Ann Coulter, Al Barger and Richard Mellon Scaife can't ALL be wrong in supporting Hillary.
There's always trouble in the land, but all in all I personally feel pretty good about the future of America and the world at large. The country's doing okay, and we'll muddle through well enough whether we elect the giant douche or the turd sandwich.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Courtney Beadel
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...
27 - Simon9
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.
28 - Kurtis
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.
29 - Al Barger
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.
30 - Courtney Beadel
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.
31 - Baronius
Al, maybe you should cite your credentials for those newcomers to Blogcritics.
32 - Al Barger
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.
33 - Clavos
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.
34 - Ruvy
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
35 - 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
36 - JP
Another Beltway Libertarian hit piece on Paul. *YAWN*
37 - Courtney
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.
38 - tato
yet another JBS obsessee kook, yawn x2. guess what, it's not the 1950s anymore.
39 - Dave Nalle
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
40 - Dr Dreadful
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.
41 - Dr Dreadful
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.
42 - Robert
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!
43 - zingzing
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.")
44 - Al Barger
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.
45 - The Obnoxious American
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.
46 - zingzing
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.
47 - Nic
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.
48 - The Obnoxious American
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.
49 - Ray
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.
50 - The Obnoxious American
"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.
51 - Lee Richards
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."
52 - Courtney Beadel
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.
53 - Lee Richards
#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.
54 - Bennett
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
55 - WK
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.
56 - Dave Nalle
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
57 - Pablo
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.
58 - m.king
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.
59 - 57girl
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.
60 - Kenny Winter
"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!
61 - Ruvy
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.
62 - zingzing
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...
63 - Baronius
"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.
64 - DV
You can either be a libertarian, or a voter for Hillary Clinton. As they are diametrically opposed, you cannot be both.
65 - Dave Nalle
I must have missed something here. When did libertarianism include support for pedophilia?
Dave
66 - zingzing
personal freedom, my man, personal freedom.
67 - Cannonshop
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...)
68 - zingzing
canonshop--what the devil are you talking about?
69 - Don F.
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.
70 - Jahfre Fire Eater
An obvious vehicle to up his hit count by riding on Ron Paul's popularity. Too bad it works so well.
Jahfre
71 - Al Barger
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?
72 - Dallas
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?
73 - Dallas
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.
74 - zingzing
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.
75 - Al Barger
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.