The Friday Political Thread: Religion of Secularism Edition

David Weigel | December 7, 2007

There's a lot more to chew over (and I do some of that in an America's Future Foundation podcast with Eli Lake and Amanda Carpenter) but some of the basics...

- Mike Huckabee continued his poll surge, culminating in a Newsweek poll that gave him a 39-17 point lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa. The poll was taken Dec. 5 and Dec. 6. Quick: What happened on Dec. 6?

- The Ron Paul Blimp got set to launch.

Unconvincing quote of the week...

"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
- Mitt Romney, Dec. 6

Stop the Bandwagon, I Wanna Get Off! Iowans are notoriously wimpy about negative campaigning, and Hillary Clinton's shockingly abrupt blitz against Obama has inspired one of her state co-chairs to switch to Obama.

"I think the Clinton campaign went negative," [Gary] Thomas said in a telephone interview on Thursday. He attributed his defection to the new tone Clinton took last weekend, describing it as divisive. Obama officials said Thomas committed to them this week... The switch by one man—even someone in elected office, as Thomas, a Burlington city council member is—may mean little in the end. But Baxter's eagerness to speak out—against Clinton and now, on behalf of Obama—comes as the campaigns are trying to assess the impact of a sharper tone by Clinton that began last weekend.

This comes via Ben Smith, who wonders if the Clinton campaign will move its focus from Iowa to other contests and build a "broader case" against him. But the Clinton lead is shrinking in New Hampshire and South Carolina, too, and they're not notorious for their daintiness.

Fred Thompzzzzzz. Here's one measure of the rapid fade underway at Fred Thompson HQ. In July you had to shell out $35 for a Fred future at InTrade. Now it's $5—about the same value as John Edwards. Here's another measure: This video of Fred at a town hall-style rally in Orange City, Iowa. Just try and stay awake, and understand why when Huckabee was told that Thompon had criticized him for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate, Huckabee joked: "I guess it's easy to read it if you're not busy campaigning."

Below the fold...

- Jeremy Lott urges Mitt to make a real Mormon speech.

- Shawn Macomber writes one of the last (and best) Tom Tancredo stories you'll ever read.

- Jacob Heillbrunn recaps the TNR-NR dirty war.

This week's Politics 'n' Prog should be self-explanatory. If Geddy Lee's tight pants don't rattle your faith in the Creator, nothing will.

Comments

Paul|12.8.07 @ 1:12AM|#

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Eddwwwaaaarrrrrdddddd|12.8.07 @ 1:56AM|#

Ron Paul should have done a moneybomb today in honor of the anniversary of a great military victory by his fascist supporters' heroes.

Eddwwwaaaarrrrrddddddd|12.8.07 @ 1:58AM|#

And if anybody thought I screwed that up, remember that 7 am in the morning in Honolulu is 2 am the next day in Tokyo.

Check this out, courtesy of Al|12.8.07 @ 2:11AM|#

Go to google and search for:

bill of rights

click on the first non-sponsered link - a us government site.

(irony effective as of 080900Z, may change as the weekend goes on)

|12.8.07 @ 2:42AM|#

I like Ron Paul a lot, but I think the blimp is a terrible idea that will work against his already disadvantaged campaign.

|12.8.07 @ 3:03AM|#

I like Ron Paul a lot, but I think the blimp is a terrible idea that will work against his already disadvantaged campaign.

I'll reiterate my earlier comment.....

avraam jack|12.8.07 @ 7:59AM|#

----- CLINTON SLEAZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----
-----EDWARDS/RICHARDSON TO WIN-----
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.

ed|12.8.07 @ 8:08AM|#

Lordy. Once every four years Iowans are important. How did it all come to this?
What sort of twisted, sadistic god made this possible?

|12.8.07 @ 8:10AM|#

Ah, back in the day when Neil Pert still played matched grip while wearing shoes behind the kit.

I've never understood why drummers back in the day took off their bottom heads. I tried in on my drums a few times and they sounded flat and dead. Must be an acquired taste.

Neu Mejican|12.8.07 @ 10:45AM|#

In the spirit of open threadiness...

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/779

According to my calculations, if the slave trades had not occurred, then 72% of the average income gap between Africa and the rest of the world would not exist today, and 99% of the income gap between Africa and the rest of the underdeveloped world would not exist. In terms of economic development, Africa would not look any different from the other developing countries in the world.

This finding is striking. These results may not be the final and definitive explanation for the origins of Africa's severe underdevelopment, but they do provide very strong evidence that much of Africa's poor performance can be explained by its history, which is characterised by over 400 years of slave raiding.

Joshua Holmes|12.8.07 @ 11:24AM|#

It is a strange world for Christians when the world's second-most prominent Christian cannot stop lying about nuclear weapons, but the world's most prominent Shi'a Muslim has dutifully and repeatedly told the truth.

Edward|12.8.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Ron Paul (ever notice he has the same initials as Ross Perot?) desperately needs the money to continue his work of completely confusing people about what libertarianism is. Is it a dyslexic cult that reads God into everything? Does it have ties to Nazis? It's an old gold miners movement, isn't it? Fuck! Keep your money.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Joshua-

Well, I wouldn't take their words for truth either.

LarryA|12.8.07 @ 11:47AM|#

From the Lott article on Romney: One thing that might win over evangelicals is an appeal to the notion of "co-belligerency." The modern religious right is organized not around an ecclesial body but a set of public policy ideas about abortion, the family unit, education and free exercise of religion.

Won't work. The Evangelicals who want a "Christian government" don't believe Mormons are Christian enough to run one.

|12.8.07 @ 11:51AM|#

"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."- Mitt Romney, Dec. 6, 2007

I was going to compose a lengthy post to explain why, regarding me, Mitt got this right. Then I thought, "Oh hell, just post an appropriate link.

They really do treat us like morons, don't they?

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 11:54AM|#

J sub D- Ha!

|12.8.07 @ 12:18PM|#

JsD-

Good link.

I forgot Romney's wife has MS, and he still had the grapes to flip-flop on stem cell research.

I'm surprised his children haven't smothered him to death in his sleep yet.

the innominate one|12.8.07 @ 12:30PM|#

in all the Paul-bashing by Edward, I haven't seen who Edward actually supports for pres. how about it Edward?

|12.8.07 @ 12:32PM|#

J sub D,

Very funny (and informative). The most surprising thing for me was that the site was sponsored by the Massachusetts Democratic Party...I don't understand their motivation for compiling this list, unless they're out to settle old scores.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 12:38PM|#

crimethink,

Or may be because he simply IS a TRUE flip-flopper. joe may be able to say more though.

Minion of URKOBOLD|12.8.07 @ 12:40PM|#

ED SHALL VOTE FOR ZOD. NATCH.

|12.8.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Very funny (and informative). The most surprising thing for me was that the site was sponsored by the Massachusetts Democratic Party...I don't understand their motivation for compiling this list, unless they're out to settle old scores.

Nah, politicos would never be that small, petty, and vindictive. What? You say they might be? Damn, my faith in the noble, altruistic, partisan is shattered. I'll be in my darkened bedroom with the shades pulled down, ruminating.

Eric Dondero|12.8.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Time for even Ron Paul supporters to smarten up, and realize Huckabee could actually win this thing.

If fiscal cons and libertarian Republicans don't unite soon under one single candidate, we could lose this thing to Baptist Boy. (BTW, there's a report just hitting the news that in 1992 Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients in concentration camps.)

Huckabee is the most anti-libertarian of all the GOP candidates.

Look, I'd love for Rudy to be the guy that all fiscal cons and libertarians unite behind. But if he isn't I'm willing to go with Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.

Enough is enough. Huckabee is just plain goddamned scary.

Let's choose one candidate and unite our forces behind him to ward off the Huck Monster.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 1:35PM|#

Eric, How about you and all Rudy's followers join the rEVOLution? You will be received with lots of LOVE! I will kiss Rudy on the forehead if he joins the rEVOLution (as nauseating as that may be).

|12.8.07 @ 1:36PM|#

I'll gladly unite with forces to support Ron Paul.

TLB|12.8.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Regarding the Spectator "cri de corporatism" article, I guess the fact that the "StopAmnesty/VoteTancredo" stickers are "antiquated" means he already won in a way.

Meanwhile:

1. CNNYoutube censored replies to their DebateVideos

2. The MexicanGovernment says they're going to be working with NonprofitOrganizations in the U.S. to support their agenda. Guess what: they already are. And, they even have an indirect link to some bloggers. Details: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007300.html

3. TomTancredo explains why he won't be attending the SpanishLanguageDebate, and it's pretty good: miamiherald.com/851/story/333894.html

4. I discuss MikeHuckabee's ImmigrationPlan here: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007296.html
The fact that someone can release such a flawed plan and still be considered a contender is beyond me.

5. The NAFTASuperhighway has been confirmed by the ManitobaGovernment: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007290.html

6. I take BeltwayHacks to task here:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007297.html
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007284.html
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007288.html

7. The President's Advisory Council Against The Use of Prog highly recommends giggling as an antidote for those who have been exposed to prog: youtube.com/watch?v=l4pE9-_gL88

|12.8.07 @ 1:40PM|#

I was alerted to this Johnathan Martin blog post by one of my leftist professors during the week. Apparently the Paul campaign sent out mailings in South Carolina claiming that "Dr Paul pushed for a Declaration of War against Iraq."

Now, I understand that he pushed for an up or down vote on a declaration of war, but that's not the same thing. I haven't seen this thing anywhere else, so I'm not sure if Martin (who is very anti-Paul) is lying, but if it's true the Paul campaign needs to address this ASAP. While I wouldn't blink an eye if Hillary or Romney pulled something like this, we all know that Dr Paul is (and should be) held to a higher standard.

|12.8.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Sorry, Donderoooooo, I'd probably vote for Hillary over any of Rudy McRompson. Plus, I'm busy coddling Islamofascists this weekend.

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 1:46PM|#

The National Review completed their 'blogger investigation in about 1/10 the time that TNR did. Amazing.

Juan|12.8.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Were?

|12.8.07 @ 1:55PM|#

If fiscal cons and libertarian Republicans don't unite soon under one single candidate, we could lose this thing to Baptist Boy.

Hey Dondero, have you seen that Campbells low sodium soup commercial? The chef dude looks just like Huckabee. I think we "Campbells Soup" guy from now on.

|12.8.07 @ 2:03PM|#

The amazing thing is that Dondero thinks ANY of those guys have a chance in the general election. Methinks the GOP establishment vastly overestimates the animosity to Hillary that's out there. There's nowhere near enough of that to counter the fact that voters are fed up with the occupation of Iraq.

I speak from experience. Back in 2000, there was a ton of anti-Hillary vitriol in upstate NY, and without the strong support she got from the NYC area, she probably wouldn't have won. In 2006, she got like 70% of the vote up here. You guys need to stop living in the 90s.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 2:03PM|#

At 7% in MI. If only Dearborn would vote its heart, it would give Paul a huge boost.

Neu Mejican|12.8.07 @ 2:09PM|#

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Were?

First class?

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#

I can't help it :-)

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Were?

First class?

Musicians?

Neu Mejican|12.8.07 @ 2:12PM|#

A classification of musicians:

First class- spawn new genre, change the face of music...people will be listening to them centuries from now...discussing the implications of their innovations.
Second Class- their stuff still sounds good after a few decades.
Coach - I liked it when it came out.

|12.8.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Were?

First class?

Musicians?

Guys?

|12.8.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Anybody who votes for a pro war candidate cannot be called fiscally conservative;

How many trillions of tax-payer dollars are being shovelled into the furnace over that boondogle?

Neu Mejican|12.8.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Those guys really were first-class musicians.

Were?

First class?

Musicians?

Guys?

Those?

Neu Mejican|12.8.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Really?

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 2:30PM|#

This is what I call world class, and this is what I call true-world wide fanfare of a fine class song! Here they are on indoctrination.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 2:31PM|#

NM, crimethink- Ha, that was fun.

|12.8.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Wow, Dunderooooo! and LoneWacko are here this afternoon. Did either of them say anything new?
Lemme just guess.

LoneWacko is still posting about DirtyIllegalMexicans building a NAFTASuperHighwayToCanada.

Donderoooo, is still licking Rudy's jism off his chin, while fussing about IslamoFascists.

I'd appreciate it if somebody alerted me to anything interesting that they posted. I don't feel like wading through shit looking for diamonds.

|12.8.07 @ 2:48PM|#

J sub D,

The only interesting thing is that Dondero is now so terrified of the Huckabofascists he's willing to consider Thompson or Romney.

General Betray-Us|12.8.07 @ 3:10PM|#

There's nowhere near enough of that to counter the fact that voters are fed up with the occupation of Iraq.

Crimethink:

You vastly over-estimate the hostility to the Iraq Front in the Global War on Islamofascism
among Republicans, Independents and sane Democrats.

Who among the leading Democrat candidates promises to have us out in 2008?...2012 ?

|12.8.07 @ 3:12PM|#

crimethink,

Thanks. I owe you one for the tedium you endured so I didn't have to.

Huckabee and Romney are on the same bus. Thompson overslept and missed it.

Fred Phelps|12.8.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Huckabee Hates Fags Too!

|12.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#

I'm sure I'm ripping off somebody's shtick here. Please forgive me.

Huckabee.

umble|12.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#

Weekend music selection needs more Zappa:

Highbrow

Lowbrow

BakedPenguin|12.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#

iih - well, I disagree with you on other bands, but not on the one you linked to.

Pigs (Three Different Ones) came off Animals, the album they released right after Wish You Were Here. Since it's a musical interpretation of Orwell's Animal Farm, it's at least partially relevant on a political thread.

Also, these lyrics always remind me of Hillary Clinton:

Bus stop rat bag, ha ha charade you are.
You fucked up old hag, ha ha charade you are.
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.

Happy Jack|12.8.07 @ 3:21PM|#

lonewhacko - I gots to know. What was the outcome of the Great Cornbread Experiment?

|12.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#

From one of the local rags,
Oprah campaigns in Iowa for Obama.

The question is -

Which of these two women is the most powerful? Let's face it, Oprah is a BIG TIME public opinion mover and shaker. Maybe the biggest in the nation. She'd chew up and spit Chuck Norris out like a piece of gum.

The inevitable follow up question -

Can the Democratic race get interesting?

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 3:49PM|#

CNNYoutube censored replies to their DebateVideos

Removing a link from a site to a different site is not censorship.

The NAFTASuperhighway has been confirmed by the ManitobaGovernment:

You already brought this up. It is a plan, maybe too ambitious, to build a navigable waterway among the various lake and rivers of central Canada. Then, use that growth to increase volume of trade with the south. Hier is what the dude was talking about. Look at the 'setting the record strait' and 'myth vs facts' section. Oh that's right, this is disinformation; these guys are part of the NAU conspiracy to get dirty mehicans and canuks to overwhelm us with tacos and lutefish.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 3:49PM|#

do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg

Seriously dude is your problem too many drugs, or too few?

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Now to switch gears and respond to an actual sane person:

this Johnathan Martin blog post

Dondero brought this up earlier in the week with an implication that this was the worse political move since showing up on a boat called 'Monkey Business.'

1) I would be amazed that any pro-war, primary voting veteran, would have such a shallow understanding of the various candidates to think Paul is Pro-Iraq War.

2) If everyone thinks that this is a deal-breaking scandal, rather than just tailored marketing campaign, our Republic is in fact doomed.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#

BakePenguin- Yeah, I like that one too. Though it does not have the same powerful spirit as Another Brick in the Wall does.

I disagree with you on other bands

I think this is the first time I ever mention a band I like, unless that one time when I said I really liked Coldplay's Fix You (I first saw it in one of Ron Paul's videos on YouTube).

|12.8.07 @ 4:05PM|#

No NAU conspiricist has ever explained to me why Canada and Mexico would want to be merged with a country much bigger than them in population, resources, and cultural influence. It sounds like a really raw deal for both our neighbors.

Not to mention pretty much electoral suicide in Mexico, and the same to a lesser extent in Canada.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 4:07PM|#

J sub D-

I'm surprised that Oprah risking her image with this, or at least, doing it this early. OTOH, this move probably does have the least risk of alienating her fan base, because Obama has, so far, the same 'nice person that you would love to have a bbq with him and his family' image. (In contrast, doing this for Clinton would probably cause her ratings to drop; there are many women, even democrats that have a visceral reaction against the Senator.)

I wonder if the 'wetwork' portion of the Clinton team will start a rearguard whispering campaign against Oprah, bringing stuff up like the million pieces guy. I think the odds of this are low, but finite.

|12.8.07 @ 4:11PM|#

Lutefish tacos, Mmmm.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 4:15PM|#

New target="_blank">Ron Paul Radio Ad.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 4:15PM|#

haha... but the link still works.

Randolph Carter|12.8.07 @ 4:16PM|#

I think the point of that mailer was to show that Paul isn't a peacenik dove - he would go to war, in the constitutionally described manner, if there was a threat to our national security.

|12.8.07 @ 4:17PM|#

I wonder if the 'wetwork' portion of the Clinton team will start a rearguard whispering campaign against Oprah, bringing stuff up like the million pieces guy. I think the odds of this are low, but finite.

Low probability for now. It is more likely if she starts getting behind in the polls or loses a couple of early states. I DO NOT get the impression that Hillary is the type of person to lose gracefully.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Cesar-
A monetary union would be good for Canada but bad for Mexico, although the elites in those respective countries think the opposite

A political union would be good for Mexico but bad for Canada; the elites in both countries agree with this for the most part.

TLB|12.8.07 @ 4:26PM|#

Kolohe: You misrepresented the issue.

Youtube allows video replies, which are listed under the video to which they're a reply. Those are links to the individual YT video pages, they aren't links to other sites.

I added two videos as replies to the CNNYoutube-supplied videos, and they appeared in that list for 1-3 days. Then, they were removed. And, no one from YT has gotten back to me.

Since my videos were highly critical of CNNYoutube, and since the videos were not only completely on-topic but used (100% FairUse) snippets from replied-to videos, I can only come to one conclusion.

As for the NAFTASuperhighway, the latest tack from shills and useful idiots is to keep playing word games, claiming that unless there's a mile-wide roadway it's not the NAFTASuperhighway. Yet, the issue is the underlying goal: in the short term flood the U.S. with cheap ChineseGoods and, in the longer term, "harmonize" us with the two other countries. Do watch the video; it's clear that the leaders of the three countries are lying to their subjects.

|12.8.07 @ 4:27PM|#

A political union would be good for Mexico but bad for Canada; the elites in both countries agree with this for the most part.

Uh, most Mexicans from my experience would view a "NAU" as a back-door way of completing what James K. Polk started 1846.

|12.8.07 @ 4:35PM|#

A political union would be good for Mexico but bad for Canada; the elites in both countries agree with this for the most part.

Boy this hurts -

A political union would be good for the people of Mexico but bad for the people of Canada. IMRO, many "elites" in Mexico would flee south rather than face the rule of law.

BakedPenguin|12.8.07 @ 4:44PM|#

...it does not have the same powerful spirit as Another Brick in the Wall

I know what you mean, but you probably weren't listening to US classic rock station from 1980 - 1995 or so. Had you been, you would have heard Another Brick in The Wall a lot.

As for you discussing bands - you slagged Rush (whom I like) upthread, although that may have been more for humor value, and...

I really liked Coldplay's Fix You

I view Coldplay as a milquetoast bastard child of Radiohead and U2. Not terrible, but bland.

I DO NOT get the impression that Hillary is the type of person to lose gracefully.

J sub D - continuing the thought I started upthread -

...You like the feel of steel,
You're hot stuff with a hatpin,
And good fun with a hand gun.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 4:47PM|#

As for you discussing bands - you slagged Rush (whom I like) upthread, although that may have been more for humor value,

Actually it was.

Yeah, I know what you mean regarding Coldplay, but Fix You is uplifting. Just sayin'.

Paul|12.8.07 @ 4:52PM|#

[[...] then 72% of the average income gap between Africa and the rest of the world would not exist today, and 99% of the income gap between Africa and the rest of the underdeveloped world would not exist.[...]but they do provide very strong evidence that much of Africa's poor performance can be explained by its history, which is characterised by over 400 years of slave raiding.

I'm not sure I've ever read anything so self-evidently false in...well... recent memory. How could that continent have been "slave raided" 400 years ago if they were already on equal footing (technologically and economically speaking) with the raiders themselves. According to the logic, we must assume that "Africans" (a huge and diverse continent, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume we're talking about those Africans being raided) had gun-powder, cannon, ships of the line, modern (for the time) metal working and a robust international trade system. What's that? they didn't have that? They were living a tribal existence with technology far inferior to their raiders? Hmm, methinks we may have started the 400 year period with a significant 'income gap'.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 4:57PM|#

Paul, you're misreading the statement. "Then" is not in the sense of "back then". It is in the sense of "If... then..." logical statement. So if it had not happened, today, the gap between the world and Africa would have been 72% less today.

|12.8.07 @ 4:59PM|#

In Mexico, you go north to cross border.

In NAU, border goes south to cross you.

BakedPenguin|12.8.07 @ 5:03PM|#

iih - just so you know, I don't take (or mean) anything personally regarding bands. Music is so subjective, I think saying something is good or bad is nearly meaningless except as a personal opinion.

|12.8.07 @ 5:08PM|#

I read the column by Jeremy Lott saying Mitt should have explained the nitty-gritty of being a Morman like Hillaire Belloc explained Catholicism in 1906. (It worked for Belloc.)
I don't think so.
I think we've come a long way in a good way in the last century in that nobody wants to hear the nitty-gritty of anybody else's religion.
It's a good thing that we don't want to hear about religion period. Religion is silliness.

So Mitt struck the right note: tolerance.

|12.8.07 @ 5:10PM|#

It's funny, I was just doing some research on this for a (hopefully fictional) story I'm writing...apparently back in the early 90s, when Quebec was seriously talking about seceding from Canada and the Canadian govt was giving them all sorts of concessions to try to keep them from doing so, a bunch of the prairie provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan, and possibly Manitoba) threatened to secede and apply for membership in the US.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 5:16PM|#

BakedPenguin, Yeah, of course I agree. When I was in my teens, here is what I listened to: Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Pearl jam, Alan Parsons Project, and Green Day. I really do not understand the political/social implications of listening to certain other bands, but here they are: The Cranberries, Queen, REM, Simon and Garfunkel, some Beatles songs, and Reggae (always a joy on a sunny day). I am probably forgetting a few other important ones, too. 4 Non Blondes' What's Up is just powerful.

So let it be known! :-)

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 5:26PM|#

Quick: What happened on Dec. 6?

I guess we are just going to ignore 7 Dec. 1941? I am positive the surrender monkeys around here can gin-up some sort of convoluted way to blame the USA and complain about our going to war against Germany and Italy because it was Japan that attacked us.

|12.8.07 @ 5:27PM|#

...a bunch of the prairie provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan, and possibly Manitoba) threatened to secede and apply for membership in the US.

I remember thinking, Go quebec, Go! Declare independence and we'll absorb the rest of Canada. Think of what a colossus that would have been.

Sadly, the Québécois stopped smoking that pipe, and thought about the ramifications of an independent Quebec.

|12.8.07 @ 5:29PM|#

Kolohe & Randolph,

I understand the purpose of the mailing; what I don't understand is why they felt it necessary to include a false statement about his position on Iraq. There's plenty of truthful ways to show that Dr Paul is strong on national defense.

And the fact that a person can do research to find out that the statement is false doesn't excuse lying. It's the same as if Hillary sent out a mailer to Iowans claiming that she favored banning abortion.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 5:31PM|#

crimethink- BC and Alberta (very rarely and not that vocally) threaten with secession till today (every now and then). I think it would be a stretch to say they'd apply for membership to the US. BC wouldn't on cultural bases and Alberta on economic. Alberta has zero, read ZERO, provincial debt! I am sorry to say it, but the US would be a burden on Alberta.

There was a row a couple of years ago when Alberta lowered the Canadian flag over energy revenue redistribution (it dominated Canadian news for a few weeks, but can't find a link. Even poor Newfoundland also lowered all Canadian flags from provincial government, also over energy resources and payment redistribution.

|12.8.07 @ 5:35PM|#

I guess we are just going to ignore 7 Dec. 1941? I am positive the surrender monkeys around here can gin-up some sort of convoluted way to blame the USA and complain about our going to war against Germany and Italy because it was Japan that attacked us.

Oh c'mon Guy. This sailor always remembers Pearl Harbor on December 7th. If you ever get to Oahu, visit the Arizona Memorial. I found in emotionally staggering.

Trivia Alert!
The Arizona was the only BB at Pearl Harbor that day, that didn't later fight in the War of the Pacific. The shipyard workers at Pearl Harbor were war heroes as well. See USS Yorktown, Battle of Midway, for another example.

|12.8.07 @ 5:36PM|#

"I guess we are just going to ignore 7 Dec. 1941? I am positive the surrender monkeys around here can gin-up some sort of convoluted way to blame the USA and complain about our going to war against Germany and Italy because it was Japan that attacked us."

Guy-

First of all you forgot "cheese eatin'"

Second, if it hadn't been for the "New Deal" the Axis would have so feared the figurative free market bulge in our collective pants they would have never tried to pull a stunt like that. ;)

|12.8.07 @ 5:38PM|#

Guy,

We went to war against Germany and Italy because they declared war on us first (signalling that the German Navy was going to attack our shipping). Note that we didn't declare war on them until several days after we declared war on Japan.

And, while it certainly wasn't enough to justify the Pearl Harbor attacks, we weren't being very friendly to Japan beforehand. We had adopted an openly racist immigration policy to prevent Japanese from coming here, and we were enforcing an oil embargo against them.

Of course, by the time I was in school fifty-some years later, the myriad complexities of that event -- like those of the Civil War and the Great Depression -- had been sanded off in favor of a smooth, consistent, and largely fallacious narrative.

|12.8.07 @ 5:52PM|#

crimethink,

Yes the history books don't explain everything. Nor do your two examoles of US policy. Economic embargoes on Japan preceded the Pearl Harbor Attack, yes. But they were a response to continuing Japanese aggression in the far east. Surely the Rape of Nanking, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, (empire by conquest), cried out for some response by the United States.

Nope, Germany and Japan really were the bad guys then.

|12.8.07 @ 6:00PM|#

Surely the Rape of Nanking, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, (empire by conquest), cried out for some response by the United States.

I've no doubt that Japan was a bad guy in that conflict, but the US and especially the UK had little moral high ground to complain about conquering weaker peoples to build an empire. Japan's misfortune was apparently to have come to that party too late.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Interesting: Iran drops dollar from oil deals: report.

|12.8.07 @ 6:01PM|#

What's Dondero going to say when Benito puts jesus on the ticket...

KoЯn joins the rEVOLution

|12.8.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Keep in mind that the first places that Japan tangled with the Allies -- Hawaii and Malaysia -- were themselves conquered colonies of the US and UK, respectively.

|12.8.07 @ 6:05PM|#

I got this via Balloon Juice. Par for this administration's course.

God, my local papers suck diseased horse penis. This wasn't in either.

|12.8.07 @ 6:08PM|#

Interesting: Iran drops dollar from oil deals: report.

Very. Looking at it from Iram's perspective, it makes sense.

|12.8.07 @ 6:08PM|#

Enough is enough. Huckabee is just plain goddamned scary.

Let's choose one candidate and unite our forces behind him to ward off the Huck Monster.

So, Dondero, you must be OK with the notion of everyone uniting behind Ron Paul to ward off Huckabee?

HAHAHAHA. Jes' kidding.

|12.8.07 @ 6:09PM|#

Iran's vice Iram's. What a retard!

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:10PM|#

good for the people of Mexico but bad for the people of Canada.

J sub D-
Agree with you on the Mexico part (in fact I cribbed my construction from something I read here, it may have been you?)

On Canada, the fundamental organizing principle of Canadian politics is 'we're not Americans, eh' So, of course both elites and ordinary people perceive its not good for them. But for some, especially places like Atlantic Canada which have a scelrotic economy, low urbanization, *and* have a high cost of living, a 'harmonization' with New England would be I think, of great benefit to the people and the elites.

Don't get me wrong, while a US-Canadian union would have some benefit to me personally, I think it is a better overall policy to have a first world, completely independent political entity next door as a safety valve in the case of excessive idiocy build-up in the US.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 6:12PM|#

prolefeed- You might have been asked this before, but how do you feel about Paul and Romney? Especially the latter.

|12.8.07 @ 6:13PM|#

crimethink, your comment about Japan being late to the party, sums it all up quite well. Hindsight being what it is, they should have been satisfied with China and Korea. Too much, too fast.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 6:13PM|#

a 'harmonization' with New England would be I think, of great benefit to the people and the elites

Seriously, they wouldn't.

|12.8.07 @ 6:15PM|#

The only interesting thing is that Dondero is now so terrified of the Huckabofascists he's willing to consider try to get Huckabee supporters to switch to Thompson or Romney so Giuliani will still win.

Fixed.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:19PM|#

TLB
*I* misrepresent an issue?

Censorship is a state entity telling someone that they may not speak, publish or otherwise disseminate what they wish.

Youtube did not even remove your videos, did they? They (or more precisely, the original video host, but which is probably working for the same cnn/google consortium) removed a link from one video to another. I have no idea how youtubes back/cross linking works, but the decision to remove a link, and not the content, does not even approach the idea of censorship. This is, at best, like a call in program obscuring its number if it's in a re-run.

|12.8.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Kolohe'

When everbody is out to get you, censorship is an obvious conclusion. It's like when the UFO abductees get cut off the air in talk radio. It's a conspiracy, a cover-up, that just proves it.

|12.8.07 @ 6:27PM|#

So, Dondero, you must be OK with the notion of everyone uniting behind Ron Paul to ward off Huckabee?

If Dondi climbs onboard, I'm moving to toss him over the side.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:29PM|#

Even if i agreed with your premise:

in the short term flood the U.S. with cheap ChineseGoods.

Horses, barn doors, etc.

in the longer term, "harmonize" us with the two other countries.

I fail to see how this is problem with Canada, as we tried to do this in both 1776 and 1812. How is it now a concern?

What I find really ironic is I was in Canada during the Mulrooney campaign for his 2nd term in 1989(?). The single greatest issue was free trade with the US, dominating every newscast and political conversation, the way Iraq does for us now. This issue got absolutely *no* coverage in the US. Then a year or two later it was expanded to include Mexico, and then it was able to spawn the political campaign of Perot.

|12.8.07 @ 6:37PM|#

This issue got absolutely *no* coverage in the US. Then a year or two later it was expanded to include Mexico, and then it was able to spawn the political campaign of Perot.

Canadians - White. mostly English speaking, wealthy.
Mexicans - Brown, mostly Spanish speaking, poor.

|12.8.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Although, the CAFTA issue did get covered here in Detroit for obvious reasons.

|12.8.07 @ 6:42PM|#

prolefeed- You might have been asked this before, but how do you feel about Paul and Romney? Especially the latter.

Ali -- I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I think Mitt Romney isn't as awful as the remaining Republican choices -- he has some actual business experience, and would likely act more libertarian on economic issues than the rest of that sorry lot. But, me being sorta Mormon doesn't in any way equate to a Romney vote in the primary.

Now, if it comes down to Romney v. Clinton in the general, I'd be inclined to vote for whoever gets the Libertarian nomination, but I'd think about it a bit, whereas Giuliani or Huckabee v. Clinton would be a slam-dunk Libertarian vote for me.

someone else posted: I read the column by Jeremy Lott saying Mitt should have explained the nitty-gritty of being a Morman like Hillaire Belloc explained Catholicism in 1906. (It worked for Belloc.)

Was talking with some Mormon friends about the Mitt speech during a truck ride to help someone move into a new house, and our Elders Quorum President said something like, "You know, I can see why Mitt didn't go into the details of our faith -- to an outsider, they can seem kinda crazy and unbelievable."

Hence my earlier "sorta Mormon" self-description -- I have issues with lots of the Church's teachings -- I'm amazed they haven't exed me for apostasy for some of my more outspoken criticisms -- but the people are wonderful, likeable human beings I enjoy hanging around. I'm more of a social Mormon than a Peter Priesthood true believer Morbot.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:48PM|#

And the fact that a person can do research to find out that the statement is false doesn't excuse lying. It's the same as if Hillary sent out a mailer to Iowans claiming that she favored banning abortion.

I just don't think its lying. (*Warning: faulty metaphor alert*) but I'd say it's like Hillary with a flyer saying "My Husband is the reason NAFTA got passed." This may appeal to some segment, but she is generally running now against it, at least based on the last debate.
(*Caution: slightly better, but still crappy metaphor*) Or, it's like Hillary saying with her vote for the Iraq resolution that she voted for more diplomacy and sanctions, but was shocked and dismayed when Bush started military action. And so puts out a flyer "I voted for diplomacy and sanctions"

In either case, the original charge was that 'he's just another pol' meaning he's not lying, he's just "giving the truth scope." But if this is the best and/or only example, he's a regular St Augustine compared to his peers.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:49PM|#

J sub D
not sayin' it's can't be easily explained, just ironic

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 6:52PM|#

prolefeed- Thank you very much. I did expect that kind of answer from you. I respect it very much.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:53PM|#

J sub D-
Oklahoma never made it.

There was a lovely ceremony here dedicating a memorial to them on Friday.

|12.8.07 @ 6:55PM|#

just ironic

And a sad commentary on us Americans.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 6:55PM|#

prolefeed and all-

Funny, just came across this on Lew Rockwell:

Latter-Day Saints for Ron Paul.

Of course there is this, too.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 6:56PM|#

Well, you could be right, this gives them about 9 mo from drydocking to decom, but I don't think they got out to the fleet.

|12.8.07 @ 6:57PM|#

Oklahoma never made it.

I stand humbly corrected.

|12.8.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Kolohe,

Except that the mailing *is* *lying*. It is objectively false to say that Ron Paul favored a Declaration of War against Iraq. It is not merely a lie of omission, it's not selectively telling the truth, it is communicating falsehood. Perhaps a better example would be if Hillary said she opposed the AUMF against Iraq.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Kolohe:

Don't get me wrong, while a US-Canadian union would have some benefit to me personally, I think it is a better overall policy to have a first world, completely independent political entity next door as a safety valve in the case of excessive idiocy build-up in the US.

Also useful for Canadians suffering from the vice-versa idiocy build-up syndrome.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 7:14PM|#

crimethink- Which philosopher was who said and proved that in a democratic society, an honest politician can never be elected to the presidency. I salute Ron for his tiny little nit of lying (really more playing with words) to attract the attention of SC voters.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 7:14PM|#

correct my grammar and typos as you see fit.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 7:20PM|#

We were dicks to Japan prior to Dec 1941.
The Japanese were assholes for attacking Hawaii. If the Japanese were just dicks, they would have seized the oilfields they wanted in Southeast asia, defeated the English like they wound up doing anyway, and dared us to intervene.
We were dicks to Hawaiians from 1896-1959, but far less so then to other American Aboriginals. The British were dicks to the Chinese and Malaysians.
The Japanese were assholes to the Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Filipinos, Chamorros, et al.

Everybody from 1933-1945 was either a dick or an asshole, but nobody was a pussy.

FDR wanted to enter the war to help England. The Pearl Harbor attack gave him the political capital to do so. He did not plan or otherwise allow to the attack to occur; as the best politician (note:not president) in American history, he took advantage of the cards he was dealt.

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 7:22PM|#

One last thing:

Those who try to apply too much of history to modern situations is either a pussy or an asshole, but most likely the latter

SIV|12.8.07 @ 7:24PM|#

It is objectively false to say that Ron Paul favored a Declaration of War against Iraq.

Your link shows a Paul mailer that reads " Pushed for an official declaration of war with Iraq."
That is factually true. If Congress had declared war Paul wouldn't be opposing it on Constitutional grounds.

TLB|12.8.07 @ 7:28PM|#

Kolohe: "censor" doesn't necessarily imply a governmental entity. And, part of my question to two people at YT was who exactly the user "YTDebates" is; I suspect it's a CNNYoutube joint venture but neither replied. In any case, they aren't just some regular user since I don't think AndersonCooper is freelancing for them.

For those just joining us, read what CNNYoutube did. Perhaps our kneejerk CNNYoutube apologist could provide an explanation why my videos - both of them - were removed from the list of replies, while others remain.

In other news, WND has picked up on the latest NAFTASuperhighway episode.

Your job: tell us those maps on CanadianGovernment websites do not exist.

See my first comment for many more learning opportunities.

|12.8.07 @ 7:32PM|#

Everybody from 1933-1945 was either a dick or an asshole, but nobody was a pussy.

Congratulations on your dissertation. My I be the first to call you Doctor Kohole?

LOL on the excerpted line.

|12.8.07 @ 7:33PM|#

SIV,

If he had been successful in getting a floor vote on a Declaration of War, he would certainly have voted no. Thus, you can hardly say he was "pushing for" a declaration of war.

Well, unless you want to go the John Kerry "I voted before it before I voted against it" route, but I don't think you do.

|12.8.07 @ 7:34PM|#

that should be "I voted for it before I voted against it"

|12.8.07 @ 7:36PM|#

I don't think he wants to be called Doctor Kohole...

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 7:37PM|#

EXCUSE ME!? I asked for the revisionists and all I get is mostly real history??? I KNOW THE REAL HISTORY!

Plus, you guys forgot that FDR declared open warfare at sea on the Germans on 11 September 1941, without so much as a by-your-leave to the Congress either.

Now, where are the blame-America mobs who want to blame us for that, or did I miss the "grandpa Bush sold some stuff to Germany" post?

|12.8.07 @ 7:41PM|#

I hadn't heard about the pre-Pearl Harbor open sea warfare with the Germans before. If that was the case, it was awfully nice of the Germans to wait till December to declare war on us, wasn't it?

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 7:45PM|#

If he had been successful in getting a floor vote on a Declaration of War, he would certainly have voted no.

What on earth is the difference between what the Congress authorized and a "Declairation of War", other than it is not on some mythical form that you people think exists?

The Congress authorized use of force, and funded it, but it did not use language that triggers even more presidential power, from my understanding of the powers that FDR was granted, like being able to nullify contracts(?). Are you upset that diplomats-in-striped-pants did not deliver a letter to Saddam with a big wax seal on the front?

Anyway, please please please tell us all what the difference is between the Iraq resolution and a declairation of war. I will leave all the UN crap out of this as I am no more a fan of theirs than Nick Gillespie, or for that matter, Pat Buchannan is.

crimethink,

The Germans had been sinking ours and our Allies ships for a while already before FDR piped up about it.

|12.8.07 @ 7:47PM|#

Congratulations on your dissertation. My I be the first to call you Doctor Kohole?

FWIW, J sub D, the Hawaiian word for butt is "okole" (technically it means "arsehole", but the meaning has morphed via common usage into a word for buttocks). So, unless you were being especially wry, make sure you spell it Kolohe, not Kohole, since the latter sounds like a drunk saying okole).

OK, should have preceded that with "pedant alert". My bad. But no point in accidentally insulting someone.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 7:48PM|#

Everybody from 1933-1945 was either a dick or an asshole, but nobody was a pussy.

What about the Swiss?

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 7:52PM|#

What about the Swiss?

Their heavily armed militia was ready to fire two rounds per soldier to repel any invader.

Plus they kept all that Nazi gold for the Jews until the 21st century . . . well, that was bad. But they did give our downed bomber crews hot chocolate for the remainder of the war.

|12.8.07 @ 7:53PM|#

Guy,

If there's no difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war, how come Congress always chooses the former instead of the latter? I think I know why: if the war use of military force doesn't go well, it allows them to, several years later when running for higher office, claim they weren't voting for war, but for diplomacy. The idea behind a declaration of war is that the people's representatives take responsibility for the decision to go to war, rather than handing that decision over to the president.

Also, technically the British weren't our allies until after Pearl Harbor.

|12.8.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Oops. My heartfelt apologies to Doctor Kolohe. I'll attempt to avoid any similar spelling screwups, in the future.

OK, should have preceded that with "pedant alert". My bad. But no point in accidentally insulting someone.

Not at all. I hate the whole ugly american thing. No need to insult at all. BTW, when I insult, it's generally quite clear that it was intended.

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 7:59PM|#

crimethink,

Do you write for Mrs. Clinton?

SIV|12.8.07 @ 7:59PM|#

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

Paul's campaign mailer in South Carolina is %100 truthful on his call for a Declaration of War with Iraq.

There is no issue here.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:06PM|#

The key paragraph that clarifies the potential confusing of the issues is this:

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

I see no contradiction at all. If it were a declaration of war, I am not sure how would people have voted, but I think he would have voted "no".

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:08PM|#

I really do not think many in congress would have voted for a declaration of war, that is why it was not done as a DoW but instead as an authorization to take action against Iraq. Paul wanted it to be constitutional.

|12.8.07 @ 8:09PM|#

SIV,

Keep trying. The flyer didn't say he called for a declaration of war. It didn't say he thought a declaration of war was Constitutionally necessary. It didn't say he introduced a declaration of war.

It said he "pushed for" a declaration of war, which implies support for declaring war.

Here's a thought experiment: Dr Paul would certainly say that it would require a Constitutional amendment to ban handguns. Does that mean it would be truthful to say that he's "pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban handguns"?

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Looks like Mr. Foer has finally waterboarded his writers into being honest. Checkout the new Guantanimo story at TNR.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Dr Paul would certainly say that it would require a Constitutional amendment to ban handguns. Does that mean it would be truthful to say that he's "pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban handguns"?

Even more importantly, that he supports banning guns?

|12.8.07 @ 8:15PM|#

The thing that bugs me the most about this is that they didn't mention all the other things that Dr Paul has done to enhance national security. For instance, why didn't they bring up the Letter of Marque and Reprisal against bin Laden, which he introduced and actually did support?

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:15PM|#

And this does not sound dumb the least: A congress introduces a bill that s/he votes "no" on. I am not expert, but essentially it is the kind of thing that would be done to avoid a military action in the first place. Just vote it up or down, otherwise the whole thing lacks clarity and becomes a big mess.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 8:18PM|#

Are you upset that diplomats-in-striped-pants did not deliver a letter to Saddam with a big wax seal on the front?


As a conservative and traditionalist yes I am.
A nice wax-sealed parchment or vellum document would have made it a lot harder for Democrat Congressmen to claim they were calling for peaceful diplomacy until that Rogue Chimp recklessly distorted their intentions and launched an illegal immoral War.

|12.8.07 @ 8:21PM|#

ali/iih,

I agree. What I take issue with is the language used by the flier, which implies that Dr Paul actually supported going to war with Iraq.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:22PM|#

crimethink- yeah, I agree. But there could be a consistent explanation. Everytime I get worried about something that Paul said or did, I find that it comes from a very consistent principle.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:23PM|#

Oh and it is just "Ali" from now.

|12.8.07 @ 8:24PM|#

SIV,

Well, that's the thing. If Congress had to actually declare war, and stake their reputations and their careers on the correctness of doing so, there's a high probability we would never have gone to war in Iraq.

And from what I can tell, a lot of conservatives wouldn't have been happy about that.

|12.8.07 @ 8:27PM|#

Ali,

I'm certain that this is the work of some overly clever staffer, not the Doctor himself. But -- as in the case of the "Ron Paul Newsletter" fiasco from the 90s -- it's something that he's ultimately responsible for, and he's going to need to respond to this before it blows up in his face.

Right now, he's like the Dolphins playing the Patriots. The odds are so massively stacked against him that he has to play to his strengths, and do it perfectly. He can't afford turnovers like this one.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 8:29PM|#

Bad analogy Crimethink.
Paul actually introduced a declaration of war.
He certainly hasn't proposed a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:31PM|#

crimethnk- yeah, I agree I guess. It could hurt him as a flip-flopper. But why haven't they used it against him yet? But I really do not see this as causing any harm to him. It is minuscule.

|12.8.07 @ 8:35PM|#

OK, SIV, let me revise my thought experiment.

Say that Congress is all set to pass a bill outlawing handguns, and the president has promised to sign it. Also, there's no possibility of a filibuster or an adverse SCOTUS ruling. (This is pretty much the scenario that existed for the Iraq AUMF when Dr Paul introduced his DoW.)

Now, Dr Paul not only does not support banning handguns, but also believes a law doing so would be unconstitutional. So, in an attempt to show the rest of Congress what would be really necessary to ban handguns without violating the constitution, he introduces a constitutional amendment which would ban handguns.

Now, would it be truthful to say that Dr Paul is "pushing for an amendment to ban handguns"?

SIV|12.8.07 @ 8:39PM|#

which implies that Dr Paul actually supported going to war with Iraq.

No it doesn't. Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War is well known. Veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars have always been sore that "their war" was not declared. The veterans from South Carolina are smart enough to understand the distinction in Paul's position.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:40PM|#

SIV- I doubt your analytic/critical/logical abilities.

It was a thought experiment and not an analogy that crimethink suggested.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 8:44PM|#

Crimethink:


Your "thought experiment grows more absurd and irrelevant and does not merit a response. Here is one anyhow: Which pro-abortion Congressman signed on for calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion?

SIV|12.8.07 @ 8:49PM|#

Ali

I doubt your understanding of anything. By "thought experiment" crimethink is making an analogy.

There is a reason the blog post from Dec 4 hasn't "caught on" with anyone other than crimethink and his liberal Professor.

Dr. Henry Jones Sr.|12.8.07 @ 8:51PM|#

After Indiana died, we named the new dog Kolohe.

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:52PM|#

SIV:

A thought experiment has the format: "Assume.... then...."

An analogy would be two things that did occur and are similar in all aspects except for some differences. You use one to clarify the other.

From the above you do get the right definition of what an "analogy" is, but what crimethink was suggesting was a thought experiment and not an analogy.

Am I wrong, anyone?

Ali (aka iih)|12.8.07 @ 8:54PM|#

SIV- I really did not mean to offend btw, I take it back if I did offend you, but my previous comment still stands.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:11PM|#

Let me clarify a little more (it never hurts to review one's logic every now and then):

Thought experiments proceed methodologically by induction, deduction, or abduction.

Analogy proceeds by comparing empirical evidence from two different subjects to clarify one (the target) using the other (the source).

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 9:23PM|#

thanks for the compliments J sub D. Having only a B.S. myself, can someone else tell me if its appropriate to use clips from the new southpark site for my phd defense?

and no offense taken, or actually even perceived. (My knowledge of Hawaiian is "Mahalo means Trash.") Between joe's law of teh internets and the fact there's like only twelve letters and 20 phenomes total anyway, transpositions are inevitable. It took me the first five years to get a handle on the street names out here; there whole neighborhoods where the streets have ten letter names with only two letters different in each one. And keeping straight the neighborhoods of Waikiki, Waialua, Wahiawa, Waipahu, Waimalu, Waimanalo, Waianae, and Waialae, when shopping for real estate is kinda important, but nontheless difficult at first blush

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 9:26PM|#

Ali,

Off topic, and I'm sure that you have answered this before, but what does/did the iih stand for? Or was it just visually similar to the Arabic letters that spell Ali?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 9:29PM|#

Kolohe,

I guess it depends. What field is the Ph.D. in?

...Actually it probably doesn't depend, unfortunately; regardless of the field, I can't imagine a defense committee being happy with a defense including clips from South Park. Maybe if your Ph.D. is in Communications (Pop Culture), but otherwise I can't see that working out too well.

Guy Montag|12.8.07 @ 9:29PM|#

Speaking of 2A, it seems I was a bit premature on the New Republic's sudden turn for the better. Oddness at the Open University.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:29PM|#

no... my initials. plain and simple.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 9:31PM|#

By "thought experiment" do you mean a hypothetical?

I think all South Carolina Veteran Ron Paul supporters would agree that crimethink is engaged in question begging.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 9:32PM|#

Ah OK. I guess when you start conjuring exotic, unusual explanations for things, you miss the obvious ones.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 9:34PM|#

Occam's Razor!!!
You cut me, and each cut is deeper than the last!!!!

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:35PM|#

Ah OK. I guess when you start conjuring exotic, unusual explanations for things, you miss the obvious ones.

Ha!

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:39PM|#

By "thought experiment" do you mean a hypothetical?

A thought experiment is essential an experiment that you carry in your mind, relying on active deduction, induction or abduction. An analogy is something that is more passive. You already have to existing experiments, situations etc, and you use one to explain the other.

Above, crimething suggested a different situation. It was hypothetical and proceeded to come up with a conclusion. It did not sound like he was drawing an analogy.

You (rightfully) objected to it as an analogy, except that it was not an analogy.

The confusion, I think, was because crimthink wanted to show that the outcome is similar to the Declaration of War issue. But it certainly sounded inductive to me.

|12.8.07 @ 9:41PM|#

I think all Kansas crack whores would agree that crack feels good. So what?

Kolohe|12.8.07 @ 9:44PM|#

S.H.D.W.T.L.T.J.
a joke based on j sub d's post above, or perhaps i am missing yours? :)

oh, I think that should have been Phonemes, not Phenomes. I apologize to any exceptionally gifted people I might have offended.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:51PM|#

I think all Kansas crack whores would agree that crack feels good. So what?

Huh?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:53PM|#

BTW,

I finally figured out how to add an RSS feed subscription link to my blog (it took me a month to do that, and few seconds of copying and pasting to put up on the blog).

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 9:56PM|#

Now there is an ad on my blog that says "Love button [imagine pink button here]... Push me hard".

Does this say (through Google's ads thingy) something about me or the people who visit my blog? Since I know that I behave well on the Internet, it must be visitors of my blog. So, Urkobold et al., behave yourselves!

|12.8.07 @ 10:13PM|#

Huh?

Exactly my point.

Also, I think Kansas crack whores like it when you push the love button. But, Donderooooo is the expert in that area of human endeavor, so I bow to his opinion on that particular matter.

SIV|12.8.07 @ 10:20PM|#

I think all Kansas crack whores would agree that crack feels good. So what?

The campaign mailing in question was targeted to Republican military veterans in South Carolina.


I would think Ron Paul campaign literature targeting Kansas City Crack Whores would tout his experience as an OB/GYN and his opposition to Federal Law Enforcement grants to Missouri municipalities.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 10:21PM|#

Does anyone who has a DailyPaul account willing to respond regarding Dondero

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 10:21PM|#

Kolohe,

The response to you? No, that wasn't meant as a joke, nor as snark, just as advice. I'm guessing almost no Ph.D. defense committee would be very happy with a South Park clip.

However, once you are firmly ensconced in your ivory tower, South Park clips might be more accepted.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.8.07 @ 10:22PM|#

Again...

Is anyone who has a DailyPaul account willing to respond here regarding Dondero? I am too lazy to create an account there.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.8.07 @ 10:23PM|#

And the Occam's Razor comment is in reference to my post immediately preceding it.

|12.8.07 @ 10:30PM|#

No, I wasn't talking about Kansas City crack whores. State of Kansas crack whores.

If you can't keep this straight, I don't think it's worth my time to argue with you.

BakedPenguin|12.8.07 @ 11:00PM|#

Is anyone who has a DailyPaul account willing to respond here regarding Dondero?

Ali, don't worry about Dondero. It looks like the people on that site had already sussed him out. It's really not that hard to, considering he never actually argues, just uses argument from authority or ad hominem or just outright lies about something.

Anyone foolish enough to believe Dondero after reading more than two or three paragraphs he's written is probably so dumb they're going to vote for Giuliani anyway...

|12.8.07 @ 11:43PM|#

I don't know why so many people don't like Rudy; he's obviously very interested in security.

PS: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

Sam Grove|12.8.07 @ 11:59PM|#

I read that he introduced a resolution for congress to declare war, but voted against it, or planned to vote against it.
IOW, he was attempting to get four hundred some congress critters to follow the law.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 12:04AM|#

Sam Grove, My point above.

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:31AM|#

The Pearl Harbor attack gave him the political capital to do so. He did not plan or otherwise allow to the attack to occur; as the best politician (note:not president) in American history, he took advantage of the cards he was dealt.

According to Richard Maybury's research, FDR went to great pains to provoke Japan, including sending warships into Japanese territorial waters and pressuring the Dutch to cut off Japan's oil supplies.

Before the Pearl harbor attack, it is reported that he told his staff that we would soon be at war with Japan and all that was left was to get them to strike the first blow.

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:32AM|#

dang

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:35AM|#

It was supposed to look like this:

The Pearl Harbor attack gave him the political capital to do so. He did not plan or otherwise allow to the attack to occur; as the best politician (note:not president) in American history, he took advantage of the cards he was dealt.

According to Richard Maybury's research, FDR went to great pains to provoke Japan, including sending warships into Japanese territorial waters and pressuring the Dutch to cut off Japan's oil supplies.

Before the Pearl harbor attack, it is reported that he told his staff that we would soon be at war with Japan and all that was left was to get them to strike the first blow.

___
but the damn preview wasn't functioning and I put the close italics at the wrong place.

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 7:35AM|#

No, I wasn't talking about Kansas City crack whores. State of Kansas crack whores.

crimethink, apparently they do not know that the only decent part of Kansas City is in MO, making your comment even more relevant.

Sam Grove,

Thanks for coming through with the "it's America's fault" perspective! Got anything on how dropping atomic bombs on Japan was racist?

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:21AM|#

Why not "unite behind Ron Paul"? Because he has no electoral appeal beyond a small cadre of committed supporters.

I've seen no evidence that Ron Paul could move New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut into the GOP column. Rudy Giuliani certainly accomplishes that. Plus, he can keep Ohio Red.

I've seen no evidence that Ron Paul can move Michigan into the GOP column. Mitt Romney can do that.

I've seen little if any evidence that Ron Paul has appeal throughout the South. Fred Thompson does. In fact, Ron Paul's poll numbers in the Great State of Florida are absolutely pitiful. 10 months of campaigning and RP is still consistently polling just 2 to 3% in the Sunshine State.

Rudy can also make us somewhat competitive in California. Ditto Florida here for Ron Paul. Paul's poll numbers in California have been in the 4% range.

Paul does reasonably well in New Hampshire. Less well in Iowa and South Carolina. Hell, he doesn't even poll well here in Texas.

You can't win the Presidency with just a base of support in New Hampshire, and a few scattered supporters in some other states.

If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win the nomination, we'd see a wholesale slaughter of downticket Republican candidates for the House and Senate. We'd be lucky to keep 140 in the House, and 38 in the Senate.

Bottom line, if you want the GOP to lose, and lose very badly in a Democrat Tsunami in 2008, vote for Ron Paul.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:23AM|#

And note for the record that BakedPenguin posts under some silly-ass alias. I'd respect such slams from people like Franklin Harris, and Ali here who actually post under their names.

Never trust someone who uses an alias on-line.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:26AM|#

If someone uses an alias on-line to post comments on a political board, think of them as like "Warlock" in the new Bruce Willis film Die Hard 3. Some guy living in his Mom's basement, with about 5 different computer keyboards, and LCD screens, with action figures all around, calling his dungeon a "Command Center."

He's probably got a refrigerator down there, and a stash of Twinkies. Couldn't get a girlfriend to save his life. So, he spends 18 hours a day on-line between porn images and political chat boards.

All this while his Mom yells at him 5 times a day, "Get a job... get a job..."

But he knows Mom will never kick him out of the House. So, it's more video games, "Hot Chic" porn sites, and political slams, from one single guy posting under about 7 or 8 different aliases.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:29AM|#

Is "Crimethink," "BakedPenguin," and "J sub D" the same person?

If not, how do we know? They all echo the same exact sentiments. Could it be just one single guy posting under 3 different names?

Think about it.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:36AM|#

Crimethink (alias poor slob internet hacker living in his mom's basement),

Says above that the "American public opposes the War in Iraq."

True back in June.

Not true today.

The poll numbers have dramatically shifted. Check out Rasmussen poll numbers just released yesterday - majority of Americans now believe War in Iraq has shown positive progress, and was worth fighting.

I think the numbers were 35% agree with that statement, and 32% disagree.

First time there's been a majority support for the Iraq War in over two years.

Things are shifting. Even Murtha and the Democrats realize that, and are scared shitless.

But still the Anti-War Libertarians hold on to "Iraq War is a dissater" line.

Right! And Bush is already brining home 5,000 Troops by Christmas.

Two year from now, we'll see a prosperous, peaceful Iraq, and 90% of all American Troops home, and still the dumbass Anti-War Libertarians will be crying, "Bring the Troops home, Iraq War a dissaster..."

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 8:40AM|#

Crimethink, that mailing in South Carolina was 100% accurately portrayed by Jonathan Martin. He even displayed the piece, very readable, in his article. You an see it for yourself.

I've got nearly identical mailings that Ron Paul has sent out, taxpayer funded, from his Congressional office for years.

They read like campaign commercials: "Ron Paul supports our Troops in Iraq," "Ron Paul introduced legislation to Fight Terrorism," "Ron Paul meets with our brave returning Iraq War Veterans in District."

Be more than glad to fax them to Reason HQ in LA so they can be posted here for all to see.

Crimethink, what's your fax number?

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 9:04AM|#

Eric talks about Rasmussen polls on Iraq with his usual half-truths, evasions, and deliberate omissions. Typical Eric Dondero dishonesty attempting to disguise itself as honesty.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal

35% of Americans want the troops to stay in Iraq until "the mission is complete". [I think it was very charitable of Rasmussen to employ the Administration's meaningless catchphrase as one of the choices.] 59% want the troops out either immediately or within a year regardless of whether "the mission is complete". These numbers have been stable within a tight range for months.

Nobody gives a damn about Petraeus' Potemkin villages in Iraq, Eric. Brutalizing the troops with additional deployments merely to attain 2005's violence levels doesn't really change the strategic situation, and it doesn't change the ongoing cost of this debacle to the taxpayer. And the public isn't really interested in letting even a lower monthly total of American troops get killed and maimed just so that Bush can refuse to admit his failure, and so you can feel like you are getting the genocidal revenge you explicitly longed for elsewhere.

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 9:07AM|#

"Ron Paul supports our Troops in Iraq,"

He does.

"Ron Paul introduced legislation to Fight Terrorism,"

He has.

"Ron Paul meets with our brave returning Iraq War Veterans in District."

He did.

Other than the use of the franking privilege, which I'm not particularly happy about, I don't see the problem here.

|12.9.07 @ 9:17AM|#

Crimethink, what's your fax number?

Fax? What is this, 1990? My email is in my handle. Scan and email, baby.

|12.9.07 @ 9:19AM|#

Heh, Dondero, your hero is on Press the Meat right now saying that he left the Iraq Study Group cause he didn't feel qualified to be on it!

|12.9.07 @ 9:42AM|#

"If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win the nomination, we'd see a wholesale slaughter of downticket Republican candidates for the House and Senate. We'd be lucky to keep 140 in the House, and 38 in the Senate.

Bottom line, if you want the GOP to lose, and lose very badly in a Democrat Tsunami in 2008, vote for Ron Paul."

Hell, now that makes me really want to vote for Paul!

Donderdo-I'm someone who clearly is NOT crimethink or j sub d. I've disagreed with them a lot here, and yet it's clear to me that they are not the same person. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain. You lump them together because they both think Iraq was stupid. Heck that could make them any of about 60% of this country!

It's common for people to post under an alias. What would I care what their real name is? Besides, the alias can be cool or funny (I post under one of course, though I am, in fact, a Nice Guy who pets dogs and kisses babies).

I guess most people who post under an alias are like those who do not, and then most of both are like anyone else in the world. Most of them do not live with their moms, but perhaps they have spent some time living with your mom, which would explain you knee jerk angry and stupid posts...

|12.9.07 @ 9:45AM|#

"I don't make many mistakes, but the ones I do make are big ones."

-- Rudy on MTP, responding to a question on the Bernie Kerik fiasco

I feel more secure already.

Speaking of which, when did "I take full responsibility" become a Get-Out-Of-Criticism-Free card?

|12.9.07 @ 9:45AM|#

Besides, I think the Democrats have two fairly unelectable frontrunners. The only thing that will keep the GOP from winning is their Donderdo like position on the war. Hillary will run ads in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, that say "You may not like me, but the choice is me or four more years of war in Iraq and probably Iran." The GOP frontrunners are certainly making that seem to be the case as they jockey to beat the war drums ever louder to win the nomination.

|12.9.07 @ 9:46AM|#

"Speaking of which, when did "I take full responsibility" become a Get-Out-Of-Criticism-Free card?"

I think it goes back to Janet Reno. "Hey, I murdered all these kids and folks in this compound, but I take responsibility so it's ok."

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 9:51AM|#

Eric just can't accept that Giuliani is done. Done. And he did it to himself. If you want to be Bill Clinton and fuck everything in sight, you better be one charming mofo, and Rudy just ain't that charming. And you better not send first responders to walk your mistress' dog, because that might remind people about how you could have used the time you spent arranging dog walking to, you know, get better radios for firemen or something. Rudy is yesterday's news and will never rise again.

I honestly don't know if Huckabee can be stopped at this point. All that can stop him is Thompson waking from his coma to split the cracker vote, and that probably will not happen. But it's all moot, since none of the voters Paul has peeled off will vote for the eventual nominee, no matter who it is, and without those marginal voters the Republican is going down. It may as well be Huckabee who goes down in flames as anyone else.

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 9:53AM|#

In other news: the jewel of the Democrat Party, Rep. Kucinnich, has received the coveted endorsement of Sean Penn.

|12.9.07 @ 9:55AM|#

MNG,

You really think that Hillary is unelectable? I hear this over and over again, but have yet to see any objective evidence that it's the case.

Heh, when asked a question about Huckabee's AIDS and homosexuality comments, Rudy punts and goes off on a tangent about Catholic theology! Dondero, it looks like Rudy doesn't share your distasted for the Huck Monster.

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 9:56AM|#

By the way, Eric, the Libertarian Party is now essentially begging Paul to come back and accept its nomination for President.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/12/09/the-ron-paul-factor-at-the-lnc-meeting/

But Rudy is the real libertarian in the race, right?

|12.9.07 @ 10:00AM|#

Guy,

Yeah, but didn't Tom Cruise endorse Ron Paul after they were on the Tonight Show together?

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 10:22AM|#

In other news: Balducci's, on Eighth Avenue and West 14th Street, in Greenwich Village, the home of only the finest elites, briefly tried to horn in on my holiday pork deal. Seems they came to their senses.

Normally, I have no time for the so-called 'elites', but in this case I will make an exception.

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 10:28AM|#

crimethink,

LOL, I did not hear that, but I would have guessed Mr. Cruise would endorse either Mr. Kucinich or Dr. Paul.

Who gets the coveted John Travolta nomination?

|12.9.07 @ 10:32AM|#

I think it had something to do with the fact that "Paul" and "Xenu" add up to the same number in the Thetan alphabet.

|12.9.07 @ 10:39AM|#

crimethink-her negative ratins are higher than anyone elses right now, in some polls I have seen they are close to 50%. That gives her such little wiggle room that I think it makes her practically unelectable, except for the scenario where she slickly paints herself as the alternative to War. However, the Dems tried that "it's either me or this war-mongerer" in 2004 and it did not work for them.

|12.9.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Scientology is neat, but the real question this week is "WWJD?" What Would Joseph smith Do?

Romney is still the biggest tool. "Where my religion agrees with yours I will talk about it and proclaim it, where it does not I will invoke religious tolerance and keep mum." Say what you want about Rudy, but at least he has for the most part stood by his positions that hurt him. Romney demonstrates that you can, as a grown man, flip on abortion, stem cell, gay rights, etc., and flip in the direction that is politically expedient for you, and still run in the minds of many GOP primary voters as the candidate with "character." Jesus indeed!

dhex|12.9.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Huckabee is the most anti-libertarian of all the GOP candidates.

dude! you mispelled giuliani as "huckabee" - how the fuck did that happen?!?!

but i would love to watch donderlolz sell the whole giuliani thing to nyc firefighters. it would be fun to see the look on his face as they launched into a several minute long profanity-laced tirade about what a fucking crook benito is.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 10:55AM|#

New Paul songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZaUAaXkfF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVrszyW9dPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UkH5AwB7w

|12.9.07 @ 11:02AM|#

dhex,

I would actually have to agree with Dondero...

::pukes::

...as far as Huckabee is concerned. Not that Giuliani is much better.

::pukes again::

Shit, now I've got the dry heaves.

dhex|12.9.07 @ 11:13AM|#

aw man at the very least it's a dead heat.

it's like guidos v. rednecks.

the innominate one|12.9.07 @ 11:21AM|#

"Mahalo means Trash."

odd, then that Adam Carolla used that word to sign off from Loveline every night.

also strange that Wikipedia reports mahalo to mean "thank you"

|12.9.07 @ 11:28AM|#

From 8:1am to 8:40am some disturbed individual posted six, count 'em six, consecutive posts. If you post in a blog and nobody reads it, does it really matter?

|12.9.07 @ 11:32AM|#

Brutalizing the troops with additional deployments merely to attain 2005's violence levels doesn't really change the strategic situation, and it doesn't change the ongoing cost of this debacle to the taxpayer. [J sub D's emphasis]

Actually, it increases it.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 11:35AM|#

Why do people use aliases? It's right there in my handle.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Giuliani is not "done." There've been a mixed bag of poll results for Rudy the last few days, most down, but some actually up.

Just this morning there's a blaring headline: "Giuliani up in Nevada." He's also climbed in an Ohio poll.

He's slipped badly in Iowa.

But in New Hampshire I saw a newly released poll this morning that now has him in 2nd place.

So, yeah. Is Rudy gonna get his ass whooped in Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Aimes and DuBuque. Yes! Rudy's message just doesn't cut it in Iowa. Watch for a very dissapointing showing by him there.

But then comes a decent showing in New Hampshire. Followed by a 2nd or 3rd place finish in South Carolina, an outright win in Nevada, and then we're up to Super Tuesday.

Rudy will take all 57 delegates in Florida. He'll take all 111 in California. And of course, he'll clean sweep in delegate rich Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.

He's gonna be real tough to beat with the big states in his back pocket.

Come to think of it, there's only one single big state that's kind of shaky for him, and that's Illinois?

Oh, Michigan too. Romney's got Rudy beat in Michigan.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:40AM|#

I saw that Fluffy. Very interesting news piece from the LP. But where does that leave Wayne Root, George Phillies, Daniel Imperato, Steve Kubby, Mike Jingozian and the other 7 LP Prez. candidates?

Can't imagine they're just going to roll over and let Ron Paul take the nomination. Well, all accept Kubby who has said he would step aside.

But remember this: If Paul goes 3rd party by Texas law he must give up his Congressional seat.

Yippee!!! Go ahead Ron. Seek the LP nomination, so that we can get a decent Congressman here in the 14th.

|12.9.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Is "Crimethink," "BakedPenguin," and "J sub D" the same person?

Dondi, I doubt that either crimethink or Baked Penguin has near the facility with foul-penned invective that I possess.

Mr Nice Guy, you referring to the above Dondero post, caused me to actually read a Dondero post. I'll forgive you this once...

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:45AM|#

All the same person?

Fluffy
Crimethink
J sub D
Mr. Nice guy
Jake the Boner
Sageweed

Notice how all these "people" post pretty much the same thing, with slight variations, and all under aliases?

Could they actually be some Bashman looking Dude, in his "Dungeon" in his Mom's basement making email blasts all over the internet for Ron Paul?

There was some news that broke a couple days ago, about that Ron Paul email Spamster. They traced his ISP, but were unable to catch him himself.

Perhaps with all this Ron Paul mania that we're seeing, even here at Reason, it's all just one guy.

After all, how easy would it be to invent a bunch of aliases like Fluffy, Jake the Boner, and Sage Weed?

Just a flip of the computer switch, so to speak.

|12.9.07 @ 11:48AM|#

In other news: the jewel of the Democrat Party, Rep. Kucinnich, has received the coveted endorsement of Sean Penn.

That will certainly offset Oprah's endorsement of Obama.

Bob A|12.9.07 @ 11:48AM|#

And the men who have high voices must be the ones to start...

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:50AM|#

Oops, I forgot to include Baked the Penguin in the list.

Remember Hit & Run readers. They're all aliases. All these posts could be coming from one single guy.

Again:

Baked the Penguin
Jake the Boner
Sageweed
J sub D
Crimethink
Fluffy
Mr. Nice Guy
dhex

All saying the same things, just with a little variation to try to throw people off.

Go our and rent Die Hard 3 with Bruce Willis. You'll see the Warlock character. Now think of all those fake names I mentioned above.

And if you want to know what FluffyJakethebonerCrimethinkJsubDdhexSageWeed alias "Mr. Nice Guy" looks like think Bashman from Clerks II.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Hey, hey!!! Just released minutes ago. Rudy now in 2nd in NH. Not too shabby!!!

Oh, and our widdle fwiendy Ron Paul aww shucks, down at 5%. So much for that "Ron Paul Revolution." Looks like the ole' Blimp ain't hydrogen powered after all; just running on hot air.

Mason-Dixon GOP New Hampshire Primary

Mitt Romney 25%
Rudy Giuliani 17%
John McCain 16%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Fred Thompson 6%
Ron Paul 5%
Undecided 17%
Survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted December 3-6. The margin for error is +/- 5%.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Mitt & Rudy! Rudy & Mitt!!

Two great candidates who will lead the GOP to victory in 2008!!

I like Rudy.

I like Mitt.

With either one, the GOP's Fiscal Conservative wing will triumph over the Huckster Social Cons, and the Geeky Lyndon Larouchie Ron Paul Conspiratorliasts.

Free Market Republicans will carry the day!!!

Hail Milton Friedman. Hail Uncle Milty! You didn't live to see this day. But your ideals have triumphed.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Seriously Eric, you need to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

Random Dude|12.9.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Eric,

I have never met someone as insane as you online. You are the most insane person online. Think about that.

|12.9.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Romney demonstrates that you can, as a grown man, flip on abortion, stem cell, gay rights, etc., and flip in the direction that is politically expedient for you, and still run in the minds of many GOP primary voters as the candidate with "character." Jesus indeed!

MNG,
Here is a recent quote of his with my response. Is there such a thing as hypocritical mass?

|12.9.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Dondero,

Just because someone posts under a real-looking name does not mean they are posting under their real name. In other words, if a person wanted to create multiple aliases to create the appearance of widespread support for their viewpoint, they could just as easily do it under "Joe Cagle", "Bob Widner", "Pedro Benitez", etc. After all, how do we know you're the REAL Eric Dondero, and not some impostor trying to usurp the true Dondero's libertarian bona fides?

So, it's possible that one person is posting under various aliases, and then having those aliases take different positions on other threads, just to lend credibility to their attacks against you and your views. But I think Occam's Razor sides with the possiblity that multiple individual people here completely disagree with you.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Yes, it takes a little insanity to accomplish all the things I've accomplished in life in politics: Moving the LP into the Real World of politics, Founding the RLC, Getting Ron Paul elected to Congress, ect...

I fully admit there's a screw loose upstairs. But only one.

Nephilium|12.9.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Dondero: You may want to think before casting aspersions on all of us who use handles... Especially those of us who have been using the same handle for over a decade now. Some of us actually want to keep what we say on the internet somewhat separate from our real names... Something about prospective employers googling names and seeing what comes up.

Are you reduced to ad hominem attacks, or are you contracting the vast X conspiracy paranoia?

Nephilium... not Baked the Penguin, Jake the Boner, Sageweed, J sub D, Crimethink, Fluffy, Mr. Nice Guy, dhex, or Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job.

Pedro Benitez|12.9.07 @ 12:02PM|#

I am the real Eric Dondero.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Good point Crimethink. And I post my cell phone number for all to see so if anyone who wants to confirm that it is really me, all they need to do is pick up the phone and call 832-896-9505.

I would suggest others start to do the same.

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:03PM|#

Thanks for coming through with the "it's America's fault" perspective! Got anything on how dropping atomic bombs on Japan was racist?

No, you %$#$%, it was FDR's fault. And if we had not entered WWII, Germany's main front would have been the USSR. And it was England that first declared war on Germany.

It get worse, it is apparent that WWI was drawing to a stalemated close when the U.S. entered the war, after much propagandizing by Wilson, thus enabling the allies to put their boot on the Kaiser's throat with the treaty of Versaille. This treatment of Germany sowed the seeds for the rise of Hitler and the NAZIS.

It was Wilson's fault, not the U.S.

The American electorate is just beginning to develop enough political sophistication to be cynical about the nature of most politicians.

You go ahead enjoying your historical mythology.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 12:06PM|#

Nephilium, thanks for posting that comment. Now consider yourself added to the list of suspicious posters who post under aliases.

Think of yourself as that guy Warlock in the Die Hard 3 movie. When people see your posts they should think:

Yup! Some spammer Dude, who posts the same Ron Paul spam crap under about 7 or 8 different names.

Didn't you all catch those articles the last couple days about the Ron Paul Spammer's ISP traced to some outfit in San Francisco?

They haven't caught him yet.

So, how do we know that every one of you alias posters is not that guy, hiding out in some rancid hut in Singapore or the Phillipines, surrounded by 5 or 6 computer terminals, and blaring Heavy Metal music in the background.

Rent Die Hard 3!!

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:06PM|#

None of that is to hold European politician blameless. Why; do you think the founders advised against entanglements with Europe?

|12.9.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Dondero,

If Rudy is doing so well, how come you were saying you'd switch to supporting Thompson or Romney out of fear of the Huckabofascists?

That doesn't prove anything. We don't know what the real Dondero's cell phone number is.

What we need is to figure out a question that only the real Dondero would know the answer to. Hmmm.....

|12.9.07 @ 12:11PM|#

Right, Eric. Everyone here who disagrees with you is really one person.

But doesn't that mean you're wasting your time arguing with a single loser loner?

|12.9.07 @ 12:12PM|#

I have a question for Dondero: Why are you wasting your time posting here trying to get people to drink that anyone-but-Paul koolaid? There can't be more than a couple hundred people that post here; perhaps a staffer could confirm or deny this.

And if we're all the same person (which we're not), all you're trying to do is change one vote.

|12.9.07 @ 12:13PM|#

Wow, crimethink. My post would have been up first, but I accidentally hit preview and walked away.

Have you ever noticed that no one sees us in the same room at the same time? Hmmm....

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Why do I waste my time here?

Because I post on a lot of Republican-oriented boards, like Race42008.com, RedState, RightwingNews, ect...

I turn my fellow Republicans on to libertarian Republicans. They generally lean libertarian, so it's not a hard thing to do.

Well, I've had complaints. These Republicans will come back to me and say shit like, "Eric, I visited the Reason website, and those people there are a bunch of Leftist scum... they're not libertarians..."

So, I feel it's my duty to beat you Leftist scum posing as "libertarians" down, so as not to embarrass the libertarian movement, and to have further libertarian-leaning Republicans turned off to libertarianism.

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Crimethink, if you're not the same person, prove it?

|12.9.07 @ 12:18PM|#

sage,

They've also never seen us in the same room at different times, or in different rooms at the same time.

|12.9.07 @ 12:20PM|#

You got me. I am the same person as crimethink.

|12.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Now Eric wants crimethink to prove a negative. What fun. Here, let me try:

Eric Dondero, prove you're not a dickwad.

What's that? Nothing? I guess you are one then.

Nephilium|12.9.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Hmmm... maybe I'm actually Dondero attempting to attack myself in order to make my position appear stronger.

And perhaps I expect people (when they see/read my posts), to actually read the words. Separate from who's saying them. Besides... I've only got one computer set up right now... in the middle of moving. And I'm currently listening to the Reverend Horton Heat... far from heavy metal.

I mean... no one who prints or publishes something under a fake name puts out anything of merit.

Samuel Clemens... aka Nephilium

|12.9.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Why do I waste my time here?

Masochism, Eric?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 12:27PM|#

But doesn't that mean you're wasting your time arguing with a single loser loner?

What I think is actually dumber is that a group of supposedly intelligent people answering to one loser loner.

|12.9.07 @ 12:28PM|#

So, in the imaginary world where you are beating us down, don't you realize you're provoking even more "leftist" spouting off by us/me? Won't your friends at RedState come away thinking, "Wow, those libertarians are scumbags, being so mean when that swell guy Dondero speaks the truth on their site. Libertarianism sucks."

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Dondero-
The "new" die hard movie is Die Hard 4

Die hard 3 was out about ten years ago (it's the one w/ Sam Jackson)

Not having seen either, i'm not sure, but your warlock dude seems to be in live free and die hard i.e. die hard 4.

The question is, after repeating the same mistake, (so its not a typo) how much of the rest of you're posts are factually challenged?

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 12:29PM|#

grammatically challenged, perfectly OK!

|12.9.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Ali,

Uh, didn't you appease the Dondero by starting to use your real name? ;-)

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 12:30PM|#

How many loons would a lone loser lose if a lone loser could lose loons?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 12:30PM|#

But doesn't that mean you're wasting your time arguing with a single loser loner?

What I think is actually dumber is that a group of supposedly intelligent people answering to one loser loner.

Could also be an explanation why popular democracy results in dumb outcomes (hint hint) even if the individual constituents are very smart.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 12:32PM|#

crimethink- I am the Great Appeaser. I really do not believe in antagonism, and do believe in compromise. (E.g.: Recall my stance regarding Ayan Hirsi Ali).

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 12:37PM|#

Re:Mahalo

Take my wife please. (*tap tap*) Is this thing on?

It is become self-evident that I am merely a legend in my own mind. That's twice I've tried a joke that's someones missed the point of, so either I'm too cool for school or simply just not funny.

joke illustrated hier

Mahalo, a hui ho!

the innominate one|12.9.07 @ 12:39PM|#

hey, Eric, don't forget that the Urkobold™ (blessed be his name), the weibskobold, and the minion of Urkobold are all the same person also. The Urkobold™ (blessed be his name) is a trinity, like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. or like Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein. Three-in-one. like the oil.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 12:40PM|#

Eric:

In a move most unusual for this body, the Libertarian National Committee just adopted a resolution encouraging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. The LNC is meeting in Charleston, SC this weekend.

The resolution recognized Paul's standing and history with the Libertarian Party. It also recognized a renewed passion that Paul has ignited across America.

From the resolution:

"In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008."

The motion was raised by former Congressman Bob Barr and approved unanimously by the board.

In a related motion, the Libertarian Party voted to authorize the use of their Ballot Base database application in support of the Ron Paul campaign in New Hampshire. This motion passed unanimously, as well. The vote also allows Libertarian Party presidential candidates to utilize Ballot Base in states which have a Libertarian Party primary.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 12:43PM|#

apologize in advance for commandment violation:

Mahalo, a hui hou!

x,y|12.9.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Don't forget me Dondero. I don't even post an e-mail link. Cheerio.

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Republicans who presume that this blog is full of 'lefties' has never seen what happens to lefties who venture to post here.

Many Republicans these days are ex-lefties anyhow though they haven't given up their economic collectivism entirely.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 1:00PM|#

Many Republicans these days are ex-lefties anyhow though they haven't given up their economic collectivism entirely.

Also, through their influence, the former leftists seem to be spawning new economic collectivists, examples of which are Huckabee and our current president. I don't think that either Bush or Huckabee comes from a economic collectivist background, but they've both gone that way for some reason. It could just be the collectivism inherent in Christianity, or it could be the influence of former modern leftists.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Not that I'm saying that a different form of economic collectivism hasn't existed in the Republican party for a long time. All of the corporate bailouts are hard to view as anything else than economic collectivism, and I recall few complaints by Republicans over these. I could be wrong and there could be a huge Republican bloc opposed to this sort of collectivism, but I don't recall hearing of it.

|12.9.07 @ 1:17PM|#

OK Eric, you figured it out. I'm just me, Sybil. One disturbed person with multiple personality disorder. This explains the varied names, the different writing styles and the ability to argue with my other selves. You have a future in psychiatry or detective work, I'm sure.

Sam Grove|12.9.07 @ 1:26PM|#

It could just be the collectivism inherent in Christianity

Inherent in some interpretations of Christianity. I have read of people who came to an individualist interpretation, and if you try examining Christian philosophy from an individualist perspective, you can see it. The problem isn't Chrsitianity (or rather the teachings of Jesus), the problem is that human tribal instincts tend to the collectivist, hence the frequent eruption of cults in human societies.

|12.9.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Could also be an explanation why popular democracy results in dumb outcomes (hint hint) even if the individual constituents are very smart.

Ali,
Do you mean the exact opposite of hive intelligence?
I chalk political decision making up to the theory that the average voter is dumber than whale shit.

|12.9.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Anyone who wants power must be a collectivist of one sort or another...and unfortunately, it's nearly always the people who want power who get it.

|12.9.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Eric, some of us don't want to post our real names or phone numbers because we have, you know real jobs. Not all of us cal be class-D public figures sponging off of politicians our whole lives like some kind of parasite.

Some libertarian you are. Yes sire! A life time of government service!

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Do you mean the exact opposite of hive intelligence?

Oh indeed sir. Here is more on ants. Nice talk on Ants, Humans, the Division of Labor and Emergent Order.

Ants are intelligent indeed. So it is not the size of your brain the determines your intelligence, for it could be full of crap.

|12.9.07 @ 1:40PM|#

It could just be the collectivism inherent in Christianity,...

Interesting speculation. It does seem to this outside observer, that Abrahamic religions all tend to support socialist ideas, brother's keeper and all that. At least within one's own tribe.

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Dondero, you fuck, how can you be so shameless as to walk in here and say that your Republican buddies Rudy and Mitt say that we're leftists?

Explain to me how Romneycare in Massachusetts was rightist, and how opposition to it is leftist.

Explain to me how Rudy's pretty much absolute lack of respect for property rights in NYC was rightist, and how opposition to it is leftist. Explain to me how you can brag about walking out of a conference where a politician defended a zoning practice, but then can enthusiastically support Mr. Ferret Killer and Mr. Porn Shop Owners Have No Rights.

Explain to me how anyone who advocates a budget based [roughly] on the platform of the LPA can be considered a leftist compared to the budgets that Romney or Guiliani would present to the Congress.

Don't you realize how stupid you sound to anyone who keeps track of what you say? On one day you'll come in here and declare that Rudy is a libertarian politician, and that those of us who object to that characterization have hysterical litmus tests that aren't realistic. But those litmus tests make us the right, and not the left, you stupid fuck.

There are only a couple of policy positions one could find at Reason that could create any debate about where on the spectrum the people here lie. One of them is the drug war - and you know very well that the opposition to the drug war here is based on an absolutist property rights and right to contract view that places the site squarely on the right. So that leaves torture and genocide, which you advocate but which the people here don't. And torture and genocide aren't right-wing positions, Dondero, as the Stalin regime demonstrated quite well [as just one example among many]. The fact that they happen to be the policy of our Nationalist party right now does not make support for them a test of right-wing-ness.

So I want to hear it. I want to hear you reconcile all of these Dondero contradictions.

|12.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#

Fluffy, he'll just start calling you a "radical anarchist" now.

|12.9.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Oh yeah I forgot:

BOOGAH BOOGAH TEH MUZLIM 9/11 9/11 MARK STEYN BOOGAH BOOGAH

Fluffy|12.9.07 @ 1:54PM|#

I also want you to explain to me how you can support Romney, who has openly stated that only persons of faith should hold public office. What a profound libertarian thinker!

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Haven't followed all the comments, but I took a look at some of the criticism of Governor Mike Huckabee.

"Huckabee . . . AIDS patients in concentration camps . . . the most anti-libertarian of all the GOP candidates. . . . just plain [bleep] scary. . . . the Huck Monster . . ."

Draw up the blinds, turn out the lights, hide under the bed! Yes, Mike Huckabee's very name inspires sphincter-loosening fear in the bravest men. As the following examples from our high and pop culture reveal, the name "Mike Huckabee" has become synonymous with everything that is terrifying and evil.

Star Wars:

"You are no longer Anakin Skywalker. From now on, you shall be a Sith lord, and your name shall be . . . Mike Huckabee."

H.P. Lovecraft:

"As I peered into the clearing, I saw the worshippers performing their blasphemous rites around the altar, and a thrill of horror ran down my spine. Then the masked High Priest raised his arms, and in an unearthly, eldritch voice, began chanting the name of dreadful god they worshipped - 'Mike Huckabee, Mike Huckabee . . .'"

Lord of the Rings:

"Then the Council heard reports of new evils stirring in Angmar and Mirkwood. After enduring dreadful perils, I, Gandalf, discovered the true identity of the Necromancer. Yes, our worst fears have been realized . . . Mike Huckabee has returned."

Milton's Paradise Lost:

"Mean while the Adversary of God and Man,
MIKE HUCKABEE with thoughts inflam'd of highest design,
Puts on swift wings, and toward the Gates of Hell
Explores his solitary flight . . ."

|12.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#

J sub D,

Atheism has spawned plenty of its own collectivist societies too. It's not a religion thing, it's a human nature thing.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 2:00PM|#

There's nothing wrong with collectisim per se. It's being forced/coerced to participate in a collectivist system that's a problem.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 2:02PM|#

*collectivism

|12.9.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Atheism has spawned plenty of its own collectivist societies too. It's not a religion thing, it's a human nature thing.

crimethink, I'd argue with you but I'd run out of rebuttals to that point really quick.
Hmmm, is collectivism encoded in our DNA?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 2:17PM|#

x,y:
There's nothing wrong with [collectivism] per se. It's being forced/coerced to participate in a collectivist system that's a problem.

True enough. I'm actually happy about the existence of various hippie-type "intentional communities" in my area. I think it's a good thing that people live in different ways as long as they have no interest in using force to get others to participate. In that sense, the real problem that some Republicans have these days is rather an interest in power and its use, which, of course is a problem in the method of choice of leaders rather than one of faction. If we grant power to those who seek it, we're almost always going to be disappointed.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 2:26PM|#

crimethink:

Atheism has spawned plenty of its own collectivist societies too. It's not a religion thing, it's a human nature thing.

I'd say it would probably be more accurate to say that Communism spawned plenty of atheist collectivist societies, rather than that they were spawned by atheism itself. Other than that, point taken.

My original comment was meant more along the lines of JsubD's comment about the Abrahamic religions and one's brother's keepers and so forth. Though, as x,y points out, even collectivism isn't the problem; it's the use of force to back it up, which may be the true human nature problem.

I've often thought that if Marx hadn't tied his belief to atheism, and had instead tied it to Christianity (or I suppose any major religion that contains commandments to help the poor), he could have been much more successful with its spread.

|12.9.07 @ 2:26PM|#

I still maintain that the more logical party for libertarians to have influence is the Democratic Party. They are with libertarians on abortion, gay rights, rights of the accused, free speech and the war. They are closer than the GOP on issues like drug legalization. And they have shown recently that they can be induced into more pro-business/economic libertarian positions (many Demnocrats now propose tax cuts and fair trade). The GOP is stuck on war, law enforcement and the agenda of religious conservatives and libertarians, tried though they have for years, cannot budge them. Neither party will give you everything, but you guys are wasting time trying to influence the top-down GOP.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Heck of a picture literally illustrating Huck's sinister side.

Larry Craig|12.9.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Mike Huckabee's very name inspires sphincter-loosening fear in the bravest men


I'm out of poppers so just say "Mike Huckabee" a few times before you shove it in. You did say you don't follow politics? We've never met Okay?

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Hmmm, is collectivism encoded in our DNA?

Yes, I believe so. But the mark of civilized individuals is the ability to resist their impulses.

Mr. Nice Guy|12.9.07 @ 2:41PM|#

I still maintain that the more logical party for libertarians to have influence is the Democratic Party. They are with libertarians on abortion, gay rights, rights of the accused, free speech and the war. They are closer than the GOP on issues like drug legalization.



I'm out of poppers so just say "Mike Huckabee" a few times before you shove it in. You work for her...what is Hillary like in person?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 2:45PM|#

MNG,

As a principled non-voter, I don't have a horse in that race, but I do believe that some libertarians have moved a bit toward the Democratic party. However, the gun control and pro-taxation agendas that have traditionally been tied to the Democrats are serious problems. Also, I think the motion toward the Democrats is mostly due to a large scale abandonment by most Republicans (with at least one obvious exception) on first, fourth, and fifth amendment grounds rather than any improvement on any issue by the Democrats. Also, though I am pro-choice, I don't think the pro-choice or pro-life question is necessarily settled among libertarians in general, so that issue is probably a wash.

In fact, I think perhaps the best way to look at the issue of party support outside of elections is that libertarians should help anyone achieve those goals that promote freedom and oppose them on goals that restrict freedom. In elections, a similar rule might be used for those who vote: vote for the candidate that most supports freedom and make clear that any support you offer is contingent upon that.

|12.9.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Kolohe, decent article, too. Read this article ultimately linked to, and decide for yourself if this man is competent to be president. I detect Pavlovian salivting by the Dems, anticipating a 2008 campaign against Huckabee? Willie Horton back at ya, suckers!

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 2:52PM|#

I've often thought that if Marx hadn't tied his belief to atheism, and had instead tied it to Christianity (or I suppose any major religion that contains commandments to help the poor), he could have been much more successful with its spread.

The atheism of Communism is its least important aspect, but was indispensable to its spread. Atheism allow them to 'find a need and fill it' or 'hit it where they ain't.' By completely rejecting religious authority of any kind, either personal or political, their "brand" was able advertise as making a clean break from the past.

Were they to maintain their system within the larger system of an already organized religion, they would have just been seen as a schism within that faith. You see this in various less virulent strains of communism/socialism ranging anywhere from various Christian Democratic movements in Europe, to the left-leaning priests in Latin America who were politically set opposed to the Church, to the current battle for the hearts and minds of Christian Evangelicals, where this current alliance with "wall-street money men" is ahistorical (see William Jennings Bryan and for that matter, most of the Progresive Movement)

And were they to have started their own religion (which as has been said, in a sense they did) they would be somewhere along the Scientology-Falun Gong-Mormonism spectrum. (NTTAWTT)

|12.9.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Kolohe, color me clueless. WTF IRT NTTAWTT?

|12.9.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Not That There's Anything Wrong with That

|12.9.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Merci.

|12.9.07 @ 3:14PM|#

Not sure who that was that posted under my moniker, but I certainly do not work for Hillary. As I've posted over and over on H&R she is little better than horse dung in my opinion.

I do tend to lean left these days, but that says more about where the two parties are. The GOP has become a theocracy and Party of Jingoism while the Democrats have to a large degree moved towards tax cuts (at least the rhetoric), free trade, and gun rights (ever since the assault weapons ban hurt them in 1994 most, especially those in southern states, have left gun control behind). The libertarians can move the Dems, that is my point. They've been working with the GOP for decades in the US and look what we have: a war, law enforcement, puritan party that is not ready to concede jack to the libertarians...

x,y|12.9.07 @ 3:15PM|#

I still maintain that the more logical party for libertarians to have influence is the Democratic Party. They are with libertarians on abortion, gay rights, rights of the accused, free speech and the war. They are closer than the GOP on issues like drug legalization. And they have shown recently that they can be induced into more pro-business/economic libertarian positions (many Demnocrats now propose tax cuts and fair trade). The GOP is stuck on war, law enforcement and the agenda of religious conservatives and libertarians, tried though they have for years, cannot budge them. Neither party will give you everything, but you guys are wasting time trying to influence the top-down GOP.

Until Bush 43's compassionate conservatism hijacked the GOP (and the sheep willingly went along), I thought this was among the silliest positions a person could hold. I take that back now. Now both major parties are bad with fiscal issues. At least the Democrats offer us something in the way of social liberties.

That said, I could not pull the level for any Democrat. Every last one of them is still wrong 90% of the time.

Getting back to MNG's post, I think you fairly characterize most of the issues where libertarians and Domecrats agree, but I take issue with your characterization of the Dems as for "free speech rights." That's just laughable. Ever seen a college speech code? And I'm still not convinced that being pro-choice is libertarian dogma.

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 3:19PM|#

David Hume posts from beyond the grave:

"Ach, the Marxists were not true Scotsmen - I mean they were not true atheists. Doon ya see, ya have ta be religious tae kill sae many people. Sin' thae Marxists kilt millions o' men, women and bairns, they are by definition religious, not atheists."

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Huh, huh, he said "kilt."

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 3:24PM|#

and in this particular case:

Not That There's Anything Wrong With Those Theologies

(yeah that's the ticket, i didn't screw up and add an extra t)

Hillary Rodham Clinton|12.9.07 @ 3:37PM|#

I still maintain that the more logical party for libertarians to have influence is the Democratic Party. They are with libertarians on (tax-payer funded) abortion, (Federally mandated recognition of) gay rights, rights of the accused (hey wait a minute! sings a chorus of Dem DAs conducted by Mike Nifong), free speech( that isn't "hate speech" or "uncivil political discourse") and the war (depending on the whim of voter polls).

fixed and agreed

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Gloating my ass off today. Just learned that the Libertarian National Committee at its meeting in South Carolina just passed a resolution allowing for the endorsement of Republican candidates for President and other offices. This is an Historical switch by the LP. For years, their bi-laws prevented them from endorsing Republicans.

Now the floodgate has been open.

This is like a dream come true for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Somewheres up in libertarian heavan Roger MacBride has a big smile on his face today.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Eric they specifically favor Ron Paul (did you miss my comment above @ 12:40?):


In a move most unusual for this body, the Libertarian National Committee just adopted a resolution encouraging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. The LNC is meeting in Charleston, SC this weekend.

The resolution recognized Paul's standing and history with the Libertarian Party. It also recognized a renewed passion that Paul has ignited across America.

From the resolution:

"In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008."

The motion was raised by former Congressman Bob Barr and approved unanimously by the board.

In a related motion, the Libertarian Party voted to authorize the use of their Ballot Base database application in support of the Ron Paul campaign in New Hampshire. This motion passed unanimously, as well. The vote also allows Libertarian Party presidential candidates to utilize Ballot Base in states which have a Libertarian Party primary.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 4:00PM|#

Eric,

I'm sure that has nothing to do with Ron Paul. Nothing whatsoever.

Peace,

x,y [no name or e-mail link]

|12.9.07 @ 4:17PM|#

Gloating my ass off today. Just learned that the Libertarian National Committee at its meeting in South Carolina just passed a resolution allowing for the endorsement of Republican candidates for President and other offices.

Dondi, you're not really that dense, are you? I'll translate for the simple minded among us (hint, hint). If Ron Paul get's the Republicam nomination, the Libertarian party will endorse him.

pdog|12.9.07 @ 4:25PM|#

When Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I wonder if the Constitution party will endorse him too.

|12.9.07 @ 4:38PM|#

"Ever seen a college speech code?"
Yeah, they are stupid. Ever seen a speech code at a conservative college? They're worse.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-12.0.html

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 4:44PM|#

J sub D, (alias who knows?)

So what? The bigger news is that for the first time in 35 years the Libertarian Party has established the precedence of endorsing a Republican candidate. Henceforth, they will never, ever be able to say, "Well, sorry so and so libertarian-leaning Republican, it's in our bi-laws that although you're a swell guy, we can't endorse you."

No more! I'm loving it!!!

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Ali, (No alias because Ali actually posts under his own name, unlike a bunch of wimps here, who are probably all the same guy just posting under different on-line names.)

So what Ali? Who cares? That's secondary. The main point is that they have broken their pledge never to endorse a Republican. They done opened the floodgate. That's the big story here.

Like I said above, imagine a scenario where Rudy Giuliani is the GOP Nominee and asks to speak to the Libertarian Party Convention in May. The LP agrees reluctantly. But once there Rudy woos the crowd.

He urges them to support NOTA for their Nomination. And in a close vote NOTA wins.

Thus, the LP effectively endorses Rudy Giuliani for President.

The possibilities are endless.

This is utterly fantastic! And who would have predicted that the LNC would have done this today.

Great! Fantastic! Yippee!!!

x,y|12.9.07 @ 4:49PM|#

MNG,

I don't care* about speech codes at private universities (which includes every "conservative" college and university). What bothers me are speech codes at publicly-funded colleges and universities, which are overwhelmingly run by Democrats and other assorted liberals. Their speech and behavior codes are disgraceful and anathema to a free society.

*To the extent they're not being hypocritical and claiming to support free speech.

|12.9.07 @ 4:51PM|#

Like I said above, imagine a scenario where Rudy Giuliani is the GOP Nominee and asks to speak to the Libertarian Party Convention in May. The LP agrees reluctantly. But once there Rudy woos the crowd.

Imagine a scenario where bats fly out of your ass. It's a more likely one.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 4:53PM|#

The bigger news is that for the first time in 35 years the Libertarian Party has established the precedence of endorsing a Republican candidate. Henceforth, they will never, ever be able to say, "Well, sorry so and so libertarian-leaning Republican, it's in our bi-laws that although you're a swell guy, we can't endorse you."

If by "never" you mean "until they change their minds and re-amend the Bylaws," then yes, I agree with you. BTW, I put the over/under on the LP reamending their Bylaws at 6 months after Dr. Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination.

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 4:56PM|#

"a bunch of wimps here, who are probably all the same guy just posting under different on-line names"

Damn, he's on to us.

|12.9.07 @ 4:59PM|#

The speech codes at those schools are little different than similar codes in the military and in business. It seems that most major modern orgainzations, in dealing with the diversification of their workforces and clientele, are flirting with speech codes of some sort. Public universities are public, but like the military (which is certainly not run by liberals or Democrats) or the businesses (again not run by liberals) they have been struck with how to deal with such things. Narrowly drawn they tend to just target ethnic epithets, though often they seem broad enough to cover a student who is simply articulating a theory about, say, homosexuality being sinful or there being genetic differences between races that matter. I'm not sure I support codes that aim at the former and am certainly against the latter, but you can see the problem.

The codes at conservative colleges demonstrate how conservatives feel about free speech when they are in charge of an institution with no checks. Their speech codes actually go much further than epithets but restrict speech on a panoply of substantive topics (evolution, sexuality, and various theological/philosophical positions). To me its demonstably worse than trying to keep people from calling each other Dago's or such in class...

|12.9.07 @ 5:02PM|#

Of course when it comes to other speech, like a controversial work of art or music, or a porno, or a book about a boy witch, or the burning of a flag, or espousing "un-American" or "un-Christian" ideas then it's obvious which party has a better record...

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 5:03PM|#

The Shocking Truth About Ron Paul.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 5:12PM|#

MNG,

Free speech is only an issue when the state censors or suppresses speech. This is basic constitutional law.

You made the argument that libertarians should align with Democrats, in part, because the Demos are better than Republicans on free speech issues. I countered that the Democrats are terrible on free speech issues as evidenced by speech codes at colleges and universities. I should have been more clear and said public colleges and universities, which are overwhelmingly run by Democrats and other assorted liberals. Your counterargument about private colleges (conservative or not) and companies is inapposite. You make a good point about the military though. I have no retort to that because it's state-funded and overwhelmingly run by war-mongering Republicans.

You could also point to any other number of issues in which Republicans are bad or just as bad as Democrats, i.e., campaign finance laws.

But you simply cannot refute the point that the Democrats are just as bad as Republicans on free speech issues. I'm not saying the Republicans are better. Only that they are just as bad. Unless you can refute that, your point that libertarians have more in common with the Democrats on free speech issues can't stand.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 5:19PM|#

iih,

That's not one of the better youtube videos on Ron Paul. I fell asleep at 1:34.

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 5:30PM|#

I am watching the prequil to the Ron Paul campaign right now! Predator

It only hunts for sport.

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 5:32PM|#

x, y: I was luring Eric. May be he reverts to Ron's camp. But, alas, he's a lost soul.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Guy, what do you mean by "prequel to the RP campaign"? What are you referring to? I am interested to know but can't understand what you're saying.

|12.9.07 @ 5:43PM|#

"Free speech is only an issue when the state censors or suppresses speech. This is basic constitutional law."

There is more in this world than constitutional law, I'm talking about what is morally right. You might think a moral wrong only occurs when government agencies squelch free speech. I don't believe that. I think people have to participate in other institutions, like working for someone, and when their speech is squelched its bad for them. You can say well, the person could just go work for someone else, and I could of course point out that no one is required to go to any public university or mention that just upping and leaving your job is not always easy or practical to many folks.

Having said that I pointed to a number of occasions in which GOP POLITICIANS have moved to censor speech (obscenity laws and prosecutions, flag burning, laws criminalizing "Un-American" speech). Those who run universities may be liberals, but very few Dem POLITICIANS proclaim their backing of speech codes at colleges. This is something faceless buureaucrats do. On the other hand Dem politicans are much more likely to stand up for unpopular speech such as in cases over obscenity laws, flag burning and the like while GOP politicians go to lengths to point out how they will enact these prohibitions if they get elected. So I think my point stands.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 5:51PM|#

MNG,

Of course I realize there's more than just constitutional law, and you're right that the morality of the situation should also be considered. But you're still not making any sense. The point is: I am forced/coerced into paying for public instutitions such as public colleges and universities. OTOH, I there's nothing compelling me to attend, work for, or contribute to a private college or company. This is a significant distinction. So again, your point is inapposite.

Perhaps I'll agree with you if you provide concrete examples showing that Democrats are better on free speech issues than Republicans.

x,y|12.9.07 @ 5:54PM|#

And for the record, I do not consider it a moral wrong for someone to supress or censor speech if provided there's no legal force or coercion and the arrangement is arrived at by consenting parties. So, for example, I don't consider a company's or private university's speech code to be morally wrong. If you don't like it, don't work, attend, or support the institution.

Guy Montag|12.9.07 @ 6:04PM|#

iih,

Guy, what do you mean by "prequel to the RP campaign"? What are you referring to? I am interested to know but can't understand what you're saying.

Sorry, I am not bright enough to explain anything to you. Please find another to answer these questions for you.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 6:06PM|#

Anyone out there who is bright enough to explain to me what Guy mentioned earlier?

... and someone willing to speak to this Muslim (in case that's your problem Guy)?

P.S. It is "Ali" from hereon!

|12.9.07 @ 6:23PM|#

Dondero, I already explained to you why some people would rather not use their real names on an online forum. And I laughed my ass off when it was suggested the MNG is somehow the same person as J sub D or crimethink. Conflating a vaguely leftish guy together with a pro-life Catholic and an atheist? Wow.

|12.9.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Cesar,

I guess we all look the same to him.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 6:30PM|#

x, y: Actually, just came across this really really good one.

|12.9.07 @ 6:37PM|#

Conflating a vaguely leftish guy together with a pro-life Catholic and an atheist? Wow.

Cesar,
It really doesn't speak well of his comprehension skills, does it?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 6:38PM|#

It really doesn't speak well of his comprehension skills, does it?

He has skills?

|12.9.07 @ 6:44PM|#

The only thing funnier than conflating crimethink with MNG would be for him to say that I and LoneWacko are in fact the same person.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 6:47PM|#

He has great skills. Some of the greatest are skills with the nunchucks, and drawing mythical beasts.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 6:51PM|#

He has great skills. Some of the greatest are skills with the nunchucks, and drawing mythical beasts.

OK, one skill. Others?

Eric Dondero|12.9.07 @ 6:52PM|#

J sub D, you think it's strange for me to say that Rudy Giuliani could attend the LP National Convention in May?

Why?

Orrin Hatch was the guest speaker at the 1998 LP Convention in SLC.

Don't you remember Bob Dole in 1996 going to the Reform Party convention to get their endorsement?

I think it's not only possible but even probably that the Giuliani campaign will make a pitch for Libertarian Party support sometime after they secure the nomination. He already has friends within the libertarian movement. So, it would be a natural strategy for him.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Eric, I was wondering about your skills. What skills are you most proud of?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 6:58PM|#

The only thing funnier than conflating crimethink with MNG would be for him to say that I and LoneWacko are in fact the same person.

How about joe and Jamie Kelly?

|12.9.07 @ 6:59PM|#

Eric, Eric. So what if Republicans were cozy with the LP back in the 90s? Didn't you hear that 9/11 changed everything?

|12.9.07 @ 7:00PM|#

How about joe and Jamie Kelly?

How about Gary Gunnels and...actually, that wouldn't be far fetched for anyone.

Military Speech Code, Article |12.9.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Except whereas it may conflict with the main body of this article (ed. which *is* real), thou shall liberally sprinkle your speech with curse words well into your late thirties/early forties, except for thou art whom never really used dirty language to begin with.

Because that seems to be the only speech code I am aware of.

Nephilium|12.9.07 @ 7:08PM|#

Bah... everyone should be able to tell that edward, joe, and Dondero are the same. It's obvious that edward and joe are Dondero, just like that guy in Die Hard 3.

Nephilium

Are gift subscriptions availa|12.9.07 @ 7:13PM|#

to this magazine? if so my xmas shopping for Mr Eric "a bunch of wimps here" Dondero is already done!

|12.9.07 @ 7:14PM|#

Cesar-Well, it shows how crazy he is, or how little he has read the posters here, doesn't it?

x,y
Uhh, didn't I mention flag burning or obscenity law (you have heard about how the GOP administration has used the age of the model reporting laws, and an fiendishly clever agency interpretation thereof, to shut down many porn sites right?)?

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the private/public distinction. One of the big things that seperates libertarians from most folks is that most folks don't think coercion stops with physical force.

Your tax dollar goes a lot of places, some of it to colleges, some of it to the military, etc.. If you pretend like your contribution to public colleges has no is nil (that your dollar goes to the military, mine to colleges) then I guess you have no beef if they have draconian speech codes (again, now you are not paying for it and you don't have to go there)? I'd still be against them, and the ones at the conservative colleges.

Of course every law enforcement and military center has something like speech codes and you pay for those, and they are run mostly by GOP types. In fact I'd hazard a guess that more of your dollars are spent on those institutions than on colleges.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:24PM|#

Cesar- Are you watching the debate? Unfortunately I do not understand much, but Thompson already put me to sleep.

|12.9.07 @ 7:24PM|#

Well, of course you haven't heard of military speech codes, because there really is not a well funded group of organizations dedicated to disparaging the military in the same way there are right wing organizations dedicated to disparaging academe. But use your common sense, you don't think the military has policies allowing it to punish personnel who speak, say, against the U.S., or their mission, or the President, or who use racist talk in front of other officers? Note that this is WAY broader than the college speech codes that make conservatives froth at the mouth (they usually are aimed at epithets used in teh classroom though stupid administrators often read this rather broadly).

Just in case there is a short supply of common sense here is a snippet of a discussion of several cases where courts have upheld such policies from the military. Just another note, most officers and commanders in the military are Republicans and it is, in fact, funded with yours and mine tax dollars.


The courts have long given wide deference to military policies challenged on First Amendment grounds. "The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986); see also Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974) ("the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of [First Amendment] protections.").

In the armed forces, some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the government to discharge its responsibilities. . . In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives, but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civilian population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.
Id. at 758-59.
The judiciary recognizes its lack of expertise regarding military life and the special needs of the military, and therefore "judicial deference . . . is at its apogee" when reviewing military affairs. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70 (1981). Indeed, "courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest." Goldman, 474 U.S. at 507. Because of this wide deference, the courts have repeatedly allowed restrictions on speech and activities that would have been struck down as unconstitutional in civilian life. In Goldman v. Weinberger, for example, the Supreme Court upheld an Air Force regulation requiring absolute uniformity of dress and forbidding Jews to wear yarmulkes, even though the regulation was inconsistent with a servicemember's religious beliefs and would likely have been unconstitutional in the civilian context. 475 U.S. 503 (1986). See also Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) (upholding Air Force commander's order which required his approval before distributing leaflets on base); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) (upholding ban on political speeches at a military base); U.S. v. Wilson, 33 M.J. 797 (ACMR 1991) (upholding conviction of soldier who blew his nose onto the American flag).

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:26PM|#

Sheesh MNG... How is Cesar going to see my question? Here it is again:

Cesar- Are you watching the debate? Unfortunately I do not understand much, but Thompson already put me to sleep.

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 7:30PM|#

"So, how do we know that every one of you alias posters is not that guy, hiding out in some rancid hut in Singapore or the Phillipines, surrounded by 5 or 6 computer terminals, and blaring Heavy Metal music in the background."

That shows how much *you* know. I live in an apartment in Malaysia, not a hut in one of those other countries. And all my computers are set to punk rock, not that poseur Heavy Metal crap.

"the collectivism inherent in Christianity . . ."

Come see the collectivism inherent in the system!

While you're at it, come and see a Cardinal of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, Saint Robert Bellarmine:

"During an age in which the descendents of Henry VIII and their Protestant apologists were expounding the Divine Right of Kings, Bellarmine was defending a form of government that finds good qualities in monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and insists it is the right of the people to decide the 'combination' under which they are to be ruled."

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607

"The atheism of Communism is its least important aspect, but was indispensable to its spread."

Come see the collectivism inherent in atheism! Sorry, that was unfair, wasn't it?

"I think it's not only possible but even probably that the Giuliani campaign will make a pitch for Libertarian Party support sometime after they secure the nomination. He already has friends within the libertarian movement. So, it would be a natural strategy for him."

Assuming the Communist Party convention is already booked.

|12.9.07 @ 7:34PM|#

Ali, there's a debate on?! How come I wasn't informed of this? What channel is it on?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:34PM|#

crimethink- Univision.

|12.9.07 @ 7:40PM|#

Ay! No pienso que puedo verlo aquí.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:41PM|#

I can only tell that they are cheering for Ron for something on anti-Hispanic sentiments. I think I know quite well what his answer is. LOTS of CHEERS!

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:43PM|#

crimethink- ana mish fahem haga! There!

|12.9.07 @ 7:45PM|#

The debate is being Englishly liveblogged here.

Apparently Dr Paul's last line was about opposing the national ID card.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:46PM|#

He was just booed and slightly cheered twice, then booed one more time. What did he say? Something about Chavez.

|12.9.07 @ 7:49PM|#

The liveblog isn't keeping up very well. Chinga de madres!

|12.9.07 @ 7:51PM|#

Here's a better liveblog site

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:52PM|#

No it isn't being updated frequently enough. I should have learned Spanish too! When are they having the French debate?

|12.9.07 @ 7:53PM|#

Daily Kos claims to be blogging it, but their coverage mysteriously ends right when Paul answered the National ID question.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:54PM|#

Whoever is blogging there does not know Spanish either. S/he just said "Have no idea what question was posed to Paul w/r/t to Chavez, but his response inspires waves and waves of boos. What just happened here? Tune in tomorrow to find out!" How is that any better than my Spanish?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:55PM|#

D-Kos: "During the introductions, McCain and Paul get the warmest applause."

|12.9.07 @ 7:56PM|#

I don't speak Spanish well at all, either. It took me a few minutes to come up with that one sentence (which is probably nonsense).

|12.9.07 @ 7:57PM|#

OK, here is the Daily Kos' coverage. Apparently Ron Paul got booed for saying we should talk to Cuba!

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 7:57PM|#

I don't speak Spanish well at all, either. It took me a few minutes to come up with that one sentence (which is probably nonsense).

OH, and I was so willing to believe you!

|12.9.07 @ 7:59PM|#

Ali-

My Spanish is so bad it just barely got me through the 102 level in college. I've been told I spoke it somewhat when I was very, very young (think three or four) but its back in the recesses of my brain now probably never to be accessed again.

This is why I don't worry about Spanish over-taking English.

Its funny, conservatives have a fear that pop culture has an almost absolute power to erode our morals, but don't think its powerful enough to assimilate immigrants.

|12.9.07 @ 8:02PM|#

OK, here is the Daily Kos' coverage. Apparently Ron Paul got booed for saying we should talk to Cuba!

I don't get it. Mexicans didn't have a problem talking to the PRI oligarchy. They weren't as bad as Castro of course but they were pretty damn authoritarian (and quasi-socialist).

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:03PM|#

Cesar-

Well, I apologize if I made any assumptions.

Its funny, conservatives have a fear that pop culture has an almost absolute power to erode our morals, but don't think its powerful enough to assimilate immigrants.

I know exactly what you are talking about. Anyone who is not a believer in his/her supposedly powerful message/idea, then either the message/idea is weak to start with, or its that message/idea is strong but the supposed adherents do not believe in it. I am thinking of those who are willing to get rid of their liberties for their security. They do not know that Liberty is a very powerful weapon in the face of non-libertarian ideals. Oh well.

|12.9.07 @ 8:03PM|#

Cesar,

The debate is being held in Miami. So, I'm guessing the audience is disproportionately Cuban.

|12.9.07 @ 8:06PM|#

The debate is being held in Miami. So, I'm guessing the audience is disproportionately Cuban.

I thought so. You know, if Cubans had moved to a non-swing state like say, Texas or New York, they wouldn't have this kind of veto over our foreign policy towards Cuba. Another unintended consequence of the Electoral College.

|12.9.07 @ 8:09PM|#

BTW did Tom Tancredo show up? Are there any no-shows because they think the debate is "un-American"?

|12.9.07 @ 8:10PM|#

no and yes

|12.9.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Who else didn't show? Is it just the second and third tier+McCain?

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:11PM|#

NO Tancredo.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Cesar,

ed|12.9.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Yikes. 369 comments? Tomorrow is still Monday, right? Show of hands...has anyone read all 369 comments? Was atheism mentioned? Anyone want to see my new Jesus vid? It's funny and indie and charming. Click my name. Or not.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Oops! here

|12.9.07 @ 8:17PM|#

They've just screwed themselves out of the Southwest (exception: McCain, Paul) with the first few answers.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:20PM|#

Kos explains that by saying that they are only appealing to the older generation and basically gave up on the younger, which might be the reason why Paul is getting some traction, especially vis-a-vis Iraq.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Does this mean that Dave Wiegel does not speak Spanish?

|12.9.07 @ 8:21PM|#

from the comments section at Kos:

Oh, here we go: a cagarse en Chávez (2+ / 0-)

Ron Paul is making the most sense...how sad is that?

by vawolf on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:45:34 PM PST

x,y|12.9.07 @ 8:25PM|#

MNG,

I appreciate your candor and willingness to disagree about the public/private distinction. But that's a pretty significant distinction to most people who post here (and who consider themselves libertarians).

Ali (formerly iih)|12.9.07 @ 8:26PM|#

Funny comment on D-Kos:

PAul:Booed because he said we need to speak with everyone, in fact we should speak with Cuba.REason we ahve problems, is we interfere in their affairs. e create the Castro's, the Chavez. (Coouldn't hearthe rest my mom was screaming about how he's right).

The old lady sounds like she likes Paul.

|12.9.07 @ 8:28PM|#

Apparently, they chose a guy with a feminine voice to translate Giuliani and Thompson. Poetic justice, that.

|12.9.07 @ 8:33PM|#

Apparently, Huckabee just said we need to teach science better in the public schools. I'm assuming that by "better" he means "without evolution".

|12.9.07 @ 8:38PM|#

Sniff ... real upset that Dondero hasn't accused me of also being an alias of crimethinkdhexMcRomabee. I too have accused Dondero of being a douche! I must also be crimethink and J sub D and MNG, so why am I being left out of the invective? Won't someone please think of all the little proles that need to be fed?

Seriously, dude, pretty much EVERYONE here thinks Donderoooo is an annoying whackjob, so by that logic is H&R composed of a single loner loser living in his mother's basement, batin, and arguing furiously with himself about every other topic except the one his multiple personas all agree on -- that Giuliani isn't a libertarian and you, Dondero, are a douche?

|12.9.07 @ 8:45PM|#

At the end of the debate, Kos opines that McCain is the only one of the candidates who understands and respects Latinos.

Ahem?

I'm assuming that understanding and respecting Latinos is equivalent to favoring amnesty in his book...

|12.9.07 @ 8:50PM|#

Atheism has spawned plenty of its own collectivist societies too. It's not a religion thing, it's a human nature thing.

crimethink, I'd argue with you but I'd run out of rebuttals to that point really quick.
Hmmm, is collectivism encoded in our DNA?

More like people keep extrapolating a working collectivist model -- families -- and expecting it will still work on a community full of genetically unrelated strangers not working toward common goals.

A failure of logic, not DNA.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 9:31PM|#

"The atheism of Communism is its least important aspect, but was indispensable to its spread."

Come see the collectivism inherent in atheism! Sorry, that was unfair, wasn't it?

Uh, atheism vs spiritually(note:not religion) is on an orthogonal plane to individualism vs collectivism.

But my point was simply to express my belief that the statement "Communism would have spread faster/better had it tied its beliefs to Christianity or some other religion" is counter to the history of organized (19c and later) Communism.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 9:47PM|#

Kolohe:

But my point was simply to express my belief that the statement "Communism would have spread faster/better had it tied its beliefs to Christianity or some other religion" is counter to the history of organized (19c and later) Communism.

I didn't respond to that when you posted, and it is certainly one possible reason for the spread of Communism. Ideologies do need differentiation from each other in order to prosper, as well as some end material benefit. I hadn't thought of how atheism could have provided Communism the first (even while it, in the long-term, had nothing like the second).

My comment on the collectivism inherent in Christianity was merely a reference to the vilification of the money-changers and the wealthy, the concept of original sin, the commands to help the poor, and the claims that we are all our brother's keepers among others. These sorts of moral judgments and commandments are collectivist in nature, though there are certainly some other moral precepts of Christianity that are somewhat more individualistic. Also, as x,y noted, collectivism itself is not a problem unless adherence to it is backed up by force.

Atheism in and of itself makes no moral or even economic judgments, though it certainly doesn't prevent its adherents from making them either. This can be seen by its adjoining to Communism by Marx and those who came after him.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 9:48PM|#

Mr Nice Guy-
I'm sea lawyer, (in other words IANAJAG), and I don't think we're disagreeing too much here, especially on what the law says, but:

I disagree with equating campus speech codes with the stuff like the Hatch act (or is it Hyde Amendment?) and Art 88-89 of the UCMJ, even with the special consideration due to unique nature of the military.

As a 'civilian' I am free to say and post on the internet that McDonalds is the devil's food and the CEO should be incarcerated for peddling junk to kids. (or a better analogy, saying the CEO is a crook and liar whose destroying the hallowed legacy of Ray Kroc.) However, if I'm working as the manager of the Wilson Blvd McD's, I shouldn't be surprised if they fire my ass. I also can't be the fry cook and call my manager a no-good [appropriate ethnic slur] whose one neuron short of a synapse, *even if true*, and expect to be working the rest of my shift.

One last thing, there aren't as many republicans in the military as you would think, especially in the officer corp and really especially after the last few years. The senior enlisted tend to be republican, because they tend to trend more Southern and Christian.
(The junior enlisted are too busy fighting and fornicating to worry about politics)

|12.9.07 @ 9:58PM|#

Eric Dondero

Moving the LP into the Real World of politics,...

Funny, everyone I've talked to in the LP complains about what a counterproductive asshole you were.

If you're talking about the two years you were on the FL state excom it's worth noting that only one man has kept the FL LP alive from the late 70s til today. And that's Ralph Swanson. If ever there was a libertarian (and especially Libertarian Party) hero, there's your man. While others dropped out and burned out he stayed the course.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 10:03PM|#

SWHDWTTHJ-
I agree with your characterization of Christianity, esp the early (2-3 century, i.e. lion chow) Church. These were the 'dirty' (or 'higher consciousness') hippie communes of the Roman Era.

There is the caveat of 'render unto cesar' which gives a little wiggle room, and when after 400 years or so when Jesus hadn't 'come quickly' the church began to separate affairs into the earthly and heavenly realms (granted, by still taking a great deal of concern in the former's day-to-day operations for the next millenium)

And agreed on atheism, like i said spirtualty and an individual trait measured on a different axis than a propensity toward collectivism

|12.9.07 @ 10:05PM|#

I'm sea lawyer, (in other words IANAJAG),...

Wow, no kidding. We had an Army lawyer here and he didn't seem nearly as reasonable as you. But then maybe I'm prejudiced.

But then I also never got any medals for filling out the right Supply Corps forms either.

Kolohe|12.9.07 @ 10:08PM|#

Its funny, conservatives have a fear that pop culture has an almost absolute power to erode our morals, but don't think its powerful enough to assimilate immigrants

Since the jazz era, the primary sources of pop culture have originated from either people with melanin levels higher than the national average, immigrants, jews, or some combo thereof.

BakedPenguin|12.9.07 @ 10:10PM|#

prolefeed - apparently, I'm part of the libertarian "three faces of Steve" too, at least according to some comments excerpted by others upthread.

I've been using Firefox with a filter, and haven't read a thing Donderrroooo or the other usual suspects have written in weeks. Highly recommended.

As for communism & atheism, I suspect the main reason communism was atheist was that communists wanted people to answer to them, and not to priests, ministers, rabbis, etc. Because religious leaders posed a potential threat of providing anti-communist leadership, they had to go.

It's worth noting that during WWII, Stalin allowed a radio broadcast by the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church. This would only happen during a time when the communists knew that they could politically trust the religious leader.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.9.07 @ 10:12PM|#

Kolohe:

Quoting Shakespeare: "True dat."

Man my handle is way out of control when everyone has to abbreviate it and the abbreviation is still that long.

the innominate one|12.9.07 @ 10:20PM|#

perhaps you should call yourself "job loss phobe"

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 11:23PM|#

"My comment on the collectivism inherent in Christianity was merely a reference to the vilification of the money-changers and the wealthy, the concept of original sin, the commands to help the poor, and the claims that we are all our brother's keepers among others. These sorts of moral judgments and commandments are collectivist in nature, though there are certainly some other moral precepts of Christianity that are somewhat more individualistic. Also, as x,y noted, collectivism itself is not a problem unless adherence to it is backed up by force."

Catholic doctrine has a much more, shall we say nuanced view of this subject:

"The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. The concept or principle is found in several constitutions around the world (see for example the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

"The principle of subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole. "Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle.

"The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops."


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

"I agree with your characterization of Christianity, esp the early (2-3 century, i.e. lion chow) Church. These were the 'dirty' (or 'higher consciousness') hippie communes of the Roman Era."

The lion-chow Church wasn't very big on the hippie stuff - you're probably thinking about the Manicheans.

"As for communism & atheism, I suspect the main reason communism was atheist was that communists wanted people to answer to *them,* and not to priests, ministers, rabbis, etc. Because religious leaders posed a potential threat of providing anti-communist leadership, they had to go."

Many political movements have been anticlerical without renouncing belief in God. There has never been any shortage of "spiritual but not religious types" who claim to have a better connection to God than the established Church and its hierarchy. Certain political movements fuse religious and political leadership, allowing churches to operate only as arms of the state or Party. This was the case with National Socialism - as atheists never cease pointing out, Hitler and his merry band proclaimed their belief in God, but said that the established churches - especially their nemesis, the Catholic Church - had perverted the true religion (Theologically, National Socialists mixed a strange brew of neo-paganism and neo-Marcionism into their cauldron and stirred thoroughly).

The Communists, on the other hand, made a full-on attack against theism itself, which they didn't have to do if their only objective was to curtail the influence of religious leaders. Indeed, by attacking the very idea of God, the Commies made it difficult to pull off the usual distinction between "spirituality" and "organized religion" that anticlerical movements like the National Socialists found so useful.

|12.9.07 @ 11:46PM|#

This was the case with National Socialism - as atheists never cease pointing out, Hitler and his merry band proclaimed their belief in God, but said that the established churches - especially their nemesis, the Catholic Church - had perverted the true religion

To be perfectly honest, in the early years of Naziism, they got on with the Catholic Church just fine. Indeed, while he was Vatican Secy of State, the future Pope Pius XII negotiated a concordat with Hitler during the 30s which gave the Church a privileged status in southern Germany in exchange for not causing trouble. Of course, a few years later, the Pope realized he'd been had, and denounced Naziism, but you can't deny that the Church has quite often gotten into bed with some pretty despicable people in order to secure a secular advantage.

Mad Max|12.9.07 @ 11:57PM|#

Crimethink,

Concordats aren't a sign of trust - they're a sign of *mistrust* - if the Pope trusted the Germans, why make an agreement in which the Germans promise not to meddle in Church affairs?

The Pope believed (correctly) that the coming of the National Socialist regime heralded a new *Kulturkampf* (referring to the persecution of the Church under Bismark in the 1880s). Seeing the coming storm, it was the Pope's duty, as a good shephard of his German flock, to take steps to protect the Church, and the Concordat gave a legal form to this.

The Concordat being one of the earliest deals Hitler made, it was also one of the first deals he broke - he did so at the first opportunity, as the Pope had forseen. The Concordat provided a juridical framework in which these violations could be denounced. And denounce the Pope did, in a 1937 encyclical which Hitler tried to ban.

The Pope wasn't the first to sign a deal with Hitler. In 1934, the Polish govt signed a nonagression pact. The year after the Pope denounced the breach of the Concordat, the British and French (to the applause of Franklin Roosevelt) cut a deal over the Sudetenland, selling out the Czechs. Unlike the Pope, the British and French actually expected Hitler to keep this deal - "peace in our time."

Kolohe|12.10.07 @ 12:05AM|#

I'll take your post as a look-up Max. I'm a mile wide/inch deep guy to begin with, and even after twelve years of C.C.D. you're talking over my head; so I'm going to bow out gracefully.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 12:09AM|#

Check out *Controversial Concordats: The Vatican's Relations With Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler,*

http://tinyurl.com/3cb2qn

Also, check out the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, denouncing Hitler's breaches of the Concordat and ripping the National Socialist perfidy and Satanic ideology a new one:

"3. When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a scheme of several years' standing; and when, to your unanimous satisfaction, We concluded the negotiations by a solemn treaty, We were prompted by the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity. Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wished to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the negotiations fallen through. It was by acts that We wished to make it plain, Christ's interests being Our sole object, that the pacific and maternal hand of the Church would be extended to anyone who did not actually refuse it. . . .

"5. We have never ceased, Venerable Brethren, to represent to the responsible rulers of your country's destiny, the consequences which would inevitably follow the protection and even the favor, extended to such a policy. We have done everything in Our power to defend the sacred pledge of the given word of honor against theories and practices, which it officially endorsed, would wreck every faith in treaties and make every signature worthless. Should the day ever come to place before the world the account of Our efforts, every honest mind will see on which side are to be found the promoters of peace, and on which side its disturbers. Whoever had left in his soul an atom of love for truth, and in his heart a shadow of a sense of justice, must admit that, in the course of these anxious and trying years following upon the conclusion of the concordat, every one of Our words, every one of Our acts, has been inspired by the binding law of treaties. At the same time, anyone must acknowledge, not without surprise and reprobation, how the other contracting party emasculated the terms of the treaty, distorted their meaning, and eventually considered its more or less official violation as a normal policy. . . .

"7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God.
"8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
"9. Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.
"10. This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.
"11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xI, 15). . . .
"16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world . . .
"17. The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood. . . .
"21. In your country, Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: 'Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10). . . .'

http://tinyurl.com/cr0f

Kolohe|12.10.07 @ 12:17AM|#

Someone...etc.

May I suggest Exauctorophobe? (Conjugation and/or declination is probably wrong though.)

Edward|12.10.07 @ 12:41AM|#

Reality check

Ron Paul Election Polls Stat Sheet
Last Updated: 12/8/07

National Averages by Month



Pollster
[min, max] Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
ABC News
[1, 3] 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.7 - - 3.0 3.0 - -
American Research Group
[1, 4] - - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 -
CNN
[1, 5] 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 - 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 -
Cook Political Report
[1, 6] - - - 1.0 1.0 2.0 - 1.0 3.0 - 6.0 -
Democracy Corps
[1, 1] - - 1.0 - - - - - - - - -
Diageo
[1, 2] - - - - 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - - - -
Fox News
[1, 3] - - - - 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 -
Gallup
[1, 5] - - 1.0 2.0 - 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.0 -
Ipsos
[3, 3] - - - - - - - - - - - 3.0
Los Angeles Times
[2, 5] - - - - - - - - - 2.0 - 5.0
Marist
[1, 2] - 1.0 - - - - - - - 2.0 - -
NBC
[2, 4] - - - - - 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 - 4.0 -
Newsweek
[2, 3] - - - - - 2.0 - 2.0 - - 3.0 -
Pew Research
[1, 4] - - - - - - 2.0 - 1.0 3.0 4.0 -
Quinnipiac
[1, 2] - 1.0 - - - 1.0 - 2.0 - 2.0 - -
USA Today
[1, 5] - - - - - 1.5 3.0 2.3 2.5 3.5 1.0 4.0
Zogby
[1, 5] - - 3.0 - - - 1.0 - - 3.0 5.0 -

|12.10.07 @ 1:17AM|#

Damn... That's a lot of Nazis. And it's trending upward too...

Edward|12.10.07 @ 1:18AM|#

Nazis and Nazi dupes, and not very much upward.

Edward|12.10.07 @ 1:22AM|#

Actually, for the record, I have never claimed that Ron Paul is a Nazi, just an idiot for not denouncing Nazi support and giving the Nazi money back. I also don't think many of his supporters are Nazis. His enthusiastic and ever hopeful supporters are all over the political map and have but one thing in common: weak math skills.

Edtard|12.10.07 @ 1:24AM|#

Nazis and dupes and Perot! Oh my!
Nazis and dupes and Perot! Oh my!
Nazis and dupes and Perot! Oh my!
Nazis and dupes and Perot! Oh my!
Nazis and dupes and Perot! Oh my!

Edward|12.10.07 @ 1:25AM|#

Sometimes the reparte here leaves much to be desired.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 1:27AM|#

Speaking of National Socialists, here's the Cliff's notes version of my last post - Pope Pius XI criticizing the National Socialist regime for violating the Concordat with the Church. Here's what the Pope said about the National Socialist regime:

". . . emasculated the terms of the treaty, distorted their meaning, and eventually considered its more or less official violation as a normal policy. . . . distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God. . . . None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion . . . Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God . . . If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: 'Begone, Satan!"

So to recap:

(a) One year before Munich, denounces the National Socialist regime for its brazen violation of treaties

(b) Accuses the National Socialists of blasphemy for trying to get rid of the Old Testament [because it was written by you-know-who]

(c) Compares the regime to Satan.

If that's how the Church treats those it's in bed with, I'd hate to see how it treats its enemies.

Edward|12.10.07 @ 1:28AM|#

Yeah, I'll bet the Pope gave the Nazi money back.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 1:32AM|#

In accordance with Proverbs 26:4, I'm not responding to the previous comment.

Edward|12.10.07 @ 1:43AM|#

I would check the Biblical reference, but I'm still busy looking for all those references to God in the Constitution. In any case, you should keep an open mind, Max. As they say, something might fall in.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 1:55AM|#

Ed,

God loves you, and I am sincerely seeking to follow His great example.

Edward|12.10.07 @ 2:12AM|#

Thanks, Max. I think that's admirable. May your time in Purgatory be brief.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:17AM|#

Aw, shucks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in days.

ww|12.10.07 @ 2:48AM|#

a href="http://www.akkb.org/yxdl/" title="电炉">电炉
药化设备
填料
接近开关
除尘器
压力容器

Paul|12.10.07 @ 4:04AM|#

Ali:

Paul, you're misreading the statement. "Then" is not in the sense of "back then". It is in the sense of "If... then..." logical statement. So if it had not happened, today, the gap between the world and Africa would have been 72% less today.

Say what? I really have no idea what point you're trying to make. The paper is clear, it reports that 72% of the income gap would not exist had the slave trade not occurred. The statement is simple and uncomplicated. I refuted (and still refute) it.

If you RTFA, the conclusions, while attempting to be scientific, are chock full of leaps of faith. He brushes aside the obvious conclusion:

An alternative explanation for the relationship is that the parts of Africa from which the largest number of slaves were taken were initially the most underdeveloped. Today, because these characteristics persist, these parts of Africa continue to be underdeveloped and poor. My research examines this alternative hypothesis by testing whether it was in fact the initially least developed parts of Africa that engaged most heavily in the slave trades. I find that the data and the historical evidence suggest that, if anything, it was the parts of Africa that were initially the most developed, not least developed, that supplied the largest number of slaves.

Let's say for a minute that the most economically developed peoples are being enslaved by the least economic peoples. My scientific response is: WTF?!!

Guy Montag|12.10.07 @ 7:23AM|#

Around 0100 or 0200 on Art Bell's Coast to Coast (AM radio UFO related show, and they had a guest host last night) they had some hippie Astrologer on 'channeling' the Dr. Paul line about 'fiat' money and the coming ruin of civilization because of it.

Better stock up on gold, eh? ROFLMAO

BTW, back in the early 1980s there were a small number of people running about telling everybody they could, in private, this same thing (minus the Astrology part), but I never found out who they were getting their info from. Sounds kinda LaRouchish but not sure.

Guy Montag|12.10.07 @ 7:32AM|#

Paul,

We have a examples from the 20th century where the less economically adept did enslave the better producers. The Soviets turned East Germany and Poland (along with others) into subserviant serf-lands and used their labor (and others) to enrich Moscow and fuel their empiralistic adventures around Europe and Asia. The 'economic divide' was reversed, for a short time. Thing is, when they were no longer enslaved by the Soviets they went back to out-producing their former slavemasters in short order.

Must be something else going on with Africa, especially with the rich economic resources of that continent.

|12.10.07 @ 7:55AM|#

Actually Kohole every poll of officers corps I've ever seen, in every branch, shows a number of Republicans as skewed as there are Democrats in academe.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart4.php

The military and academe are largely public, payed for with taxpayer dollars, both folks that are liberal and not liberal, athiest and not atheist, etc. Some academic institutions, saying it is integral to their mission of educating a diverse student body and recruiting same, have speech codes, usually which ban speech which would be ethnically or religiously "insensitive." (I agree that is way overbroad btw). The military has much broader speech codes, you cannot even criticize the President or government policy without landing in hot water. You don't have to join the military, and you don't have to go to a public school, you are forced to support both. Conservatives obsess over the college codes like Donderdo does a stripper while they ignore the military codes...

|12.10.07 @ 7:57AM|#

And if you say "well you know what your getting when you join the military concerning codes" I can point out that very few college speech codes are unpublished. Usually they can be found in the college or student handbook. And while military ones are uniform across the nation public colleges, even within the same state, vary as to their codes (if any) so you really have more "public choice".

Ali (formerly iih)|12.10.07 @ 9:34AM|#

Paul

By saying this:

How could that continent have been "slave raided" 400 years ago if they were already on equal footing (technologically and economically speaking) with the raiders themselves.

you imply that they were on equal footing 400 years ago. I am not sure that that is claimed anywhere in the article. It only says that:

Recent research suggests that without the slave trades, 72% of Africa's income gap with the rest of the world would not exist today.

|12.10.07 @ 9:56AM|#

I'm so happy that I'm not the only one who thinks the guy in the tomato soup ad looks like Mike Huckabee.

I've spent my entire life noticing things like that and having everyone around me look at me like I have two heads.

VM|12.10.07 @ 9:58AM|#

*cautiously avoids eye contact with joe's second head*

Fluffy|12.10.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Paul -

The Mongols were infinitely less economically developed than the Chinese or Arabs, and they pretty much cut those people to shreds. Central Asia is probably less economically developed today because the Mongols destroyed the technological basis for agriculture there - irrigation systems slowly built up over centuries - and hauled away the urban populations that they didn't slaughter. It's reasonable to argue - although it can never be proven - that the economic consequences of that act echo through to the present day.

With regard to the development argument, I don't really buy it, but if I tried to view it in the spirit of intellectual charity, I might say this: many areas of the world were significantly behind Europe economically and technologically four centuries ago. Those areas are ahead of Africa now. There is something that is different about Africa relative to, say, South America, Indonesia, etc. Personally I think the "difference" comes down to things like soil quality, greater European susceptibility to African disease, pre-existing Chinese trade patterns in southeast Asia, and a host of other factors varying by region, but it's not entirely insane to speculate that the slave trade was a factor.

Neu Mejican|12.10.07 @ 10:47AM|#

Paul,

I refuted (and still refute) it.

I think you need to look up the word "refute."

You have done nothing to prove Nunn's hypothesis is incorrect.

As Ali pointed out, you have made a statement, not provided a refutation. Nunn claims that the damage done to Africa's social infrastructure is a root cause of the current economic situation. The historical economic conditions are not strictly relevant to the claim.

Guy's example, of course, is not germane either...it is nice to use the term "enslavement" to discuss the Soviets, but it is not a parallel situation for many reasons.

Neu Damned|12.10.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Oops,
Tag off...

Neu Mejican|12.10.07 @ 11:01AM|#

More on Nunn's research:
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2004/09/how_slave_trade.html\

A 2005 research article:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~nnunn/empirical_slavery.pdf

I find that the relationship between the slave trade and current economic
performance is through the slave trade's effect on the quality of domestic
institutions, such as the quality of the judicial system and the overall rule of
law. Once this relationship is accounted for, the slave trade does not exert
an influence on economic development through other channels.

Also, http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000173.html

Kolohe|12.10.07 @ 11:26AM|#

MNG-
I think, but cannot prove, that a similar poll of academia would be greater than 56% dem. I also suspect that this has shifted slightly in the little under two years sinced this poll was published (and probably a little over two years since the poll was conducted).

The military has much broader speech codes, you cannot even criticize the President or government policy without landing in hot water.
Keeping the military depoliticized is a necessary (but not sufficient) element to prevent Chavezism. I am willing to accept increased regulation in their affairs. And in fact you do have some "conservatives" crying 'help, I'm being oppressed' in the military. There was that LT Chaplain in Norfolk who protested at the White House, among other places, that he wasn't allowed to do something or other, and who has been repeatedly disobeying his CO orders.

You don't have to join the military, and you don't have to go to a public school, you are forced to support both. Conservatives obsess over the college codes like Donderdo does a stripper while they ignore the military codes...
First, I am not a conservative (nor do I obsess over strippers; that girl is just working her way through college, and I think she really likes me). And I do not obsess over speech codes, because I really don't give a rat's ass at what happens in colleges in general anymore as that is over a decade behind me. (My school in particular I of course care about, because of the reputation of the school does affect job prospects of alumni).

And I can't make sense of your follow-up post. My point is that the military does have a unique mission, and that it *is* volunteer. If you don't like it don't join, or don't re-up when you current commitment runs out. If you object to your state college speech code, yes, you have to go to a different state or a private school. If you don't like the military , there is a far greater percentage of options(1 million military jobs vs approx 150 million other jobs)

Many other places where you are an employee(as opposed to where your a *customer*) can regulate your public conduct viz-a-viz the company's image.

Neu Mejican|12.10.07 @ 11:49AM|#

To continue the open threadiness...an interested post by DeLong...

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/12/justin-fox-on-a.html

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money.... President Bush... Vice President Dick Cheney... John McCain... Rudy Giuliani.... If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration.... The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent.

|12.10.07 @ 12:57PM|#

I still maintain that the more logical party for libertarians to have influence is the Democratic Party. They are with libertarians on abortion,

This assumes there is a single libertarian position on abortion. There isn't. I can think of at least three major camps ((1)abortion violates the rights of unborn person and can be prohibited by the state, (2) abortion is a right of pregnant women that should be untrammelled by the state, and (3) regardless of the merits, abortion and state abortion laws are not subject to the federal government (including SCOTUS).

gay rights

Depends on what you mean by gay rights. If you mean gay folk have the same rights as other people, most libs would agree. If you are pushing some kind of special recognition/group rights thing, then most libs would disagree.

rights of the accused

I missed the part where Dems were leading a crusade to reign in nutball prosecutors and the militarized police.

free speech

Lets not forget the Feingold half of McCain-Feingold. And lets not forget that the other major infringement on free speech - hate-speech laws, hostile environment doctrine, etc. - all have their home in the Democratic party.

and the war.

Again, false assumption that the isolationist wing of libertarianism is the only wing.

All told, I still find the Dems a supremely unconvincing alternative home for minarchists and libertarians.

|12.10.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Kohole-I wasn't implying you were an obssessing conservative, just that there are many :) and taking a poke at Donderooooooo! which is always fun and at times worth the small effort to hit such a broad target.

"Keeping the military depoliticized is a necessary (but not sufficient) element to prevent Chavezism."
Oh I agree. Of course many colleges that preventing people from shouting racial epithets in the middle of class is a necessary but not sufficient element to enable them to achieve their important mission. And I'm not sure that having a speech code in the military "de-politicizes" it or politicizes it, if you get my meaning. For instance, a National Socialist would have his politics squelched, yes, but other politics laid over him (in the same sense you could say that prohibitions on speech at colleges "de-politicize" it and their mission is not really political either).

"My point is that the military does have a unique mission, and that it *is* volunteer. If you don't like it don't join, or don't re-up when you current commitment runs out. If you object to your state college speech code, yes, you have to go to a different state or a private school. If you don't like the military , there is a far greater percentage of options(1 million military jobs vs approx 150 million other jobs)"
The military does have a unique mission. So do colleges. And they are both voluntary. And in comparison to any given college with a bad speech code there are probably 1 to 150 million other college slots out there...

RC Dean-well yes, I'd be willing to agree that if you are an anti-choice homophobic [not sure what "special right" is given to gays when we recognize their marriages just like we do hetero's] pro-war libertarian you might not like the Democrats. But for all the others they would find a party more willing to move on the issues they do not like about the Dems (gun rights, free trade, tax cuts, where Dems are moving libertarian).

|12.10.07 @ 1:41PM|#

many colleges THINK that preventing

Paul|12.10.07 @ 5:34PM|#

you imply that they were on equal footing 400 years ago. I am not sure that that is claimed anywhere in the article. It only says that:

Ali, I am not, have not and never did. I'm asking the question. Is it realistic that the people being raided were equally developed as the people doing the raiding? This is the logical question that one must ask based on what the research postulates. It's the question in blinking, flashing lights. Hence my "How could" preface to my statement? I apologize for ending the sentence in a period, perhaps this is causing confusion. Oh, and the article does cover this directly:

I find that the data and the historical evidence suggest that, if anything, it was the parts of Africa that were initially the most developed, not least developed, that supplied the largest number of slaves.

Neu Mejican:

Ali is not so much questioning what I'm saying, he's thinking I'm logically misreading the statement. I'm not. I understand in crystal clarity what the researchers are attempting to say. Ali has either chosen or decided to think that I think that the researchers are saying something about what was happening more than 400 years ago. I'm not. I am merely asking the question-- the question that the researcher to his credit addresses briefly-- if this really seems logical?

And no, NM, of course I don't actually refute it without dedicating a year of my life in research-- I just strongly doubt his foundation.

Fluffy and Guy address my logical concern with a reasonable argument. However, it's hovering dangerously close to suggesting that we can tell with scientific accuracy what happens with the flapping of the proverbial butterfly's wings.

The remaining counter-argument is, if these "other" cultures were so successfully "slave raided" by other inferior cultures, why aren't they as economically underdeveloped as Africa?

I suppose the obvious counter argument is "because they weren't slave raided for 400 years".

The last logical question that springs up is, why are some of the so-called raiding cultures still economically undeveloped?

With the amount of economic retardation that the researcher applies to the effects of slave-raiding, you'd think that there would be other considerations made for some other cultures?

The gut feeling I get from this study? When all you have is a hammer...

Paul|12.10.07 @ 5:40PM|#

Just to add one more thing, I am a little curious about how one might change their perception of this if we change "slave raid" to "slave trade". Much of the acquisition of slaves was done through a "trade" system. Foreigners would arrive, make economic deals with presumably warring tribes, give them some trinkets and beads, and the tribe would hand over prisoners of some inter-tribal conflict. Does this put a slightly different spin on economic development questions?