" article on your blog, not a word about corporations. A true libertarian knows that corporations are not individuals, and hence have no sovereignty as individual human beings do.

You write like a bulldog, and you also look like one, if others don't agree, take a look at his pics!

I like the comrade Dave references too, I am starting to think that you and Dave and Clavos are having some kind of all make menage e twat.

Keep up the good work Al, I get a kick out of it.

Well Al,
I was going to express my dismay, being a devoted Ron Paul follower, at your own idiotcy for choosing a known liar over a honest man for the Presidency. However, in reading the comments precedeing mine, I think others have expressed my feelings pretty well. I guess you'd give America to the NAU by following Hillary(Obamma, or McCain would be the same deal). It's sad how so many American's such as yourself are not looking at what Dr. Paul is offering this Nation .... FREEDOM! And you call yourself a libertarian? You appear to be a wolf in sheep's clothing ... in that light I can see your choosing Hillary. You make a good pair.

Well Al,
I was going to express my dismay, being a devoted Ron Paul follower, at your own idiotcy for choosing a known liar over a honest man for the Presidency. However, in reading the comments precedeing mine, I think others have expressed my feelings pretty well. I guess you'd give America to the NAU by following Hillary(Obamma, or McCain would be the same deal). It's sad how so many American's such as yourself are not looking at what Dr. Paul is offering this Nation .... FREEDOM! And you call yourself a libertarian? You appear to be a wolf in sheep's clothing ... in that light I can see your choosing Hillary. You make a good pair.

"Such grace. Yep - behavior like this sure makes me want to support Ron Paul..."

Hey, whatever gets you on the boat citizen...

Ron Paul For President!

Courtney,

Ron Paul has a much chance of winding up in the White House as a snowball lasting 15 minutes in hell.

So, at this point, I don't worry about his "foreign" policy, except as it concerns Jews unfortunate enough to be living in his congressional district.

But from the point of view of having a known enemy of Jews as the American president, it would follow my formula. At this point, though, it is just academic. It would have been better to have Hitler as the Republican nominee, but he's dead, wasn't an American citizen, and wasn't in the Republican primaries.

ob (like the tampon!):

"Trade is and always will be exploitative, that's how it works."

really? if that's true, why would anyone agree to that? that's a pretty arrogant way of looking at things (cuz you know who's on the right end of that shit-covered stick).

"We are all humans, all equal, and it's not like what little trade we've managed to bring to the middle east hasn't helped the people (when the governments of those people let it). Imperialist? please."

could you look up imperialism? you deny it existed? do you deny that we are still working under the remnants of european imperialism? yes, SOME trade has helped SOME people in SOME middle eastern nations. but at what cost? we are at their economic mercy. we try to control our own fate and we get terrorism. it's a snake eating itself and it doesn't even taste good.

"As far as convincing people to die or kill, wow thats tough to do in an impoverished nation with limited access to news and information."

that's my point! for fuck's sake. we helped to create that reality.

"Sorry but since when was propaganda the fault of those being lied about?"

cuts both ways, buddy.

"Bottom line, the people that follow AQ do so because they lack a moral compass. Growing up in a dictatorship can have that effect on people."

that's a pretty simplistic view. somehow, i'd bet there's more to it.

"Should we be smarter? Always. But I'll give no quarter on this nonsense blame the victim talk."

I'M NOT BLAMING THE VICTIM. i'm just saying that we had a part in shaping the realities of the middle east. islamic terrorism didn't just sprout out of nowhere. as you say, the people behind it are probably just power-mad. that said, you have to have a good reason to get people to sacrifice themselves to your "movement" (and it takes more than a screwed up "moral compass.)

"And in terms of Islamic inspired terrorism, yes, it is the westernized nations that are the victim."

not "the" victim--"a" victim. have you heard the news about iraq? there was a suicide bombing there the other day. and the day before that, and before that and before that and before that...

"You claim to be a Libertarian, but I ask you...if there were a Libertarian coin, and Lady Liberty herself were on one side, what would be on the flip side? Give up? Perhaps a parent standing over a child, symbolizing "Responsibility"."

According to Al, it'd be an adult and a child on the coin, symbolizing pedophilia. If your ideology accepts the sexualization of children, there's something wrong with it. If you think that 2008 is your year to become a prominent party in the mainstream of political discourse, you might want to shy away from supporting pedophilia.

You can either be a libertarian, or a voter for Hillary Clinton. As they are diametrically opposed, you cannot be both.

I must have missed something here. When did libertarianism include support for pedophilia?

Dave

personal freedom, my man, personal freedom.

Weird...

BV: it's possible to be a Clinton Voter and still think of yourself as "Libertarian"-some folks are one-issue voters, and the Left has a track record of supporting Deviancy and "if it feels good do it" policies on social issues, as well as mocking conventional/traditional morality.

There's a whole spectrum of folks calling themselves "Libertarian" from the extreem-right to the Lunatic Left, just like the rest of America.

zingzing: what the-??? It's a creepy visual, sure, but I'd have to say it's more or less a pure, unadulterated Ad-Hominem attack there, without much supporting evidence whatsoever, unless you can confirm something there? (Supporting evidence would be rather nice, and if you could provide it, it could be the biggest political scandal to hit this year...)

canonshop--what the devil are you talking about?

What's the exact motive behind the Ron Paul attack piece? It seems to me for this reason: he is against the whole concept of "the War on Terror" and modern American foreign policy.

So you then resort to the typical arguments: guilt by association, fringe group support, deviations in LP views(like that doesn't occur in the Dem/Repub parties?) but show no concrete example that Dr Paul endorses any of that (besides possibly the John Birch Society speaking engagement) and you can't even provide one quote from him to show he is a racist?

I still don't see how anyone can claim to be a so-called "Libertarian" and then totally support the War on Terror and then vote for Hillary Clinton, who will probably not end the war in Iraq and also will expand the Welfare state that true libertarians wouldn't be in favor of at all! And then you can't stand Obama even if he pretty much has the same views as Hillary does? It sounds illogical, but wait, out of the 3 main candidates, Obama would be most likely to leave Iraq (now I understand!).

Obviously, you are either: 1) not a libertarian and pretending to be one, 2)are misguided or just don't completely understand the principled views of libertarians.

An obvious vehicle to up his hit count by riding on Ron Paul's popularity. Too bad it works so well.

Jahfre

Don F- My first objection to presidential candidate Paul was foreign policy. The whole blowback thing is wrongheaded. But I was still thinking about reluctantly voting for him if only for old times sake.

But he's really and truly discredited on a personal level beyond being a human being that I would want to be associated with. Part of my point here is that at this point, on a personal level Ron Paul is worse and more disgraceful than Hillary Rodham Clinton. This isn't particularly an endorsement of Clinton so much as a denunciation of Ron Paul and pretty many of his mentally unbalanced supporters. (Y'all can consider this an if-the-shoe-fits thing.)

No sensible libertarian should want to be associated with this guy's nonsense, even if they agree with a lot of his specific policy issues. Plus, how much should I trust the judgment of someone who would endorse the Birchers?

You can pretend not to see those pdf files I carefully quoted and linked of numerous newsletters, and his hysterical crap about "the coming race war" and worse. This isn't some couple of isolated things taken out of context. Having drunk the kool aid, you'll pretend against any semblance of possibility that Paul just didn't know nothin' about all that evil shit coming out under his name year after year, and decade after decade. Or do you just not mind those sentiments that bad?

He's just endorsed the goddam John Birch Society, the most notorious evil conspiracy mongering racist dumbasses in American political history. After that, I don't care that Paul wants to do away with the IRS. He's totally discredited and disqualified so far as I'm concerned.

I'm a libertarian, and he's not one of us. Again, the Birchers can have him - as well as the 9/11 truthers with whom he has been chummy this season. Screw every bit of that. I want no truck with any of those people. Evil conspiracy freaks not welcome.

Hello, is this mic on?

I do not know how long the author has claimed to be a Libertarian but the JBS and 911 Truth moving to the LP is a natural move given the LP's wariness toward government. I happen to think the JBS is not all that crazy, world government is obviously becoming closer and closer with plans of the NAU and an Amero, and 911 Truth has a right to vocalize a stance that if true would mean a lot more than another Clinton being elected. Conspiracies theories should be treated like any theory and tested, instead of being ignored. What if some of these theories are true. Would it not be foolish to turn a blind eye to them simply out of fear or arrogance. Those newsletters people like to drag up where published in his name but he was not the editor. Why would a guy with a hardline decentralized government stance micro-manage a newspaper? I think it is important for people to understand that a foreign policy consisting of 50 years of meddling not only in the Mid East but all over the world will cause blowback. This is a fact we have to deal with or the problem will not go away. Also, what kind of Libertarian would ever think of suffering Hillary Clinton. I do find it funny that you borrow from the title of Dr. Strangelove (How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb), an obviously anti-war movie at its core, but then bash the only true peace candidate in the race. Is that not a little ironic?

By the way "Libertarian Hawk" translates to New Right anti-communist, not Libertarian. The interventionist, hawks, neo-libertarians or what ever they want to call themselves are the one's with a fringe role in the party. The party is as much about economic non-intervention as social non-intervention including war. Guys like you are the one's giving the LP a bad name not Paul or Ruwart who take the theoretical positions of true American Libertarianism and do not back down because a position maybe hard to explain. Oh and Baronius setting you up to respond with your credentials, then the very next post is you? That is really suspect and I hope WK's observation that you have clamped down on Paul is not a reflection of you selling out your beliefs to tow the media line that Paul is a cook.

dallas: "Those newsletters people like to drag up where published in his name but he was not the editor. Why would a guy with a hardline decentralized government stance micro-manage a newspaper?"

because they were published in his name? he's a racist, homophobic idiot.

but he's right on blowback.

Dallas- I'm not sure at this point in history 100% exactly what to propose all round on how the US should act in foreign policy. I'm sympathetic, and have spent my whole adult life until 9/11 blithely mouthing the standard non-interventionist platitudes of the LP. (I was first an LP candidate in 1984.) But those bromides don't seem to bear close relation to reality on the ground, and as Ayn Rand would advocate, I've been re-examining my premises.

As a US senate candidate, I spent a fair amount of 2004 bitching about the damned Patriot Act. The general idea of re-thinking our foreign commitments is 100% solid. Looking case by case, I'd probably advocate pulling US troop presence out of half or two thirds of the places we've got troops.

But people plug in ideology and follow it blindly, insisting on shoehorning facts or just making up conspiracies and whatnot to justify their beliefs. At that point, per the Kevin Smith movie, even a really good idea becomes a dangerous and destructive Dogma.

The whole foreign policy beef I have with Paul and the party is at this point the lesser part of all the stupid crazy and totally unacceptable nonsense coming out of this crowd. I try- for whatever little bit of good it does me- to talk my LP people into being a little more realistic about what it takes to actually defend the country from our enemies.

But if you think that I'm fringe to the party because I want no truck with kiddie porn and evil-minded racist conspiracy freaks, well then you can call me a sell out. It's not a "sell out" however, but a "think out."

Plug in your ideas, and then consider where they take you. If your philosophy of freedom leads you to think that pre-pubescent children have a right to sign up for porn movies and such, then maybe you need to re-think things, m'kay?

If JBS, NAMBLA and the 9/11 truthers take over the party, that would not only be the end of any small hint of credibility or electability for the political organization. It would be a huge discrediting in the popular conscience of all thoughts truly libertarian. I surely wouldn't have the temerity to ask my own neighbors to vote for JBS and kiddie porn. That's just stupid. At some point, I'd have to not just disassociate with the party but even the very word "libertarian," if it is corrupted in this manner. If being a "libertarian" involves supporting kiddie porn and racist conspiracy mongering, then I'm not one.

Yes, the LP is built on basic distrust of the government. But that doesn't mean that we should naturally expect to accept paranoid racist conspiracy freaks or NAMBLA. I'm not big on government, but there are some points of necessity. We can't avoid having SOME government any more than we can avoid having bowel movements.

Short conclusion then, if the supposed party of liberty allows itself to be overrun with Ruwart's NAMBLA nonsense and evil racist conspiracy jackasses like Ron Paul and his partners at JBS, then it will become the duty of true freedom loving patriots to shoot that dog before it destroys the good name of libertarianism. The party I've been running with for a quarter century was never supposed to be anything like this.

To the plus side, it's good that you at least broadly get the concept of irony. But you're missing out if you reduce Strangelove to being merely an "anti-war" movie. It goes a lot deeper than that into basic underlying ideas of human psychology. Also, when David Byrne sings "Don't Worry About the Government," that might also be taken somewhat other than 100% bluntly literally. It involves art and nuance and such.

And don't let yourself off the hook with denial and a strawman. I haven't said that Ron Paul is a "crook." I've seen no allegations of financial improprieties, taking bribes and such, or anything absolutely illegal. Would that his scandals were that innocent. And I'm less than impressed with the utter dishonesty of people who try to insist that Ron Paul had no knowledge or authorship of any of these decades worth of evil newsletters he put out.

Good comment...

this is an personal attack on the COMMENTS and OPINIONS that were laced with lockerbay derrogs and coffeeshop pontifications of/by Mr. Barger.

Yes I also was a RP supporter in 88...I was one of few in the mob at UCLA Debate NOT with my friends in YAF(I was a State Director) on one side with their ILLEGALLY paid for by NewtGingrich Prison Outfits OR with the tyical Marxist motley bunch on the other. Our group in the middle with our RP signs were thrashed and our message was outweighed by Bush is a Crook! or Murderers for Mike mindlessness.

But then I never left the RP base(though I did leave the LP...antiChristian and inconsistant)..NOT because of Dr. Paul but THE message of Freedom that you are so cavalierly willing to compromise away for your pleasure.

Mr. Barger your POLITICALLY illogical and PURELY EMOTIONAL conspiratorial diatribes against the JBS and Americans who question the Government re 9.11 are quite gutterish.....and your POLITICAL opinions are better left to be ignored.

Hope you enjoy the next few years....

Chris Bieber
CAL YAF State Director 1985-1995

Interesting that so may Pauloids sound like spoiled, temperamental brats throwing a tantrum.

I have been a long term member of the GOP for years. I'm also a life long member of JBS.

Humm...... Let's see if I get this straight.

You imply that both Ron Paul and JBS are just nuts.

JBS has warned the people regarding "Agenda 21" Is Agenda 21 real or fiction? They have also warned the people regarding the UN's plan to control the worlds food supply, remove guns from teh US and why not for laughes you learn more about the UN's plan for Document 200. Maybe you should really laugh at the SPP and NAU... You know "W's" plan to turn Canada, US and Mexico into a single nation state and right and having seen and obtain actual documents I can tell you I'm really laughing about this one.

Perhaps, you should take you time to read the facts, study Ron Paul's positions and read his new book and if you still feel the same way, well there a enough fake people love to attack Paul and Liberty..... But, then again the people are starting to notice fakes like you aren't they?

By the way how is the Hillary thing working for you? I suppose jake right members will support pro war regardless... So much for Rush as well.

D Long

Al
Go ahead and look for windmills to slay in the Mid East. The real problem is sitting in the White House authorizing the bombings. I'm sorry that you so quickly abandoned your Libertarian beliefs at the first sign of trouble but maybe that shows what kind of Libertarian you were in the first place. Also, if our country followed that non-intervention principal 911 would never have happened. I'm glad our founders were more principled than that. And was the founders' dogma of small government and personal liberty destructive? It would seem your fear got the best of you and that is too bad. As far as 911 goes one should ask why has their been so much resistance to looking at history since FDR let Pearl Harbor be bombed. Maybe it was not our government, maybe it was. If there is even a chance it is worth looking at. Though I'm about to sound crazy, if you have not looked back at 911 you do not know how suspect it was. That does not mean it was an inside job but does mean it is worth looking at. As far as the kiddie porn thing goes, I'm not surprised that a Anarchist advocated for personal choice. Everyone ignores that she never said the parents could not step in a put a stop to it. She only said that government is about as effective in stopping child porn as it is at stopping drug use. Instead the parents and community should step up. That is what she was getting at with her short answer from a book of short answers for difficult questions. Again, a gut reaction blinds people to what a Libertarian was really saying.

By the way Paul is all for going after those blamed for 911, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He is against punishing Iraq, who had nothing to do with it and he is against punishing all of Afghanistan for what some people did. Afghanistan had their own government and infrastructure and, under the guise of killing bin Laden, we bomb then into the stone age. Then we removed their government and installed one we liked better. And we turned around and repeated the process in Iraq and all we have done was create more terrorists. How can you support that kind of policy?

I understand your concerns about the newsletters. I actually read a few of them when that story came out. I'm not defending the views, but considering the historical context of when they were written, no one can claim that only devout racists would be in agreement with some of the things quoted. In general, the newsletters did have a libertarian perspective (taking out the mean things said and whether they were true, half true or total bs) overall.

I probably would have written off Paul, but at the time, I did search for actual quotes from him showing hints of racism, homophobia, etc, but I couldn't find any. The writings do not even sound like him at all. Yes, he probably should have been more involved, but I don't get the feeling that he really feels that way. Look, he went down to south Florida and told the Cuban-Americans straight up that the embargo should be lifted. I also like that he doesn't pander to anyone and carefully thinks out his positions and at least explains them through a libertarian perspective, so at least if you don't agree, you can respect them. And he definitely isn't a sell out to special interests!

I guess that he probably likes the John Birch society for their constitutionalist leanings, but one can only speculate. Not all of their stuff is that farfetched, especially in light of seeing it through 8 years of GWB and his corrupt administration.

Though I don't agree with most of the 9-11 truther theories, not all of them are totally out there. They didn't even want to have an actual 9-11 commission and there are so many question marks. Do you actually 100% accept the government's account of what happened that day? If you do, I think that would be more far-fetched than being in that group!

Paul will attract fringe groups simply because there is an evergrowing mistrust of government and who can honestly not be at least a little suspicious of our government these days?

And you must admit, historically and economically, Paul makes some pretty good arguments about the United States needing to change.

If you can't get past the newsletters, you should consider rethinking your foreign policy views and how they really can't be fit in with a libertarian philosophy, no matter how hard you want it to fit. Even though the "blowback" theory may sound simplistic, put yourself in the Middle East and think about a big country getting involved in all the affairs for so many years and how the CIA operates, (didn't they invent the term?) and how we seem to interfere mainly when oil and natural resources are involved. It sounds more logical than the "they hate us because we are free" argument! I was against the whole buildup to go into Iraq even before being a libertarian, and not because I am some pacifist, I knew it didn't fit and it made me question other things about the government. Vote for Bob Barr or Mike Gravel or even Jesse Ventura as a write in!

Brother Al,

You truly have my sympathy. I didn't realize what a mind job Ron Paul did on Libertarians. Boy, are these guys fucked up!!

If you can comprehend my reasons for preferring the not really great almost white hope from Illinois, I'll understand your sudden admiration for Ms. Billary. In fact, Shlomi's little boy, who sells flowers in Ma'alé Levoná every Friday for the Sabbath dinner tables here, can probably pick out some nice ones to send her, if you'd like. Only 30 shekels, dude!

But Al, you gotta find some new political drinkin' buddies. I don't know what's in their beer but they're all hoppin' the wrong way like something bad got put in or somethin'.

From a former fast food joint to a former C-store manager, take my advice. "Z" out this cash drawer and get a different one....

Al said in Post 75:

"But if you think that I'm fringe to the party because I want no truck with kiddie porn and evil-minded racist conspiracy freaks, well then you can call me a sell out. It's not a "sell out" however, but a "think out."

this post was followed by one that Clavos wrote that
said:

"Good comment..."

--------------------

Let's take a look at that cute statement made by Ray. He obviously is attempting to be clever, however upon any close examination to the above sentence, the cleverness soon turns to a very snarly untrue, and bulldog type of sentence.

I have in my studies come across well over 200 websites devoted exclusively to 9-11, and have never come across even a whiff of racism. That alos goes for the vast majority of 9-11 truth sites in regards to anti-semitism. The author not only attempts to sully a legitimate movement of questioning citizens, but also through the use of the above sentence link such folks to pedophilia as well.

Like I said in a previous comment Ray, your approach to writing and setting forth your opinion has all the finesse of a bulldog, and only a complete fool would take your seriously.

That either you or your comrade Davey think you are anything even remotely resembling libertarians, you are completely mistaken. I attempted in a past post to point out to you how corporations and treating them as individuals under the law were an impediment to true libertarianism. Apparently it went over your head.

In MY opinion Ray, anyone that would believe that what the CFR 9/11 commission said happened, is either a complete imbecile or a shill. In Dave's case he is a shill.

If you cannot Ray see that this republic is at its most vulnerable in its history, and subject to and becoming a party to totalitarianism, depsotism, crony corruption, and quite frankly the ass lickers of the ruling elite, your not very up on things. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Clavy baby, such a nice compliment to such an ugly article, based on name calling, and hysteria. I should have known you would like it.

Who's Ray???

Yes I also was a RP supporter in 88...I was one of few in the mob at UCLA Debate NOT with my friends in YAF(I was a State Director)

Ah, the YAF. Known far and wide as a hate group for college youth, rife with homophobia, anti-semitism, racism, nativism and Christofascism.

Dave

Pablo- Don't 'noid out on us brother. The accusations go to different people as identified specifically in the article. "Racist" and "anti-Semitic" are intended to describe Ron Paul and the John Birch Society. I will tend to dismiss 9/11 truthers as evil-minded conspiracy freaks, but mostly not to my knowledge particularly racist.

The NAMBLA reference specifically was meant for Libertarian presidential aspirant Mary Ruwart. I got beef with conspiracy nuts, but I wouldn't accuse the 9/11 truthers of pedophilia.

Isnt that nice Ray.

Ruvy- Let me please differentiate between Libertarians and Paul-pods. He was the LP candidate in 1988, and has always been real popular with our people. "Dr No" voting against crazy spending and ranting about the constitution pleases our party very much.

But the party never knew about all those evil newsletters and he's only just recently absolutely come out and endorsed the Birchers. At our Indiana party convention a couple of weeks ago, I was in full rant like this to everyone I talked to. Not one of my people - many of whom I've known for a decade or two - would much disagree with me.

The really evil stuff is new information to us in the last couple of months, and we've had decades admiring this jerk before he stands now truly revealed for what he is. Generally, I'd say my Indy LP crowd was at least somewhat troubled with some of this stuff, but not just quite ready to publicly denounce him. But partly that's not as necessary, perhaps, in that he's not seeking our nomination again.

These evil Paul-pods are not from the Libertarian Party. These obnoxious rude arrogant schmucks are coming out of the woodwork from other places, ie Birchers and conspiracy freaks.

The Libertarian Party has never been dominated by conspiracy mongering. I would probably be speaking for the vast majority of Libertarian Party members in saying that hidden dark conspiracies may exist, but that 99% of the damage to the body politic comes from legal and above board things. It's the normal tactics of the drug war and the IRS and entitlement programs that are causing the harm, not some secret connection between President Eisenhower and the Soviets.

Again and in summary, Paul-pods and libertarians are very different groups, with maybe just one or two percent overlap. I can assure you that some of these arrogant little attack dogs would not be tolerated at a function of the Indiana Libertarian Party.

We've got a very cordial and sociable group, but Bob Kirkpatrick knows people who will enforce civility. The fellowship of the Indiana crew is most of why I might be inclined to stay involved in this seemingly self-defeating larger party. I always love seeing Andy Horning - now our candidate for governor. Now of course, no one likes that damned dirty Mike Kole, but who wouldn't want to hang out with Miss Margaret and the ladies auxillary?

I'm just saying, the Libertarian Party people I know are polar opposite personality types to the obnoxious end of Paul supporters. Except, again, for Mike Kole, cause he's a right bastard. Perhaps if I summon Mike Kole by name three times, he'll show up - like Cthulhu.

Don F [comment 82]- Ron Paul often says things that I perfectly well agree with. But then he poisons the well with being a Bircher. He's absolutely a Bircher. That's BAD juju - and worse yet, contemptible.

David Duke could pledge allegiance to every single plank of our libertarian platform, but no chance in hell that any of our people would have truck with him. There are some points of basic character that outflank most policy issues - especially for POTUS. The devil can quote scripture and an evil Bircher can quote the constitution.

It's a question of moral hygeine. It's evil minded people who get their sense of self-worth by dreaming up dark conspiracies that only they are smart enough to see. I would have ZERO interest in socializing with the Birchers and 9/11 truthers.

On top of which, they're a HUGE turnoff to most normal, decent folk. Having a 911 truther ranting away on the stump would cause someone to quite understandably dismiss whatever political party would accept such people.

But yet many of these Paul-pods are so 100% credulous of St Paul that they talk themselves into believing that Ron Paul didn't write any of the objectionable stuff, and didn't have any idea of the stuff routinely being published out of his offices for decades. Nope, never noticed. Yet he thinks he's got the good judgment to be commander in chief.

Courtney:

You are right up to a point - non-sectarian pan-Arab revolt did come about as a result of the carve-up by Britain and France in the mid-east post WWI. It's interesting that its most vicious form, Ba'athism, originated in Syria, in the French area of "interest".

In Iraq's case, where it was run by Britain, it was independent by the 1920s but like many tribal-oriented Arab countries suddenly introduced to western-style democracy, the idea was too foreign a concept to be grasped immediately. It's why since Iraq's independence there has has been constant fighting and jockeying by various powerful factions for power - the tribal mindset (think Saddam Hussein and his Tikritis).

Part of the problem too was American isolationism, and Wilson's decision to pull out of the league of nations after he'd pushed for it and before it even got off the ground. It was a shot duck from then on - but it needn't have been.

A strong League with the US, Britain and France at its core could easily have stopped the re-armament of Germany, and helped the rebuilding of that nation instead of seeing it bled dry by the French.

So there is also a very strong argument that US isolationism between the wars was a major cause of WWII, particularly in relation to the events that took place in Europe prior to US entry to the war.

You could also run on from that that had Japan been faced down earlier by a Britain and its commonwealth, a France and a US not caught up in a European war (the US in fact was actively engaged in WWII prior to Japan's attack by supplying the British and escorting convoys and chasing U-boats mid-Atlantic in what amounted to an undeclared war), there might not have been any second world war at all.

That's the problem with Ron Paul's position: a return to US isolationism doesn't help the US or the rest of the world. It just makes it a more dangerous place.

There is no problem with the US being a policing power and a force for good, provided it's done properly. Who else is going to do it? Who else has the capacity? No one is suggesting such a thing comes from pure altruism but the protection of US interests keeps the global economy stable and can help peaceful change. That's the problem with Bushco - they didn't do it properly.

However, a return to the US of old with its head in the sand only creates new dangers for the US.

I say, too, if you want to be the world's major economic power and to control much of its wealth, that comes with extra and sometimes onerous responsibilities.

The US can't have its cake and eat it too.

And what Clavos says is right: islamic fundamentalists have been doing this for 1000 years. The big difference now is that they don't have to travel from one country to another by horse or camel - they can get there by jet.

Nothing's really changed. The crusades are still going on in the eyes of Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, and that's their real motivation.

The notion that the US should just lock itself away is simplistic and unrealistic and sure-fire recipe for a new, larger conflagration.

I just want to ask how are 911 truthers "evil-minded"? Because they do not believe the governments account of what happened? Or is it because they are making accusations no one wants to think could be true? Conspiracy theories gain momentum when people ignore and marginalize them. The supporters cry foul when what is dismissed as easily debunkable is not debunked or even addressed. This hardens the theorist commitment to getting out their message and to them serves as proof of conspiracy. Others see this reluctance and those unsure are attracted to the theorist because no one else is purposing answers to sometimes ligament questions. This goes for NWO to 911 to Roswell. If people come out and rebut these supposedly untrue charges with information instead of insulting them then the conspiracies strength wanes and only hardened theorist cling to what has been debunked. The only reason not to address the statements claimed to be debunkable is if they really are not debunkable.

Dallas sez:

The only reason not to address the statements claimed to be debunkable is if they really are not debunkable.

No.

There is no reason at all for a nonbeliever to address YOUR allegations.

The burden of proof rests on he who believes in and propagates the theory, not on those who say "I don't believe." If you believe in something and others don't, but you want them to, then you have to present proof that will erase their doubts in their minds, and not simply because YOU deem your proofs irrefutable.

It is not necessary for the nonbeliever to disprove the believer's assertions.

You must prove your case to the satisfaction of the doubter. Otherwise, you're just another tin foil hat rack.

The 9/11 conspiracies have been well and truly debunked. That's the real insanity of the 9/11 "truth" movement. They don't want to listen. It's not the rest of us who are ignoring the truth, it's the 9/11 "truthers" who are guilty of that.

I've got an idea: Why not just call it the 9/11 bollocks movement and be done with it.

Most of us are sick of all the bullshit. It's tedious. Any Americans who believe the US govt had any direct involvement in 9/11 (as opposed to to its foreign policies making people angry) really need to question themselves at length.

Failing that, tinfoil hats are great for keeping the government's mind-rays at bay.

They just bounce straight off.

G'day Clav :)

Where've you been hiding? :-)

Mate, it was too hard to see what was going on over the past week or so, with 50 comments appearing for each one posted.

Thanks for doing the bizzo the other day, BTW.

Chavos, I said conspiracies grow stronger when they are not addressed, not they that have to be addressed. Though it helps to take away their strength. Also, there is a lot of proof that shows the government is not telling the whole truth. So we should accept their lie instead of find the real truth whether or not our government is involved? I have no vested interest in any outcome but if the government is trying to save face after allowing such a tragedy to happen then someone needs to be exposed not for me but for those who died. It would be the government's job to convince me their theory is true because one "must prove your case to the satisfaction of the doubter" and their a lot of people not satisfied.
STM, I am truly sorry that you feel the conspiracies have been debunked. If so, what happened to WTC 7 and why has NIST failed to release a report now or with the other reports detailing what happened to the others towers? The conspiracies have not been debunked, they have been ignored. If they had been debunked the truther's movement would not consist of architects, engineers, scientist and relatives of those who died.
My overriding point is well illustrated with these two. I simply suggest a closer look at a horrible event and as soon as I suggest nothing more radical than looking over the facts again, people are outraged. That is what gives truthers and others all their power. If you really wanted to shut them up and not just insult them people would bring the facts that prove "to the satisfaction of the doubter" it was 4 planes guided by Mid East terrorist and truthers will shut up. Why is that such a crazy thing? Do people really believe the 911 report? Do people know what interviews and statements were left out? I do not know what happened but most would agree the government is not telling us, either.
This article is not about 911 truth in particular so it is not really an appropriate debate. All I advocate is that people take another look. Is that so evil?

WTC 7 has been adequately explained by engineers, firemen and experts on structural collapse. They have certainly debunked any crazy notions that it was brought down. It's just a nonsense.

It burned far more slowly, but the result was exactly the same. I mean, I just don't understand how anyone can keep carrying on with this nonsense without having really explored the facts.

I reckon the US govt (and particularly this current administration) can probably be blamed for a lot of nefarious goings-on, as can most other governments.

But 9/11 isn't one of them.

Blame that one on the guys with tea-towels on their heads.

If you think these guys couldn't have done it, and got through airport security etc undetected, just think about it this way: they were clever enough to use America's own freedoms against it.

Now, check out how long it takes board a flight to anywhere in the world since 9/11, and tell me that the airlines and governments really want to be spending an inordinate amount of money on stepped up security.

I had to transit through Singapore last year, and the security measures there, including heavily armed Gurkha police everywhere, are costing them a fortune. Ditto Sydney, Thailand, Lisbon, Porto, Frankfurt and Perth, all of which I passed through last year.

It's not a cost that anyone wants. It's a cost that is running into billions of dollars.

9/11 showed how easy it was to get through before these measures were implemented and that's the reason they HAVE been implemented, and that alone is proof enough for me that what happened on 9/11 is real.

Besides which, I work for a media organisation and saw a lot of pictures come through that day and in the days after that CONVINCED me of what happened. I do buy the US govt view on this, although it would be nice if they could have admitted that some of their foreign policy failures might have been a factor - which doesn't, by the way, excuse the perpetrators of mass murder. I'm a firm believer that trying to engage in dialogue is way prefereable to flying planes full of innocent Americans into buildings full of innocent Americans.

There's no conspiracy mate. It really happened.

It really is a shame that wacko and libertarian seem to mean the same thing these days. There are to many people that claim a libertarian view point that also believe in any crazy theory that comes around, especially if it concerns the people and their govt doing them wrong. I'd be extremely leary of my own opinions if crazy people like rosie odonnell believed the same thing I did. But that's just me...

Dallas [comments 92 and 98]- No sensible person puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, because the basic point is clear. A bunch of pissed of Muslims hijacked jet planes full of people and fuel and flew them into the towers. We have video and thousands of witnesses to this. We know the names of the schmucks who did this.

Are there Questions Left Unanswered? Surely. There was a lot going on, and it's somewhat a new physics and engineering to see what happens when you fly a jet airline directly into a skyscraper. Maybe this girder crumpled before that one different than some engineering model.

But there it is, nonetheless. That we perhaps do not have 100% satisfactory explanations for every possible minute detail of exactly how the buildings fell down does not disprove the obvious basic overriding fact of what happened.

You suggest that ignoring conspiracy theories only makes them stronger. Nah, not particularly. Giving them lots of serious attention would make them stronger.

People who are determined to believe any kind of dumb shit will find proof positive beyond any possible doubt. Then they are right pleased with themselves because they're in the know, with special arcane knowledge that escapes everyone else. People often find it very satisfying to say "You just don't get it." This can just as well include a scientist or engineer as anyone else. We're all mammals, subject to hinky mammalian nervous systems.

I say that 9/11 truthers, Birchers and other conspiracy freaks are generally pretty evil minded because they get their jollies and their satisfaction in life from imagining and hoping for evil dark stuff all day - even though there's little or nothing there. But if it's not there, they'll dream it up anyway cause they like running their minds on evil nonsense.

I simply suggest a closer look at a horrible event and as soon as I suggest nothing more radical than looking over the facts again, people are outraged.
That strikes me as disingenuous. Facts have been gone over by many different people and agencies, but the basic point of what happened is not in legitimate doubt. Your requests are illegitimate and piss people off because they are well known to be obviously without basis, and only continue poking at the wounds of victims and their families for no other real reason than that conspiracy freaks want to get a nut.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking that your conspiracy nonsense has any "power." It doesn't have any power, other than to annoy other people. A crazy guy yelling obscenities on the corner may piss people off, but he does not in fact have any "power" to speak of - other than whatever satisfaction he gets in his own mind by convincing his fool self that he's a messenger from God or whatever.

If you really wanted to shut them up and not just insult them people would bring the facts that prove "to the satisfaction of the doubter" it was 4 planes guided by Mid East terrorist and truthers will shut up.
Well, no, this statement has no substantial truth value. It's a trick. There's no such thing as satisfying your doubts if you're determined to believe - no matter how utterly baseless the evil fantasy. Indeed, often times the more crazy and unfounded, the more determined the belief. You're not responsive to facts.

There's just zero chance of satisfying any kind of conspiracy freak. They tend to be living in their own little evil fantasy world, and insist on inflicting their foolishness on regular citizens with jobs and families and lives. It's not surprising that normal people at some point will find this nonsense annoying and tell them to honk off.

You seem to think that as long as even a handful of fools insist on denying basic reality, then it's a legitimate topic of debate. It is not.

STM: Mate, it was too hard to see what was going on over the past week or so, with 50 comments appearing for each one posted.

Since Phillip doesn't sound too hopeful of getting the bug fixed any time soon, I've sort of given up looking at the Fresh Comments page. Luckily, I'm a comments editor now, so I can just take a gander at the editing tool where the comments come in appropriately solitary doses!

Why point was Clavos said you have to prove it to the doubter and that is a two way street. Second the main point is clear, maybe but what does that mean the case is closed. What if we targeted the wrong terrorist because we did not look close enough at what happened, ie most hijackers were Saudis yet we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we glaze over the specifics then no preventative measures can be taken because we did not look into why the towers fell in a complete enough manner, missing structural weak points that can bite us in the ass again. Do not say I am poking at the wounds of relatives who died when I know a relative of a person who died and he is part of the truth movement. You call me disingenuous but are the relatives of dead that are part of the truth movement disingenuous too? Or are they just blinded by grief that they cannot see what truly happened? Or maybe they just care enough to get the answers owed to them. It is not a new occurrence to have planes crash into buildings, small commuter planes do it from time to time. Plus, the WTCs were built to resist the shock of a 767 hitting it. Now they may have miscalculated but it is not a new procedure to take into account plane crashes. I consider it power if by saying one thing, look back at 911 and everyone lashes out. That is power that is perpetuated by those who lash out at a simple suggestion. The person screaming on the corner cannot anger nearly as many people as a truther can with one word. "That we perhaps do not have 100% satisfactory explanations for every possible minute detail of exactly how the buildings fell down does not disprove the obvious basic overriding fact of what happened" It does not prove it either, that statement is a two way street. It does not disprove anything but it only proves something because you are willing to except that much evidence as proof. Not looking at specifics leaves us open to make the same mistakes, whether it be meddling in the Mid-East or building towers susceptible to plane strikes. For the record, I happen to think our government knew and let it happen to have an excuse to go to war. Then it was used by Bush to get into Iraq, something he had been planning since he got in office.

Why point was Clavos said you have to prove it to the doubter and that is a two way street

Again (and more emphatically), NO.

THE BURDEN OF THE PROOF RESTS ON THE ACCUSER.

That was the whole point of my previous comment.

And you conspiracy theorists haven't PROVED anything.

Dallas - small point of order:

You say: the WTCs were built to resist the shock of a 767 hitting it.

The Boeing 767 did not exist in the late 1960s when the towers were constructed. They were designed to withstand an impact by the largest aircraft in service at the time - the Boeing 707.

As everyone saw on September 11th 2001, the buildings did withstand the impacts of two jet airliners. The subsequent fires were what caused them to collapse.

Choi oi!!!

It's a good thing I thought to Google that, Clav. For a moment there, I thought you were suffering from Tourette's.

I would