Bob Barr on the Colbert Report: The Legendary Live Thread

The Libertarian Party's presidential war horse is on the Colbert Report tonight, talking about (I assume) his decision to quit the race and endorse John McCain. Or gloating about the polls that show him handing Southern states over to Barack Obama. Or, perhaps, talking about the Libertarian message.

One of those three things.

Consider this an open thread if you're watching Colbert (at 11 p.m. ET) or if you're gloating about Hillary Clinton's decision to quit the race on Friday.

Comments

[John-David]

I believe Colbert is on at 11:30 pm. I plan on watching, or at least recording it with the DVR.

[Apaulogist]

If Barr gets any traction this season, I wonder what Reason will do to torpedo him. I am just curious, however, as nothing the Kochtopus can cook up can possibly discredit him as much as they've already discredited themselves.

[stephen the goldberger]

...as nothing the Kochtopus can cook up can possibly discredit him as much as they've already discredited themselves.

What does Ed Koch have to do with any of this?

[Tehjesus]

I love Koch.

[kevin]

better obama than mccain. I think....

[Apaulogist]

Charles and David Koch bankroll the Reason Foundation, CATO institute, and other psudolibertarian organizations. They were behind the newsletter calumny on the eve of the NH primary, as well as other fratracidal acts against anyone even remotely associated with Lew Rockwell.

David Koch functions like the token Jew on the housing board of his 5th Avenue coop. He is the establishment libetertarian who's job it is to keep the rest of the libs out.

[Colin]

While I don't think it'll happen, it'd be great if libertarians caused McCain to lose the election.

Maybe they'd take us more seriously.

Or then again, maybe not.

[Ayn_Randian]

I see the yokeltarians are here again.

And I noticed that the Chief Yokeltarian doesn't really understand 'freedom to choose' at all.

[Colin]

Funny, I thought it was the New Republic that exposed Paul's newsletters.

Or do these "Jews" bankroll that magazine as well?

[Chris Potter]

The name "Apauligist" would seem to indicate it's either a parody or an agent provocateur.

[Colin]

The name "Apauligist" would seem to indicate it's either a parody or an agent provocateur.

Or both.

[Apaulogist]

TNR is a liberal rag that was fed the info. It is in fact controlled by a Jew, Mart Peretz. That he is Jewish is irrellevant. That he is a Likudnik is not.

It is characteristic of the likudnik neocons to suggest, as I already detect, that anyone opposing them isanti-semitic. I suppose this includes the Jewish J street organization as well.

The newsletters were unearthed at the U. Of Kansas, home of the Koch Arena. Coincidence?

[Snootful]

Or, perhaps, talking about the Libertarian message.

Is there anybody on the Barr campaign who cares about that?

[PantsFan]

Can we make this a Stanley Cup thread too, because unlike Tiger Woods, I watch hockey

Go Pens!

[Kwix]

PantsFan,
Isn't hockey the game that involves fistfighting until distracted by a black disk? I saw that once. Did you know that vomit and blood bounce on ice?

[J sub D]

Can we make this a Stanley Cup thread too, because unlike Tiger Woods, I watch hockey

Go Pens!

Go Wings. Damn, 30 seconds away from our 11th(?) Cup and your kids pull off a miracle. So we havee the Sanley Cup Parade here in Hockeytown a couple of days late. We can live with that,

[shrike]

I am giddy with anticipation!

[PantsFan]

There's very little if any fighting in playoff hockey.

It's more skill and finesse.

[charlie]

Yes Ayn Randian, how dare Lew Rockwell criticize the imprisonment of a 17 year old, clinically depressed junior in high school for not showing up to kill for the State.

Of course, no private company is allowed to sign up 17 year olds for jobs they can't quit -- and as for contracts, the military's stop-loss program has shown that the State doesn't keep up its end of the bargain, so for all intents and purposes they are worthless.

But go ahead, please tell us why libertarians should support imprisoning high schoolers for failing to fulfill their end of said b.s. "contracts."

[J sub D]

The fighting in the NHL has gone down a lot in recent years. I'm of mixed emotions about that. On one hand it's hockey, not brawling on ice. OTOH, I've seen some damned good melees in the NHL.

[Ayn_Randian]

Of course, no private company is allowed to sign up 17 year olds for jobs they can't quit

Anyone can quit the military when they want. The penalties (as spelled out in the contract) are steep, however.

Point taken that no other employers can use these contracts. They should be allowed to, however.

and as for contracts, the military's stop-loss program has shown that the State doesn't keep up its end of the bargain, so for all intents and purposes they are worthless.

stop-loss is part of the contract, charlie.

[PantsFan]

Here's an NHL Heavy Weight Bout

[No Name Guy]

Billary is gone! The witch is dead!

[prolefeed]

I thought that if you showed up in boot camp and then quit trying to pass the training there, they allowed you to leave the military?

If this is so, why would they try and compel someone to attend boot camp who clearly would pull this?

[BakedPenguin]

The Bertuzzi cheap shot thing a few years back really was a wake up call. The other guy could have died. I thought Bertuzzi should have been banned for at least five years.

[Rimfax]

They were behind the newsletter calumny

So, are you saying that Rockwell wasn't the shitbag who wrote that execrable crap? Cause whoever wrote that in Paul's name is to blame more than anyone else. Least of all someone who merely pointed out that it happened. Or is that not how things work on Rockwell's planet?

[shrike]

btw - concerning the Stanley Cup....

What would an NHL game look like if they allowed fast breaks like the NBA?

The blue line rules are fascinating...

[jorgen]

Especially the person who wrote all the newsletters and then didn't come out and say it was him when the scandal broke. That person really screwed over Ron Paul. Whoever he is.

[jorgen]

Of course, Ron Paul is to blame too, for not really seeing paranoia and racism as a big enough deal so as not to get his name associated with it.

[Brandybuck]

David Koch functions like the token Jew on the housing board of his 5th Avenue coop. He is the establishment libetertarian who's job it is to keep the rest of the libs out.

Wow. Just wow. For the record, I am a paleolibertarian in the old sense of the word, before Lew Rockwell underwent his lobotomy.

"Paleolibertarian: Combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought." Rockwell seems to have redefined this as being a Rothbard worshipping crypto-conspiracist.

[J sub D]

What would an NHL game look like if they allowed fast breaks like the NBA?

More scoring, less hitting. That's just a guess there.

[J sub D]

Oh yeah -

Red wing 1
Penguins 0

[Apaulogist]

"So, are you saying that Rockwell wasn't the shitbag who wrote that execrable crap? Cause whoever wrote that in Paul's name is to blame more than anyone else. Least of all someone who merely pointed out that it happened. Or is that not how things work on Rockwell's planet?"

We are straying off topic here, but Rockwell's style of writing is nothing like the newsletters (which weren't that bad when read in context).

The point is we had an aopportunity to really strike a blow for freedom and we got bogged down in this decades-old neo-paleo fued. Paul wasn't an ideal candidate by any means, but he would have been a huluva lot better than BHO, or McCain.

The Khoch hate machine exists. The people that control CASTO/REASON hate the LVM paleos more than they love liberty and they demonstrated that by participating in a neocon smear campaign.

The beltway libs are sell-outs. Matt, Nick, Radley and the whole stinking lot of them would trade their principles for an invitation to a cocktail party.

[No Name Guy]

"Apaulogist", you're a class AAA nutbag and borderline anti-semite. Go back to the John Birch Society/Stormfront.

[Apaulogist]

DRINK!

(anyone criticising the neocons get branded an antisemite- even Jews like Ilana Mercer, Shimshon Weisman, or J Street. It's so predictable that it's now part of the drinking game.)

[shrike]

More scoring, less hitting. That's just a guess there.

Yes, but also more passing and less skating.

Like pinball. Or like foosball!

Yeah!

[J sub D]

Apaulogist,

I donated money to the Paul campaign prior to the newsletter surfacing. I voted for him in the Michigan GOP primary after the feces impacted the rotating vanes.

After the newletters surfaced at New Republic, Reason OnLine covered it because it was a legitimate news story of particular interest to libertarians. The Ron Paul campaign's response was best described as lame. Here is how I, one of his supporters, interpreted it.

I didn't write them. I didn't read them before they went out. I did authorize others to use my name on them. I don't agree with the sentiments that are on the newsletters and I won't divulge who was responsible for the text. I'm being loyal to a long time supporter and friend.

I don't know who wrote those sophmoric dispatches tinged with racism, but Ron Paul does. I'll bet you Lew Rockwell does as well. The silence is deafening.

Now for some hard truths

Inb context the newsletters were deplorable and Indefensible.

The Reason Foundation did not write, publish or bring to light those newsletters. Reason OnLine discussed the issue and would have been irresponsible if they didn't. They did not sabotage the campaign. They did not stab Ron Paul in the back.

Even before the revelations of the newsletters, I didn't expect RP to win the nomination. After they were exposed I knew he was not going anywhere.

Get over it. Ron Paul was responsible for the whoile fiasco.

[Nigel Watt]

Is it so wrong that I read both LRC and Reason?

[Chris Potter]

Apaulogist,

Your jocular instincts betray you. The real "RON PAUL = GOD" apologists rank somewhere below Janet Reno on the sense of humor scale.

[Chris in NJ]

Jeez. For all the infighting that goes on within this movement, it's a wonder we're able to get anything done.

Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to offer.

Go Bob Barr!

[J sub D]

At the end of the second period

Red Wings - 2
Penguins - 1

Let's Go Red Wings
Let's Go Red Wings

[Chris Potter]

The only kind of 'tarian I could never vote for is an autocoprotarian (a libertarian who believes in free markets and social freedoms, but is enamored with his own feces).

[T]

a libertarian who believes in free markets and social freedoms, but is enamored with his own feces

As long as he does what he does where I don't have to see it (and washes his hands thoroughly) I could care less what the man's hobbies are.

[Apaulogist]

Chris wrote:

"Jeez. For all the infighting that goes on within this movement, it's a wonder we're able to get anything done."

I completely agree with that.

"Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to offer."

That, too.

"Go Bob Barr!"

I'll even agree with that, in the almost-certain event that RP fails to get the GOP nomination.

[Famous Mortimer]

"Paleolibertarian: Combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought."

Please tell me that you have not, or will not procreate?

Anyway, everytime the discussion of Ron Paul and the newsletters comes up, it's astonishing how Libertarians suddenly find the ability to qualify everything.

Anyone who still supports Ron Paul's campaign, even posthumously needs to have their head examined. What came out in those newsletters made him completely unfit for any kind of public office, and his diplomatic abilities seemed almost non-existent.

But hey, anything to get a Libertarian in office, right?

Now, if the whole thing involved a University instructor, then we would have 700 comments telling us how higher education produces whack-jobs. However, when coming from the lips of a self-avowed Libertarian, the irony is almost always lost.

"Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to offer."

I understand your frustration, but that's exactly the problem with the movement. Pushing for anyone who remotely states anything Libertarian could lead us toward the same results that blind Bush voters did. After all, Bush was elected on the same strategy by devout Republican voters, when, in retrospect electing a Giraffe would have been just as sensible.

I like reading Libertarian thought because it's one of the few philosophies that invites skepticism on many issues that I am interested in, but as a politcal movement it has far too many bitter, and unintelligent members to formulate any meaningful dialogue.

You guys can't even agree on what a Libertarian is.

It would more interesting if this site justified its name, and just focused on being a skeptics magazine.

Of course, when it has been skeptical about Libertarian thought, many people on here become outraged. Next time many of you mock religious thought on here, take a long look at your own writing.

[Apaulogist]

J sub wrote:
"The Reason Foundation did not write, publish or bring to light those newsletters. Reason OnLine discussed the issue and would have been irresponsible if they didn't. They did not sabotage the campaign. They did not stab Ron Paul in the back. "

Reason parroted the TNR narrative without even changing the spin. I have no idea which tentacle of the Kochtopus put the newsletters in Pimples Kirchik's hands, but they came from the library of the U. Of Kansas, a power center for Chuckles Koch.

Sure, RP could have handled the scandal better, but he is a boring ob/gyn who was happily married for over fifty years. Damage control was not a skill he needed to develop before then.

Maybe he would have lost anyway, but Reason had a responsibility to cover the story from a free minds/free markets perspective and in that they failed.

Anyone who thinks trailerpark skinheads are a bigger threat than the State has no business calling themselves libertarian.

[lysander]

You know, I really didn't think that anyone actually still denied that Rockwell wrote those articles. Paul's oversite, or lack thereof, is a different issue, but even Gene Callahan confirms it in a response to a comment on his blog, and to humorous effect:
"I never cared that they were 'mad' -- I cared that they engaged in vicious personal attacks on writers who were merely noting the truth. (Yes, Bob, Lew DID write those newsletters -- as one of the Reason writers noted, De Coster was the ONLY blogger at LRC denying that -- as he said, 'Wow, no one told De Coster that the allegations were true!'"

He also happens to be an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, so accusations of being a member of the "Kochtopus" are... lacking, to say the least...

So, five bucks says Colbert swoons over Barr's mustache.

[PantsFan]

Congrats to the Red Wings for their Cup.
They are a talented bunch. The penguins are still young, and hopefully will be back soon.

[shecky]

Famous Mortimer:

Ouch.

[Apaulogist]

Lysander, I doubt anyone cares who wrote the newsletters at this point. What I care about is wheter or not I can trust Reason to really cover the issues from a libertarian point of view and I am far from convinced. The Reason Foundation has the bankroll and MSM connections to drown out the voices of smaller, but more legitimate libertarian voices. In that respect it is an enemy of all we (and they) claim to stand for.

Maybe that's why Reason is hemorrhaging subscribers.

Colbert and Barr bear an odd resemblance to Abbott and Costello.

[lysander]

Apaulogist, all of that may be true and is talked about quite a bit elsewhere, but it was just this quote from you which caught my eye and inspired me to post:
"We are straying off topic here, but Rockwell's style of writing is nothing like the newsletters (which weren't that bad when read in context)."

Anyway, Abbott and Costello weren't very funny, but Colbert is, right or wrong. George Wills defended himself very well last night.

[Former Subscriber]

Maybe that's why Reason is hemorrhaging subscribers.

Why buy the cow?

Bring back Virginia !

I hardly read dead tree media unless I'm taking a shit.

[Curious Hussein George]

Anydody sen the Bob Barr "whitey video"

I'm sure he was saying Why'd he

[John C Jackson]

I take my laptop in the bathroom. So I have no need for dead tree media at all.

[1]

Barr bombed that interview

[Icl]

This guy is such a hippocrate. The only redeeming thing about him is that he might take enough votes away from McCain.

[Warren]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That was the boringest Libertarian I've ever heard. My hopes for the Barr campaign are rapidly evaporating.

[stephen the goldberger]

Barr looked very uncomfortable and on edge, Colbert had some tough questions too, as well as some hilarious attacks on the Libertarian party in the lead up to the interview.

Not Barr's best day, and Colbert did a decent job painting him as a "conservative" i.e. an object to be mocked by his fans and basically ignored. Also he brought up Barr's votes for the Patriot Act and writing Defense of Marriage Act which sends mixed messages to viewers as to what Barr and the party is all about, especially since Barr didn't do a great job setting the record straight/the editors cut that stuff out.

Still I'm sure Barr did a much better job than ANY of the other candidates would have.

[John-David]

I thought Barr hit a single. It wasn't like Ron Paul on Bill Maher, but it was enough to get the undecideds who were open to his message to listen to him. I have a feeling that it will be Wayne Allyn Root who really needs to barnstorm the country and spread the word. Barr just doesn't have "it" to do it on his own.

[Colin]

I haven't seen yet, but I can imagine it. Barr's not a particularly funny man.

Perhaps they should've sent Root. Now, that would've been funny.

[Warren]

It wasn't like Ron Paul on Bill Maher, but it was enough to get the undecideds who were open to his message to listen to him.

You're kidding right? Even Teri Schiavo would have been looking for the remote.

[x,y]

Boring, sure, but I think he acquitted himself well. I'm still unsure about whether I'll vote for him (the alternative being not voting), but he didn't lose my vote.

Colbert, by the way, is a comic genius (paraphrase): What do you mean the Bush administration isn't libertarian? They shrunk government so much it fits in the bedroom!

[1]

why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian ideas as crazy, I've never understood this.

[h-dawg]

Babar...that was funny.

[x,y]

why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian ideas as crazy, I've never understood this.

Misrepresentation by omission: You libertarians want to get rid of everything! No FDA?! Who will inspect the meat?!?!

It's really quite obtuse, but people fall for it because they are so used to the status quo. People can barely wrap their minds around the idea that voluntary associations would be created to deal with meaningful problems.

[dead_elvis]

Congrats to Detroit and the Red Wings! Always nice to see them win.

In other news, Argentina is bitch slapping Mexico in international soccer. 3-0 at the half.

[clint]

I have to admit that Bob Barr was funny at a few points and did get his serious message out. Colbert Report appearance for Barr ended up being the right choice.
Let's get down to brass tax about John McCain. Many people argue that George W. record ended up not being conservative in several areas including spending, government regulation, unable to tell the difference between and winning war strategy and losing one among others. John McCain is clearly to the left of George W. Bush or even the elder Bush for that matter on tax policy, border security, campaign finance reform that tried to hush citizens, the human impact of global warming, and the federal government role on the economy. McCain agrees with Obama and these issues more than Bush. John McCain supports Warner-Lieberman! Bottom line: McCain may be the standard bearer for the Republican Party, but Bob Barr is closer to following the ideas Republican believe in. If it was not for Democrat and Independent voters in the early primary states who crossed over to support McCain, he would be back in the Senate right now. I will vote for Barr because is the better Republican choice(as the LP nominee) in the fall.

[Icl]

"why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian ideas as crazy, I've never understood this."

Libertarians will be painted as crazy as long as they are viewed as a branch of conservatism.
And yes, conservatives are crazy.

[John-David]

You're kidding right? Even Teri Schiavo would have been looking for the remote.

And the Bush administration would have handed it to her. YMMV, but I still think Barr acquitted himself well, and Colbert kept the segment entertaining. There are two parts to that equation, you know.

[Warty]

This guy is such a hippocrate.

A horse-box?

[Orange Line Special]

Bobarr is going to have zero impact, perhaps even less than Mr. "I refuse to get a DriversLicense" did.

The best choice from a libertarian standpoint would be Hill, and the other remaining choices would be very bad.

Obviously, what libertarians have done - at least the "libertarians" here - is cheer on the two who would be the worst for them.

Absolutely brilliant thinking, yet again.

[Mike Laursen]

"Libertarians will be painted as crazy as long as they are viewed as a branch of conservatism. And yes, conservatives are crazy."

So true.

[John-David]

Hill-ary? I watched the LP convention, and I don't remember a "Hill". Little help here for the non-LoneWacko-ConspriracyDriven-HateTheBrownies-WhitePower people here?

[John C Jackson]

Hillary is clearly a libertarian as she applied the Rothbard/Rockwell strategy of going after the "white racist moron" vote. She did rather well, almost winning on her white libertarian credentials. Unfortunately, Obama's strategy of actually winning delegates rather than focusing on the popular vote of the "over 65,unemployed white racists with no college education ( REAL Amerricans)" bloc was the winning one.

[Apaulogist]

I admit there is much craziness in the conservative thinkosphere, but no more than on the left. That's why we say "a pox on both houses."

And we all love brownies here, especially the herbal type 😀

[Anthony]

Don't know why people thought Barr did that bad. I thought he did all right. Once again, the taint of purity infects libertarian discussion.

To us libertarians, the fact that Barr originally support the Patriot Act is a serious transgression. HOWEVER, to the average voter, the fact that Barr said on the show that he supported it, then saw its effects, now is working to repeal it and said that if elected President would repeal it is EXACTLY what the Libertarian Party needs people to hear. And, I might add, a welcome tonic for the nation after 8 years of a President and an administration clinically unable to admit mistakes.

Show me a Libertarian who thought tonight's interview was boring and I will show you one who wants the LP candidate to get on a national t.v. show and announce that if elected, they would immediately legalize all drugs including black tar heroin and would decriminalize child porn so we could eliminate black market incentives to produce sodomy between 10 year old boys.

[wmb]

Apaulogist: I've been in this thing for 30 years and your interpretation of things is just pure nonsense. The person behind the newsletter calumny was the editor of the racist nonsense and that was Rockwell. And this nonsense about them constantly attacking Rockwell is hilarious. They barely mention the man (and I don't blame them) while his blog and website snipes at them regularly.

Your logic is abysmal. Why were the newsletters unearthed at U of Kansas (actually only some were the rest were at the Historical Society in Wisconsin) because an on line interlibrary search showed they had them. Of course clowns think Charles Koch went down there and planted them. Note that unearthed means they existed and yet the Paulist were denying they existed at first.

I knew Rothbard all the people involved. And while I'm closer to Rothbard in my views I can say that this conspiracy crap that Rockwell spews out is exaggeration and lies. I do so from first hand experience knowing all the people involved.

And what's all this stuff where you kept mentioning who is supposedly a Jew? Are we now trying to appeal to Nazi Party? It is rants like yours that discredit Ron Paul the most and he is surrounded by irrational basketcases like yourself.

[Duckman]

Barr was awful in this interview. Truly a wasted opportunity.

Barr should have talked about what libertarianism is and why he converted to being one (from being a conservative Republican). He pretty much let Colbert pin him as a social conservative with almost NO reaction.

In short, no speaking up for libertarian ideas, only insistence that he is a "great candidate." Total crap.

Also, Barr told some "weird" jokes, such as his comment near the end of the interview that he has had some "interesting" things in his bed. WTF?

LPers who wanted to ditch this guy were right. Too bad all the other candidates sucked worse.

[Apaulogist]

"Hillary is clearly a libertarian as she applied the Rothbard/Rockwell strategy of going after the 'white racist moron' vote. "

As opposed to BHO building his whole early support on the Trinity United Black Racist Moron vote.

Most voters are morons, whether they are watching Nascar or BET. The only candidates who don't pander to morons are morons themselves. That's democracy-finding the lowest common denominator.

BTW, Rothbard was a Jew, and Lew Rockwell heads the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. LVM was a Jew also. That overplayed race card is losing its currency.

[Ayn_Randian]

I'd like to mention that, one week ago (Thursday, May 29th) the Barr campaign had raised 176,000.

As of today (Wednesday evening/Thursday morning), it now has 220,00.

7500 dollars a day sounds like an awesome amount to me.

[Ayn_Randian]

Most voters are morons, whether they are watching Nascar or BET.

Yep...everyone's stupid except the few elites who hold the amazingly insightful views of your littel clique.

I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe themselves to be over their fellow man.

[Apaulogist]

I don't give a rip who is Jewish. I was answering a question by "outing" Marty Peretz. The relevant issue is who is a neocon/likudnik. The neocons like to imply that they are the sole representatives of the interests and opinion of American Jews and therefor anyone who opposes them is anti-semitic, even if that person is a Jew themselves.

I was using the "token Jew" analogy of David Koch's housing board as an example of the kind of subtle racism the establishment employs even as they attempt to brand us (the anti-establishmentlibs) as the racists.

I support the foreign policy of liberal Jews as represented by J street because I believe it is in the best interest of America.

I shouldn't have to chose between hating Jews, Arabs and Persians. The Neocons are attempting to force us all into that no-win choice.

[Yogi]

The LP did the right thing by nominating Barr. There will be absolutely NO VOTES on the left for them to get this election. No one even remotely leaning democratic will risk voting for anyone but Obama for fear of another 4 years of Republican rule. My only hope is that the LP is smart enough to swing back to the left and embrace people like Gravel AND Barr.

Like the person above said, if libertarians are viewed as far-right Republicans, they'll never be taken seriously. They need a two-front attack, but at the moment, the enemy on the right flank is the weakest.

[Apaulogist]

"I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe themselves to be over their fellow man."

I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you. That still leaves 3 million Americans smarter than me, so it's hardly a licence to impose my will on anybody.

Voting is not an itellegent, rational act. Your vote will count /160,000,000th of the total. Even in a tight race like 2000, it won't matter much. Voting is an act of faith.

[Ayn_Randian]

I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.

no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore? Talk about your dick size?

[Orange Line Special]

Bobarr is going to have zero impact

Which is still infinitely more impact than my blog and comments have, but that's only because you fools can't appreciate how Goddamned smart I am! Why won't anybody listen to me!?!? What the fuck do I have to do to get through to you morons?? I'm important, damnit!!! Fuck it, you're all hopeless. I am done here.

[Kolohe]

I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe themselves to be over their fellow man.

Hey, I'm not arrogant; I don't think I'm smarter than most people.

I know I'm smarter than most people!

But, that comes with the knowledge, which was understood even before the Simpsons illustrated it perfectly, that just putting the smartest people in charge is the absolute *worst* way of organizing society.

[Apaulogist]

You wondered why I think I am smart and I gave you a reason. I didn't say it was important or that you should care, but if you are the mouth-breather you appear to be in your writing, you are probably "constantly amazed" by a lot of things.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

John C Jackson | June 4, 2008, 11:48pm | #
I take my laptop in the bathroom. So I have no need for dead tree media at all.

You wipe your ass with your LAPTOP?

[Apaulogist]

"But, that comes with the knowledge, which was understood even before the Simpsons illustrated it perfectly, that just putting the smartest people in charge is the absolute *worst* way of organizing society."

Amen.

[Kolohe]

In other words, the voters *are* morons, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Ayn_Randian | June 5, 2008, 1:34am | #

I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.

no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore? Talk about your dick size?

I'm smart and I have a huge knob. I win two different contests!

[Apaulogist]

"In other words, the voters *are* morons, but I wouldn't have it any other way."

Quite right. As soon as the great unwashed discover that they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury, democracy it doomed. Unfortunately, that has already happened.

[AlmightyJB]

Missed the interview. Thread was entertaining though.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Apaulogist, I do think this board is a bit skewed as far as IQ contests go (if one grants that such things are even valuable). The percentile in which you find yourself compared to the general population is not the percentile in which you'd land here.

In other words, imagine a bell curve, and imagine a tiny Orange painted area just under the rightmost tail. That's proabably where most reason posters are. In fact, there might be a little arrow pointing out "You are here". But it's not meant to be a nasty exclusive arrow, but an all-inclusive kum ba ya arrow, sort of like one of Cupid's arrows.

Reason's Hit & Run Blog is all about love.

[regular commenter who\'s just]

>>I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.

>no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore? Talk about your dick size?

Oooh, I have both a higher IQ than that and the girl I hooked up with the other night said, upon pulling my boxers down to blow me, and I quote, "oh my god, you're huge!" So don't think you're walking away with any victories that easily SWDWtLHJ

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Good for you, man! The 137 was Apaulogist's though, not mine.

[drunk guy who\'s just sayin\'.]

Good for you, man! The 137 was Apaulogist's though, not mine.

Of course I knew that, but sorry my comment made it seem otherwise... just got home and am kinda drunk. 😉

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Working on it myself! But unfortunately I don't think I have enough wine here to even get a buzz.

[Apaulogist]

I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie to you.
🙂

I was rooting for Obama, but after that AIPAC speech, I guess it just does't matter much. BHO sold out to the Lobby and mysteriously pulls in a clinching number of superdelegates just as he vows to keep Iran nuclear-free.

now it's warmongering socialist vs. warmongering fascist and I weep for the future.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie to you.

Every single one of them?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Working on it myself! But unfortunately I don't think I have enough wine here to even get a buzz.

A travesty my man, come on over, I've got lots and lots.

[Brandybuck]

Please tell me that you have not, or will not procreate?

Why, because I'm not a "lifestyle libertarian"? One shouldn't have to be Starchild to be a libertarian.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Talk about your dick size?

I never talk about My Big Two Inch!

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

I would if I could, TWC. I'm more of a beer man normally but I like wine too. I had to give up the hard liquor though.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

BB, intriguing. I scrolled upthread (slowly) but I couldn't find the offending comment. I blame the wine.

[Don\'t-Know-Much History]

How about someone filling me in the on the Rockwell-Rothbard-LvMI versus Koch-Cato-Reason feud that has, apparently, been spanning years?

I've heard bits and pieces, but have never understood it in a comprehensive manner; I know that the paleolibertarians have disdain for social liberalism, and that the Reason (and that 'side') were too pro-war (allegedly), but what gossip am I missing?

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Starchild here, citizens of the universe
Gettin' it on, partying on the Mothership.
When Gabriel's horn blows, you'd better be ready to go.

[just sayin\'...]

I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie to you.

I doubt they're all lying :)~ but if so, hey, they can keep lying as long as they keep putting out.

[Apaulogist]

Winey- it's me, Joe. As you know, I tend to piss people off. I wonder how long it'll take me to get my IP banned again.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

My big question about the paleolibertarians is:

Are the socially conservative tendencies therein just personal preferences or is it the preference of most paleolibertarians to want to back up those preferences with the force of law or other coercion? I'd assume the former as otherwise, I'd have a hard time seeing the difference between paleolibertarianism and paleoconservatism.

[Bob Barr]

Bob Barr said he was the first good candidate produced by the LP? Did I hear that right?

[just sayin\'...]

Every single one of them?

damn, TWC beat me to it. too drunk and slow... speaking of wine, beer or liquor, I need another drink or I need to crash, one or the other.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Is Bob Barr talking about himself in the third person again?

[Bob Barr]

No. Bob Barr isn't Bob Dole.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

speaking of wine, beer or liquor, I need another drink or I need to crash, one or the other.

Mystery guest, if you have enough of the former, the latter will become a foregone conclusion. Just don't fall asleep in the tub. Especially after twelve plus beer and two shots of Jaeger (the shots in about five minutes). I'm not talking from experience here, but um...it'd be bad.

[Bob Barr]

Yes, Bob Barr did it on The Colbert Report and Barr is doing it now.

Barr can't remember what Barr said on aforementioned show and the clip isn't on YouTube; did Barr claim Barr is the first good candidate of the LP?

[Matt Moore]

So Tucker Carlson couldn't have won the LP nomination because he lost an interview with Jon Stewart... does that mean that George Will is now the nominee?

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

BARR IS THE STRONGEST ONE THERE IS!
BARR SMASH PUNY HUMANS!

[just sayin\'...]

if you have enough of the former, the latter will become a foregone conclusion.

True enough. And I swore off J?ger shots forever after a rather embarrassing incident last year.

[libertarian]

I don't understand how paleolibertarians can't figure out that laissez-faire capitalism unleashes social dynamism, where fashions and styles and freedoms multiply and mutate, thereby emerging in spontaneous orders like free markets.

Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least ever-increasing heterogeneity.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Please God, no bow-tie wearing candidates as Libertarians. That's all the added weirdness factor they'd need to ascend to some heaven filled with blue-skinned angels.

[Apaulogist]

"How about someone filling me in the on the Rockwell-Rothbard-LvMI versus Koch-Cato-Reason feud that has, apparently, been spanning years?"

Nobody knows for sure. It's like the hatfields and McCoys-it's gone on so long that everyone forgot what started it.

"I've heard bits and pieces, but have never understood it in a comprehensive manner; I know that the paleolibertarians have disdain for social liberalism, and that the Reason (and that 'side') were too pro-war (allegedly), but what gossip am I missing?"

That's about all I know also, except to say that the neolibs prefer a less radical, gradual, moderate strategy that the paleos consider too comprimising. On the other side, the beltway neolibs think the paleos are too cosey with the John Birchers, the Pat Buchanan Paleoconservatives and others considered unsavory.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

And I swore off J?ger shots forever after a rather embarrassing incident last year.

I swore off shots entirely after something similar. Actually two events, one merely semi-embarrassing and the other financially unsound.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Re: paleo vs cosmo feud:
The one complaint I keep seeing thrown around about the Reason types is that they're cosmotarians, which seems to mean to some that they're neocons in disguise, and too pro-war. I don't get that at all. I haven't seen a single pro-Iraq war piece in Reason. Maybe I've missed it. I don't keep up with the magazine religiously, so it's possible, but still I'd think that I'd have seen at least a hint of it.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

In fact, the neocon types (here I'm thinking Dondero) seem to disdain Reason as much as any paleolibertarian I've ever seen.

Maybe it's not fair to use Dondero as an example of anything, though. Except maybe a nutball.

[Kolohe]

interview was finally on in my time zone.

interesting that he walked on. Normally in an early interview, the transition is from a close up on Colbert to the guest sitting right next to him as part of the 'surprise' schtick.

he made no glaring errors, and was amicable throughout, which is what people will remember.

He went to the talking points one too many times by repeating the same answer about 'drawing people who are tired of the two party system' which resulted in begging the question of why people should vote libertarian.

I wish he would have made some affirmative points in the first few sentences, like the policy project or the drug war in general before Colbert prompted him. Heck, it would have been sufficient to do a Gravel 'freedom, freedom, freedom' koan.

We (I) have been hard on the Ruwart wing for not being team players and rallying around the nominee. But where Barr totally droppped the ball in the interview was by making the same mistake. He specifically singled out 'libertarian republicans' (DONDEROOOOOO!) and fed-up conservative republicans by name, but made not even a de minimus nod toward the disaffected democrat - which is far more prevalent in Colbert/Stewart audience. Ron Paul did not make this mistake. Heck, neither did Huckabee. This was such low hanging fruit, that to have missed it puts serious doubts in my mind that he knows what he's doing. He's the 'professional politician', right?

[LRC cosmotarian]

I read LRC daily and am quite a fan of most of the content; likewise, I enjoy LvMI's website. But I definitely don't understand the hostiliy to cosmotarians (an awkward and unpleasant neologism, to say the least--couldn't come up with anything more clever?); I am definitely socially liberal (socially tolerant could be more precise).

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

Kolohe:
Maybe he actually wants rather to be the margin of error in a McCain loss than actually try to pull votes from both.
I do think some reach out to Democrats or liberals who lean in a libertarian direction is long overdue. The case for libertarians and Republicans or conservatives being natural allies has been going on too long and has always been overplayed.

[Elemenope]

Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least ever-increasing heterogeneity.

Except in China! But really, without that modest anomaly, the theory does quite well.

It's just a modest anomaly, I swear.

[Apaulogist]

"I don't understand how paleolibertarians can't figure out that laissez-faire capitalism unleashes social dynamism, where fashions and styles and freedoms multiply and mutate, thereby emerging in spontaneous orders like free markets."

I believe that the paleos understand that. RP for example wants drugs, gambling, prostitution all legalized even though he personally doesn't practice or condone their use.

"Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least ever-increasing heterogeneity."

That may or may not be true. Any government policy may not be as influential as you think. I don't think it matters to most of us, however. Freedom trumps homogeneity.

The image of paleos as immigrant-hating xenophobes is a deliberate distortion. My wife and children are Mexican nationals.

[just sayin\'...]

Actually two events, one merely semi-embarrassing and the other financially unsound.

Luckily the most financially unsound thing that's happened from drinking was letting this girl talk me into taking her to a strip club (ok, she didn't exactly have to beg) where she proceeded to run up a well-into-three-figure tab. If I had wanted to spend that kinda scratch to get laid I could have probably done better on craigslist or something.

[YoYoYo]

Elemenope,

China is becoming socially liberal, slowly but surely. It's moving in THAT direction, not stagnating or regressing.

[Don\'t ask me how I know this]

Anecdotal evidence of tenuous possible gradual moderate social liberalization in china

There are original content mainland chinese porn sites that are not outright id theft scams.

[austin]

Video here

[Trevor]

do think some reach out to Democrats or liberals who lean in a libertarian direction is long overdue. The case for libertarians and Republicans or conservatives being natural allies has been going on too long and has always been overplayed.

Completely agree.

Neither Gravel nor Barr are strict libertarians, but it was funny that Gravel caught the most flack because he leans slight left rather than slight right.

[Bill Woolsey]

Gravel advocated national health care, a major expansion of government. It was part of his campaign program.

He supported a revenue neutral version of the fair tax and was going to spend that money on
social programs.

Most complaints about Barr is that he is not
proposing an expansion of personal liberties in
various ways. And opposition to any expansion
of personal liberties is not part of his campaign program.

I suppose allowing states to outlaw abortion (and believing they should) would be an area where he proposes expanded government authority, but he isn't running on this issue.

Enforcing the borders would be an area were he ffavors more government, though he isn't emphasizing this. And, so far, he appears favorably disposed to expanded legal immigration for workers. It is on his website, but it doesn't receive much emphasis.

In my opinion, the campaign program is most important. Is it about cutting government and expanding liberty? If not, that is a big problem.

[Jake Boone]

DRINK!

(anyone criticising the neocons get branded an antisemite- even Jews like Ilana Mercer, Shimshon Weisman, or J Street. It's so predictable that it's now part of the drinking game.)

You are not one of the arbiters* of the Hit & Run Drinking Game. You therefore do not get to add rules.

* The arbiters are, of course, a shadowy cabal of prominent Jews, meeting in secret to a) control the governments of the world, and b) decide what rules shall be added to the H&R Drinking Game.

[robc]

Colin,

Funny, I thought it was the New Republic that exposed Paul's newsletters.

If by "exposed" you mean "print something that we had discussed ad nauseum on H&R 6 months earlier with references to it being an issue going back 12 years" then yes, NR "exposed" the newsletters.

[robc]

J sub D,

After the newletters surfaced at New Republic, Reason OnLine covered it because it was a legitimate news story of particular interest to libertarians.

What I dont understand (and its my only criticism of Reason's coverage of the newsletters) and no one has ever answered it for me, is why Reason felt the need to rehash (over and over) the newsletter story this winter when it had fully hashed it last spring?

Obviously, after the NR story, it had to be mentioned here, but I figured one post would have been enough, considering the previous coverage.

[Colin]

By "exposed" I meant brought to light in the general public.

[Famous Mortimer]

"I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you. That still leaves 3 million Americans smarter than me, so it's hardly a licence to impose my will on anybody."

The fact that you think IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, makes me question your intelligence.

Also, people will continue to paint Libertarians as batshit crazy as long as they support batshit crazy people, and ideas.

If Libertarians gained their coveted, never before experienced, agrarian Republic, then the U.S. would become even more of a ghetto than it already is.

The status quo may be ridiculous, but it certainly isn't as terrifying as some of the ideas presented by many people on here.

Libertarianism is just as much about social engineering as every other extremist philosophy. It's an attempt to bully the masses into giving up social investments because the cost is fucking up your monthly cable bill.

[Mike Laursen]

When you say that it was discussed on this blog six months earlier, are you not referring to a rumor that there was a single racist newsletter that went out without Ron Paul's prior knowledge? The latter revelation was that there were many racist newsletters over several years. Big difference.

[Famous Mortimer]

"What I dont understand (and its my only criticism of Reason's coverage of the newsletters) and no one has ever answered it for me, is why Reason felt the need to rehash (over and over) the newsletter story this winter when it had fully hashed it last spring?"

Because it's an issue that involves a prominent Libertarian figure. More importantly, it's an issue that has never been addressed in any meaningful way by Ron Paul. So, if Ron Paul is interested in running again, then this issue will still be relevant, and it should be relevant while he's still in office.

I know, I know. If only we could just get them to shut up about it, it would go away.

Look, if you guys want to just sit around and cheerlead while preaching to the choir, then you need to get on over to Takimag.com where the truly crazy Libertarians dwell.

Apparently, Reason.com is just too contrary for your tastes.

[Joe Lawson]

Lets see we have Obama, an anti-white racist (read his first book) or McCain a candidate who mirrors Obama on the issues, except for tiny differences to make them look opposite. For instance, Obama would leave Iraq 3-4 years from now, McCain in 7 years. Not much of a difference, Obama would attack Iran, but talk first, McCain would just attack.

They are both big government, McCain has too much experience, Obama has as much as my grandma.

Republicans and Democrats like to pretend that they are different and that you must vote for one or the other every 4 years, only to see our country lose millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, get and stay into crazy wars and to lose our homes and create gas price spikes.

Stop the insanity of the two party system and stop believing that the Democrats and Republcians are different.

Vote for Bob Barr

[Brad F]

With Barr in the race, McCain can't win... So make your choice republicans, Barr Or Obama?

A vote for McCain is a wasted vote.