The Netroots Are Growing Restless (and Libertarian)

David Weigel | August 15, 2007

RedState's Haystacks gives us Charlie Rose's interview with Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos and an avowed "Libertarian Democrat." (He contributed to reason's "Person of the Year" list in 2006.) But how well can he explain what that means under late-nite chat show scrutiny?

>

The libertarian bit:

MOULITSAS: You know, if people want to label me, I'm actually a libertarian, of all things. I'm not even a liberal, I wouldn't call myself a liberal. I don't think true liberals...

ROSE: You don't like government at all.

MOULITSAS: It's not at all. There's a difference between traditional libertarianism which says government is evil, can't do no good. I think government can actually do good. I just don't want it in more places than it needs to be. And...

ROSE: You don't want it in personal lives, you don't want it...

Definitely not personal lives. But I also don't want corporations getting in my personal business. I don't want them stealing my information or hoarding my information. I don't want corporations polluting my air and war.

ROSE: Do you think government is not doing enough to regulate corporations?

MOULITSAS: Not now. Clearly not now.

ROSE: You want to see more government regulation of corporations, right?

MOULITSAS: There's two power...

ROSE: More government regulation of corporations?

MOULITSAS: Yeah, to a certain degree.

ROSE: That's not a libertarian position.

MOULITSAS: The key is...

ROSE: That's not a libertarian position.

MOULITSAS: Right, right, no. But to me, when I think of me being a libertarian, I don't want anybody messing with me. I don't want government getting in my way. I don't want corporations getting in my way. And sometimes the only people that can keep corporations out of my face is the government. So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.

Clearly. I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas—one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century—thinks there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism. That's not bad.

Comments

Christopher Monnier|8.15.07 @ 9:22AM|#

Surely he's been exposed to the argument that government more often than not empowers and entrenches large corporations...why doesn't he get it?

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 9:28AM|#

He wants citizens' rights to be protected against corporations. That is certainly a libertarian position in my mind, but that doesn't mean regulation. It means corporations can act freely but if they violate the rights of the citizenry they will/should be punished.

|8.15.07 @ 9:31AM|#

Moulitsas tries to make a distinction between old libertarians and new libertarians. One of those main distinctions is the view that corporations have gained such power that we should view their power as skeptically as we should view government power. Charlie Rose then cross-examines Moulitsas by saying that the new views on corporations are not old libertarian views.

Oh, the free market...I'm supposed to like corporate spying on me, but flip out at gov't spying...'cause there's a huge difference.

|8.15.07 @ 9:31AM|#

If this fuckwit manages to get himself associated with libertarianism I'm becoming a green. He's as much of a libertarian as "Mainstream Libertarian" jackass Eric Dondero.

|8.15.07 @ 9:32AM|#

Of course, Charlie Rose probably hasn't updated his political lexicon since 1987.

|8.15.07 @ 9:32AM|#

First the progressives stole the name 'liberal', now they want to steal 'libertarian'. Can't they just leave our names the fuck alone.

God that guy pisses me off, libertarian...right.

robc|8.15.07 @ 9:32AM|#

Stephen,

It would be a libertarian position if he meant what you said. But he doesnt, he wants regulation.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 9:33AM|#

Actually, I kind of like the idea of kos stealing the libertarian label and having to share it with DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

robc|8.15.07 @ 9:34AM|#

Kos and Dondero in Thunderdome - two men enter, one man leaves.

It would make the world a slightly better place, regardless of the outcome.

|8.15.07 @ 9:35AM|#

I fail to understand the enthusiasm self-proclaimed Libertarians have for "leaving it up to the courts" rather than regulation. Doesn't anyone here know how laws get codified? You have enough deaths or disasters associated with an industry, things get regulated.

Self-regulation only works when the actors demonstrate sufficient responsibility. The reason we have fire codes in the US is because we have painful experience from history as to what happens when we don't. Companies may bitch about regulation, but I doubt they'd enjoy more leaving everything up to the courts, the legal costs, and the interpretation by juries. Hence the screaming about "tort reform."

What companies don't want to admit is they want to have all of it--no regulation AND the inability of the consumer to bring suit against them.

Learn some history of statute law and regulation, idiots.

|8.15.07 @ 9:36AM|#

What a crock of shiat. Kos is a bratty nanny state liberal a la Hillary and Bloomberg. He wants government to interfere in the affairs of "Evil Corporation" as long as the government is controlled by liberal democrats who know what is best for everyone. What a fraud, just becuase he blurts out libertarian doesn't make it true. I would be very hesitant to believe that Kos and his merry band of moonbats latching on to libertarianism is some how good for libertarians.

|8.15.07 @ 9:38AM|#

I sure if asked he'd be for single payer health care,which is socislist,not libertarian.I think he perfers gov. to force companies to do things the free market would not allow.Most corps. are small and medium size and he lumps them togeather into a vevil cabal.

|8.15.07 @ 9:38AM|#

He sounds like a new liberal, not a new libertarian.

He's skeptical of the big government tendencies of the liberalism from the New Deal through Clinton.

To the growing pile of kinda-sorta libertarians - Republicans who want to smoke pot, atheist capitalists, localist right-wingers - we need to start adding Liberals Who Learned From Liberalism's Collapse in the 80s. "Anti-PC" liberals like Bill Mahar would be another example.

Christopher Monnier, I think the "not getting" that's going in is your "not getting" the distinction between "too often" and "inevitably."

Garth|8.15.07 @ 9:46AM|#

It seems that Democrats like to wrap themselves in the Libertarian tunic when the Republicans are in power and the Republicans when the Democrats are in power. That's all this is.

|8.15.07 @ 9:47AM|#

I'll say it: the regulatory state inevitably (and almost exclusively) furthers the interests of big corporations. They have the money to hire platoons of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to grease the system.

The notion that leviathan would ever act otherwise is laughable.

In a more libertarian system, big corporations have to compete with other businesses on the even playing field known as the Bottom Line. In some fields, bigness is a distinct advantage, but in many others it magically works out that big corporate bureaucracies are less effective at putting out product that smaller, more motivated groups.

shecky|8.15.07 @ 9:49AM|#

It used to be only conservatives described themselves as libertarians when they wanted to look cool. Now liberals, too.

So why does everyone still think I'm a big nerd?

|8.15.07 @ 9:50AM|#

the Libertarian tunic

I need one of those.

|8.15.07 @ 9:50AM|#

That must make it awfully easy to figure out your position, ChrisO.

I wish I could know what I think about legislation without having to know anything about it.

Oh, and in a liberal system, there are values besides the bottom line. Kos mentioned a number of concerns he had about Big Business. Their ability to turn a profit was not among them.

|8.15.07 @ 9:51AM|#

Seems like everyone likes to call themselves a libertarian.

Kos, Chomsky, assorted Republicans. If being a libertarian means believe the government shouldn't interfere where you don't think its needed, then I guess everyone is a libertarian.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 9:52AM|#

This is a load of shit. Kos has shown himself to be primarily interested in partisan politicking, and the fact that he has transformed from an internet geek to a Democrat powerhouse. He's drunk with his new power, and what he enjoys most is throwing his weight around where he can actually affect things, which is within his own party. The Lamont/Lieberman thing showed that.

Kos will do a 180 on anything the instant it gives him more power. Though the increasing use of "libertarian" by many people in a positive way seems to indicate a growing awareness and positive connotation for libertarianism, being associated with people who are actually diametrically opposed to the philosophy (from DONDERRROOOOOO to Kos) is not necessarily a good thing, because they distort the message with their false associations.

|8.15.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Incorporation, copyright, and patents are all government enforced. In a libertarian world, none of these would exist. The business climate would be quite different. There would probably be fewer big businesses (with less power) as well.

Kos|8.15.07 @ 9:56AM|#

I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas-one of the savviest and most impactful [sic] political operators of this young century-things [sic] there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism.

Okay, we need government to regulate corporations and copyediting, but that's it.

Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 9:59AM|#

Well, he has some good examples, and he has some bad examples.

It's not a priori a non-libertarian position to favor control of pollutants in the air and water. Those things pass the property line. If you're doing something on your property that fucks up the air over my property or the water under it, you can't argue that your property rights allow you to do this.

The whole "privacy" thing is a canard, though. Admirably repeated by Lamar. The only information about you that a corporation can get is the information you give to it, or the information you give to another corporation. If you enter into an economic transaction with me, I don't see what possible "rights" grounds you can have for demanding that I forget about it. You're essentially demanding the creation of a class of knowledge I'm not allowed to have or retain, and that's crap. The economic transaction I'm remembering is just as much mine as yours. If I tell somebody else about it, that's my business.

|8.15.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Businesses simply do not pose the threat that government does. Even the huge ones do not impose a tax burden on us, take our property, lock us up, etc., etc. To the extent that they do have great power--outside of their economic strength--that power often comes from government protection of corporate interests.

With all of the consumer protection laws on the books, coupled with the harshest corporate taxation model in the Western world, I'm just guessing that businesses aren't calling the shots in the U.S. The influence of various businesses (which are hardly aligned, even in the same industry) is shared with many other, noncommercial influences. Besides, competition in the marketplace often means competition for political attention, so no one company or group of companies really has the clout that many on the left like to think they do. I don't understand the idea of the business bogeyman rising to the level of government actors, particularly given the history of the latter when they get too much power.

A libertarian could, consistent with his ideology, support some forms of regulation of business. Perhaps the real question is the difference between regulating to protect people from abuses of power and regulating to control. The latter is where we're heading, and that is, in my mind, nothing less than regulatory socialism. In that system, government doesn't own anything, but it sure the heck exerts control.

Anyway, one of the things a more libertarian system might do differently is not impose the barriers to entry that government does today. Those barriers are often put up in the name of consumer protection, but they're usually there to protect entrenched businesses. Honestly, I think "big business" is far more powerful and influential in today's regulatory culture than it would be in a more libertarian system.

|8.15.07 @ 10:04AM|#

It sounds like the typical semantic mumbo-jumbo that pops up every few years after a political label gets tied to a electoral ass-kicking (I'm thinking 2004 here.) At least half a dozen hardcore Reaganites I knew in '92 became "libertarians" after Clinton won without a single policy shift.

The inability or unwillingness to recognize the link between social and economic freedom is always an easy way to spot a fakertarian. (i.e. dictating to someone how they can make or spend money is just as bad as dictating who and how they can have sex.)

joe, is "new liberal" gaining some currency on the left, or did you just make it up? I'm curious if it has a definition for itself. It's a nice turn of phrase either way.

|8.15.07 @ 10:12AM|#

But to me, when I think of me being a libertarian, I don't want anybody messing with me. I don't want government getting in my way. I don't want corporations getting in my way. And sometimes the only people that can keep corporations out of my face is the government. So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.

Ah, the new libertarianism: "Freedom for me but not for thee." That's not really all that new.

|8.15.07 @ 10:14AM|#

"With all of the consumer protection laws on the books, coupled with the harshest corporate taxation model in the Western world, I'm just guessing that businesses aren't calling the shots in the U.S."

If libertarians had their way, there would be no consumer protection laws and no corporation taxation model. Correct? Anyhow, you have a point that corporate power comes from gov't protection of corporate interests, making corporate power an extension of gov't power and hence worthy of extreme skepticism. How can the free market regulate business with all that gov't protection?

Not only do corporations get gov't protection, they also get straight up subsidies, corporate welfare, tax breaks and sweetheart land deals. Perhaps you are addressing corporate control over the federal gov't, but I'm looking more to the state and local governments who see corporations as the key to their reelections.

Counterexample 1: Disney's influence on Orlando and central Florida. Sure, Universal and Sea World are there, but Disney runs the show and gets excellent subsidies.

|8.15.07 @ 10:14AM|#

Kos is apparently forgeting the slight distinction that is the use of coercive force.

Big Government is to Big Corporation as Hand Gun is to Hand Shake.

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 10:15AM|#

So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.

Twisted so badly as to be wholly unrecognizable! I'll make Kos a deal, he can have "libertarian" if we can have "liberal" back.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:15AM|#

Episiarch, I'm "diametrically opposed to libertarianism."

Just where exactly?

Is it my support for abolishing the income tax and the IRS?

Or maybe the fact that I'm Pro-Choice?

Or, is it my support for cutting government spending across the board on virtually everthing?

Or, maybe it's my support for ending foreign aid?

Or, perhaps my unlibertarian views come out in my staunch opposition to the Military Draft?

Or, maybe it's that pesky little fact that I favor drug legalization, legalized prostitution and gambling?

Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?

Or, maybe it's because I'm in favor of abolishing affirmative action?

Tell me where I'm "unlibertarian"?

|8.15.07 @ 10:16AM|#

Isn't the label "old liberal" usually used to refer to the original meaning of "liberal"? IE, John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith would be considered old liberals.

Robert|8.15.07 @ 10:16AM|#

I wonder what he meant by corporations getting in his face.

T|8.15.07 @ 10:16AM|#

I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas-one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century

Did I miss something? He's great at self promotion and using his website to make a nice living, but didn't all the candidates he backed in the '06 cycle lose? Or am I remembering the '04 cycle instead?

|8.15.07 @ 10:17AM|#

"The latter is where we're heading, and that is, in my mind, nothing less than regulatory socialism. In that system, government doesn't own anything, but it sure the heck exerts control."

aka economic fascism

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:17AM|#

For the record:

My score on the WSPQ - 100/100.

On all other Libertarian Tests - 90/100 to 100/100.

Recently I took a new test, "Find out which Libertarian Party candidate you are most closely aligned with"

I was an ideological twin of Steve Kubby. Not even close to the guy I'm supporting Wayne Root, or any others like George Phillies, Christine Smith, et.al.

No, according to the Test, I'm a "Steve Kubby man."

|8.15.07 @ 10:18AM|#

I'll say it: the regulatory state inevitably (and almost exclusively) furthers the interests of big corporations. They have the money to hire platoons of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to grease the system.

Yes, it's quite fanciful to believe that government does, or could, reliably side with the broad public interest (even if elected officials were able to determine it, which mostly they can't).

Big business is bad, yes, but government is not a counterweight. The only effective counterweight to big business is big business (i.e. divergent lobbying interests).

|8.15.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Eric, you're getting warm here:

Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?

It's not your opposition to that, but the means by which you propose to prevent it, which are both counterproductive and liberty-curtailing.

The fact that you're consorting with an authoritarian like Giuliani (who strongly disagrees with you on most of the issues you bring up) isn't helping, either.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:21AM|#

It's awfully amusing to me how a bunch of Newbies to our libertarian movement, can come in after 1 or 2 years of activism, and a couple Libertarian Party supper club meetings under their belt, and then pronounce that oldtimers who've been extremely active in the LP since the early 1980s, are somehow "not libertarian enough."

Hey Newbies: Get to the back of the bus.

Before you start declaring that oldtimers like me, who have 25 years of hardcore libertarian activism, are somehow "not libertarian," get a couple Libertarian Party petition drives on your resume first.

Like umm, I dunno, STANDING IN 15 DEGREE WEATHER ON A STREET CORNER IN SOME TINY TOWN IN WESTERN NEBRASKA IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER BEGGING FOR SIGNATURES FOR LIBERTARIAN PARTY BALLOT ACCESS!!

|8.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#

crimethink,

Your right, but I was wondering if joe was striking out into a distinction of trip from classic liberal to modern leftish Democrat liberal to some "new liberal" that is undefined. I'm a defintion nerd.

|8.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#

"Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?"

I'm opposed to anybody murdering anybody on the streets of New York, DC, New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and anywhere else whether they're Islamic extremists or whatever else. I don't see the reason for singling them out. We're all opposed to Islamic extremists or anyone else murdering people.

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#

Is this turning into a "I'm more libertarian than you pissing contest?" How about this: I ACTUALLY VOTED FOR BADNARIK

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 10:25AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Dude, you're supporting the Ghost of Fascism Past for Ultimate Leader, dude, if anything gets you kicked out of the club it's that. For serious, "freedom is about authority"? Sure it is, sure it is. Now run along and play with your dolls.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Crimethink, I'm all ears.

You gotta a better idea to stop these Islamic extremists?

How about the guy who shot those 6 women at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle last year, screaming "Allah-ahu-ahkbar"? Or the Salt Lake City shooter who murdered 5 in that suburban Mall? Or, the Fort Dix Six?

What's your solution?

And don't tell me, "it's not really a problem" or "let our local law officers handle it."

It's much more than that. These people are in a rage against American values of openess and tolerance.

They see our big-busted Blonde women and they go apeshit, cause they know they can get any of it. They come home and turn on their TVs, and there's even more big-busted Blond women staring at them. They drive around town, and the Billboards have big-busted Blonde women.

Like the virginal Virginia Tech shooter, these Radical Muslims go bonkers, and start shooting Americans in the name of "Allah."

You got an easy solution how to deal with these scumbags, most of whom are here illegally, or have overstayed their Visas, I'm all ears.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:28AM|#

How about this one Goldberger:

I actually voted straight Libertarian out at sea as my very first vote, in 1992, on board the USS Luce DDG-38 (Guided Missile Destroyer), right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf while Iranian and Iraqi missiles were streaming in the sky above my head.

|8.15.07 @ 10:28AM|#

"The only effective counterweight to big business is big business (i.e. divergent lobbying interests)."

The only effective counterweight to big business is the free market.

|8.15.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Lamar,

Libertarians are hardly a monolithic block. I think the utilitarian wing, such as it were, might be okay with some very limited consumer protection laws. A government with defined limited powers could have regulatory power without running amok. Those Who Run Amok could be the new name for Congress and the Executive these days.

|8.15.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Methinks the Dondero doth protests too much.

You can be big-L all you want, but Guliani support really does make a mockery of your support of the party for years. The man had roving police squads in the East Village on Friday night doing nothing but picking up people smoking a joints and driving them around all night because they couldn't be arrested for that low amount of possession.

Lie down with authoritarian dogs and you get up with fleas trying to tell you what to do.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:34AM|#

I'm going to pull rank here as a 25 year veteran of the Libertarian movement, (2 years on the LNC, 4 years on the LP of FL ExComm, 2 years on the 1988 LP Presidential Campaign, 6 years as Ron Paul's Senior Aide, 5 years as Roger MacBride's Personal Political Aide, Founder of the RLC, ect...)

Quite frankly, the only person on the Reason Hit & Run board who is a regular poster who I recognize as someone who has been around this movement of ours for a long time is James Merrit of Kansas.

I remember Merrit from the 1988 Ron Paul for President Campaign. Here on this Forum, I don't often agree with him, and I'm sure he neither agrees with me.

But I respect him, cause he's been around a long, long time.

He ain't some wet behind the ears Newbie, like the vast majority of you all here.

Now, I could be wrong. Some others here may have been around the LP since the 1980s. But I don't recognize any other names.

It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a political movement, whatever the movement, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and beliefs" of the organization.

James Merrit has the right to diss me, and say he doesn't believe I'm a "true libertarian."

Brian Doherty, who has been in this movement, almost as long as I have (Brian was at the UF College Libertarians in the 1980s when I was heading up the Florida State Libertarian Club),
has that right too.

The rest of you fucks, are complete Newbies to our movement. So sit down and shut up.

|8.15.07 @ 10:36AM|#

"It's much more than that. These people are in a rage against American values of openess and tolerance."

These people are mad at our meddling foreign policy. Who would be willing to kill themselves because their jealous of us?

|8.15.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Arguments from authority always get me all hot and bothered.

|8.15.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Doesn't a certain egotist here have a vanity Wikipedia page to edit?

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 10:39AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I'll shut the fuck up about what a jackass you are as soon as you explain to me why TEAM RUDY, FUCK YEAH! has anything, at all, to do with minarchism, individual liberty, or not being an authoritarian fuckwit. Because you've been hanging around meetings creeping out women for 20 years I should doff my cap and respect you, I think not.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|8.15.07 @ 10:40AM|#

I actually voted straight Libertarian out at sea as my very first vote, in 1992, on board the USS Luce DDG-38 (Guided Missile Destroyer), right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf while Iranian and Iraqi missiles were streaming in the sky above my head.

Iran was shooting missiles at our vessels during the first Gulf War? Iraqi SCUDs could reach the middle of the Persian Gulf? Is this some alternative history or are you just a lying sack of shit?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Sugarfree,

I just read a poll this morning where Hillary Clinton is now leading in Florida. She's up by 5 point over Rudy 49 - 44.

She's creaming all other Republicans including Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

Now, I ask you, is it "Libertarian" to support Hillary Clinton for President? By sitting out the election, bad-mouthing the one guy who has a shot of beating her, or even voting for the Libertarian Party candidate (Kubby, Phillies, whomever), you are as good as voting for ole' Cowhips herself.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN A SWING STATE LIKE FLORIDA, OHIO OR PENNSYLVANIA!!!

I choose to vote against Hillary Clinton, by supporting Giuliani. And incidentally, Giuliani has been called repeatedly a "libertarian" by the major media, including most recently the Wall Street Journal. Not only that, he appointed Reason Magazine friend SALLY PIPES OF THE PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE, as his Policy Advisory. AND he's got other libertarian-leaners like Steve Forbes, David Dreier, and Larry Kudlow, enthusiastically backing him.

So, tell me. How is it "unlibertarian" to join in with Forbes, Dreier, Kudlow and REASON MAGAZINE FRIEND SALLY PIPES (!!!) in supporting Rudy Giuliani over the woman who is going to bring this Nation Communist-style Health Care, raise our taxes through the roof, bring about an economic depression with massively high unemployment, and have the Feds knock on our doors to take away all our guns?

Just how is that "unlibertarian"?

|8.15.07 @ 10:41AM|#

Damn. I kinda' like Eric Dondero.

Sorry everybody. Ya'll take cheap shots at him, but what, in his litany, is inappropriate for a libertarian? Except for opposition to the draft, I think I agree with everything he said.

Now the rant against Muslims comes off a bit jingoistic, but hey. Listen to his meaning, not his words.

CB

|8.15.07 @ 10:42AM|#

It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a political movement, whatever the movement, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and beliefs" of the organization.

Yeah, that's why Ron Paul fired you.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Crimethink,

Ouch! Big error on my part. Of course, I meant to say 1982, NOT 1992.

I just turned 18 in 1980 and missed voting for Ed Clark for President by 14 days, (my birthday is Nov. 21).

So, the very first time I got to vote was in 1982, and I voted straight Libertarian.

Funny story: Out of 340 guys on my ship I WAS THE ONLY ONE!! besides the Officer in Charge of our "Sailors Absentte Voting Program" to requets a ballot from my home state.

Piss poor 'eh? 340 eligible voters, and only 2 voted!!

Kind of tells you something. Imagine how much more Republican (or Libertarian) our country would be if Military guys actually voted.

|8.15.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Eric - I'm on your side. Slow down! Stop! Breathe! Think!

Now... post again.

CB

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 10:44AM|#

DONDERROOOO,

Just because you're fucking old doesn't make you right. And just because you supporded the LP for a long time doesn't change the fact that you're backing an authoritarian for Prez.

Your fear of a real threat (but one which is much more minor than you make it out to be) causes you to back someone who will take away our liberties to "protect" us.

Sorry, DONDERODUDE, but you lose your street cred for that. Sorry to rehash the old Ben Franklin quote, but those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. Nor do they deserve libertarian cred.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Yeah, that's why Ron Paul tracked me down in Mexico in 2001 and begged me to come back to work. And that's why he gave me regular bonuses for years after that to keep me around. And that's why when he supposedly "fired me" he gave me a $10,000 bonus. And that's why for the last 4 years I've been using him as my Number One employment reference.

Funny, after 4 years he only says he "fired me" the day after he learned that I was declaring against him for Congress. Funny how that kind of stuff works out, 'eh?

|8.15.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Oooh, libertarian pissing match: nobody can agree whether it's the distance or consistency of hue that wins the day.

robc|8.15.07 @ 10:46AM|#

You dont tell time with an argument.
You dont teach truth with a clock.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 10:46AM|#

I think Kos is making the distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties. We can save for some other day the debate over whether the distinction is ever meaningful, but I can think of some areas of contemporary controversy where a person who claims to be a civil libertarian but economic liberal would have to make a choice: Vices, particularly unhealthy ones like transfats.

(I don't know Kos's stance on transfats, but even if he goes libertarian on that issue, there are enough liberals claiming to be libertarian that I think it's worth outlining the problem here.)

It's all well and good to say that you think personal, private decisions should be left alone, while taking a different stance on business decisions. Now, surely we'd all agree that one activity that any consenting adult should be able to do in the privacy of his own home is eat some unhealthy food. But that food is almost always bought from somebody. And we're seeing bans on the sale of various unhealthy foods. Now, usually those bans have a few exceptions, those who want to could still buy their stuff in another city, etc. etc. But clearly the ability to engage in a personal activity is being restricted, even if the SWAT team isn't breaking down the door to confiscate anybody's Twinkie. (Yet...)

Where do self-described libertarians who like business regulations come down on this issue?

|8.15.07 @ 10:46AM|#

I think Kos is hitting on a theme I've brought up here several times: libertarians are often blind to the fact that government is not the only entity that can restrict liberty.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Episiarch,

Just curious. How many years of libertarian activism do you have under your belt?

How long have you been in the Libertarian Party? How long have you been voting LP?

|8.15.07 @ 10:49AM|#

I think libertarians are fiercely refusing to make the rightward lurch with the GOP. It has the effect of making libertarians look more lefty than in the past.

I wouldn't have a big problem with Rudy, but his record proves that his M.O. on law and order issues is to arrest everybody, slander the innocent victims, then wait it out until people forget about it. Worked like a charm for NYC. I'm not so sure it's the Rx for the country.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:50AM|#

Episiarch,

You say that Giuliani will "take away our liberties."

How's that the case? Last time I checked Rudy Giuliani WAS PRO-CHOICE!!! That is the one civil liberty that I care about most. And he agrees with me. He is absolutely going to protect me on the one civil liberty that matters to me the most.

And he's not that bad on a whole host of other civil liberties issues as well, such as protecting our gun rights, stopping the Nanny State government from outlawing smoking everywheres, letting my Gay friends lead their personal lifestyles free from government harrassment, ect...

Now compare that to the Wicked Witch from the East who wants to take away all our guns, ban smoking everywhere, crack down on pornography and violent video games because "it's for the children," and allow Islamic Radicals to board planes so as not to violate PC rules.

|8.15.07 @ 10:51AM|#

Dondero, forgive me for not believing your various stories after you lied about your military service above.

In any case, you're not going to make much headway using seniority to win an argument with libertarians. You've been hanging out with statist frauds for too long, and it apparently is affecting your judgement.

Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 10:51AM|#

Hey, here's an idea for how to deal with Islamic extremism: I call it the fucking Constitution of the United States.

If authoritarianism was going to stomp out Islamic extremism, Dondero, the Communists would have won in Afghanistan.

The only tool we have that can ultimately defeat Islamic extremism is liberty. Your buddy Giuliani thinks the answer is to suspend civil liberties for the duration of the emergency. That's the strategy that will lose. He couldn't have picked a better losing strategy if it was his intention to lose.

This escapes you because despite your tales of standing in the snow, you really don't have sound libertarian instincts. Know how I know this? Because you keep trying to claim seniority. This isn't a union, dopey. You start out at zero every morning and have to prove yourself all over again. When you fail to run as fast as you can from the guys who are in love with secret prisons, torture, the suspension of habeus corpus, and the shredding of the 1st and 4th Amendments, you don't get to tell stories about collecting signatures back in the day and have it all be square.

Eric|8.15.07 @ 10:52AM|#

It sounds like he's actually describing libertarian socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Which is the view I more-or-less support, although the current wiki description of it is a little extreme.

Anyway, he's libertarian in that he wants to maximize individual liberty. Where he diverges from traditional libertarians is that threats to individual liberty stem from concentrations of power, which includes corporations as much as it does the government.

I don't think it's an inappropriate use of government to keep corporate power in check in order to defend individual liberty (whether consumers, employees, or third parties). Certainly it's better than the status quo, where the two collude with each other against individuals.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 10:52AM|#

Eric Dondero-

I'm quite willing to believe that you have done great things for the libertarian movement in the past. However, people can change, and go in dangerous new directions. Even those who were previously among the most devoted.

And even (especially?) the most loyal and pure can still be annoying as all hell.

If we're a bunch of newbie losers who aren't worth your time, why are you trying to convince us? You could be out there campaigning for your team among people who might be more receptive.

MattXIV|8.15.07 @ 10:53AM|#

Eric,

Seriously, why do you back Guiliani then? He's only slighly less of a nanny-stater than your average Democrat. His interest in civil liberties seems to be solely in reducing them. On social issues, he's lined himself up fairly well with the Republican line. And on fighting terrorism, his only qualification seems to having been mayor of New York on 9/11 and being willing to repeat that fact ad nauseum. The only place he differs from the candidates you so disdain is that he's for keeping us in Iraq (now that's been an effective intervention!), torturing people, lowering the already low safeguards on gov't surveillence powers, and remaining willfulling ignorant of the political conditions in the Middle East that give rise to terrorism (they hate us for our FREEDOM!!!).

If you're going to be a single issue voter, at least vote for someone who actually seems to have a competent understanding of the issue.

|8.15.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Dondero,

You're going to "pull rank?"

I really, really care not at all about what you were doing last week, last year or last century. Rudy Giuliani is the opposite of a libertarian. By supporting him, you are declaring yourself opposed to libertarianism, at least for the purposes of one election to one office.

Seriously, your "I was there when . . ." is so tiresome.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 10:54AM|#

DONDERROOOOOOO,

Plenty (I would never join the LP, I don't join political entities), but I'm not interested in some numbers-matching game with you. The length of time one has been doing anything is irrelevant if you stop doing it.

You have stopped by supporting Giuliani because you are pissing yourself over the Islamic threat. You are ruled by fear and want someone to protect you.

I think the better question is to ask you how many years of libertarianism are you willing to throw away because of fear?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Can't help it Cracker Boy. Thanks for the encouragement. But it pisses me off to no end that these fucking Newbie assholes TO MY LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!! come in here and start accusing me of "not being a real libertarian."

How fucking dare they!!!

Do you know where I was on Nov. 6 of last year, the day before the election?

I was in Anchorage, Alaska. It was 10 degrees outside, with snow everywhere. I stood on a busy street corner, with my old friend Scott Kohlhaas for 4 hours!! waving a sign for him for his Libertarian campaign for State House.

10 degrees outside! I dare say, you won't find a handful of Libertarians in our movement with that sort of dedication.

And some fuck like Episiarch or Crimethink comes in here and has the audacity to say that I'm "not libertarian."

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 10:54AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Man, that'll never get old. Seriously, though, hiring some people and getting called 'libertarian' by a the media isn't exactly a bonafide dude. Let's see, there was that whole, "let's make New York awesome by being a total dick about non-crime" and the whole, "I'll close your museum down, bitches!" incident. But hey, he's "close" to David Dreier and he, like, hired a lady from PRI, so it's ALL FREEDOM ALL THE TIME!

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|8.15.07 @ 10:55AM|#

So my choice is Clinton or Guiliani? I might close my eyes and blindly grope the touch screen. Your many years of service to the LP make your conversion sad rather than funny. Have fun wiping off your keyboard.

|8.15.07 @ 10:56AM|#

That must make it awfully easy to figure out your position, ChrisO.

I wish I could know what I think about legislation without having to know anything about it.

There is basically no connection between what I posted and your response, joe.

I do have strong ideological principles (and I don't claim to be 100% libertarian). However, I don't see any nexus between that and my knowledge that each and every piece of legislation that makes it out of the congressional sausage factory has significant corporate backing and benefit. Does such backing/benefit mean that I automatically favor or oppose a given piece of legislation? Of course not.

BTW, Dondero, trying to scare us into voting for Giuliani by raising the specter of Hillary isn't very useful. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between them in the ways that count.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 10:57AM|#

And there you have it folks. Pussy-boy Episarch admits to all of us that he's a total Newbie to the libertarian movement, and doesn't even support the Libertarian Party.

Episiarch, what are you doing here? Reason is a libertarian forum. If you're not a libertarian you're just a troll around here.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 10:58AM|#

As bad as Robert Mugabe is, I'm sure that somebody else in his country is even worse.

So clearly the libertarian thing to do is support Mugabe.

|8.15.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Your libertarian movement? You keep conflating the LP with libertarianism as if one defines the other.

Seriously, take pride in your long-time membership in an organization with people who turn themselves blue and guys participate in political debates dressed like the Statue of Liberty.

It still doesn't mean that 9/11 didn't turn you into a bedwetter who wants the next president to tuck him in at night and check the closet for the bogeyman.

robc|8.15.07 @ 11:01AM|#

"MY LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT"

Its his. Thats all I need to know.

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 11:01AM|#

wow dondero is fucking crazy

|8.15.07 @ 11:01AM|#

I do have to praise Dondero for one thing, he's made it through the whole thread without using the F-word. Maybe Rudy's Catholicism is rubbing off on him...

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:02AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO demonstrates that troll feeding can be fun, even if it is ultimately a pointless way to rack up 100+ posts.

robc|8.15.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Eric,

Joe is a libertarian and he isnt a troll. Just wrong. You on the other hand, seem to have some "under the bridge" type qualities.

|8.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#

How's that the case? Last time I checked Rudy Giuliani WAS PRO-CHOICE!!! That is the one civil liberty that I care about most. And he agrees with me. He is absolutely going to protect me on the one civil liberty that matters to me the most.

Uh, Giuliani has pledged to appoint conservative judges and said it would be "OK" to repeal Roe v Wade.

If this is your issue, Giuliani is a strange choice. Any Democract would be better.

robc|8.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#

argh - joe isnt a libertarian.

|8.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#

Myself, I vote for hue.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 11:04AM|#

DONDERROOOOOO...

Well, I must admit, by calling me "pussy-boy", saying I "admit" I am a Newbie (by not playing "I've been here since 1865"), and pointing out that I don't support an ineffective political entity (seeing as I am an anarcho-libertarian, that kills my cred how exactly?), you have totally shown me up.

You sure have me beat, DONDERROOOO; I'm just an idiot opposed to authoritarians and government, while you are the true-blue libertarian who supports authoritarians and civil liberty stealers.

What was I thinking? Thanks so much for setting me straight.

robc|8.15.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Max,

I have to agree. Hillary voted for the war and is more pro-choice than Rudy. Im not sure why she isnt a libertarian too.

|8.15.07 @ 11:05AM|#

When did logic arguments add a seniority clause?

Also, what did Kos mean about corporations polluting his wars?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:06AM|#

Sorry Timothy, but I entirely disagree with you. Yes, hiring someone who is only casually libertarian could be viewed as non-evidence of one's libertarianism. If it was just limited to Steve Forbes, Dreier, and Kudlow, who are fellow travelers at best, (though I'd argue Kudlow is more hardcore libertarian), you'd be right.

BUT IT'S SALLY PIPES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!

You don't get much more libertarian than Sally Pipes. Hell, what do you want? Are you waiting for Giuliani to hire Bob Poole, Virginia Postrel, Brian Doherty, Ed Crane or Dave Boaz before you christine him a "friend of libertarians"?

Can you remember a past Presidential Campaign besides the LP of course, so explicitly identifying themselves with the libertarian movement?

I can't recal "Bush for President 2000" having hired a libertarian Policy Advisor.

Certainly none of the Clinton Campaigns.

Yes, Bush Sr. did appoint Jim Pinkerton. I could be wrong here, but I don't believe Pinkerton was on the Campaign, just on Bush's Presidential Staff.

This is a very, very good sign that Giuliani has surrounded himself with libertarians on his campaign: Forbes (Chief Policy Advisory), David Dreier, Bill Simon (California Chairman - Giuliani for President), and Sally Pipes.

Moreover, I've had some limited dealings with the Giuliani campaign. And everyone I've dealt with, at least 4 people, have described themselves as "libertarian Republicans."

I challenge you to find another Presidential Campaign right now, (besides Kubby or Phillies), that has more self-identified "libertarians" working for them?

I know of only one, that's even on the map. Mitt Romney for President has at least two "libertarians" on staff that I'm aware of. But nobody in top positions like the Giuliani campaign.

Now, I ask you. If Rudy is willing to surround himself with libertarians during his campaign, don't you think that it's safe to say that he might do the same if he is President?

Think about that for a second.

Where do you think Giuliani is going to get his Cabinet choices and Policy Advisors from?

Heritage? I don't think so!

Brookings? Certainly not.

Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, Pacific Reserch Center, Manhattan Inst., James Madison Inst., Macinac Center, Heartland?

Yupper! I'd say that's a very safe bet indeed.

|8.15.07 @ 11:07AM|#

Dondero,

OK, I'm convinced: you must still be a Libertarian in spite of everyone else's current protests to the contrary because I don't think I've ever read anything so aggresively "impolitic" by anyone who self-identifies as a politician.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Glad that I could be of assistance Episiarch.

MattXIV|8.15.07 @ 11:10AM|#

I think Kos is trying to herd libertarians into the Dem base by using the current strong anti-Rep sentiment. The problem is he isn't espousing a believable libertarian-liberal fusionism. I take it for granted that liberals don't want to intervene in my "personal life" as they define it. If you don't believe in at least some sphere of personal liberty, you're not even a liberal. A believeable fusionist response to Rose's question about regulation of corporations would have been to point out that it isn't a simple as more or less and that in some areas regulations need to be rolled back and in others they may need to be expanded.

Brick Cheney|8.15.07 @ 11:11AM|#

i love these two arguments. in a thread where kos calls himself a libertarian, dondero calls giuliani a libertarian for having friends who call themselves libertarian. when did we get so hot?

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Eric-

Who else is he surrounding himself with? And what do those people stand for? Which issues will they have the most influence on?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:13AM|#

He who does the most work and activism for the libertarian movement has the most claim on ownership of the movement.

Thusly, Paul Jacob, Scott Kohlhaas, Jake Whitmer, Bruce Cohen, Phil Blumel, Brian Doherty, Tom Walls, Scott Tillman, Aaron Starr, Leon Drolet, and a handful of others are the most libertarian of all.

Newbies who just sit behind their computer screens all day long, and philosophize, but wouldn't know a stack of Libertarian brochures if it smacked them upside their heads, have no claim whatsoever on ownership of our movement.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Ninety nine posts we have made,
And I have number ninety nine!

|8.15.07 @ 11:14AM|#

You don't get much more libertarian than Sally Pipes. Hell, what do you want? Are you waiting for Giuliani to hire Bob Poole, Virginia Postrel, Brian Doherty, Ed Crane or Dave Boaz before you christine him a "friend of libertarians"?

No, I'm not. If I ever "christine" him a friend of libertarians, it won't be because of the people he hires while still holding authoritarian policy positions.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Shoot, I got number 100. Not ninety nine.

Eric, your point about doing the work is a darn good one. We're just suggesting that you take a look at what you're working on now and ask yourself whether it really fits with what you've done before.

It is possible to get so caught up in trying to defeat something that even those most committed to the cause will forget what the original goal was.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:16AM|#

When Kos picks up a sign for a Libertarian candidate and stands on a street corner all day waving it, then he has the right to call himself a "libertarian." Or, when he busts his ass for some Libertarian Party petition drive in some isolated State somewheres. Or, when he mans a phone bank for libertarian Republican candidates for Congress. Or, actively does something instead of just talking on the internet, then he will have the right to call himself a "libertarian."

Until then, he's just a libertarian-wannabee.

|8.15.07 @ 11:17AM|#

*Luke clings to the vane in the depths of Cloud City, his hand severed by his father's light saber.*

DARTH DONDERO: I'm going to pull rank here as a 38-year veteran of using the Force, (9 years of having elevated midichlorians, 8 years of tutelage under Obi-Wan Kenobi, 21 years as Dark Lord of the Sith, etc.)

Quite frankly, the only person in the Rebel Alliance who I recognize as someone who has been around this power of ours for a long time is Yoda of Dagobah.

I remember Yoda from the Jedi Council meetings on Coruscant. When it comes to the Force, I don't often agree with him, and I'm sure he neither agrees with me.

But I respect him, cause he's been around a long, long time.

He ain't some wet behind the ears Newbie, like the vast majority of you all here.

Now, I could be wrong. Some others here may have been around the Force since the Clone Wars. But I don't recognize any other names.

It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a successful Empire, whatever the Empire, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and purpose" of the Force.

Yoda has the right to diss me, and say he doesn't believe I'm a "true libertarian."

Obi-Wan Kenobi, who has been in this movement, a little bit longer than I have (Obi-Wan was the padawan of Qui-Gon Jinn pre-Clone Wars when I was pod-racing on Tatooine), has that right too.

The rest of you fucks, are complete Newbies to the Force. So climb off that vane and shut up.

Brick Cheney|8.15.07 @ 11:17AM|#

Alan Greenspan was friends with Ayn Rand. Is Alan Greenspan a libertarian?

Edward|8.15.07 @ 11:18AM|#

"...Moulitsas-one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century-thinks there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism."

He doesn't fucking think there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism, you knucklehead. He's using "libertarian" in a normal, non-lunatic-sectarian sense of socially liberal. If you inform most intelligent people of the extemist positions Reason's brand of libertainism takes, they roll their eyes and back away.

This is my absolutely final contribution to this psychopathic forum. Please ban me.

|8.15.07 @ 11:20AM|#

I'm getting in on this threat late so someone tell me. How many drink-inducing phrases has Dondero said so far?

FREEDOM IS AUTHORITY!

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Thoreau, my Gosh, you're being a bit rational. You make a good point.

However, what explains my insanity this morning, is a post at Race42008.com (my favorite site), which shows Hillary Clinton now ahead of all Republicans, including Giuliani in Florida.

She leads Rudy by 5 points 49 to 44. She leads Fred Thompson by 12 points I believe. And Romney and the rest, she's crushing them.

Folks, if Hillary Clinton is winning in Florida, it's all over. The Republicans cannot win without Florida.

Rudy is our best chance. Perhaps our only chance. But even with Rudy, it's going to be an enormous struggle.

If we don't rally around Rudy quick, our entire Nation will go to the shits in the next four years.

Think major economic depression brought about by huge tax increases.

Think completely socialized health care, that's mandatory for all Americans.

Think Radical Islamic Immams flying on planes from Minneapolis to Denver, and scaring the shit out of the passengers with their Prayers to Allah, 5 minutes before boarding time.

Think stringent political correctness codes on all college campuses outlawing "hate speech" by such entities as the College Republicans.

Think the Fairness Doctrine.

That's what we are in for, if we don't all stop this foolishness of Rudy-bashing, and start rallying behind the only guy that stands a chance against the very worst human being ever to seek the Presidency of the United States.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 11:22AM|#

DONDERROOOOO,

Please, spare us the endless old fart references to you standing on streetcorners. Seeing the state of the LP today, you don't exactly have much to brag about, especially if your method of convincing people was the same as you use here. "Join us you fucking newbie morons" isn't particularly effective.

I don't give two shits how many leaflets you handed out. The only relevant issue is WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR NOW.

You stand for an authoritarian ex-prosecutor who abused his power (and we can therefore assume he would abuse Presidential power).

Mm-kay?

|8.15.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Yoda has the right to diss me, and say he doesn't believe I'm a "true libertarian."

Argh. The above should end with "Jedi", not "libertarian."

|8.15.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Dondero--

The choice is between a bully (Rudy) and a nanny (Hillary). Its like choosing between electrocution and drowning, and you are saying ELECTROCUTION IS OUR ONLY CHOICE!!!!!

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:26AM|#

Eric, I thought the whole idea of a 3rd party was to break out of the "bad vs. worse" dichotomy. You've been very committed to that before, so why are you now advocating for "really bad" or "at least as bad"?

|8.15.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Oh, and if Bush hadn't been such an incompetent buffoon the past 7 years, maybe Hillary wouldn't be leading. Guess its what you get for goose-stepping behind The Great Commander In Chief Of Us All until the last minute.

|8.15.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Think Radical Islamic Immams flying on planes from Minneapolis to Denver, and scaring the shit out of the passengers with their Prayers to Allah, 5 minutes before boarding time.

Is Rudy going to issue a blanket no-pray order enforced by the TSA?

brian|8.15.07 @ 11:29AM|#

ED
Imagine how much more Republican (or Libertarian) [sic] our country would be if Military guys actually voted.

Yes, because we all know how the military (read: "50% of the entire government") is full of hardcore libertarians.

I wonder what the results would be if you polled the military to see how they felt about civil liberties vs. military power. My guess: not so hot on civil liberties.

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

On another note, some smart regulation of externalities is an acceptable libertarian position, as Fluffy explains above:

Fluffy
It's not a priori a non-libertarian position to favor control of pollutants in the air and water. Those things pass the property line. If you're doing something on your property that fucks up the air over my property or the water under it, you can't argue that your property rights allow you to do this.

Similarly, some very light consumer protection laws are acceptable to substitute for imperfect information. For example, banning transfats is stupid, but making sure that companies tell their customers what they're buying is justified. It's not the government's job to make peoples' choices for them, but people should be able to know what the consequences of their choices are. Otherwise, they're getting more than they bargained for (e.g. poison in their toothpaste).

|8.15.07 @ 11:30AM|#

"The Republicans cannot win without Florida."

They've done more than enough to earn a two-minute stint in the box.

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 11:31AM|#

because he believes the threat posed by muslim extremists is a greater one than the erosion of personal liberties that has taken place over the past 6 years.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:34AM|#

No Episairch, you are dead wrong. The only thing that matters IS HOW MUCH WORK YOU DO FOR THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not the fact that you can cite every chapter of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead by heart. Or, the fact that you can get in an on-line forum and argue better than anyone the justification of privatizing local garbage collection.

What counts is your willingness and ability to get your ass out from behind that computer screen, and go knock on some doors in your neighborhood for local Libertarian Party or libertarian Republican candidates for office.

As you all know, I can't stand the Ron Paul people. But I grudgingly have respect for them. They get out there in Iowa and other places and wave signs for their man Ron Paul.

That's how it's done.

If you ain't a libertarian activist, you ain't worth shit in our movement.

We've got far too many policy wankers as it is. So, step aside, and don't waste the time of the rest of us who actually do all of the work.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Episiarch, I'm actually a Libertarian-Republican.

Those "efforts on street corners" that you diss, got Leon Drolet elected 3 times to the Michigan State Legislature.

And incidentally, got Ron Paul elected 4 times to the US Congress. (I served as Ron's Campaign Coordiator the first time in 1996).

So, go ahead and diss all the political efforts you want. Without them we'll never have any progress for the libertarian movement at all.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:39AM|#

Eric-

Fair enough, you have the street cred of doing the work. I give you props.

Now, what are you working for? Presumably you are working to persuade people to support certain actions and advance certain causes.

I will state the obvious and note that you aren't being very persuasive here. And that's doubly disappointing given that you are apparently an experienced hand in libertarian activism, and supposedly familiar with the arts of persuasion and engagement.

|8.15.07 @ 11:42AM|#

"If you ain't a libertarian activist, you ain't worth shit in our movement."

The above statement embodies the failure of the Libertarian Party. Voters aren't worth shit in the movement.

|8.15.07 @ 11:43AM|#

From the way hes describing it the Libertarian Party seems more like a combination debating society and cult rather than you know, a political party.

|8.15.07 @ 11:44AM|#

I fear neither Clinton nor terrorists enough to vote for someone who showed plenty of disdain for the concepts of limited government and the rule of law in his years in government. I think that's plain enough. I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Incidentally, redefining libertarian to the point that you are no longer a libertarian cuts short any "seniority" claims. How does the LP or the RLC feel about Giuliani? What about Cato? Or Reason? To the extent that there is a mainstream in libertarian thinking, it certainly doesn't view Giuliani as its prophet or see the surrender of liberties as justified by the limited terrorist threat.

I've been a libertarian since oh, around 1982. Not that that matters. I'm also a possible relative of William Wallace, so only I and my clan members can talk about FREEEEE-DOOOOOM :)

Being pro-choice doesn't make you a libertarian. Wanting to take drugs doesn't make you a libertarian. Believing in the right of individuals to live as free as possible and in the need to dramatically limit the power of government--that's what makes you a libertarian.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 11:49AM|#

Honestly, DONDERROOOOOOO, I find it amazing that you claom to be a libertarian at all considering the collectivism of your comments, such as "my movement", and "you aint't worth shit in our movement."

I didn't realize that libertarianism was a collectivist club where I had to get permission from senior members (such as yourself?) to join.

Oh wait, it's not. So again, your claims of street corner blizzards mean nothing to me. Tell it to someone who cares if you give approval or not.

|8.15.07 @ 11:50AM|#

Damn. I agree with Pro Libertate too. AND Eric. I pretty much agree with everybody here... well, except joe, of course.

So... what to do now? Vote! Eric votes for the lesser of two evils. I'll continue to (waste my) vote (voting for) the person I believe would be the RIGHT person... not just the BETTER person.

CB

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 11:51AM|#

Guys, stop teasing the Dondero. It's mean. It's not his fault that his candidate of choice violates the fundamentals of libertarianism at every turn. He's scared of Muslims, and scared people can't act rationally. He's been in a full-blown panic for 6 years now, which shows no signs of abating. Who among you wouldn't lose the capacity for rational thought in the face of 9/11? Seriously people. 9/11!!1!

Only ruthless authoritarianism can assuage that kind of panic.

Urkobold™|8.15.07 @ 11:57AM|#

FOOLS! GIULIANI, LIKE ZOD, RECOGNIZES THAT FREEDOM IS ABOUT AUTHORITY. ZOD AND GIULIANI NEED A GREAT DEAL OF FREEDOM TO DECIDE HOW BEST TO RULE YOU.

KNEEL IN LIBERTY!

|8.15.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Oh Great URKOBOLD, I believe Eric needs your wisdom in a new book on Libertarianism.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 12:08PM|#

So, lunchstealer, 3000 of your fellow American citizens dead, is nothing to you huh?

Just another day in New York City, (or DC), 'eh?

Radical Muslims blow up a suitcase nuke in Houston or L.A., not a problem, huh? So what 20,000 dead, and another 50,000 dying from radiation poison. Big deal.

dhex|8.15.07 @ 12:08PM|#

"
They see our big-busted Blonde women and they go apeshit, cause they know they can get any of it. They come home and turn on their TVs, and there's even more big-busted Blond women staring at them. They drive around town, and the Billboards have big-busted Blonde women."

oh my god fuck guliani I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU PRESIDENT.

i will stand on street corners 30 degrees below zero while socialists surround me in a giant seething circle of hate (and lust!) and scream their bloody effete liberal latte drinking terrorist loving heads off. i will walk from sea to shining sea to get you elected because you are the most transcendentally lucid (RIP, RAW) choice for president since pigasus.

|8.15.07 @ 12:09PM|#

Wow.

And I thought trolls were bad.

I've never witnessed a Holier than thou Libertain on this board before.

Can someone get in touch with Jaunita or Jersey McJones and see if they want to come back here?

dhex|8.15.07 @ 12:09PM|#

eric, have you ever actually been to new york city, or do you just jerk it to pictures of the crater?

just fyi, as i am your new campaign manager after all.

|8.15.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Eric, pop quiz, how many people die on our highways every day?

How many people are murdered by good, red-blooded Americans every year?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Wrong Pro Liberate, what your describing is Radical Libertarian. Libertarian does not mean that one needs to bow down at the alter of L. Neil Smith, Rothbard, or Sam Konkin.

It means EVERYONE who scores above 60/60 on the WSPQ, and that includes Moderate Libertarians, as well, like David Dreier, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, and even Arnold.

|8.15.07 @ 12:15PM|#

It means EVERYONE who scores above 60/60 on the WSPQ, and that includes Moderate Libertarians, as well, like David Dreier, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, and even Arnold.

Just like all shapes with three or more sides count as hexagons.

|8.15.07 @ 12:26PM|#

"3000 of your fellow American citizens dead, is nothing to you huh?"

...but capitalizing on it, making it your brand = ticket to the presidency.

|8.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Radical Muslims blow up a suitcase nuke in Houston or L.A., not a problem, huh? So what 20,000 dead, and another 50,000 dying from radiation poison. Big deal.

Holy shit!!! When the fuck did that happen?! I seriously need to cut back on the video games.

|8.15.07 @ 12:45PM|#

No, that's not what I'm describing. I'm hardly a radical libertarian, which, in my mind, would put me somewhere in or near the anarchist camp. I'm more in the utilitarian category, although I think libertarianism has moral and philosophical foundations equally as important as their usefulness in promoting human prosperity and happiness.

I want limited government, not no government. Giuliani, no matter how many times you say it, is no libertarian. Not being a socialist isn't enough to earn that label. Look upthread to his lovely statements about freedom. Nah, I'm not the "radical" here.

|8.15.07 @ 12:47PM|#

I think believing that it is the role--nay, the duty--of the United States to impose "democracy" on countries that are not ready for it culturally or developmentally is the only "radical" idea here.

|8.15.07 @ 12:53PM|#

STANDING IN 15 DEGREE WEATHER ON A STREET CORNER IN SOME TINY TOWN IN WESTERN NEBRASKA IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER BEGGING FOR SIGNATURES FOR LIBERTARIAN PARTY BALLOT ACCESS!!

Go cry, emo boy.

The rest of you fucks, are complete Newbies [sic]to our movement. So sit down and shut up.

The fact that 25 years ago you actually were a libertarian doesn't mean a damn thing now. The difference between you and me isn't 13 years, but that I'm not betraying libertarianism and clinging desperately to a strongman.

|8.15.07 @ 12:54PM|#

I just made up "new liberal."

I was going for the difference between a New Dealer or post-New Dealer and a post-Clinton liberal.

Deficits, welfare reform (of one variety or another), job training vs. protectionism, that sort of thing.

Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Dondero, 3000 dead Americans or 20000 dead Americans might upset me, but it would not lead me to want to give up one fucking sentence from the Bill of Rights. Zero. Zip. Nada.

It wouldn't make me want to torture one single person.

Your suitcase nuke might make me want to drop some bombs somewhere, but something tells me it wouldn't make me want to drop bombs on some country that had nothing to do with it.

And you can really just stop trying to scare me with the ooga-booga Hillary Clinton blowup doll you're carrying around. By any reasonable measurement, the first Clinton Presidency was much, much more libertarian than W's Presidency. Since Giuliani proclaims every day that he wants nothing better than to be a repeat of the W Presidency, why do you think you can scare me with the C word?

I'm really much less concerned about a haughty bitch who might raise the minimum wage another dollar an hour than I am about a gang of psychotics who masturbate while watching the torture scenes in 24, and think we should rebuild our legal system around them.

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 12:56PM|#

So, lunchstealer, 3000 of your fellow American citizens dead, is nothing to you huh?

Just another day in New York City, (or DC), 'eh?

Actually, the current death toll is more like 3600, with over 27000 wounded. When you throw in British and other Coalition casualties, the total approaches 4000 dead. And yeah, it pisses me off.

|8.15.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Libertarian does not mean that one needs to bow down at the alter of L. Neil Smith, Rothbard, or Sam Konkin.

No...

It means EVERYONE who scores above 60/60 on the WSPQ, and that includes Moderate Libertarians, as well, like David Dreier, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, and even Arnold.

No.

See, this is why I hate the LP - it's full of guys like Dondero who will straight-facedly tell you things like this, or that 60% of Americans are essentially libertarian, or whatever...but who will jump ship for a Red on a moment's notice. (And yeah, people running seminars on how the income tax is voluntary, and Blue Druids, but mostly guys like Dondero.)

Maybe we're just missing a detail. Dondero's not telling us he's still libertarian, he's telling us he's still LP. Now, I completely believe that.

|8.15.07 @ 1:10PM|#

joe,

So you're a neo-lib? Or a retro-prog? Prog-rock? A gliberal? Glitter-glameral?

Incidentally, 9/11 pissed me off, too. And I think that, for sure, invading Afghanistan afterwards was the right decision. Iraq was much less justifiable, but if we'd simply toppled the government and retained a presence, I think I would've understood the reasons behind that--even if I didn't agree.

What doesn't work for me is building a security state that lacks accountability to the people and that views civil liberties and limited government as nothing more than inconveniences to be brushed aside. We're being asked to tolerate more than we did through much of the Cold War. Remember that? Nuclear Armageddon? Active competition between competing isms? Big country on the other side? The terrorist threat is real, but it is also quite limited and totally minuscule when compared to the threats we've faced in the past.

dhex|8.15.07 @ 1:13PM|#

YES BUT THEY'RE BROWN PEOPLE OH GOD NOT LIKE THOSE SANE COMMUNISTS

|8.15.07 @ 1:22PM|#

I've never witnessed a Holier than thou Libertain on this board before.

Not to mention one who's demanding you support the worst serious hopeful out there.

That's fuckin' surreal.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Sorry Pro-Liberate, the Terrorist threat and more importantly, the threat from Radical Islam, is the greatest threat this country has ever faced, even eclipsing Hitler and the Soviet Union.

Never before has 3,000 Americans been killed by a foreign force on US Soil. Not even when the British stormed DC in the War of 1812.

Not too mention all the continuous attacks on Americans from Muslim extremists: Beltway Snipers, LAX El Al Airport shooting, Salt Lake City Mall shooting, Jewish Community Center in Seattle, Fort Dix plot, the Miami 7 (now we're learning that the Miami plot was far more insidious than first reported.)

I don't recall any Soviets killing Americans at shopping malls.

Yes, there were a couple Nazi U-Boat crews who got lost on some desolate roads on the North Carolina coast. But the worst they ever did was hold an old couple in a Lighthouse hostage for 2 hours.

Muslim Radicals are literally slaughtering Americans in our streets.

Minion of URKOBOLD|8.15.07 @ 1:23PM|#

oh. hay hai guys. what's going on?

Anything cool happening? What's the haps?

OMG!OMG!OMG! DDDOOONNNNDDDDEREEREREROOOROOOOOOO

could you pretty pretty pretty please sing the chorus to your 1991 smash hit, "you're unbelievable"??? huh? huh? huh? OMG!OMG!OMG! it's really him!!!

c'mon

the things
you say
your purple prose just gives you away...

c'mon...

*crickets.*

*trods back to wooded grove, sobbing quietly.

|8.15.07 @ 1:24PM|#

I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas-one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century-thinks there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism. That's not bad.

Well, I'm not sure it's good, either. Conservatism used to be small-government philosophy held only by a small contingent of cranks, too.

Then it became popular to call oneself a conservative.

Sure enough, now we have plenty of people who call themselves conservatives holding public office.

But how many of them should be mentioned in the same breath as Barry Goldwater? And who's actually happy about them being in power, regardless of what they call themselves?

|8.15.07 @ 1:26PM|#

I'm perfectly fine with anybody who wants more freedom in their lives calling themselves "libertarian".

"libertarian Democrat" or "libertarian liberal" is a no brainer.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Eric the 5B,

Actually I'm more RLC than LP. In fact, I'm the guy who founded the RLC.

The LP is great, but only as a tool to bang the GOP over the head with when they stray too far away from libertarianism into social conservatism/Religious Right land.

|8.15.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Muslim Radicals are literally slaughtering Americans in our streets.

Holy shit! Where?

Wait...they aren't.

Six years ago, 19 people (most from a country your Red friends don't want to so much as gently admonish) killed a large number of Americans. That passage of time justifies the use of the past tense.

I'm not diminishing or minimizing anything, but your reaction isn't rational or appropriate. Such panic, especially perpetual panic, is certainly not libertarian in any way.

|8.15.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Sorry Pro-Liberate, the Terrorist threat and more importantly, the threat from Radical Islam, is the greatest threat this country has ever faced, even eclipsing Hitler and the Soviet Union.

No, but I think the people willing to buy into a claim like that just might turn out to be.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Eric the 5B, just to make sure I've got you correctly here, you are actually saying out of 25 some major party Presidential candidates, the guy who just hired libertarian think tank Director Sally Pipes to be his Top Policy Advisor, the guy who calls Socialized Medicine "Nanny State Health Care," the guy who has a record of cutting taxes 23 times as Mayor, the guy that's being backed by such libertarian conservative stalwarts like Steve Forbes, Bill Simon, David Dreier, and Larry Kudlow, the guy who libertarian-leaning Club for Growth gave their very highest ratings too, this is the "very worst" candidate?

I think you may have to re-examine your self-definiton of "libertarian." You sound more like a confused Fascist to me.

|8.15.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Actually I'm more RLC than LP. In fact, I'm the guy who founded the RLC.

The RLC is one of the big things that always convinced me that libertarianism had no hope of accomplishing anything in Team Red.

|8.15.07 @ 1:33PM|#

I think you may have to re-examine your self-definiton of "libertarian." You sound more like a confused Fascist to me.

You use these words, Dondero. You do not seem to know what they mean, anymore.

The sad thing is that I'm willing to believe that you once did.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:36PM|#

You're right there lunchstealer. My mistake. The current death toll is closer to 3,600.

In my original number I forgot to include the 300 who died in the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. And I forgot the 6 who were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. And the 93 who were killed in Oklahoma City by the dupes for Islamic Radicals (and Iraqi Intelligence) McVeigh and Nichols, and the 37 sailors killed on the USS Starke by Saddam's Forces in the late 1980s, and the 28 killed on the USS Cole in 2000, and Daniel Pearle, and the countless other Americans killed individually by Muslim Radicals around the world.

Thanks for reminding me.

|8.15.07 @ 1:38PM|#

you are actually saying out of 25 some major party Presidential candidates,

No, of the serious hopefuls, the ones that might actually get a nom.

the guy who just hired libertarian think tank Director Sally Pipes to be his Top Policy Advisor, the guy who calls Socialized Medicine "Nanny State Health Care," the guy who has a record of cutting taxes 23 times as Mayor, the guy that's being backed by such libertarian conservative stalwarts like Steve Forbes, Bill Simon, David Dreier, and Larry Kudlow, the guy who libertarian-leaning Club for Growth gave their very highest ratings too

And the guy who takes claim for this.

Careful, there are many words in there, Dondero, and I know you find words confusing.

But Yeah. Right now - dead worst. He's actually managed to make himself clearly worse than Hillary Clinton, which should earn him some sort of perverse medal.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Panic isn't appropritate???!!!

Tell that to the students at the University of North Carolina, who now have to look over their shoulders every time they walk on the campus green, after that crazed Muslim drove that SUV over 8 of them 3 years ago.

Or tell that to the Jews of Seattle! I was recently in Seattle and passed by the Jewish Community Center. It was like an armed fortress. How do you think the women who were gunned down and the family of the one women who died, feel now when they visit the Center?

Feel safe these days when you visit suburban shopping malls in Salt Lake City?

And tell me all you Marylanders and Virginians out there, that once in a while when you're gassing up at a convenience store the thought doesn't cross your mind that Muslim extremist John Muhammed picked off gas station customers one by one, in 2002.

And it can happen to Libertarians too.

Here's an interesting factoid that's been swept under the rug by the libertarian media.

One of John Muhammed's victims was a Libertarian. That's right. Remember the very first shooting at that Alabama liquor store? Killed a Filipina woman, and the other woman was severely wounded in the neck but managed to survive. Well, that woman was the wife of the then Alabama Libertarian Party Vice-Chairman.

Nah, no reason to panic.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Eric Dondero-

I'm willing to believe that on certain economic issues your guy will be better than many of the alternatives.

Now, care to comment on civil liberties?

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Eric Dondero-

How many non-Muslims have shot people on US soil, or run people over with cars?

|8.15.07 @ 1:43PM|#

The current death toll is closer to 3,600.

Plus the (at least) many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed because we wanted to play Civilization IV in the Middle East...badly. People are getting killed by radical Muslims sticking power drills in their guts because of this.

And you want more, faster.

|8.15.07 @ 1:44PM|#

And the 93 who were killed in Oklahoma City by the dupes for Islamic Radicals (and Iraqi Intelligence) McVeigh and Nichols

WTF!?!?!

|8.15.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Actually I'm more RLC than LP. In fact, I'm the guy who founded the RLC.

Really? I don't see the RLC endorsing the war or shilling for Giuliani, either. Perhaps you could explain what, if any, connection you have with the RLC now.

I think you may have to re-examine your self-definiton of "libertarian." You sound more like a confused Fascist to me.

At least he doesn't sound like he's batshit insane. Which puts him a step ahead of you, anyway.

Oy!

|8.15.07 @ 1:47PM|#

Eric,

No. The fact that a major terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil doesn't magically make Islamic terrorism a greater threat than Russian communism or German Nazism. The capacity of Islamic terrorists to wage a sustained "war" against us is quite limited. I'm constantly surprised that people with your world view make this sort of statement--it's clearly wrong.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't deal with the terrorist threat. Trying to make this an either-or decision is silly. Even Paul has never said that we should ignore threats from the Middle East.

Giuliani's record, overall, is piss-poor. . .if you care about libertarian values, that is. I don't care about tax cuts if government power keeps expanding and spending keeps growing--by that argument, Bush is a libertarian.

Go hide under your bed if you're that scared. I'm comfortable that the vast economic, military, industrial, and cultural superiority of the West will protect us much more than acting like some cave-dwellers with too much cash on their hands can truly hurt us. We're a free and open society. That makes us vulnerable. But that same freeness and openness makes us an unbeatable adversary. People like you will kill the golden goose--not some terrorists.

|8.15.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Panic isn't appropritate???!!!

No.

Only a statist thinks panic is holy or a justification for policy. If you'd actually paid attention for the last 25 years of libertarianism, you'd know it's against letting panic rule on a fundamental level, whether honest, manufactured, or as in your case, absurdly prolonged.

Moreover, only a dumbass statist thinks that the answer to every point made against him is to scream that everyone should be PANIKING!!@!!!

Good grief, man, are you intentionally aping every wild-eyed "list of random incidents"-style attempt to scare people to your cause that idiots from the prayer-in-schools folks to gun-grabbers to MADD use?

|8.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Panic isn't appropritate???!!!

I hear they're doing wonderful things with Paxil these days.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Only a statist thinks panic is holy or a justification for policy. If you'd actually paid attention for the last 25 years of libertarianism, you'd know it's against letting panic rule on a fundamental level, whether honest, manufactured, or as in your case, absurdly prolonged.

QTMFT.

|8.15.07 @ 1:58PM|#

If there is a threat, it is reason to panic.

Gee, I wonder why the people Eric loves keep losing wars.

|8.15.07 @ 1:59PM|#

That was AWESOME, Eric!

Now do black people!

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 1:59PM|#

Fluffy, "some country that had nothing to do with 9/11". You're obviously a victim of Leftwing media propoganda, probably from Daily Kos.

1. The one Terrorist - Abdul Yasin - who escaped the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing fled to Iraq. He was given a luxorious home in Tikrit and a monthly salary by Saddam Hussein.

2. In 1998 Al Qaeda operatives trained at the Salman Pac Terrorist Training Camp, 20 miles south of Baghdad.

3. In 1999, Osama bin Laden's Top Operatives met with a Senior Iraqi Intelligence official in Kandahar.

4. Muhammed Attah was seen meeting with Iraqi Intelligence officials on at least 2 occasions in Prague in the late 1990s.

5. Zarcawi, Bin Laden's Top International Terrorist, was given shelter and free medical care in Baghdad in 2002, after he was wounded by American troops in Afghanistan.

6. The Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was used as a meeting place in 2001 between Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence officials.

7. In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the US and said in debriefings that there was direct cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraqi Inteligence.

8. Bin Laden purchased poison gas from the Iraqis several times between 1997-2000.

9. Documents uncovered immediately after the fall of Baghdad indicated that Saddam funded Al Qaeda in Sub-Saharan Africa group known as the "Allied Democratic Forces."

10. And the strongest link of all, there was an active Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Camp in a Pro-Saddam semi-autonomous region of Northeastern Iraq on the border with Iraq, called Ansar al-Islam, until our special forces cleared them out with the Iraqi invasion early in the War in 2003. Ansar al-Islam was founded by a top Bin Laden associate Mullah Melan Krekar. In 2001, Krekar received a direct "gift" of $300,000 from Bin Laden to expressly "undertake Jihad and kill Americans."

|8.15.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Should numbered lists be part of the drinking game?

|8.15.07 @ 2:06PM|#

You're obviously a victim of Leftwing media propoganda, probably from Daily Kos.

Dondero, all the remotely serious Reds backed off of those claims years ago.

Why are you so hyped on Iraq myths, anyway? Bin Laden is/was not an Iraqi. None of the 9/11 hijackers who traumatized you were Iraqi. Iraq is full of terrorists and guerrillas today because your Red friends made it so. There was another country, a kingdom as it happens, very close to Iraq where most of the hijackers and most of the funding for Al Queda came from. I think you know which country that is.

Why do you tolerate your fellow Reds snuggling up to that country, Dondero?

|8.15.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Should numbered lists be part of the drinking game?

I don't think they happen often enough, but it won't hurt anyone's feelings if you use that rule. :D

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Eric Dondero-

Given your long history of libertarian activism, here's a question: What do you think makes for a good, persuasive sales pitch? What do you think is the best way to persuade somebody to vote for your candidate or support your policies?

|8.15.07 @ 2:10PM|#

One question, Dondero.

The LP is great, but only as a tool to bang the GOP over the head with when they stray too far away from libertarianism into social conservatism/Religious Right land.

Do you really, seriously not see the GOP as "stray[ing] too far away from libertarianism" in any other way than getting over-excitedly Christian? You look at Team Red, you look at the Bush administration, and you don't see any authoritarian impulses or any disregard for civil liberties, the common law, or basic human rights?

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Eric the 5b, you are correct. Not a single one of the 19 hijackers was Iraqi.

But every single one of the individuals who attacked the USS Starke killing 37 US Sailors in the late 1980s was Iraqi.

As I've mentioned above, the one individual who escaped the US in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing fled to Iraq, and was given safe haven.

Iraqi Intelligence plotted to kill former President George Bush in 1993 on his visit to Kuwait.

Iraqi fighter jets repeatedly shot at US fighters in the No Fly Zone for more than a decade.

Saddam was well on his way towards building a nuclear program and had threatened to use nukes against his enemies.

And if you've forgotten, Saddam Hussein and his Forces invaded a completely autonomous Nation - Kuwait, and terrorized and brutally murdered its people for over a year to annex the country and profit from its oil revenues.

And, many of us believe and there's extremely strong evidence to indicate (Read Jayna Davis' book The Third Terrorist), that Iraqi Intelligence were behind the Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 93 Americans in 1995.

I'd say that that's more than enough justification to invade Iraq.

|8.15.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Eric Dondero: your ties are mostly bullshit.

Re: "The one Terrorist - Abdul Yasin - who escaped the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing fled to Iraq. He was given a luxorious home in Tikrit and a monthly salary by Saddam Hussein."

Oh no, Saddam the evil bastard didn't just give Yasin protection or shelter, he have him a "luxurious home." What an insult! Of course, Iraq offered numerous times to hand over Yasin in exchange for lifting sanctions, so I'm not sure how awesome the "luxury" house was. Besides, it's a bit disingenuous of you to fail to mention that Yasin grew up in Iraq. You make it sound like some terrorist training camp, when it was really his hometown. Now I see why people associate you with irrationality.

I could go on, but most of your Al Qaeda connections to Saddam have been so well debunked I don't want to waste the bandwidth.

There's nothing more disgusting than a grumpy old SOB who thinks repeating garbage he sees at right wing sites constitutes proof.

9/11 truthers and you aren't that different.

|8.15.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Eric the .5b,

I was really thinking about how the "Islamicists are coming to kill your grandma, like right now!" types always dump huge numbered lists on the board when they show up. And it's really more about the list dump that is clearly not written on the cuff, but lurks in a text document in case the poster needs it. Maybe info dumps trigger drinks?

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 2:17PM|#

"And the 93 who were killed in Oklahoma City by the dupes for Islamic Radicals (and Iraqi Intelligence) McVeigh and Nichols,"

Yeah i think this statement needs explanation

Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Dondero, W himself says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe you didn't hear him say that because the slurping noises you made as you fellated him were too loud.

In fact, I'd expect you to know enough to realize that the entire reason Bush promulgated a policy of pre-emption was to faciliate attacks on states that were not involved in 9/11 [i.e. Iraq]. If Iraq had been involved in 9/11, there would have been no need to discuss a policy of pre-emptive attack. Our attack on Iraq would have been a plain old response to a causus belli.

"Sorry Pro-Liberate, the Terrorist threat and more importantly, the threat from Radical Islam, is the greatest threat this country has ever faced, even eclipsing Hitler and the Soviet Union."

The fact that you would say something this idiotic makes it safe to disregard any future foreign policy statement you might make, ever.

The Axis powers and the Soviet Union were credible threats to the United States as a political entity. No circumstance or chain of circumstances outside of a fucking science fiction novel could make any Muslim state or combination of states a threat to the existence of the United States as a political entity. We could have a 9/11 a year for the foreseeable future and it wouldn't make Islam remotely as great a threat as the Axis or the Soviet bloc was.

|8.15.07 @ 2:18PM|#

I don't want corporations polluting my air and war either. I want both air and war to be completely pollution-free.

|8.15.07 @ 2:20PM|#

"that Iraqi Intelligence were behind the Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 93 Americans in 1995."

Oh, the guy is batshit insane. My bad. I guess now that I know that info, I'm not surprised he was affiliated with the Libertarian Party.

|8.15.07 @ 2:24PM|#

"If there is a threat, it is reason to panic."

And once again, the essential problem isn't policy--it's that the opposition isn't sufficiently frightened.

...We're just not shakin' in our boots enough for them.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Fair question Eric the 5B.

The only way I can answer that is to say that with just about every civil liberty issue around today, it's the Republicans who side with libertarians, while the Democrats are the ones pushing their Nanny-State/Pruditarian laws.

Any Califorians on this List? I'm sure you can back me up on this one.

Who is it that's pushing to outlaw smoking in all public parks, on all state beaches, and even in your own car in the Golden State? That's right: Democrat State Assemblymen.

And who is it that's leading the fight against these intrusions? Right again! Republican State Assemblyman like Mike Vilnius from Fresno.

Anyone from Arizona on this List?

Who is it that pushed for the outlawing of the infamous "Silver Sexy Lady with the Big Boobs" insignias on the mudflaps of all Trucks licensed in the State of Arizona, the last legislative session?

Chu-ching! Right again. The Top Democrat State Legislators in the State. One of them even said, "We have to protect the children and the morals of all Arizonans."

And who was it that opposed the bill? The Republican minority.

In Alaska, who was it that was leading the drive to outlaw all smoking in bars and bingo halls last year? Liberal Democrats on the Anchorage Borough Assembly. And who was it that was backing the Libertarian efforts to repeal the ban? Right again, local Republicans!

Seat belt laws? Anyone want to take a guess as to who are pushing restrictive seat belt laws across the US? Democrats! And who are the only ones standing up to increased penalties? Republicans.

Gun rights? Ending Affirmative Action laws in States like Michigan? Stopping politically correct speech codes on college campus nationwide?

Oh, and here's a juicy one. Who is it that's screaming to bring back the Military Draft in Congress?

"Good time" Chaaaaaaaaaarlie Wrangel!!

And what political party affiliation does Good time Charlie have?

You guessed it right again. DEMOCRAT!

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Merv, he's refering to a conspiracy theory (in this case I do not necessarily use the term pejoratively) which posits that McVeigh was supported in his bombmaking plot by Islamic terrorists. I don't honestly know how much solid evidence there is for that claim, but I certainly think that barring some clear evidence to the contrary, the blame goes with the trigger man, who is clearly an American citizen.

|8.15.07 @ 2:25PM|#

But every single one of the individuals who attacked the USS Starke killing 37 US Sailors in the late 1980s was Iraqi.

Uh, yeah, emphasis on "single one" - there's not much evidence that the attack was due to anything but pilot incompetence, considering this was back when you Reds loved Saddam.

And if you've forgotten, Saddam Hussein and his Forces invaded a completely autonomous Nation - Kuwait, and terrorized and brutally murdered its people for over a year to annex the country and profit from its oil revenues.

Emphasis added. It was less than half a year from the initial invasion to the end of Desert Storm.

Saddam was well on his way towards building a nuclear program and had threatened to use nukes against his enemies.

People might buy that if the best evidence of "WMDs" found in Iraq wasn't decade-old artillery shells for delivering gas.

But not these, nor your other points even taken together remotely justify the invasion or the costs we and the Iraqis have paid for it.

|8.15.07 @ 2:26PM|#

lunchstealer--

Saying Tim McVeigh had contacts with Al Qaeda is right up there with the people who claimed the gunman and Virginia Tech was really a Muslim.

|8.15.07 @ 2:27PM|#

And northern Iraq (The Kurdish area!!) is pro-Saddam??

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:30PM|#

The Janya Davis book "The Third Terrorist" has been endorsed by numerous Intelligence officials including former CIA Director James Woolsey.

For those who are unaware, Ms. Davis was the Investigative Reporter for the local OKC CBS TV News affiliate. She was the first on the scene immediately after the bombing.

She has chronicled 25 eyewitness accounts of those close to the bombing who witnessed a "Man of Arab descent" fleeing the scene with McVeigh. This included a sitting OKC City Councilman and his two staffers.

Davis has been a guest on countless TV shows including O'Reilly, and CNN over the years.

|8.15.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Remember: Muslims have no civil liberties, according to Eric, except the liberty to smoke in buildings.

|8.15.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Sorry Pro-Liberate, the Terrorist threat and more importantly, the threat from Radical Islam, is the greatest threat this country has ever faced, even eclipsing Hitler and the Soviet Union.

!!!! What?

I'm sorry, the Soviet Union had you know, real, live, actual nuclear warheads targeted at American cities for decades. They also were a continent sized superpower with millions of trained men in their army, tanks, missles, and a huge navy and air force. They also had a vast industrial, technical, and sceintific base to help project their power. This is on level with some people in a cave, how?

|8.15.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Timothy McVeigh, Ronald McDonald and Bin Laden walk into a bar. The Bartender, nodding his head, says: "They hire you to replace Dondero?"

|8.15.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Eric, now please tell us how these men have some kind of uber-secret connection to Islam!

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Cesar, you need to read my post more closely.

Yes, the Ansar al-Islam Al Qaeda Training Base was in Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish area, geographically.

However, the immediate local area was controlled by a renegage Pro-Saddam Loyalist Tribal Leader. The area was a Pro-Saddam semi-autonomous region. And that means autonomous from the Kurds, but a Saddam stronghold.

|8.15.07 @ 2:33PM|#

It was an area outside of central government control.

There are terrorist training camps that are much more dangerous in Pakistan, but you guys loooooooove Musharraf!

Oh, for fuck\'s sake...|8.15.07 @ 2:33PM|#

It's much more than that. These people are in a rage against American values of openess and tolerance.

"Muslims do not hate 'our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objection to what they see as our one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states….the dramatic narrative since 9/11has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars."

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Cesar, perhaps this slipped your mind. But Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan is an Islamic nation.

And some say Syria secretly has nukes, and perhaps the nukes that were formerly in Iraq, that were transported there by the Russians weeks before our invasion.

And Iran may not have nukes now, but they're awfully damned close.

|8.15.07 @ 2:35PM|#

And Eric, you have to stop lying about Salman Pak: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established that no credible evidence exists showing that Al Qaeda trained there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility

|8.15.07 @ 2:35PM|#

The only way I can answer that is to say that with just about every civil liberty issue around today, it's the Republicans who side with libertarians, while the Democrats are the ones pushing their Nanny-State/Pruditarian laws.

Who threw almost-unanimous "Yea" votes towards expanding surveillance law the other weekend? Which party had been massively violating existing laws and FBI regulations designed to protect privacy, requiring such an ass-covering law?

That the Reds give better lip-service to gun rights folks, I'll grant. However, smoking and seat belts and mudflaps are penny-ante issues.

|8.15.07 @ 2:37PM|#

"If the terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fucking dust."

|8.15.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Cesar, perhaps this slipped your mind. But Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan is an Islamic nation.


They have about five that can't even reach the Mediterranean Ocean on their shitty missles.

And some say Syria secretly has nukes, and perhaps the nukes that were formerly in Iraq, that were transported there by the Russians weeks before our invasion.

?? Yes, and 9/11 was an inside job.

And Iran may not have nukes now, but they're awfully damned close.

Try about a decade or two away. We have been hearing since 1995 the Iranians are "very very close!"

And again, they don't have ICBMS. They don't have the delivery mechanism. They don't have any way to project their power outside of Iran. Their conventional threat is nil.

If they were the agressive power you say they are, they would be building up their conventional power. But their conventional power is a joke.

They want us to think they are getting a nuke so we don't invade. They saw Iraq--no WMDs, they got invaded. North Korea, nuclear bomb, no invasion.

|8.15.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Pakistan has nukes. And Pakistan is an Islamic nation.

Yup, and they're one of your "Partners for Peace", as it happens, whether or not they cheerfully shelter Taliban and Al Queda people now and then.

And some say Syria secretly has nukes, and perhaps the nukes that were formerly in Iraq, that were transported there by the Russians weeks before our invasion.

And some people pull a lot of things out of their ass that they can't remotely substantiate.

|8.15.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Eric, there are terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Should we invade Pakistan?

"If the terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fucking dust."

TEH EURABIA OMGZ!!!!! Thats what you are about to get, just a fair warning.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:39PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|8.15.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Go back and read Eric's "evidence" about Iraq being involved in 9/11.

Pretend that every single item in those lists is true.

Now count the number of items that implicate Iraq in 9/11.

Anyone else notice that?

|8.15.07 @ 2:39PM|#

And Iran may not have nukes now, but they're awfully damned close.

Will they all have turned out to have been spirited away to Syria once we invade that country, to?

Goldthwait|8.15.07 @ 2:42PM|#

"I would be very hesitant to believe that Kos and his merry band of moonbats latching on to libertarianism is some how good for libertarians"

Given Kos' track record, libertarians would garner even less votes in national election contests, if such a thing is even possible.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:42PM|#

David the cross, funny you bring that up.

I guess you missed the murders at the hands of Radical Muslims of Theo van Gogh and Dutch Presidential candidate Pim Fortuyn, cause they "dared to challenge Islam."

It's getting to the point now in the Netherlands, where Gay people can no longer walk down the streets of Amsterdam holding hands for fear of Muslim youth harrassing them and throwing rocks at them.

And in some medium-sized towns where the Muslims have a near majority, marijuana and prostitution are being outlawed across the Netherlands.

Can happen here?

Look at the Minneapolis Airport situation, or Hamtramac, MI, or this new Madrassa that's being built in NYC.

Western Europe is falling to the Islamic radicals.

We're next.

And all the cynical leftwing libertarians who hang out at Reason's website can do is pooh-pooh the threat.

Wonder if they'll be laughing when the Immams have their minions escort them to the gas chambers?

|8.15.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Sorry, I have to go back to this:

And some say Syria secretly has nukes, and perhaps the nukes that were formerly in Iraq, that were transported there by the Russians weeks before our invasion.

So, if Iraq had nukes, but in the event of us invading to take him out, Saddam Hussein was unwilling to use them and instead had them smuggled out beforehand, what possible nuclear threat did he comprise?

|8.15.07 @ 2:43PM|#

And in some medium-sized towns where the Muslims have a near majority, marijuana and prostitution are being outlawed across the Netherlands.

Can happen here?

TOO LATE!

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Good catch, joe.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|8.15.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Can you guys pause it for a few minutes. I have to run to the store and get some more popcorn. Thanks!

PS - I heard it was the homosexuals who helped move the nukes to Syria. They had to cuz it was part of there agenda or sumpin'.

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Seriously, there's very little evidence that Iraq ever got close to actually building a nuke. They had chemical weapons. They had a biological program, and a nuclear program. But neither ever came close to producing a working weapon.

Some say Syria's got a secret nuke, but some also say that the earth is 6000 years old, and many many more say that Neil Armstrong landed on a sound stage in NYC.

People say shit all the time. When they say that because of it, we need to drop prohibitions on torture, detain people for years without access to legal council, much less trial, and invade every country from the Levant to the Indus, I start calling bullshit.

|8.15.07 @ 2:46PM|#

David the cross, funny you bring that up.


See? Its like clockwork.


It's getting to the point now in the Netherlands, where Gay people can no longer walk down the streets of Amsterdam holding hands for fear of Muslim youth harrassing them and throwing rocks at them.

And in some medium-sized towns where the Muslims have a near majority, marijuana and prostitution are being outlawed across the Netherlands.

Can happen here?


They want to outlaw marijuana and prostitution here? Are you serious? Man, I'm glad I live in the good old USA where such things are perfectly legal!

And um, last time I checked its not so easy for a gay couple to walk down the street holding hands in Bumfuck Kansas without being harassed, either.

Bopo|8.15.07 @ 2:47PM|#

I would be very hesitant to believe that Kos and his merry band of moonbats latching on to libertarianism is some how good for libertarians"

I sure as hell hope that doesn't happen. His "endorsement" is a kiss of death.
It always makes me laugh when people try to play up Kos as some kind of king-maker. The guy's record is fucking abysmal. Does anyone remember Ned Lamont? Thank you, Markos. This fucker probably bet on the Broncos in the 80s. What a loser.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Eric Dondero-

A question for you: If your life is in danger, would you rather be protected by people who can act on every impulse and suspicion, or by people who base their decisions on a careful examination of the facts in hand?

Would you rather keep your cards close to the vest and strike at specific threats as needed, or would you rather over-extend yourself and get bogged down in situations that compromise your ability to act swiftly in the future?

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Yeah, the whole 'can it happen here' post is some weird performance art.

The answer seems to be "Yes, but if we elect Giuliani, it will continue to be good White Christians who do it, not dirty Muslims!"

|8.15.07 @ 2:50PM|#

I don't understand why everyone keeps ragging on Moulitsas' record. Jim Webb and Jon Tester both won primaries thanks to Kos, and were helped out in the general by Kos' organizing power.

|8.15.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Bopo, I think you're entirely right, which is why I think Dondero's statist ranting is strangely apropos.

|8.15.07 @ 2:50PM|#

I don't understand why everyone keeps ragging on Moulitsas' record. Jim Webb and Jon Tester both won primaries thanks to Kos, and were helped out in the general by Kos' organizing power.

I don't know about Tester but Webb won pretty much because his opponent was an idiot who actually called Webb anti-semitic.

|8.15.07 @ 2:51PM|#

Actually, the only useful thing I see out of the Kos' posturing is that someone publicly called him on it in a informed, skeptical way.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:52PM|#

Remember last week when a bedwetter named "Jeff" showed up in a thread, and we beat on him for 300 posts?

I'm starting to feel the same way about DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Time to ignore.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Hey lunchstealer, I think you're a bit behind the times there Bub.

Who was the last "White Christian Terrorist"?

Eric Rudolph.

That was the 1990s Dude.

Perhaps you should break out that old Van Halen cassette tape, and throw on that raggy old AC/DC T-shirt that your wife tucked away in the back of the closet.

Seems like you're a bit "stuck in time" shall we say.

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Yes, I agree Thoreau. When you get beaten by rhetorical romps, it's time to cry uncle and leave the debate. I'm just thankful I'm not in your shoes at this moment.

|8.15.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Eric, how many people were killed by native born, red-blooded American criminals from a Christian background last year?

And how many people died on interstate highways?

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Actually, I won't leave until URKOBOLD arrives and declares the thread dead. Then I shall dutifully depart, for I am loyal to the One True Troll.

There is but one Troll, and VM is His prophet.

OMG! TEH DHIMMITROLL!

|8.15.07 @ 3:03PM|#

I'm still waiting to know if we should invade Pakistan because they have training camps.

|8.15.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Aw, crikey. The punchline was supposed to be, "Yep, and I'm lovin' it." Dumb jokes are worse when delivered poorly, and exacerbated with a correction about 15 minutes too late.

|8.15.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Dondero thinks he's winning. It's really quite fascinating.

This is what's really going on.

(In loving memory of Jeff...)

|8.15.07 @ 3:04PM|#

We should invade Cuba because they're harboring terrorists on US soil there!!!

Little Green Douchebag|8.15.07 @ 3:05PM|#

We should invade Cuba because they're harboring terrorists on US soil there!!!

Little Green Douchebag|8.15.07 @ 3:05PM|#

OMG CASTRO-ISLAMIST CONNEXION!!!!!!!! OMG!

Urkobold™|8.15.07 @ 3:13PM|#

THOREAU, YOU PHYSICIST, THE URKOBOLD WISHES TO ENCOURAGE MR. DONDERO. HIS LIBERTARIAN FASCISM SOUNDS POSITIVELY ZODIAN.

PLEASE CONTINUE UNTIL THIS THREAD SURPASSES THE CRYING SANTORUM GET THREAD IN QUANTITY AND REPROBATIVENESS.

Stephen the Goldberger|8.15.07 @ 3:18PM|#

I've decided I agree with Dondero because he's old

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 3:25PM|#

If I'm stuck in the '90s, shouldn't that be Green Day or Dave Matthews CDs, not Van Halen tapes? Did they even do anything in the '90s?

Maybe you were confused by Weezer's W logo. It looks kinda like the VH logo.

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 3:26PM|#

And the 'stache. I haven't seen a killer 'stache like that since Richard Jewell was getting harrassed by the FBI.

Rick Santorum|8.15.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Damn you, Hit & Run! Damn you to hell!
You made my little Bumcakes cry! Devils!

Minion of URKOBOLD|8.15.07 @ 3:30PM|#

GET OFF MY LAWN.

ALL OF YOU. GIT. SHOO.

DUNDER(HEAD)OO - THAT MEANS YOU, TOO.

NOW GO AWAY. OR WE SHALL TAUNT EACH OTHER WITH 300 OTHER POSTS.

Urkobold™|8.15.07 @ 3:32PM|#

VIKING MINION! MUST THE URKOBOLD CHASTISE YOU A FIFTY-NINTH TIME?

THE THREAD MUST GO ON!

|8.15.07 @ 3:35PM|#

I was gonna say GOP John started out this way, but he was never that bad.

...no he wasn't!

dhex|8.15.07 @ 3:36PM|#

"The only way I can answer that is to say that with just about every civil liberty issue around today, it's the Republicans who side with libertarians, while the Democrats are the ones pushing their Nanny-State/Pruditarian laws."

man you are too much. you are too fucking much. i want to hire you for parties because i bet if i was really, really high, it'd be like the best public access cable show ever.


also re: amsterdam - yeah moroccan street kids (i.e. teenagers) have apparently been dicks in a number of incidents (bottles, rocks, etc) but seeing as the last time i was in amsterdam i saw a lot of male/male public sex, i'd say the tide has not yet turned. and not like i was looking for such but just happened to be around, seasonable spring weather etc.

i have the feeling you've never been to amsterdam or nyc at this point, though.

Minion of URKOBOLD|8.15.07 @ 3:38PM|#

AW C'MON. MY MERKIN IS IN A BUNCH, I'M OUT OF AAA BATTERIES, AND I HAVE DUST BURNS FROM THE CHEETOS ON THE OL'... THE OL'... UM on my package

MUST WE HAVE TO SHALL WILL CONTINUE?

AM IS ARE WAS WERE BE BEING BEEN HAS HAVE HAD WOULD COULD SHOULD SHALL WILL CAN MAY MIGHT MUST DO DOES DID.

ABOUT ABOVE ACROSS AFTER AGAINST AMONG AROUND BY.

|8.15.07 @ 3:40PM|#

Did I do that?

James Atkin Ian Dench Zac Fole|8.15.07 @ 3:43PM|#

oh dunder(head)ooooo:

You're Unbelievable!!!!

(it's so hawt how you wear your cap all sideways n shit. hawt)

hai. I'm Arik and the Dunders. Please check out my emo band on my myspace page

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Oh yeah, but Ken, John was never this entertaining.

I kinda feel sorry for him, though. I mean, he's convinced that his wife's gonna have to wear a burkha if we don't detain people and have warrantless wiretapping.

And that everything bad that has happened in the US since 1996 has been a plot by Allah.

Where\'s my hat, dammit?|8.15.07 @ 3:48PM|#

two and three and four and five
everybody here is a friend of mine
don't forget about the Duke of Earl
"POP GOES THE WORLD"

|8.15.07 @ 3:49PM|#

"Wonder if they'll be laughing when the Immams have their minions escort them to the gas chambers?"

Back in the day, we used to joke about propaganda victims talkin' about putting you-know-who in a burka, but this is beyond parody.

It's kind of refreshing in a way. I was starting to wonder if people who spouted this kind of crap were ever going to get a chance to see what they looked like when they were like that. Now we have a fresh example... It's like '04-'05 all over again.

Don't hide your light under a bushel, Dondero!

P.S. Please, somebody speak out against torture! ...it's like listening to an oldies station. Oh, the memories...

dhex|8.15.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Feel safe these days when you visit suburban shopping malls in Salt Lake City?

dude i feel safe riding the 6 train during rush hour.

eat a fucking dick you pussy.

Captain Opposition to Torture|8.15.07 @ 3:52PM|#

It is I, Captain Opposition to Torture! I am here to speak out against torture! Or even "torture"!

|8.15.07 @ 3:55PM|#

You know, Dondero, when you say...

That was the 1990s Dude.

Perhaps you should break out that old Van Halen cassette tape, and throw on that raggy old AC/DC T-shirt that your wife tucked away in the back of the closet.

Seems like you're a bit "stuck in time" shall we say.

...after regaling us with "OMG SOLID PROOF" like...

But every single one of the individuals who attacked the USS Starke killing 37 US Sailors in the late 1980s was Iraqi.

and

As I've mentioned above, the one individual who escaped the US in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing fled to Iraq, and was given safe haven.

and

Iraqi Intelligence plotted to kill former President George Bush in 1993 on his visit to Kuwait.

and

And, many of us believe and there's extremely strong evidence to indicate (Read Jayna Davis' book The Third Terrorist), that Iraqi Intelligence were behind the Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 93 Americans in 1995.

...you tend to look like you're not very bright.

Carl Lipbaum|8.15.07 @ 4:08PM|#

I swallowed vomit during an anxiety attack.

And I endorse DUNDER(head)OOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|8.15.07 @ 4:08PM|#

"Now, I ask you, is it "Libertarian" to support Hillary Clinton for President? By sitting out the election, bad-mouthing the one guy who has a shot of beating her, or even voting for the Libertarian Party candidate (Kubby, Phillies, whomever), you are as good as voting for ole' Cowhips herself."

If the race is close in Texas, I'll vote for the Republican if Hillary is the nominee. Otherwise, I'll vote Libertarian.

|8.15.07 @ 4:13PM|#

First it's fear of terrorists. Now it's fear of Hillary.

Am I wrong not to be hiding somewhere?

K.I.T.T.|8.15.07 @ 4:15PM|#

Michael, I am picking up K.A.R.R. on my Dunderoo scanner.

|8.15.07 @ 4:16PM|#

(Is it possible to unPost something? See 10:41).

CB

brian|8.15.07 @ 4:17PM|#

last time I checked its not so easy for a gay couple to walk down the street holding hands in Bumfuck Kansas without being harassed, either

Interesting choice of words.

Scooby|8.15.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Who was the last "White Christian Terrorist"?

Eric Rudolph.

That was the 1990s Dude.

There are still Christian terrorists here in the USA, it's just that they are about as competent as the typical jihadist dumbfuck:

A local Texas example:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/08/houston-abortion-clinic-bomber.html

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/28/0728abortion.html

You don't have to go back to the '90s for an example, just back to May.

Nick M.|8.15.07 @ 5:15PM|#

Glad this conversation finally made it to Iran. Did we just tacitly declare war on them?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20269253/

|8.15.07 @ 5:17PM|#

Actually, Kos' comments strike me as far more reasonably than most people here are allowing. It's true, they don't quite cohere in this interview, but I'm entirely sympathetic to his disposition on this stuff. Rather than chalking the statement up to political savviness, I'd guess that this is actually how he feels.

The responses to his statement remind me of another thing: libertarianism itself is generally more appealing than actual libertarians.

Nick M.|8.15.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Dammit, my crane-style webfu is weak. Perhaps Urkobold™ Publishing can release a book on how to insert links.

|8.15.07 @ 5:48PM|#

Nick M.:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20269253/">Click here.</a>

Eric Dondero|8.15.07 @ 5:54PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake, that is an entirely reasonable choice to make. I salute you.

I sometimes do the same myself as a fellow Texan. If there's no harm done to the Republicans, I'll cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Minion of URKOBOLD|8.15.07 @ 6:20PM|#

D
DU
DUN
DUND
DUNDE
DUNDER
DUNDERO
DUNDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Owek... oh Owek... could you tell us a story about how you single handedly BATED on the LP ballot initiatives back in ought eight? And how you got pool halls reestablished in River City?

Owek... pppuuuhhhllleeeez?

And does Rudy play dress up with you, too?

awwwoooo. such a cute Dunder(head)oooooo.

go fuck yourself.

Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 7:13PM|#

You know, I hate to play the Nazi card, but I'm just dumbfounded by Dondero's fear of a tiny and powerless minority here.

Let me repeat that for you Eric: Muslims in the United States are a tiny and powerless minority.

The demented victimization fantasies you're selling here about sharia in the US and gas chambers [run by Muslims] for American libertarians are so outlandish they compete - and seriously - with the ludicrous nature of the claims the Nazis made about the threat from THEIR tiny and powerless minority.

Frankly, American Muslims are more at risk of pogroms at the hands of people like you, than libertarians are at risk of extermination at the hands of Muslims.

And you might say, "Oho, but what about all the non-American Muslims?" to which I would reply that even if the wildest dreams of Al Qaeda came true, and a renewed Caliphate held sway over the bulk of Muslim nations worldwide, even that superstate would pose about as much strategic risk to the United States as Cuba or Venezuela or India. That is to say, virtually none.

Nothing short of Yellowstone exploding or a fucking asteroid landing in Iowa could possibly weaken the United States enough to make the imposition of sharia law from outside a threat. The power relationships involved here are just too extreme.

|8.15.07 @ 8:39PM|#

"Wonder if they'll be laughing when the Immams have their minions escort them to the gas chambers?"

He's actually got a pretty good idea for a film there--Green Dawn.

...you'd have to find a plausible way for the...ahem..."Immams" to invade our country though. I suppose he could have them disguised as illegal aliens--your guess is as good as mine.

Tell us wise Dondero, how will the Imams take over the country?

|8.15.07 @ 10:35PM|#

OK, I was really going to ignore this.

But here's the problem. Eric Dondero/Rittberg is a lying sack of shit.

He claims above that he spent four years on the Florida LP ExComm. Problem is I've been associated with the FL LP for nearly thirty years and I have never seen his name on the that roster.

The only time I have ever heard of him was when people complained about what a loudmouthed, counterproductive, useless piece of shit he was.

Likewise, checked the founders of the Republican Liberty Caucus. You will find that like Zelig Dondero/Rittberg may have been there at he event, but he was not one of the actual movers.

|8.15.07 @ 11:10PM|#

I dunno Isaac.

It's hard to believe a guy that would make statements like...

"Wonder if they'll be laughing when the Immams have their minions escort them to the gas chambers?"

...would exaggerate.

|8.15.07 @ 11:12PM|#

To back you up Isaac, and to counter Dondero, here's the Club for Growth's report card on Rudy's economic policies:
Summation

There is no doubt that Rudy Giuliani took some anti-growth positions over his eight years as mayor of America's largest city. From his support for extending income tax surcharges, to his affinity for corporate welfare projects, to his vocal opposition to NAFTA, there are undoubtedly some stains on Giuliani's fiscal record.

However, any exploration of a municipal executive record has to be colored by the unique context in which that record is achieved. Some of Giuliani's positions are understandable given the liberal constituency he represented-such as his support for New York City rent control; others-like his support for McCain-Feingold and the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan-are not. In New York City, Rudy Giuliani governed a locality that was thoroughly dominated by liberal Democrats; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and a powerful local news media actively hostile to a limited-government philosophy. In the face of such tremendous headwind, Giuliani's fiscal accomplishments are remarkable.

Despite powerful local obstacles, Giuliani was able to significantly cut taxes; hold spending increases down below the rates of inflation and population growth; overhaul the welfare system; deregulate and privatize many local government services; and join the fight for school choice. These accomplishments played a crucial role in transforming New York City from an economic basket case into a thriving economy.

The most important question is what Giuliani's mayoral tenure tells us about how he would govern if elected president. The answer is not clear cut, as some of his local positions are worrisome and some of his federal positions are still unknown. Nonetheless, one cannot help but conclude that if Giuliani could accomplish the pro-growth record he did in the hostile environment of New York City, the potential for him to accomplish even more amid the more politically balanced federal government is great.
So, he's not the Great White Libertarian Hope, Dondero. One of the pluses and minuses of Giuliani is that he's a pragmatist, so he might be willing to get a lot of innovative thinkers like Sally Pipes, but in the end he's willing to compromise on a lot of issues to get his policies past. Meaning, he'll sell out his libertarian backers, like you, to ensure he doesn't end up like the empty suit of GW Bush.
In some ways, that would be an improvement over the last 8 years of ineptitude, but it's not libertarian.

Also, why should I support someone like Guiliani when I can make him move in a truly libertarian direction by endorsing Ron Paul and forcing him to acknowledge/accomodate the libertarian right?
If it comes down to Guiliani vs Hillary, I guess I'll vote for Guiliani with a lot of gnashing of teeth and swigging of grain alcohol to make my head hurt less.
But until he wins the nomination Dondero, I don't give a shit if you are Emperor Libertarian, Guiliani is NOT libertarian.

Donderoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

|8.15.07 @ 11:13PM|#

Oh and here's the link:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/05/rudy_giulianis_economic_record.php

|8.16.07 @ 8:46AM|#

By the way, Dondero, I live in Ohio. If the race ends up being Hillary versus Giuliani, I will not only vote for Hillary, but I will campaign my ass off for her, just to piss you off. Considering that there is virtually no difference between the two, the only thing that will get me interested is sticking it to you if you continue your childish trolling here at Reason with your inane Rudy-propping.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 9:19AM|#

Merv Griggin's Ghost, how many years of activism do you have in the libertarian movement?

I've got 25 buddy. I was a Reason Magazine subscriber way back in 1986.

Don't even try to kick me off this forum.

You can use all the force and coercion and threats you want. I ain't going anywhere.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Frank_A,

So, Giuliani's a little pragmatic. Good.

I'm a Moderate Libertarian myself. Last thing I'd want as President is some dogmatic ideological die-in-the-wool Libertarian.

A pragmatic Moderate Republican with libertarian-leanings, who appoints libertarians to major Administrative posts is perfect!

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 9:28AM|#

Isaac, actually 2 years on the Florida LP Excomm - 1985/86, the days of Diane Pilcher, Rex Curry, Bob Vogel, the Swansons, Charlie Manhart, John Wayne Smith. I served as State Secretary. And I don't remember ever running into you either?

RLC Founder. That's absurd. Yes, there was a group in North Carolina in 1987/88. But they went defunct. I got their permission in 1990, and used the name and created a nationwide organization after splitting off from Justin Raimondo's Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee.

Here are a few well-known easily accesible activist libertarians who can verify the story: Phil Blumel, Tom Walls, Brian Doherty, Danny McDaniel, Alan Turin, Adam Bernay, Earle Smith, Clifford Thies, and Mike Holmes.

Incidentally, I was recognized and honored no less than 4 times at the RLC National Convention last September in Orlando, by Cliff Thies and Phil Blumel as the "RLC Founder."

There were over 80 delegates to that convention, many Floridians. You could easily verify this with them, as well.

Brit Moose (huh?)|8.16.07 @ 9:33AM|#

DUNDEROOOO!

DUNDEROOO AUTHORITARIAN UNDEROOS.

TARD TARD TARD!!!!!!

TARD TARD TARD

DUNDEROOO!!!!!!!! TARDBOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wut a bluddy wanka.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 9:33AM|#

More for Isaac,

Here's a question for you. Is David Nolan the Founder of the Libertarian Party?

After all, there were 10 other people in his living room with him when he declared the founding of the group. (I personally know one of them.) But it was Nolan who called the meeting and conducted the meeting.

Same goes for me. Sure, you could make the argument that there were 6 or 7 other people in my living room at Winding Bend Way, overlooking the Golf Course, on Appalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, in May of 1990. They were Danny McDaniel, local Libertarian Chairman John Otto, Curtis Dietrich, Joel Delafave and his Serbian wife Snaysia, and my ex-wife Barbara. During the meeting we made a conference call to Phil Blumel and Tom Walls letting them know that we officially launched the organization.

I'm the one who called the meeting, and conducted the meeting, and was immediately elected Chairman.

You going to argue that since there were 6 other people in the room, that I am not legitimately the "Founder" of the RLC?

If you try this line of reasoning, than you have to be consistent, and argue that David Nolan can no longer be viewed as the "Founder" of the Libertarian Party.

|8.16.07 @ 9:34AM|#

You can use all the force and coercion and threats you want. I ain't going anywhere.

You clearly don't have a clue as to what these words actually mean. Seek help.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 9:40AM|#

So Fluffy, given that there's no threat from Radical Islam to Americans, should we just forget 9/11 ever happened?

Should we just forget about the first World Trade Center bombing? Forget about Muslim connections to OKC? Forget about the USS Cole, Kobar Towers and the attacks on our Embassies in Africa?

Should we just say a big "Fuck you" to our friends the Brits, and let them deal with their own problems of crazed Muslims driving flaming SUVs into their Airports?

And while we're at it, let's tell the Dutch, Danes, Germans and French to "Fuck off" as well. Let them deal with their problems with Muslims harrassing their women, pushing for PC codes to outlaw criticisms of the Koran or depictions of Muhammed, and just allow the Euro-Muslims to continue to throw rocks and stones at Gays walking down the promenades.

And should we allow the Minneapolis Cabbies to tell Gay, Blind and Wine carrying passengers to just "Fuck off" and hitch a ride?

And the next time some crazed Muslim goes shooting up a Jewish Community Center in an American city, we should just tell the Jews to "Fuck off" deal with your own goddamned problem.

Is that the solution you're suggesting?

Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 9:56AM|#

"So Fluffy, given that there's no threat from Radical Islam to Americans, should we just forget 9/11 ever happened?"

Not at all. We should have pursued Osama bin Laden and brushed aside the defense forces of any nation that attempted to shelter him. Then we should have told Israel they could go fuck themselves, and we should have announced that an attack using nuclear weapons ON any nation in the Middle East BY any nation in the Middle East - ANY nation - would result in a massive retaliatory strike by the US.

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq because of some Trostskyite fantasy that the Iraqis were waiting to turn into Thomas Jeffersons as soon as we liberated them.

And that's what it was, Dondero. Trotskyitism at its finest.

"Should we just say a big "Fuck you" to our friends the Brits, and let them deal with their own problems of crazed Muslims driving flaming SUVs into their Airports?"

The British problem with radical Islam was worsened when we dragged them into our failed Iraq adventure.

"
And while we're at it, let's tell the Dutch, Danes, Germans and French to "Fuck off" as well. Let them deal with their problems with Muslims harrassing their women, pushing for PC codes to outlaw criticisms of the Koran or depictions of Muhammed, and just allow the Euro-Muslims to continue to throw rocks and stones at Gays walking down the promenades."

Since all of these complaints have perfect analogues among Christian groups, can we wipe out the Christians first?

"And should we allow the Minneapolis Cabbies to tell Gay, Blind and Wine carrying passengers to just "Fuck off" and hitch a ride?"

If the cabbies own the medallions and the vehicles, yeah - you can fuck off and ride another cab. If they don't own the medallions and the vehicles, that's a labor bargaining issue for their employers to work out.

"And the next time some crazed Muslim goes shooting up a Jewish Community Center in an American city, we should just tell the Jews to "Fuck off" deal with your own goddamned problem."

No, we should have local law enforcement arrest the perpetrators, the way we do with every other violent crime. We shouldn't say, "Hey, some Italian-American just mugged a Jewish guy, let's declare the Knights of Columbus a terrorist organization and seize their assets and ship their leadership to Guantanamo - and oh yeah, let's invade Italy! If we modernize Italy, Italian Americans won't want to mug anyone any more!"

|8.16.07 @ 10:02AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Enough with the false dichotomies. This pretense that the only two possible outcomes in the world are "police state now!" or "imminent enslavement by evil Muslims!" is wearing pretty thin, as is your apparent belief that refusing to hand over our civil liberties is equivalent to betraying every non-terrorist in the world. Knock it off.

Nick M.|8.16.07 @ 10:06AM|#

"So Fluffy, given that there's no threat from Radical Islam to Americans, should we just forget 9/11 ever happened?"

--No, but neither should we allow it to consume us for all eternity.

"Should we just forget about the first World Trade Center bombing? Forget about Muslim connections to OKC? Forget about the USS Cole, Kobar Towers and the attacks on our Embassies in Africa?"

--Yes

"Should we just say a big "Fuck you" to our friends the Brits, and let them deal with their own problems of crazed Muslims driving flaming SUVs into their Airports?"

--Yes, let them take care of their own problems.

"And while we're at it, let's tell the Dutch, Danes, Germans and French to "Fuck off" as well. Let them deal with their problems with Muslims harrassing their women, pushing for PC codes to outlaw criticisms of the Koran or depictions of Muhammed, and just allow the Euro-Muslims to continue to throw rocks and stones at Gays walking down the promenades."

--Yes & No. As far as the laws go, pretty sure they are using existing laws for protection. These countries already have the stupid codes. The Muslims are just using them. A bettter solution would be to do away with the laws. Obviously, they should not allow people to assault others. Perhaps they should enforce those laws, and perhaps the ones being assaulted should stand up for themselves.

"And should we allow the Minneapolis Cabbies to tell Gay, Blind and Wine carrying passengers to just "Fuck off" and hitch a ride?"

--Yes. There's probably another cabbie who doesn't care. And if there isn't, sounds like a good opportunity to make some money. Then, either the bigotted cabbies will chagne their ways, or go out of business.

"And the next time some crazed Muslim goes shooting up a Jewish Community Center in an American city, we should just tell the Jews to "Fuck off" deal with your own goddamned problem."

--No, if these things happen in America, the perpetrators should be arrested and tried.

VM|8.16.07 @ 10:13AM|#

DUNDER DUNDER DUNDER(head)OOOOOOOOOOOOO

AWIK DUNDERO UNDEROOS.

he's hier to keep us safe. DONT YOU REALIZE THAT????? Mein gott. libartarian police state!!!!!

d00d - you're such a tard.

|8.16.07 @ 10:16AM|#

Merv Griggin's Ghost, how many years of activism do you have in the libertarian movement?

I've got 25 buddy. I was a Reason Magazine subscriber way back in 1986.

Don't even try to kick me off this forum.

You can use all the force and coercion and threats you want. I ain't going anywhere.

I have no years of activism anywhere. I'm getting ready to start, because there's nothing as tasty as using campaign activism as force and coercion on your sorry old ass.

GO HILLARY!

lunchstealer|8.16.07 @ 10:45AM|#

And should we allow the Minneapolis Cabbies to tell Gay, Blind and Wine carrying passengers to just "Fuck off" and hitch a ride?

Wait a second. What exact kind of libertarian are you that you don't believe that a cabbie can make whatever choices he wants about what his customers do? You want to use government to force cabbies into a single business practice? You know, a cabbie can have a sign saying

"I'm a Free Taxi(tm) - I take anybody carrying anything*

* that fits in my car, isn't dangerous, and won't spill or otherwise cause a mess, and won't get me arrested. And no pets outside of a pet carrier."

And let Muslims and Christards, and virulently judgemental atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and anybody else with an axe to grind, post signs on their taxis noting exactly what customers they want.

I guarantee you that the "Free Taxis" will outcompete the "Taxis of Religious Fervor" by a reasonable margin, but that there will probably be enough religiously fervent people to keep the other in business.

That's the libertarian solution. It was when you got your subscription in 1986, and it still is today.

Let me quote the openning phrase of that sentence one more time - "And should we allow..." since when do libertarians allow people to do anything? The default question for us is "Is this practice sufficiently likely to infringe on someone else's natural rights to warrant government coercion to stop it?"

I hate to get all "more libertarian than thou" but that's got to be the default question. It's the height of governmental arrogance to assume that it is our job to decide what people are 'allowed' to do. Governments should worry about whether they are allowed to, and justified in, stopping any voluntary behavior. That's fundamental to libertarian ideology.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 11:23AM|#

I'm the kind of libertarian who believes there should be no discrimination against anyone (that is United States citizens) at publicly subsidized facilities, like sports stadiums, arenas and municipal airports.

Hey, if these Muslim cabbies parked their vehicles off the Airport premises, no problem for me. They could discriminate all they want.

Problem is, it's the municipal airport for the City of Minneapolis.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Wow! I'm stunned Nick M. Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you that much.

So, we should just forget about the Embassy Bombings, the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, and the first World Trade Center bombing. Wonder why you don't have the balls to say the same thing about 9/11. After all, 9/11 happened a mere few months after the USS Cole bombing.

Don't have the courage of your convictions there 'eh? Guess you realize to say something as radical as we should forget about 9/11 makes you out to be a kook.

I will say this though. You ain't no American. Not by any defintion. Anyone who wants us just to forget about all the atrocities committed against our fellow Americans during the 1990s by Muslim extremists, doesn't deserve to call themselves such.

You should probably think about packing your bags and moving to some hellhole like Venezuela, Cuba or Waziristan.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Sorry Jake, but you got me all wrong.

I'm in favor of Police State Now! for all illegal immigrants in this country, especially those who have overstayed their Visas, or have entered our country illegally from Middle Eastern Nations.

If you're a US Citizen, full Civil Liberties for all. And staunch opposition to any and all violations of Civil Liberties.

|8.16.07 @ 12:08PM|#

GO (to Hell) HILLARY!

|8.16.07 @ 12:12PM|#

"So Fluffy, given that there's no threat from Radical Islam to Americans, should we just forget 9/11 ever happened?"

We should go after the culprits, not invade a country that had nothing to do with it. The invasion of Iraq is just promoting more terrorism.

Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 12:12PM|#

OK, Eric, then the next time I see you in your car at the airport, you're giving me a ride.

Don't like it? Go fuck yourself. You can't discriminate against me at a public facility like an airport. The fact that the CAR is yours is immaterial.

You just threw out your libertarian for life card by falling for the nonsensical notion of a public accomodation. It's hard to think of a concept that more outrages the right of private property than that one. Nice going, Mr. RLC.

dhex|8.16.07 @ 12:22PM|#

"or this new Madrassa that's being built in NYC."

ok spanky, now i know you're full of shit. have you actually read anything about this joint? 60 students? snoooooze. it's named after kahil gibran, for allah's sake!

yes yes i know even dwarves started small, etc.

|8.16.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Frank_A,

So, Giuliani's a little pragmatic. Good.

I'm a Moderate Libertarian myself. Last thing I'd want as President is some dogmatic ideological die-in-the-wool Libertarian.
Ok, great, he's a pragmatist, but you're arguing about Giuliani's 'tarian credentials with people want something better than the usual Repub form of corporate, crony capitalism that's acceptable to "moderate libertarians."
Using government money to build stadiums, as Rudy has done ande continues to accept, is a BAD portent of future governence since that means Giuliani will of course want to "help out" supposedly "vital industries."
Tell me is he a big fan of ethanol subsidies...oh that's right, he is, which is really stupid since that in turns reduces the consumption and price of oil and therefore continues our dependence on the evils of oil while at the same time hurting our allies and friends all over the world by jacking up the price of food/animal products/etc.

Anyone who wants to wear the mantle as a 1st choice pick for libertarians in the '08 election CANNOT accept the big fraud that is ethanol subsidies.


A pragmatic Moderate Republican with libertarian-leanings, who appoints libertarians to major Administrative posts is perfect!
And Sally Pipes is one of several on that health council...that's not even close to being a "major player." Hell, even a deputy assistant secretary of xyz would have more authority, clout, and respect than just some person who just advises...
In other words, he'll do what the hell he wants, just like Bush...the 'tarians are just window-dressing...

|8.16.07 @ 1:22PM|#

And remember, Steve Forbes plays ball in the Repub party...hell, for a guy who raises $7 million for the party, he should be raising hell against all the stupid complacency that rules the party nowadays...instead, he just smiles and plays ball.

lunchstealer|8.16.07 @ 1:32PM|#

But Frank_A, you're forgetting that some people are murderous criminals, which means we have to go to war with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Wajiristan[sic], Turkey, Morroco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eretrea, Nigeria, Sudan, Darfur[preemptive sic], Lybia, Lebennon, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, the West Bank, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Africa, Ghana, Freedonia, Algeria, Egypt, and most importantly, Qumar.

Also the Philipines, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Burma, and Detroit.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Aha, I see you're on the defense there Franklin. Took you a while. But you're finally begrudgingly admitting that Giuliani's appointment of Sally Pipes was a good thing.

Now your only recourse is to downplay its significance.

But that's okay. At least I got you to admit that Giuliani actually appointed a libertarian as a Policy Advisor. That's more than good enough.

And you can bet I'll be using that in the future.

Eric Dondero|8.16.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake, problem is IRAQ HAD A LOT TO DO WITH 9/11!!

See proof in above posts.

And those who try to deny it, are merely victims of Leftwing propoganda machine.

Ahh, yes. If CNN says it, it's gotta be true, right?

|8.16.07 @ 2:24PM|#

"IRAQ HAD A LOT TO DO WITH 9/11!!"

Our meddling foreign policy had a lot to do with 9/11.

|8.16.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Al Qaeda had a lot to do with 9/11.

|8.16.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Aha, I see you're on the defense there Franklin. Took you a while. But you're finally begrudgingly admitting that Giuliani's appointment of Sally Pipes was a good thing.

Now your only recourse is to downplay its significance.

Wow... that'll be a herculean task. How do you downplay something that's already insignificant on its face?

|8.16.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake, problem is IRAQ HAD A LOT TO DO WITH 9/11!!

See proof in above posts.

And those who try to deny it, are merely victims of Leftwing propoganda machine.

Ahh, yes. If CNN says it, it's gotta be true, right?

Cripes, Eric. There is no proof for the relevant claims you make, and the rest are irrelevant to whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Your views on Iraq are clearly religious, not logical ("It's true because it is, and if you can't see that, it's because you've been blinded by Satan!"). That may be useful to maintain your own smug assurance that you're correct, but it's certainly not helpful for convincing anyone with any grip on reality.

You're like a Flat-Earther, except your hobbyhorse is Iraq.

lunchstealer|8.16.07 @ 3:16PM|#

OK, Dondero, just to get you up to speed on the post 2002 world, the Atta Prague thing has been widely discredited. The yellow cake story was based solely on evidence that has been more-or-less proven to be forged. The evidence for the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq is likewise fictitious.

lunchstealer|8.16.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Congrats on the 300th post, Jake!

Awik Dunder(head)oooo|8.16.07 @ 3:48PM|#

*froth froth froth* *spittle spittle* *poot poot* *whine whine* *9/11 9/11* *made up fuqd up talking point made up fuqd talking point* *more frothing more frothing*

AND END IT UP WITH A BIG TIME KARATE STANCE AND SHREAK TO THE MIRROR!

WHO'S YER BIATCH, MIRROR! WHO'S YER BIATCH?? SAY IT SAY IT!!!

DUUUUUNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDEEEERRRRROOOOOOOO!

dhex|8.16.07 @ 4:09PM|#

oh and eric just fun brooklyn facts i live about six blocks away from an actual madrassa and uh they seem to be nice people. sure they wrapped my wife in a burqa and forced me to convert by swordpoint and now she doesn't cook anything without goat in it and every three minutes it's that whole HLAALALALAALALALAALALALAALA thing but other than that they're good neighbors.

|8.16.07 @ 4:17PM|#

I think I'm turning Islam. Must. . .resist. . .facing. . .Mecca. . . .

dhex|8.16.07 @ 4:25PM|#

i think i'm turning islamese i think i'm turning islamese i really think so

GinSlinger|8.16.07 @ 4:26PM|#

Dondero,

Answer me one thing,
Do you still beat your wife?

Timothy|8.16.07 @ 4:30PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

lunchstealer|8.16.07 @ 5:08PM|#

Pray like an Egyptian...

|8.16.07 @ 5:57PM|#

Eric Dondero | August 16, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Aha, I see you're on the defense there Franklin. Took you a while. But you're finally begrudgingly admitting that Giuliani's appointment of Sally Pipes was a good thing.
Now your only recourse is to downplay its significance.
But that's okay. At least I got you to admit that Giuliani actually appointed a libertarian as a Policy Advisor. That's more than good enough.
And you can bet I'll be using that in the future.
Take a while to respond? Maybe it's because I have something called med school, meaning I can't spend all day jaunting about my big 'tarian dong like some people.
Also, I DID acknowledge Sally Pipes was a libertarian, and to tell you the truth, it is a good thing that she's on his Health Panel.
Unfortunately, his pragmatism means that he will make TRULY unlibertarian policies like support ethanol subsidies, which people like Sally Pipes can do nothing about because hey, Giuliani, he knows what he's doing on stuff like baseball stadiums, right?
I go back to my first post, "Meaning, he'll sell out his libertarian backers, like you, to ensure he doesn't end up like the empty suit of GW Bush.
In some ways, that would be an improvement over the last 8 years of ineptitude, but it's not libertarian."
That's what Rudy's about, winning. And 'tarians be damned if they mess up his chances of leaving a mark on history...

Jake Boone | August 16, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Aha, I see you're on the defense there Franklin. Took you a while. But you're finally begrudgingly admitting that Giuliani's appointment of Sally Pipes was a good thing.

Now your only recourse is to downplay its significance.

Wow... that'll be a herculean task. How do you downplay something that's already insignificant on its face?

Because grasping for the the kitchen scraps is what "moderate libertarians" should do to Great Leaders like Rudy...

lunchstealer | August 16, 2007, 3:16pm | #
The yellow cake story was based solely on evidence that has been more-or-less proven to be forged.
The story that Saddam bought yellowcake was false, but there does seem to be evidence that there was negotiations going on for the purchase of yellowcake...

Eric Dondero|8.17.07 @ 9:58AM|#

And Franklin, that fact that "it's not libertarian" is fine by me. The best we can ever hope for in our lifetimes is Centrism or Conservatism with a libertarian streak. We will never, ever get a libertarian President like Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford or Jeff Flake. The electorate is far too collectivist.

So, why not settle for second best?

I think I'd prefer a Conservative who leans libertarian, like a Jack Kemp.

But a Centrist like Giuliani who leans libertarian is just fine by me. (Actually, technically speaking I think Giuliani is literally right on the border line between Libertarian and Centrist. He's a "Moderate Libertarian.")

Eric Dondero|8.17.07 @ 10:02AM|#

Dudes, if you all are going to crack jokes laced with extreme sarcasm, at least make them intelligible. There are some good ones above, but most are way too arcane.

Examples of good and bad:

Dhex - Excellent humor. Too the point. Very sarcastic, and entirely understandable. He flamed me, and I'm still sizzlin' from it.

Awik Dunderhoo - Bad, very bad humor. Entirely unintelligible. I have no idea what in the fuck this guy is even trying to say. Anybody else?

lunchstealer|8.17.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Delve not into the mysteries of the Moose, unless you are stout of stomach, and fortitudinous of intestine. (The awik thing is His Mooseliness's work)

I'm still puzzled as to your buying into the Iraq-AlQaeda connection. There was talk of the Atta/Iraq Prague thing in 2002, but it's pretty much considered to have been bad intel. The Al Qaeda training camp was always just conjecture, and again didn't pan out. It this thing is such a slam dunk, why isn't anyone outside of Cheney's office willing to talk about it? I never have bought into conspiracies of silence.

Awik Dunderoooooooooooooooo|8.17.07 @ 12:28PM|#

curses! I would have gotten away with it had it not been for this pesky Voleur du dejeuner and his little dog, too.

VIkingMoose|8.17.07 @ 12:43PM|#

oh - (The awik thing is His Mooseliness's work)
yes - only on H&R tho.

|8.17.07 @ 9:02PM|#

BTW, Merv Griffin's Ghost was me, feeling out a new nickname, since jf is a little too close to JF for my tastes, and I like nicks that are close to my real name. But, posting under my real name seems pretentious, since I'm basically a nobody who hasn't pounded the pavement for the LP.

|8.18.07 @ 1:58AM|#

Corporations are not libertarian entities, as they are creations of the government and live off taxpayer welfare. They should definitely be reformed.

|8.18.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Moulitsas-one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century

He has been wrong for like 3 election cycles and only got one right.

Anyway this is the reality that weigel has missed:

So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.

He is subjugating and diluting libertarianism because he sees it as an increasingly popular rival to his socialist ideology.

Maybe if you got off sucking the dick of your inflatable Kos doll you got at his convention you would see that.