I laughed out loud when I saw that DFCtomm “supported” Thompson.

I was a Libertarian for several years due to the fact that I believed that the Republican party didn’t act conservative any longer. But I found that life in the LP party was just to surreal.

There are many things I do agree with Paul on, but there is way to much that I disagree. For example…

We favor the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission as we would provide for free market ownership of airwave frequencies, deserving of full First Amendment protection.

Okay, now how are we going to keep track of who owns what frequency? Especially since radio waves reach across state lines? Suppose a large broadcaster simply starts blasting a smaller one off the air? And suppose the big guy has much greater resources for fighting a court battle than the little guy? Or is this maybe what libertarians want? Don’t think for a minute that George Soros wouldn’t take over the air waves.

But Paul supporters who believe that life will only get better if they get into power somehow think that everything will just work itself out. Well, maybe in Narnia or Middle Earth, but not in the real world.

This is actually very reminiscent of the mind-set of radicals in the Sixties: let’s totally break up the existing system, then worry about the details later. You’ll love it. Trust us.

I am not a Paul supporter you twit. I actually gave money to Thompson, but people have attacked Paul for his stance on the war in Iraq, and that I can’t understand.

Lets see, you supported Thompson who supports the war in Iraq. Thompson does not believe as Paul does, yet, you supported him.

So, seeing Thompson supports the war in Iraq, and also a war with Iran if need be (Which BTW Paul says America is trying to force a war with Iran, create another gulf of Tonkin) how could you ever vote for Thompson seeing he is a neo-con imperialist by Ron Paul standards which you seem adore?

Again, if you do not know why we support the war in Iraq, then there is only one place a person can put there head where it is that dark.

Ask yourself this, who stands to win if we lose?

RobertInAustin on March 7, 2008 at 7:56 PM

I laughed out loud when I saw that DFCtomm “supported” Thompson.

In my best James Cagney impersonation: “You, sir, are a dirty rotten LIAR!”

Thompson and Herr Doktor are polar opposites.

That’s the thing with the Paulbots: they live in complete denial. For them, lying is as natural as breathing.

Everybody I talk to that supports the war can’t answer that question.

Let dennis Miller explain it too you.

Bush, Kerry & Iraq

On Iraq

I am not a Paul supporter you twit. I actually gave money to Thompson, but people have attacked Paul for his stance on the war in Iraq, and that I can’t understand.

Lets see, you supported Thompson who supports the war in Iraq. Thompson does not believe as Paul does, yet, you supported him.

So, seeing Thompson supports the war in Iraq, and also a war with Iran if need be (Which BTW Paul says America is trying to force a war with Iran, create another gulf of Tonkin) how could you ever vote for Thompson seeing he is a neo-con imperialist by Ron Paul standards which you seem adore?

Again, if you do not know why we support the war in Iraq, then there is only one place a person can put there head where it is that dark.

Ask yourself this, who stands to win if we lose?

As for Bush, while I voted for him twice, I would’ve loved to have had a better choice. He’s done hundreds of things, but exactly three of them were good. He’s picked a couple of good Justices, he’s cut taxes and he’s fighting our enemies. He has most definitely left our borders wide open, and I’m terrified McCain will do the same.

Ron Paul would likely have closed the borders, but who knows for sure? His honesty hasn’t exactly been stellar.

Tuff talk, you sound just like a Paul supporter, you haven’t broken rank.

I am not a Paul supporter you twit. I actually gave money to Thompson, but people have attacked Paul for his stance on the war in Iraq, and that I can’t understand. Everybody I talk to that supports the war can’t answer that question. The forced spread of democracy is useless against Islam.

Muslims have proved they know how to manipulate democratic elections to position terrorists into government offices, but democracy is going to be the big club we use to beat Islam into submission? I’m sorry but the premise that underlies the war makes no sense to me. It does seem to be a basic misconception that President Bush has shown in both his immigration policy and the war in Iraq.

President Bush seems to believe that Americans are a product of America and not the reverse. He seems to think that in Iraq if he sets up the required conditions that he can produce Americans whether they wish to be or not. He also thinks he can allow an unlimited stream of legal, and illegal immigrants into this country and they will magically be made Americans.

but I’m sure the next post will contain a gold standard joke.

DFCtomm on March 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Nope. Already did that one way up the thread.

I’m working on a new joke about how Herr Gut Doktor managed to fleece millions of dollars out of his half-witted supporters and they don’t even realize it.

Maybe the punch line will involve pie-eyed Paulbot followers dreamily emptying their parents bank accounts into the rEVOLution/Ronulan war chest while they fantasize of the paranoid, protectionist, non-interventionist, xenophobic Amerika that never in its entire history ever existed, while The Only Krank Who Thought He Could Save Amerika giggles and slyly slips out the back door with the stash.

Sweet.

Yeah, maybe something along those lines…

Get your facts strait you twit! I am not blame America first and you should be glad you’re a faceless page, and not currently in my presence.

Tuff talk, you sound just like a Paul supporter, you haven’t broken rank.

Actually, it is Paul who leads the blame America first crowd. Seeing that is the crowd you choose to run with than you shall also wear the label.

The blame America first syndrome is a symptom of a mindset that views America as fundamentally immoral. Paul says that it is our actions that cause the Islamists to hate us. And of course the problem with that line of thinking is that it ignores the ideology of our enemies who would attack the United States and our interests whether we are active abroad or not. The “Fortress America” position of Paul is extremely dangerous in the 21st century when our imperialist Islamic enemies have accesses to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. Paul ignores that fact that the Islamists hate “us” because we are Christian, we are democratic, we are free, we are secular, we are capitalists, we are successful…. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. Whether we gave a dime to Israel or not, Al-Qaeda would have still attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

Islam was been at war with the west since its birth.

Then again, maybe Paul would think that it was Jefferson’s fault that the Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping.

On international affairs, Paul is no different than any leftist. The root cause, to him, of all the world’s ills is the United States. And one can only hold that view if one thinks that the U.S. is a fundamentally flawed nation, morally bankrupt, malicious, and malevolent.

Be thankful Paul doesn’t run a battered women’s clinic, because the first question he’d ask, would be, “What did you do to your husband to make him so mad that he hit you?”

Think for a minute has anybody said what the goal in Iraq is.

DFCtomm on March 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Yes. Don’t you know?

The goal in Iraq is now, and always has been, to clear away the indigenous peoples from the land to make room for more blimp hangars for the growing rEVOLution!!

know what you will say, and you will say it because the issue is not about AQ or OBL. It never has been and it never will be. It is just your hatred for Bush and blame America first mindset.

Get your facts strait you twit! I am not blame America first and you should be glad you’re a faceless page, and not currently in my presence. Think for a minute has anybody said what the goal in Iraq is. How will creating a democracy that will support terrorism a worthwhile goal? The problem is Islam and not Iraq’s lack of democracy.

4. They aren’t completely and hopelessly insane.

Hollowpoint on March 7, 2008 at 1:27 PM

You forgot 5.

They already think drugs have been legalized.

I have one question for the Iraq occupation supporters. What is your goal?

Have you not been paying attention? Clearly not if at this point in the game you have no idea.

I for one was against going into Iraq, I didn’t even vote for Bush either time.

When I got on board was when AQ made Iraq their battle front. Remember AQ? You guys are always going on about Osama Bin Laden, well, is he still the head honcho for AQ? Did I miss the news broadcast where he signed a peace treaty with the United States? If Osama Bin Laden is the head of the serpent and we can’t reach him to strike the head, does that mean we ignore the rest of the body? Or do we start chopping at what is exposed and work our way to the top?

I know what you will say, and you will say it because the issue is not about AQ or OBL. It never has been and it never will be. It is just your hatred for Bush and blame America first mindset.

1. ABC is lying about Paul dropping out.

2. Ron Paul would win as an independant.

3. They can somehow still force a brokered convention that leads to Paul getting nominated.

4. They aren’t completely and hopelessly insane.

Dude. Should have used the REVOlution.

Amen. Finally.

Maybe the 3%ers will attach to Nader, now.

McCain is just as “liberal” as Paul is, see their lifetime ACU ratings. both score 82.

ACU ratings are garbage, giving money to the UN is considered conservative? What about mandatory gun locks? People need to look at the bills that are in those ratings and see, first what they are and then what the justification was for voting for or against them on floor speeches to understand if it was a conservative vote. Voting for most of those Republican budgets don’t strike me as conservative. Neither would something like No Child Left Behind. It all depends if you think that Conservative means Conservative or Conservative means Republican. I think that the ACU should change their name to the ARU.

Enjoy your next truly wacko President Juan McInsane, Allah…you’ve earned him.

TX Mom on March 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM

he actually has a Libertarian Party candidate running against him. no Dems are running.

petit bourgeois on March 7, 2008 at 8:19 AM

K. Thanx. Bye now.

The question is: where did all that money that Paul raised go? He sure didn’t spend it on any advertising. I wonder which campaign official siphoned it out this time?

lorien1973 on March 6, 2008 at 10:09 PM

He didn’t have to spend money on advertising since all his nutroot followers were busily making banners and placing them in their front yards, the side of the highway, etc.

All I can say is buh-bye, good riddance, and please, PLEASE take the nutroots with you to obscurity-ville!

Russell Kirk and Libertarianism

neo-libertarian “What happens when a new clique or sect with an even odder bunch of libertarians form, what will they be called neo-neo-libertarians? >:}”

Chakra Hammer on March 7, 2008 at 4:51 AM

It’s true, IM(very)HO.

I can find much to agree with when I read the libertarian platform, and I like them being around; but, when you run into a libertarian, you never know what side of the coin they’re coming from. You’re not long before discovering that you get into the same old arguments embodied in the entire political spectrum. It’s as if they are a microcosm of the country itself.