Login
  • Username:

    Password:
  • Remember my login on this computer
  • Register
Users online
  • Users: 1 Guest
  • 1 User Browsing This Page.
    Users: 1 Guest

  • Most Users Ever Online Is On June 12, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

Fuck Giuliani. Fuck Fox News.

Tonight I made myself do something I ordinarily would avoid like the plague - I watched the second Republican presidential debate hosted by Fox News. I did this for exactly one reason - to see Ron Paul stand up to a bunch of warmongering corporate shill clones, the kind the GOP is so good at churning out these days.

The big moment of the night took place when Ron Paul was doing what he does best - speaking the truth about America’s dangerously wayward foreign policy and the ongoing blowback we continue to experience from it. The instant he stopped speaking, Rudy Giuliani, aka Adolph Mussolini, indignantly countered, first with a bit of a strawman twist on what Ron actually said; secondly, stating he had never heard anyone suggest such an outrageous idea that American actions could possibly have been a factor in 9/11; and finally, calling for a retraction of the statement. Sadly, yet predictably, this elicited wild applause from the red state crowd. Naturally, Ron Paul stood his ground and went on to further elaborate his position in his usual plain-spoken manner.

Not surprisingly, 50% of the face time in the debate had already been handed out to the media darlings, Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. And as soon as the post-debate spin room action began, Sean Hannity and his cast of guest pundits, including failed GOP gubernatorial candidate from Maryland, Michael Steele, went into overdrive belittling Ron Paul and pushing the idea that it is now time to whittle the field down to the “serious” candidates. Steele went as far as saying “it’s over” already for Ron Paul.

Moments later, the early results of the viewer text message poll came on to the screen. Ron Paul… top of the list, baby! It was sweet justice to see these slimeballs squirm when confronted with the reality that their best efforts to portray the honorable Dr. Paul as a joke were now revealing them to be the real joke. The people aren’t buying their shit and I’m loving it.

Throughout the post-debate show, each candidate was invited over to visit with Hannity and Colmes to share their thoughts on the whole affair, with Hannity salivating over each of the usual suspects. When Ron Paul finally got his turn, Hannity turned up the heat, and in true O’Liely form, proceeded to interrupt him seconds into each attempt to respond to a question. What a pathetically biased disgrace.

Indeed, Ron Paul is still a huge long shot in this race, but I intend to fully enjoy every opportunity he has to thumb his nose at the establishment.

Print This Post Print This Post
4,076 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

87 Responses to “Fuck Giuliani. Fuck Fox News.”

  1. pauliecannoli Says:

    Giuliani lied, people died

    http://reopen911.org/dyingforlies.htm

  2. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://reopen911.org/#Environ

  3. Robert Mayer Says:

    And here are few other random impressions for tonight’s event:

    1) FWIW, on a purely superficial level, Romney appears the most polished and presidential. But, he pretty much sucks as much as the rest of them regarding anything of any importance. And I don’t believe any of that BS about how he’s going to change the culture of Washington, blah, blah, blah. PLEASE!

    2) I still don’t like McCain, but he did say ONE thing I was glad to hear: he was very clearly outspoken AGAINST the use of torture, unlike the rest of his neocon compatriots. Aside from that, he sounded very wishy-washy and, well, like a typical career politician.

    3) Tommy Thompson. Just creepy and weird. I can’t imagine anyone being impressed by his presence on stage.

  4. pauliecannoli Says:

    Rudolf: the Nero of 9/11.

  5. pauliecannoli Says:

    McCain: the Manchurian Candidate.

    Romney: try googling: Romney; Mel Sembler; Straight Inc.

  6. pauliecannoli Says:

    Tommy Thompson:

    Not even nearly as good as Ed Thompson. Hell, he’s probably not even as good as Fred Thompson.

  7. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=giuliani+9%2F11

    faux news favorite nsgop corporate fascist, the ultimate enemy of liberty.

  8. pauliecannoli Says:

    Obligatory Giuliani two minute hate

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert39.html
    I Hate Rudy Giuliani

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts208.html
    The Criminal Career of Rudy Giuliani by Paul Craig Roberts

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski61.html
    Giuliani flip-flops

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut42.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert95.html
    I Still Hate Rudy. But At Least I’m Not Alone

    http://fauxnews.com/

  9. nicrivera Says:

    The low point in the debate was definitely when Giuliani distorted Ron Paul’s remark and claimed that Congressman Paul said that we “invited” the 9/11 attacks. Even the once avid supporter of the war, Andrew Sullivan, is accusing Giuliani having lied about Ron Paul’s position on 9/11. Meanwhile, the so-called “libertarians” Instapundit and the gang at Vodkapundit are denouncing Ron Paul.

    On the up side, at least the Republican Party is no longer ignoring Ron Paul. Republican partisans have been trying to make the Iraq War into a partisan issue from the very beginning–questioning the patriotism of those who have spoken out against it. It might have worked against Democrats, but now that you have Giuliani distorting the position of his fellow Republican on national television, it shows just how far the War Party is willing to go to slander those who speak out against it.

    I was somewhat surprised at how quickly the audience applauded Giuliani for his response to Ron Paul. But I suppose this is to be respected from a Fox News audience. I doubt more than a handful of them even knew who Ron Paul was talking about when he referred to Republican Senator Robert Taft or what he was talking about when he referred to CIA’s involvement in Iran in 1953. These are the type of people who automatically equate conservatism with being pro-war and don’t realize that there was a time when conservatives were anti-war.

    Heck, most partisan Republicans can’t even acknowledge that their party was against nation-building and policing the world as recently as the 2000 presidential debates.

  10. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.buckfush.com/

  11. nicrivera Says:

    Ron Paul versus Sean Hannity (courtesy of Daniel McCarthy over at Lew Rockwell’s blog):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs

  12. Robert Mayer Says:

    One other thing I failed to squeeze in was the completely dismissive reaction to the polling numbers. Hannity and Steele were both quick to scoff at the text message poll, writing it off as meaningless. (Somehow I don’t think they would have uttered a word of this had their golden boys dominated the list.) This was exactly the same reaction that was popping up following the first debate when Ron Paul blew away the others in MSNBC’s and ABC’s online polls, that the only plausible explanation was that a few tech-savvy Ron Paul supporters were sabotaging the results.

    Folks, the MSM is shitting all over themselves right now about this. They’re discovering how much harder it is now in the Internet age to spoon-feed the masses with their approved ideas. They will very quickly begin stepping up their tactics and pushing harder to see that Dr. Paul is no longer invited to the party.

  13. pauliecannoli Says:

    from http://fauxnews.com/

    Washington, DC - Using his vanguard phrase, “No Child Left Behind”, a quote taken directly from Mao’s Little Red Book, Bush continues his drive to push America towards his communist goal. By wasting America’s last and only military defense in the desert, he has assured a quick take over. Bush’s new plans for Social Security will force taxpayers to buy billions in stock from private companies. This so-called “Privatized” Social Security will give the Government controlling interest in every major US company. “It’s the biggest take over of private industry by the Government since the Communist Revolution,” said one high ranking official.

  14. Darcy Richardson Says:

    Great post, Robert. Ron Paul was fantastic tonight! In front of almost any other audience — at least any audience with half a brain — Ron Paul would have been the recipient of the wild applause given to the fascist Giuliani.

    I particularly liked Paul’s quick-thinking response to Giuliani’s blustering demand that he retract his statement, reminding the New York bully that the CIA has been right in warning of “blowback,” as was the case during the Iranian hostage crisis, a situation triggered by an event as far back as 1953 when the U.S. covertly overthrew duly-elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran and replaced him with the Shah. “This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk,” Paul stated. “They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”

    Rep. Paul is right. Sooner or later, every action has a reaction.

    Despite Hannity’s repeated attempts to cut him off, Congressman Paul also made several excellent points during his post-debate interview, especially his comment that U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq following the Persian Gulf War resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in that country.

    In front of a generally hostile audience in one of the reddest states in the country, Ron Paul demonstrated real courage tonight. He also exposed a few million people to some hard truths — something Republicans aren’t accustomed to hearing.

  15. Robert Mayer Says:

    Yeah, what Justin Raimondo said:

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/15/ron-paul-vs-rudy-the-thug-giuliani/

    … via the ultra-cool new LibertyUp

  16. Stuart Richards Says:

    Ron Paul kicks so much ass, his campaign is made out of pure, unadulterated victory. God I want this man to be our next President.

  17. Andy Says:

    “Stuart Richards Says:

    May 15th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
    Ron Paul kicks so much ass, his campaign is made out of pure, unadulterated victory. God I want this man to be our next President.”

    Stuart and I have been disagreeing lately, but here is something that on which I totally agree with him.

  18. Andy Says:

    “The big moment of the night took place when Ron Paul was doing what he does best - speaking the truth about America’s dangerously wayward foreign policy and the ongoing blowback we continue to experience from it. The instant he stopped speaking, Rudy Giuliani, aka Adolph Mussolini, indignantly countered, first with a bit of a strawman twist on what Ron actually said; secondly, stating he had never heard anyone suggest such an outrageous idea that American actions could possibly have been a factor in 9/11; and finally, calling for a retraction of the statement. Sadly, yet predictably, this elicited wild applause from the red state crowd.

    You know, Giuliani was probably telling the truth here - well, sort of telling the truth anyway. What I mean is that Giuliani is right that the Muslims didn’t really attack us on 9/11 as a result of US interventionist foreign policy, in fact, the Muslims didn’t even attack us at all on 9/11, since 9/11 was an inside job that was carried out by factions within the US government. Giuliani was probably in on it in at least some capacity. It has come out that Giuliani knew in advance that WTC Building 7 was going to collapse.

  19. Robert Mayer Says:

    Ron Paul is made of pure awesome. :)

  20. Andy Says:

    “Sadly, yet predictably, this elicited wild applause from the red state crowd. Naturally, Ron Paul stood his ground and went on to further elaborate his position in his usual plain-spoken manner.”

    “Not surprisingly, 50% of the face time in the debate had already been handed out to the media darlings, Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. And as soon as the post-debate spin room action began, Sean Hannity and his cast of guest pundits, including failed GOP gubernatorial candidate from Maryland, Michael Steele, went into overdrive belittling Ron Paul and pushing the idea that it is now time to whittle the field down to the ’serious’ candidates. Steele went as far as saying “it’s over” already for Ron Paul.”

    One thing that Ron Paul should do is to increase his chances is make a big deal out of the fact that he’s got a 100% pro-gun rights record while the leading candidates - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain - all have a record of being gun grabbers. This could score a lot of points for Ron and take points away from Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.

  21. Robert Mayer Says:

    Oh, and while we’re having our Ron Paul lovefest, I just wanted to mention this way cool new meme being put out by these guys: http://www.rescue-us.org/ronpaulrevolutionhome.htm. That may be the single best campaign sign I’ve ever seen!

    Ron Paul is sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants!

  22. Darcy Richardson Says:

    “Folks, the MSM is shitting all over themselves right now about this. They’re discovering how much harder it is now in the Internet age to spoon-feed the masses with their approved ideas. They will very quickly begin stepping up their tactics and pushing harder to see that Dr. Paul is no longer invited to the party.” —Robert Mayer

    Yeah, I already see where Craig Crawford at Congressional Quarterly is already painting the Giuliani-Paul exchange as Rudy’s great “Reagan moment,” a reference to the time Reagan grabbed the headlines during a 1980 GOP debate in New Hampshire with his famous line, “I’m paying for this microphone, Mr. Green.”

    Give me a break. We’ll probably see a lot of this sort of nonsense from the talking heads and pundits over the next forty-eight hours.

    God forbid the mainstream media give credit where credit’s due. Ron Paul clearly stole the show tonight.

  23. Andy Says:

    “Yeah, I already see where Craig Crawford at Congressional Quarterly is already painting the Giuliani-Paul exchange as Rudy’s great ‘Reagan moment,’”

    It should be called Giuliani’s great Hitler moment, as Giuliani showed his true fascist colors. Not that Ronald Reagan was anything great because I think that he’s highly overrated, but calling it a “great Hitler moment” has more bite to it.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Last night’s performance was what I had hoped to see from Ron Paul (I wasn’t as impressed with him in the first debate as many were).

    Giuliani scored big with the “Republican base” as represented by Faux
    “News” viewers … but the GOP is a dwindling, dying party and the views of its “base” aren’t going to carry the 2008 election. Paul represented the American majority on the war question.

    Whether he can turn that into “crossover” primary votes to win the nomination, and then beat Democrat party loyalty in a general election versus one of their war party shills as well, is an open question. It’s hard to do. But I think he went from “snowball in hell” to “long shot with potential” last night.

  25. Jason Gatties Says:

    I had been a critic of Dr.Paul on certain issues, including immigration. However I was very proud of him last night. He spoke the truth, something too many American’s refuse to face.

  26. pauliecannoli Says:

  27. pauliecannoli Says:

    Not to forget the other Rapepublicneocon enemabags like “mitt rommel” Romney….

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/01/romney-official-candidate-of-war-and.html

  28. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/09/abu-ghraib-usa.html

  29. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/the-penis-pump-the-ambas_b_21120.html

  30. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2007/01/14.html

  31. pauliecannoli Says:

    A typical NSGOP “point of light”:

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/03/3752_scooter_libbys.html

  32. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/27725/

  33. pauliecannoli Says:

    Manchurian Candidate McCain

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mccain1.html

    The whole bunch of ‘em

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory130.html

  34. Mr. X Says:

    Sorry to interrupt the lovefest.

    Ron Paul was correct about the blowback and Rudy Giuliani was disingenuous at best in his response. However, Dr. Paul was not “fantastic” and did not “blow away” anyone who didn’t already agree with him.

    He’s not a smooth speaker and not a very good debater (based on the last two performances). He’s right, but he better start improving his debate skills in a hurry.

  35. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/05/15/ron-paul-in-the-debate-part-2/

  36. IanC Says:

    It would seem that our Goodly Doctor No didn’t make sufficient impression; he didn’t even make a blip on CNN’s radar, apparently: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/sc.debate.highlights/

    That was the *top* item on generic Google News search.

  37. Andy Says:

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    May 16th, 2007 at 5:38 am
    Last night’s performance was what I had hoped to see from Ron Paul (I wasn’t as impressed with him in the first debate as many were).”

    Tom, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you say that you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul even if he won the Republican nomination and even if Hillary Clinton was his Democrat opponent?

    By the way, I’m not knocking you for supporting Steve Kubby. As of right now there’s a good chance that he’s going to be my back up candidate if Ron Paul drops out of the race.

  38. pauliecannoli Says:

    Ron Paul was a lot better in the second debate.

  39. pauliecannoli Says:

    Analysis from Freedom Democrats:

    Giuliani’s straw man barb against Paul last night might have played well in South Carolina, allowing focus to shift once again to his 9-11 persona rather than his flip-flopping social conservative persona, but is excising the libertarian wing from the republican party really sound strategy? The republican establishment has now proclaimed Ron Paul is dead to them. Translation: The Republcian party has no tolerance for anything other than perpetual interventionist foreign policy. To suggest a policy of perpetual interventionalism leads to blowback is akin to a “Rosie O’Donnell Blame America First” foreign policy. Sure, Rudy hit it out of the park in South Carolina, but this is the same crowd that booed a question on the confederate flag. So I say, adios GOP, it was nice knowing ya, and Good Luck running on the Iraq war in 2008. You’ll need it. Follow-up Update Edit: Fox News published their final poll results(via mobile phone text mesaging). Paul came in second at 25% behind Romney at 29%. Nevertheless, “Campaign Carl” of FoxNews suggested that Paul’s comments will likely exclude him from further debates. A check around the conservative blogosphere indicates Ron Paul has now indeed registered on their radars, and they have summarily dismissed him as a “moonbat.” Mark Levin of National Review called Paul’s position a “slur,”; Captains Quarters characterized Paul’s position as “America deserved 9-11.” Freerepublic.com has a huge thread on Paul, where the sentiment runs about 9-1 that Paul is a “loon.” The only conservative to stick up fro Paul is Andrew Sullivan, but he has long since been ex-communicated anyways. Frankly, Paul and libertarians being dismissed as “moonbats” by the William Kristol wing of the Republican Party should be worn as a badge of honor given their sheer insanity. Reference this article by Bill Kristol at the height of the Israel-Lebanon War back in 2006, Israel’s War Is America’s War, Too ( I couldn’t find the original story at The Weekly Standard, where I read it at the time; but I found a republished version at CBS News). At the time, Kristol advocated Bush, on his way back from G8, publicly break bread with Olmert in Jersusalem in preparation for a pre-emptive war against Iran. Fast forward to today and Olmert’s is at 9% popularity in Israel, being eviscerated by the Israelis for dragging Israel into a war with Hezbollah it was unprepared for at the time. Frankly, Ron Paul is too nice. He should be calling bullshit and dragging the neocons over the carpet for their sheer stupidity.

  40. Old Guard Says:

    I agree with Mr. X; too bad Ron Paul doesn’t have Harry Browne’s
    speaking skills.
    Oh, and the gratuitous vulgarity is particularly annoying. This isn’t the 9th grade locker room. And, in my experience, “f”ing is particularly pleasurable, so why do we keep inviting it upon our enemies?

  41. pauliecannoli Says:

    It’s used in the sense of ass-rape.

  42. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://jimbovard.com/blog/2007/05/16/ron-pauls-radical-mix-truth-politics/

  43. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You wrote:

    “Tom, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you say that you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul even if he won the Republican nomination and even if Hillary Clinton was his Democrat opponent?”

    Yes, I did say that.

    Um … your point?

    I’ve never voted for a Republican for president, and I don’t ever intend to. That doesn’t mean that I don’t like him, or that I don’t appreciate it when he does well, or even that I think he wouldn’t make a good president. It just means that I decline to express support for the party he’s chosen to seek the nomination of.

  44. Andy Says:

    “Yes, I did say that.

    Um … your point?

    I’ve never voted for a Republican for president, and I don’t ever intend to. That doesn’t mean that I don’t like him, or that I don’t appreciate it when he does well, or even that I think he wouldn’t make a good president. It just means that I decline to express support for the party he’s chosen to seek the nomination of.”

    Tom, I don’t know how to put this in a more delicate way, so I’m just going to have to say that this is completely irrational. You mean to tell me that you’d rather have Hillar Clinton as President than to vote for Ron Paul under the Republican banner? Come on Tom, I thought that you were better than this!

    What the hell difference does the party label mean? The most important thing is the PERSON, not some party label. Would you do the same thing if Steve Kubby infiltrated the Democrats and somehow managed to become the Democrat candidate for president?

  45. Michelle Shinghal Says:

    It would seem that our Goodly Doctor No didn’t make sufficient impression; he didn’t even make a blip on CNN’s radar,

    Glenn Beck just announced that he will be talking tonight “one on one” with Ron Paul on CNN. Rudy Giuliani did Ron Paul’s campaign a big favor by singling him out. Courtesy of Rudy, Paul is finally getting coverage and many more opportunities to explain his views at length.

  46. TitaniumGirl Says:

    Man, that fascist slug disgusts me. Dr Ron rules, I may already agree with his points but he comes off as really valid, considerate and humble. Which is good. I don’t think he could ever be a pompous ass like that fascist grubworm.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Tom, I don’t know how to put this in a more delicate way, so I’m just going to have to say that this is completely irrational. You mean to tell me that you’d rather have Hillar Clinton as President than to vote for Ron Paul under the Republican banner?”

    No, I don’t “mean to tell you” any such thing.

    There’s a candidate I’d “rather have” than either of them, and I intend to vote for that candidate.

  48. Michelle Shinghal Says:

    Andy,
    Knapp is absolutely correct here. The idea that we have to vote for R to keep D out of office is one of the things that keeps Ls out of play. You should always vote for the person whom best represents your viewspoint.

  49. IanC Says:

    The Glenn Beck thing might possibly be good news — depends on the airtime. Unfortunately, that will air at something like 4:00 my time, and I don’t think Dish changes CNN forward for those on Pacific time who live in Mountain Time zone areas.

  50. pauliecannoli Says:

    More debate commentary roundup:

    Knappster
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/05/if-you-cant-beatem-shutem-hell-up.html

    Sheldon Richman
    http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2007/05/go-ron-go.html

    Brad Spangler
    http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/644

    Roderick Long
    http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/05/15/ron-paul-in-the-debate-part-2/

  51. nicrivera Says:

    Don’t look now, but our good friend, Eric Dondero is traversing the blogosphere stating his intention to challenge Ron Paul for Texas’ 14th Congressional District.

    Sinking to an all time new low, Dondero outright lies about what Ron Paul said in his exchange with Rudy Giuliani:

    “I have spent the early morning scanning the major political blogs, and news sites. It’s unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.”

    The Fox News commentor accused Ron Paul of “inviting” the 9/11 terrorist attack. But Dondero goes even further than that, accusing Ron Paul of suggesting the the U.S. is “to blame.”

    Pathetic.

  52. pauliecannoli Says:

    Too late, I looked.

    Yes, how could he have the audacity to cite the purported mastermind’s explanation of his cassus belli?

    Of course, if I was to carry out an operation like that, I would lie about made me go to all that trouble too…wouldn’t you?

    And, how could we even think something absurd like that the killing of a million Iraqis by the US pre-9/11 (”worth it” - Madeleine Albright) would provoke a reaction? After all, killing a few million Americans wouldn’t piss
    anybody here off, would it?

  53. Andy Says:

    “No, I don’t ‘mean to tell you’ any such thing.

    There’s a candidate I’d ‘rather have’ than either of them, and I intend to vote for that candidate.”

    Tom, the candidate that you’d rather have - Steve Kubby - has already said that he’ll drop out of the race if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and that he’d go to work on the Ron Paul campaign. Steve Kubby has got more sense than you do here.

    I’m honestly astounded that you would not vote for Ron Paul if it came down to Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton.

  54. Eric Sundwall Says:

    I’ll go out on a limb for Knapp on this one . . . If Hillary and Paul were the candidates, I wouldn’t vote for the good Dr. either.

    I live in N.Y.

    Hillary wins NY and its electoral votes hands down. My vote is more important for the LP candidate, whoever it is. I spent six weeks last summer slugging myself around in the hottest and wettest season collecting signatures. Giving up on the LP for a quixotic moment in the Sun for the first guy I voted for President is not a contradiction or a loss of principle. I’d hate to diminish any hope or voice of liberty that Paul so competently projects, the movement needs it.

    When the GOP picks its good old boy and Hillary is coronated after the wagons circle, the sentiment and anger will simmer amongst Goldwater conservatives and hard anti-war progressives. Give ‘em a real place to go when it boils over.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Tom, the candidate that you’d rather have - Steve Kubby - has already said that he’ll drop out of the race if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and that he’d go to work on the Ron Paul campaign. Steve Kubby has got more sense than you do here.”

    1) Kubby hasn’t told ME anything like that, nor am I aware that he’s told anyone else anything of the sort. You keep repeating it, but I’ve never seen you cite your alleged source.

    2) Even if what you say is correct, it’s irrelevant. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination and Kubby loses his fucking mind, drops out and supports the GOP instead of the LP, I’ll still vote for a candidate I prefer rather than for a candidate I do not prefer — and I do not prefer a candidate running on the Republican ballot line.

    “I’m honestly astounded that you would not vote for Ron Paul if it came down to Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton.”

    So far as I know, there’s absolutely no chance of that happening. In Missouri, there will be at least three choices on the ballot, since the LP has secure ballot access through 2010. There will probably be more than three choices, but a minimum of three, which means that I won’t have to choose between the HildaBeast and whomever the party of torture, warrantless wiretaps and perpetual war chooses to nominate. And if for some reason the LP does not run a candidate or is kicked off the ballot, and the other “third” parties can’t get on the ballot, and write-in voting is illegalized, I am perfectly free to stay home and give them ALL the finger. And I will.

  56. IanC Says:

    Ron Paul backed out.

    I suppose that’s a good thing, though. I watched Glenn Beck — he’s a raving fucktard idiot. Hardcore.

  57. Andy Says:

    “1) Kubby hasn’t told ME anything like that, nor am I aware that he’s told anyone else anything of the sort. You keep repeating it, but I’ve never seen you cite your alleged source.”

    Steve Kubby said this in one of the blog talk radio interviews that he was on. I can’t remember when one it was but if I find it I’ll let you know.

    “2) Even if what you say is correct, it’s irrelevant. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination and Kubby loses his fucking mind, drops out and supports the GOP instead of the LP, I’ll still vote for a candidate I prefer rather than for a candidate I do not prefer — and I do not prefer a candidate running on the Republican ballot line.”

    Kubby would not be “losing his mind” by dropping out of the race and working for Ron Paul if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination. He’d working towards the best chance that we’ve ever had to turn the tide against big government. Anyone who claims to be in the libertarian quadrant who wasn’t supporting Ron Paul at that point would be the ones who lost their fucking mind.

    What if Steve Kubby decided to run as a Republican? It was still the same Steve Kubby as far as his views went, he just ran under the Republican label. Would you not support him anymore just because he had the Republican label next to his name.

  58. Andy Says:

    “There will probably be more than three choices, but a minimum of three, which means that I won’t have to choose between the HildaBeast and whomever the party of torture, warrantless wiretaps and perpetual war chooses to nominate.”

    Ron Paul is against torture, warrantless wiretapes, and perpetual war, so if he becomes the Republican nominee this would not be relavent.

  59. Stuart Richards Says:

    I’ll go out on a limb for Knapp on this one . . . If Hillary and Paul were the candidates, I wouldn’t vote for the good Dr. either.

    I live in N.Y.

    Hillary wins NY and its electoral votes hands down. My vote is more important for the LP candidate, whoever it is. I spent six weeks last summer slugging myself around in the hottest and wettest season collecting signatures. Giving up on the LP for a quixotic moment in the Sun for the first guy I voted for President is not a contradiction or a loss of principle. I’d hate to diminish any hope or voice of liberty that Paul so competently projects, the movement needs it.

    When the GOP picks its good old boy and Hillary is coronated after the wagons circle, the sentiment and anger will simmer amongst Goldwater conservatives and hard anti-war progressives. Give ‘em a real place to go when it boils over.

    I’ll probably vote LP even if Paul gets nominated, and for the same reasons: I live in NE, and I’m moving to IL-both are “safe”. If it ever looks close in my state, though, I won’t hesitate to vote for Paul.

  60. globalist_elitist fka undercover_anarchist Says:

    But in Andy’s fantasy world, Hillary knocked down the towers and Tom Knapp’s one vote could decide the entire election. Can’t you see how vital it is for you to vote for Paul, Tom???

  61. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist fka undercover_anarchist Says:

    May 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
    But in Andy’s fantasy world, Hillary knocked down the towers and Tom Knapp’s one vote could decide the entire election. Can’t you see how vital it is for you to vote for Paul, Tom???”

    When in the hell have I ever said that Hillary knocked down the towers? You just made this up.

    I think that it is vital for everyone in the libertarian movement to vote for Ron Paul. Don’t worry, I do not consider you to be a part of the libertarian movement so you are off the hook.

  62. Robert Mayer Says:

    In response to several comments about Dr. Paul’s lack of polished debating skills, if he were merely one of the ten clones standing on the stage saying exactly the same thing over and over on every substantive issue, then I would agree that this would be a real liability for him. However, what sets him apart from the crowd is what he actually has to say and that is far more relevant. Anyone who is choosing their candidate based on such superficialities probably would have been turned off by Ron’s message even if he were a slick, dynamic speaker, so I don’t see it hurting him any.

  63. Chris Bennett Says:

    Stuart, when you move to IL, look me up!

  64. Stuart Richards Says:

    I’ll be moving to the Jacksonville/Springfield area, near my friend Chaz… who blogs here. I’ll definitely look you up.

  65. pauliecannoli Says:

    Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer’s show

  66. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/paul-said-it.html
    Lew Rockwell

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger128.html
    Jacob Hornberger

  67. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “What if Steve Kubby decided to run as a Republican? It was still the same Steve Kubby as far as his views went, he just ran under the Republican label. Would you not support him anymore just because he had the Republican label next to his name.”

    No, I wouldn’t. Which part of “I decline to support the Republican Party” do you not understand?

    That could change, but I don’t expect it to.

    There are a number of fine individuals in the Republican Party — but taking a fine individual and putting him in the Republican Party is the equivalent of taking a clean individual and dunking him in a tub of used motor oil. He may be the same individual, and I may even say so … but he’s not going to be allowed to sit on my couch until he gets the stuff off of him.

  68. pauliecannoli Says:

    probably it is just setting off their spam parameters because of the intensity level of how many times Ron Paul is bulletined by some people.

    Great song tho!

  69. pauliecannoli Says:

    Fox News Rigs Entire Debate To Savagely Attack Ron Paul
    Texas Congressman targeted by Giuliani, Hannity & Colmes as pre-screened audience applause torture and warmongering, Fox limits post-election polls to three hours and no Internet voting yet Paul still successful
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_fox_news_rigs_entire_debate_attack_paul.htm
    Prison Planet | May 16, 2007
    Paul Joseph Watson

    In a sickening display of cronyism and as a consequence of the sheer terror elicited amongst the establishment after his previous success, Fox News rigged last night’s entire presidential debate in a crass effort to smear Ron Paul - yet the Texas Congressman still beat Rudy Giuliani in Fox’s own poll.

    If you thought the MSNBC debate was somewhat unfair towards Ron Paul, then this was an absolute debacle.

    The audience for the debate was clearly pre-screened and pre-selected to include only mainly geriatric 75 year old plus Fox News viewers who are scared of their own shadow. How else can the bizarre applause for warmongering and torture, which polls show are both clearly opposed by the majority of American people, be explained?

    Guantanamo Bay is uniformly abhorred, even to the point where George W. Bush himself said he wanted to close it down, and yet Romney is clapped for saying he would like to double it!

    Are these audience members robots or did Fox News dub the audio to include the applause?

    Giuliani clearly endorses torture and the mindless drones in attendance rapaciously lap it up! Fox News manufactured a fictitious scenario to rig the debate - the notion that terrorists are about to detonate a nuclear bomb and that only torture can lead to its discovery.

    Host Bit Hume failed to mention the fact that obtaining confessions from torture is notoriously unreliable because the victim simply tells the interrogator what he wants to hear, and not necessarily the truth. In fact, using torture in place of more traditional investigative techniques would only create false leads, waste more time and put the country in more danger.

    Under the Constitution of the United States, which any of these potential Presidents will have to swear an oath to uphold, evidence obtained from torture is not admissible in court. In effect, Giuliani, Romney and Tancredo (who has now completely discredited himself) have promised to violate the Constitution before they even get into office.

    After the show, Hannity and Colmes double-teamed Paul in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of both liberals and conservatives, with Colmes going after him on abortion and Hannity chomping at the bit to smear the Texas Congressman as weak on terrorism.

    This followed a showdown between Giuliani and Paul in which the Texas Congressman pointed out the fact that U.S. foreign policy has bred hatred of America throughout the world, a self-evident truth that is even embraced by the CIA itself, and was scorned by Giuliani in response.

    Despite the fact that Paul was given the more difficult questions and less time to answer them and was then savagely attacked after he debate, he still came out on top when the early polling began, eventually finishing a close second to Romney and easily ahead of Giuliani.

    Fox News were obviously desperate to prevent Ron Paul winning the poll because they restricted it to text message only, no Internet voting, and closed it down declaring Romney the winner after just three hours.

    An MSNBC poll again shows Ron Paul trouncing the other candidates, beating his nearest contenders hands down in every category.
    Fox News anchor Carl Cameron immediately tried to spin Paul’s success in the poll when it became apparent he was winning with 30% of the vote shortly after 11PM. Cameron roared that Paul had been “slapped down” by Giuliani in the debate and that his success was merely because his office was unfairly flood voting - ignoring the fact that McCain had openly told his supporters to spam the polls on his own website.

    ABC News’ poll has Ron Paul at 18,500+ votes, with his nearest rivals Romney and Giuliani barely making it into the 200’s. This is an emphatic win for the Texas Congressman.

    Despite the fact that this whole event was a giant orchestrated smear job on behalf of Fox News to eliminate Ron Paul from the race, his message of liberty and real conservatism still resonates with the American people and no amount of vitriol on behalf of Neo-Con Rupert Murdoch and his underlings is going to change that fact.

  70. pauliecannoli Says:

    Sick, sick, sick! Tancredo and Giuliani are fascist scum.

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/vote_08_debate_audience_applauds_giuliani_endorse_torture.htm

    Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture

    Think Progress | May 16, 2007

    During tonight’s presidential debates, candidates were asked whether they would support the use of waterboarding — a technique, defined as torture by the Justice Department, that simulates drowning and makes the subject “believe his death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage.”

    Both former mayor Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested they would support using the technique. Specifically asked about waterboarding, Giuliani said he would allow “every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it.” Tancredo later added, “I’m looking for Jack Bauer,” referencing the television character who has used torture techniques such as suffocation and electrocution on prisoners.

    The audience applauded loudly after both statements.

  71. pauliecannoli Says:

    Adolf Giuliani: what planet is he from?

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_giuliani_and_realities.htm

    Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

    The Nation | May 17, 2007

    Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

    The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

    Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

    Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan’s decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

    Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”

    Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are “delighted that we’re over there” in Iraq, pointing out that, “They have already… killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary.”

    Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul’s remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

    The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

    But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

    The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued “his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia” and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of “a long series” of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

    The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.”

    Fitzgerald’s was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

    Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. “The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people,” Scheuer said in a CNN interview. “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.”

    It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

    But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

    Giuliani’s reaction to Paul’s comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling “absurd explanations.”

    Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

    No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he’d be “delighted” to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

  72. pauliecannoli Says:

    Faux news: all the lies that will fit.

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/yet_another_fox_news_smear_job_on_ron_paul_alex_jones.htm

    Yet Another Fox News Smear Job On Ron Paul, Alex Jones & 9/11 Truth
    Malkin, Gibson attack “9/11 conspiracy nut” Alex Jones, say Paul should be kicked out of debates for appearing on his show, suggest Middle Easterners enjoy being bombed and to claim otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory

    Prison Planet | May 17, 2007
    Paul Joseph Watson
    Fox “News” anchor John Gibson was joined by diehard Neo-Con Michele “put every Muslim in a concentration camp” Malkin last night to attack Ron Paul, Alex Jones and suggest that people in the Middle East enjoy being bombed and to state otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

    First of all, Gibson lies outright by claiming Ron Paul said the U.S. had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, something the Texas Congressman has never stated. He then brings on Malkin, who remains the poster child for a dwindling gaggle of Internet Neo-Con blowhards.

    Malkin knows which side her bread is buttered on and is perfectly aware of the fact that Prison Planet alone dwarfs the popularity of her own measly Neo-Con “Hot Air” blog. She seems to have a dangerous obsession with attacking us and most of the time we ignore her but this one was too hilarious to pass up.

    Malkin defines 9/11 truth as a “virus” and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox’s geriatric 80-plus viewers don’t forget it. Malkin resorts to the usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement, despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the liberal media, both mainstream and alternative.

    Gibson and Malkin then recoil at the temerity of the suggestion that bombing third world countries breeds hatred and characterize it as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory!

    Of course, those poor people in the Middle East love being bombed and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic!

    Malkin cites Popular Mechanics, the Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as her bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine’s 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin’s new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

    “I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools,” whines Malkin before attacking Ron Paul for appearing on radio with “9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones,” and suggesting that the Texas Congressman should be kicked out of the debates for doing so.

    All this of course stems from Ron Paul’s confrontation with Rudy Giuliani, the supposed “9/11 hero” who had the real heroes - the firefighters - arrested when they objected to Giuliani’s order that their colleague’s remains be scooped up by and dumped in a landfill.

    In reality, the supposed “slap-down” Giuliani handed out to Ron Paul during the debate has returned in the form of the truth to whack him back in the face tenfold.

    Just for argument’s sake, let’s accept the premise that 9/11 was orchestrated from a cave and that Osama bin Laden somehow managed to neutralize the standard air defenses of the United States for the first time in history.

    Both the vaunted 9/11 Commission Report and the CIA admit that U.S. foreign policy has endangered the U.S.

    “The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued “his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia” and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of “a long series” of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel,” reports the Nation .

    In addition, Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, told CNN that “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.”

    But we’d be naive to think that Fox “News”, Gibson and Malkin would let the facts get in the way of a good childish name-calling smear job.

    Ron Paul was asked by CNN if he was going back down or apologize for stating the fact that people in the Middle East don’t enjoy being bombed. Righteously, the Texas Congressman invited Giuliani to read the 9/11 Commission Report and apologize himself.

    It is now clearly evident that Tuesday night’s debate and its aftermath was elaborately rigged and directed towards discrediting Ron Paul and neutralizing the wave of popular support he has received that has absolutely terrified the establishment. But it’s backfired because more people than ever now know who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.

    Once again, we thank Fox News for the continued attention they are bringing to the 9/11 truth movement - because for any of their viewers that still possess their own set of teeth, they will be encouraged to Google terms like “WTC 7″ and “Alex Jones” and find out the truth.

    We invite Gibson, O’Reilly, Malkin and their ilk to continue their desperate ad hominem attacks because anyone with two brain cells left to rub together can immediately deduce how liars and con-artists behave - and how their impetuous smear tactics are manifested.

  73. Andy Says:

    “No, I wouldn’t. Which part of “I decline to support the Republican Party” do you not understand?

    That could change, but I don’t expect it to.

    There are a number of fine individuals in the Republican Party — but taking a fine individual and putting him in the Republican Party is the equivalent of taking a clean individual and dunking him in a tub of used motor oil. He may be the same individual, and I may even say so … but he’s not going to be allowed to sit on my couch until he gets the stuff off of him.”

    So in other words, you are more interested in LABELS than you are in INDIVIDUALS.

    Does this same line of thinking apply for you to the Democrat label? Let’s say that Steve Kubby were to run as a Democrat, would you not vote for him just because he had the Democrat label next to his name, or does this label bias of yours only apply to the Republican label?

  74. Andy Says:

    “Michelle Shinghal Says:

    May 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
    Andy,
    Knapp is absolutely correct here. The idea that we have to vote for R to keep D out of office is one of the things that keeps Ls out of play. You should always vote for the person whom best represents your viewspoint.”

    Michelle, this is only true if neither the Democrat or Republican is even remotely libertarian. When you’ve got a libertarian hero like Ron Paul running with the Republican LABEL next to his name against a one of the worst big government politicians around in Hillary Clinton as the candidate for the Democrats, there is a SIGNIFIGANT difference between the two candidates when it comes to supporting liberty.

    Ron Paul wants to make signifigant cuts to government which will mean signifigant INCREASES in liberty. Hillary Clinton wants government to keeping growing bigger, and is in fact one of the most pro-big government politicians out there.

    If the choices were between say Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, then I’d agree with you in that there would be no real choice for those who want more freedom and less government. However, in the hypothetical situation where it came down to Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, the choice would be clear. At that point anyone who claims to want less government and more freedom and who would not vote for Ron Paul (although that candidate would NOT be Steve Kubby since Steve Kubby has already said that if Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination that he’ll drop out of the race and work to get Ron Paul elected - he said this on one of those Blog Talk Radio shows, the link for which was posted on his site several weeks back) is a fool.

    If we had instant run off voting or preferencial voting where voters could rank their choices then I could see an arguement for saying something like, “Well, I like Ron Paul but Steve Kubby (of course it wouldn’t actually be Steve Kubby in this case since Steve Kubby would have the good sense to drop out of the race and support Ron Paul but I’m using the name Steve Kubby anyway for the sake of discussion) is my first choice so I’m going to rank Steve Kubby as my number one vote will be my number two vote.” The only problem is that we do not have instant run off voting or preferencial voting, so the only RATIONAL thing to do if you REALLY want less government and more liberty would be to vote for Ron Paul.

  75. pauliecannoli Says:

    I believe the blog talk radio show Andy is referring to is Angela Keaton’s.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=12085

  76. Andy Says:

    “pauliecannoli Says:

    May 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
    I believe the blog talk radio show Andy is referring to is Angela Keaton’s.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/h…..w_id=12085

    I can’t remember if that is the one where he made the statement that if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination he’ll drop out of the race and work for Ron Paul or not. It could have been a different show but I know that he said it and I know that I’m not the only one that heard it.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “So in other words, you are more interested in LABELS than you are in INDIVIDUALS.”

    I’m interested in both. Labels are tools of identification. They mean things. And the label “Republican” means certain particular things that I don’t and won’t support.

    “Does this same line of thinking apply for you to the Democrat label?”

    Yes. When I left the LP, I briefly became a Democrat again (that being the chosen party of my youth), in the false hope that that party would be moving in a libertarian direction in order to re-gain the power it had lost. I quickly discovered that that hope was illusory. I’d still be more inclined to vote for a Democrat than a Republican if it came down to a choice of voting for one of those two or just not voting at all, but I’d put the odds at about 100 to 1 against even then.

    “Let’s say that Steve Kubby were to run as a Democrat”

    What’s your obsession with Kubby?

    If I was a Republican or a Democrat, and if Steve Kubby was running for the presidential nomination of one of those parties, I’d stack his personality, positions and credentials up against his opponents and support the candidate I thought best represented that party.

    However, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m a Libertarian, and it is the LP’s presidential nomination process in which I choose to participate.

    Kubby didn’t enter the race for the LP’s presidential nomination with any prior claim on my support (if any candidate was entitled to register such a claim, it would to be George Phillies). If any other plausible/credible candidates than Kubby had declared, it’s not necessarily true that I would have made the same decision. Since none had (or have), the decision was not (and has not become) difficult at all.

  78. Andy Says:

    “I’m interested in both. Labels are tools of identification. They mean things. And the label ‘Republican’ means certain particular things that I don’t and won’t support.”

    Well, if the socialist had this same view they never would have successfully hijacked the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was hijacked by socialist in the half of the last century. The Democrats of today bear little to no resemblance to the Democrats of the past. Would you not agree that the socialist were sucessful in hijacking the Democratic Party?

    Yes, a label can certainly be a tool for indentification, but what is more important than a label is the actual person.

    What if Wayne Root ends up as the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President? Suppose your choices on the ballot are Ron Paul as the Republcian candidate, Hillary Clinton as the Democrat candidate, and Wayne Root as the Libertarian candidate. Going by the logic that you’ve indicated where you go by party label over the person, would you vote for Wayne Root?

    “Yes. When I left the LP, I briefly became a Democrat again (that being the chosen party of my youth), in the false hope that that party would be moving in a libertarian direction in order to re-gain the power it had lost. I quickly discovered that that hope was illusory. I’d still be more inclined to vote for a Democrat than a Republican if it came down to a choice of voting for one of those two or just not voting at all, but I’d put the odds at about 100 to 1 against even then.”

    I know that in last year’s election there was a libertarian in New Hampshire that got elected to the state legislature under the Democrat Party label. I suppose that you wouldn’t have voted for this person, correct?

    I also know that last year a libertarian in Florida named Frank Gonzalez recieved like 42% of the vote in a race for Congress and he ran as a Democrat. Frank Gonzalez may run for Congress again in 2008 as a Democrat. I suppose that you won’t be supporting him, correct?

    I would have voted for and supported both the guy in New Hampshire and Frank Gonzalez and in fact I want to support Frank Gonzalez in 2008. Unlike you, I don’t have a big hang up with LABELS as I put the PERSON above the LABEL.

    “What’s your obsession with Kubby?”

    A better question is, what is your obsession with labels?

    “If I was a Republican or a Democrat, and if Steve Kubby was running for the presidential nomination of one of those parties, I’d stack his personality, positions and credentials up against his opponents and support the candidate I thought best represented that party.

    However, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m a Libertarian, and it is the LP’s presidential nomination process in which I choose to participate.”

    So you would abandon Steve Kubby if he had a different label next to his name even if his ideaology and plaftfrom were exactly the same.

    What if Wayne Root were the Libertarian candidate and Steve Kubby was the Republican candidate? Would you then vote for Wayne Root.

    “Kubby didn’t enter the race for the LP’s presidential nomination with any prior claim on my support (if any candidate was entitled to register such a claim, it would to be George Phillies). If any other plausible/credible candidates than Kubby had declared, it’s not necessarily true that I would have made the same decision. Since none had (or have), the decision was not (and has not become) difficult at all.”

    I never said that supporting Steve Kubby for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination was a bad thing. Out of the roster of declared candidates for the nomination at the moment he might be the best one.

    I just think that with Ron Paul in the Republican Primary those of us who are in the libertarian quadrant have a rare chance to get our message out to the masses. I’m loving all of this publicity that Ron Paul is generating, and I really enjoy seeing him up on a stage making the RepubliCON fascists look foolish.

    Yeah, I know that all of the publicity from this is not coming straight to the LP and I wish that it was, but the word libertarian and the fact that Ron Paul was a past candidate for and in fact still a member of the Libertarian Party is still getting out there. Also, and more importantly, the IDEAS are getting out there.

    Steve Kubby is a good guy but the fact of the matter is that he is not generating anywhere near the level of publicity that Ron Paul is generating. I’d love it if Steve Kubby was getting regular national news coverage, and I’d love it even more if Steve Kubby was able to get on a stage and debate major party candidates, but it is not happening and it is not likely to happen either.

  79. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You wrote:

    “Well, if the socialist had this same view they never would have successfully hijacked the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was hijacked by socialist in the half of the last century. The Democrats of today bear little to no resemblance to the Democrats of the past. Would you not agree that the socialist were sucessful in hijacking the Democratic Party?”

    The socialists were ABSOLUTELY successful in hijacking the Democratic Party. They succeeded in doing so by forming the Socialist Party, running their own candidates, and becoming popular enough to force the Democratic Party to coopt their platform.

    “What if Wayne Root ends up as the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President? Suppose your choices on the ballot are Ron Paul as the Republcian candidate, Hillary Clinton as the Democrat candidate, and Wayne Root as the Libertarian candidate. Going by the logic that you’ve indicated where you go by party label over the person, would you vote for Wayne Root?”

    I won’t rule out voting for Root, but at present my inclination in the scenario you describe would be to not vote at all.

  80. George Phillies Says:

    New Hampshire:

    The legal options for Party Label are “Democratic”, “Republican”, and “Independent”. “Libertarian” is not an option. A Libertarian must run under some false label. The LPNH largely decided to run as “R”, which turned out to be a bad bet, because “R” in NH last year was spelled L-O-S-E-R . The D Libertarian did run and win

    NH is thus a poor example for this disagreement.

    And if any of you are Massachusetts Libertarians in the Meehan District, we need a Congressional candidate. Now.

    George Phillies
    Chair, Libertarian Party of Massachusetts phillies at 4liberty period net

  81. Andy Says:

    “The socialists were ABSOLUTELY successful in hijacking the Democratic Party. They succeeded in doing so by forming the Socialist Party, running their own candidates, and becoming popular enough to force the Democratic Party to coopt their platform.”

    Tom, you are missing a big piece of the puzzle in how socialist hijacked the Democratic Party. Yes, they did have a seperate Socialist Party, however, they also had people who INFILTRATED the Democratic Party. They took on the Democrat LABEL and called themselves “liberals” (which historically meant libertarian) but they were really socialist. They had enough sense to know that party LABELS are meaningless and that it is the ideaology of the person wearing the LABELS that matters. I would say that the infiltrators had more to do with the Democrats going socialist than influence from the Socialist Party did.

    “I won’t rule out voting for Root, but at present my inclination in the scenario you describe would be to not vote at all.”

    Why would you vote for Root if you’ve got some major philosophical/policy disagreements with him? Wayne Root supports the wars in the Middle East and he sucks up to the worst elements of the Republican Party. I’d call these some major disagreements, and these are just two areas where you disagree with him. Unless he changes these views, why would you even consider voting for him if he were to win the Libertarian Party nomination?

  82. Andy Says:

    “George Phillies Says:

    May 18th, 2007 at 9:56 am
    New Hampshire:

    The legal options for Party Label are “Democratic”, “Republican”, and “Independent”. “Libertarian” is not an option. A Libertarian must run under some false label. The LPNH largely decided to run as “R”, which turned out to be a bad bet, because “R” in NH last year was spelled L-O-S-E-R . The D Libertarian did run and win

    NH is thus a poor example for this disagreement.”

    This is not entirely true. Libertarians in New Hampshire actually CAN run under the Libertarian Party banner, they just have to get enough valid petition signatures to qualify. To qualify the party for the statewide ballot they need around 12,000 valid signatures. While this is not easy it is doable. It’s just that the New Hampshire LP has not made this a priority.

  83. Andy Says:

    “The D Libertarian did run and win.”

    One more point here. A libertarian was elected but he was elected under the Democrat banner. Since Tom Knapp is focused more on LABELS than he is on getting people with a libertarian ideaology in office regaurdless of what LABEL they run under, would he prefer it if this guy wasn’t in office?

  84. pauliecannoli Says:

    Isn’t that the guy Mark told us voted for the minimum wage increase?

  85. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Tom, you are missing a big piece of the puzzle in how socialist hijacked the Democratic Party. Yes, they did have a seperate Socialist Party, however, they also had people who INFILTRATED the Democratic Party. They took on the Democrat LABEL and called themselves “liberals” (which historically meant libertarian) but they were really socialist.”

    Please feel free to quote a source other than your imagination for this claim.

    “Why would you vote for Root if you’ve got some major philosophical/policy disagreements with him?”

    You’re insisting I should support Paul, even though I have major philosophical disagreements with him.

    I said I wouldn’t “rule out” voting for Root, not that I’d do it, even in the unlikely event that he won the nomination. I doubt that I would — as a matter of fact, I doubt I’d vote for any of the currently declared candidates other than Kubby if the LP nominated one of them, for the simple reason that I’d regard doing so as helping the party damage itself and/or rewarding the party for damaging itself. But I’d at least re-examine my conclusions before making such a decision final.

    “Since Tom Knapp is focused more on LABELS than he is on getting people with a libertarian ideaology in office regaurdless of what LABEL they run under, would he prefer it if this guy wasn’t in office?”

    Nope. I’ve been referring specifically to the presidency. There may be strategic advantages in supporting libertarians for lower office under another party’s banner, and in some cases it may be impossible to do so other than under another party’s banner, as George points out.

    The presidential election, however, is the “marquee election.” In most cases, one more or one less member of a particular party in a legislative or local office position will not be sufficient to change the character of the institution in which he or she is serving or to particularly identify that institution with the candidate’s party.

    When a president is elected, however, the entire administration and the entire executive branch are, for the following four years, identified with the party of the elected candidate, usually primarily staffed from the party of the elected candidate, and normally in active cooperation, or at the very least continued detente, with the congressional faction of the elected candidate. In the presidential election, electing a candidate is very much stating that that candidate’s party is the party which is fit to govern. I do not believe that the Republican Party is fit to govern, and I will not assist it in doing so in that particular way.

  86. Andy Says:

    “Please feel free to quote a source other than your imagination for this claim.”

    Tom, are you claiming that there were no socialist who infiltrated the Demcratic Party, and you believe that I’m making this up? It sounds like you need to do more homework. Check out G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve” (available at www.realityzone.com )as he gets into this and many other topics, the book is also well documented.

    “You’re insisting I should support Paul, even though I have major philosophical disagreements with him.”

    Who do you have bigger philosophical disagreements with between Wayne Root and Ron Paul? So far, all I’ve heard you say “bad” about Ron Paul is that he doesn’t believe that every foreigner should be able to waltz into the country - especially when they can take advantage of the welfare state - although even here, Ron is NOT talking about cutting out all immigrants. There would still be plenty of immigrants even if Ron Paul were elected as he only wants to cut off illegal immigrants and cut of welfare benifits to immigrants. The other “bad” thing that you’ve brought up about Ron Paul is that he voted in favor of gays not being able to go from state to state filing law suits because they got married in one state and went to another state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage, even though the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business in the first place and even though such law suits against businesses are frivolous.

    It seems to me that this PALES in comparison to the “dirt” on Wayne Root. I mean how could you seriously consider putting Wayne Root on Ron Pau’s level when it is so clear that Ron Paul is much better than Wayne Root? Ron is a much better candidate and much better on the issues than Root.

    “The presidential election, however, is the “marquee election.” In most cases, one more or one less member of a particular party in a legislative or local office position will not be sufficient to change the character of the institution in which he or she is serving or to particularly identify that institution with the candidate’s party.”

    This is all the more reason to not be hung up on LABELS when it comes to the Presidency. Do you think that socialist gave a damn when Woodrow Wilson and later Franklin Delano Roosevelt got elected under the Democratic Party LABEL? No, they didn’t sit back and whine, they were happy that they had a President who was enacting their agenda.

    If Ron Paul were to pull off an upset and win the Republican nomination, anyone that claims to be in the libertarian quadrant that didn’t support him would be a FOOL. Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination would be the BIGGEST thing to happen to the freedom movement in many years, and would in fact be the best chance that we’d have to turn things around.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Tom, are you claiming that there were no socialist who infiltrated the Demcratic Party”

    No. You were claiming that there WERE socialists who infiltrated the Democratic Party. Having made the claim it’s up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it.

    “Who do you have bigger philosophical disagreements with between Wayne Root and Ron Paul?”

    I’m not sure how I’d go about quantifying the “size” of philosophical disagreements. One of the big problems I have with Ron Paul is that he traffics on a reputation as a “constitutionalist” to burnish his reputation in the libertarian movement, but has proven that in both Capitol Hill practice (Marriage Protection Act) and home district rhetoric (farm welfare) that he’s more than happy to wipe his ass with the Constitution for cheap political gain. To me, that’s more damaging than just coming right out and honestly saying he’s not a constitutionalist in the first place.

    If you’re serious about supporting Ron Paul, you should probably spend your time arguing with someone whom you might have a chance of persuading. I’m not that person.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.