Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Mar 10, 2008

Why Ron Paul Supporters Should Vote For McCain


Some time ago I was asked by Eric Dondero to publish an article by him on a call by Saul Anuzis for Ron Paul Libertarians to Stay in the GOP. This aroused a certain degree of dissent from some of Ron Paul’s more radical supporters who seemed to have little better to do than trawl the net looking for anything against their candidate and harassing them.

I have found a similar call from a libertarian, presenting a really good case for support for John McCain by libertarians. The blog is Copious Dissent, run by Devil's Advocate, a libertarian, and
Red Wolverine, a Conservative. The article that I am referring to is “Why Ron Paul Supporters should vote for McCain.”

Some of the stuff mentioned is: -

………. The passion that Ron Paul supporters have for liberty now needs to fill a void, and many terrible decisions are likely to be made unless Ron Paul advocates really consider what is at stake.
As a libertarian, I understand their concerns. Ron Paul stood for the same guiding principles espoused by Ludwig von Mises, which included limited government, lower taxes, little or no regulation, sound monetary policy, and a humble foreign policy. With no candidate in the race that supports any of those views sufficiently to make a staunch libertarian happy, it is easy to get discouraged. Please don’t. …………….
On the war: -
None of the three candidates are going to get us out of Iraq, not one. Barack Obama claims that we would only be in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from building bases there, or for humanitarian effort. The translation of that sentence is that we would be using our military to do exactly what they are doing now. ……….

Hillary Clinton also does not plan to take our troops out of Iraq either. Her position is essentially the same as Barack Obama’s, but she lies to her base when nobody else is around to call her on her bluff. ………..

John McCain is the only candidate who is very honest about what he wants to do. He wants to destroy any ability for radical Islam to brew in Iraq, and keep our troops there for a long-time doing so. Our troops will stay in Iraq as long as the casualty rate is kept as low as possible, and the conflict is not costing American taxpayers too much money. Furthermore, he has the experience and knowledge to be able to reach this goal.

……….. For example, if John McCain is elected, Iraq will likely end up looking similar to Germany or Japan in several decades. It is a relatively uncontroversial position to want to pull our troops out of Germany today. The same will be true for Iraq if the Iraq conflict is over in the shortest amount of time.
On the constitution: -
Only John McCain has voted for Originalist Justices in the past and will do so in the future. With Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are guaranteed to get someone to the Left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Conclusion: -
Now is not the time to make irrational decisions: The Constitution is at stake along with your liberties, and being an intellectual purist at this time is not going to get you what you asked for. So please vote for John McCain.
I thoroughly recommend the rest of this article to you.

35 comments:

  1. Hi Jim,

    Just read your article and respect your attempts.... But, the American people have for the most part have always had to vote for the lessor of two evils and in the end we always vote for evil.

    This is the first time voters truly have a candidate who offers wisdom, truth and having traveled around the world it's clear to me the people in Russian regions i.e. Ukraine and Belarus are scared to death of our foreign policies based on Putins reply to our actions with our missile defense and NATO alliance. Our nation and current front runners suggest they support Israel yet they don't oppose the sale of arms to Israel's enemies but Ron Paul will.

    On the home front Ron Paul is the only person who understands our dire economic condition. For all of the reasons pretend and many more I will not vote for John McCain. Instead I will write in Paul's name and so will many others. By the way why should we be concerned with Saul? He, wanted to have Paul removed from all future debates. Instead Saul should be removed from his current office for interfering with the political process.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It will be "a cold day in He**" before I'd vote for McCain or any other neocon the two parties have tried to shove down our throats!

    While others are pleased to go along with the mainstream choices i will stand my ground on the ONLY cadidate in the race that shares my vision for a free self governing America and when we become controlled completely I will have the right to say "I told you so".

    ReplyDelete
  3. [Posted by steve r]

    The gist of your article is pragmatic and superficially it is persuasive and plausible.

    The problem is that going along in the hope that things will spin out of control in one way rather than spin out of control in a different way is not sound.

    As the old saying goes, if you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always gotten.

    The GOP in the person of the Bush Administration and the cookie cutter clones on the stage with Ron Paul made it abundantly clear that his views to them are not acceptable within the Republican Party. (Gov. Huckabee alone was gentleman enough neither to suggest he should caucus with the Democrats, nor sneer, roll his eyes, snicker or insist in a press conference that Congressman Paul's ideas deserved to be laughed at. All the rest did, most of these, Senator McCain at the forefront of the pack.)

    Events have consequences.

    It is clear that the 'Old Right' contingent not only is not ascendant within the GOP, but that it is not welcome. It is a repetition on the scale of a national party of what the proto-neocons did in expelling the 'Old Right' contingent from the Young Americans for Freedom in the 60's, jeering and calling them 'laissez-fairies' as they were expelled from the convention hall.

    It is the Bolsheviks [sic] purging the Mensheviks [sic] in a different time and place. If this seems melodramatic, recall the GOP's coordinated efforts to drive Paul from his seat in Congress vs. Ex-rep Laughlin, and at other times, even though he is 'one of them' should put paid to that sentiment. They sent the whole bloody leadership to Texas to campaign against Paul in favor of a Democrat they bribed to don an elephant suit.

    Events have consequences.

    Furthermore, it is not as if the GOP is unaware that little-l libertarians within the GOP, and big-L Libertarians and Constitution Party candidates, driven from a GOP that once provided a plausible home for them by the New Right's lies and betrayals of the Old, have cost the GOP elections over the past few years. The GOP has buzzed internally with the recognition for two election cycles.

    They would rather lose elections than have us in their tent.

    We have no influence with the Bolshevik neocon faction.

    The notions of fiscal responsibility, non-intervention abroad, and constitutional constraints annoy, offend and embarrass them.

    This may not be our fathers' GOP, but Republicans did not all turn into thoroughgoing doughbrains in the past ten years, even if some of them did as far back as 1952 when they bypassed Senator Taft in favor of a popular war hero so devoid of political spine that he had been approached by the Democrats for the Presidency as well.

    While the leadership of the moment in the GOP may wish 'freedom Republicans' gone more than they wish to win the 2008 Presidential election, it is possible that the rank-and-file do not. The bridge to be built between the GOP and the Freedom Republicans cannot come from the Paul side, it must be built by the GOP toward Paul's Old Right contingent.

    The only way Freedom Republicans will have any influence in the GOP of the future is if the GOP comes to realize that they CAN NOT WIN without us, now or ever again. The late Senator John East of North Carolina recognized this and sought behind the scenes to be a 'fusionist' and repair a divide that had been festering for nearly fifty years at that time. There are no fusionists left, sadly.

    The only way the GOP will realize that they cannot win without us is if we don't behave like whipped puppies and dutifully slink back to be further kicked and abused in return for a scant hadful of kibble and some dirty water in an old tub.

    Events have consequences.

    The best thing Paul's Freedom Republicans can do for their agenda in the long term is to force a humbled and defeated GOP to beg us to return and give us a seat at the leadership table.

    On a personal level, I will not vote for anyone who openly despises me and shows contempt for the Constitution. Neither will anyone else with an ounce of self-respect.

    Events have consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our author begins by tellling us,

    "This aroused a certain degree of dissent from some of Ron Paul’s more radical supporters who seemed to have little better to do than trawl the net looking for anything against their candidate and harassing them."

    So, right away, we know he is a sadistically dishonest insult-artist. Disagreeing with this little fool is not harassment. Reading is not a sign of having little better to do.

    This is the same kind of maliscious, snide dismissal of any disagreement that was displayed by the insane fascist, John McCain, during the debates. The last thing any reasonable person should want is for that warmongering moron to get into power.

    Our author, of course, shares with McCain the paranoid fantasy that the Islamists are comin' to git us and may be under our beds even now. The refusal to recognize the evil of U.S. foreign policy is probably not blindness, but rather a desire to sit safely at home and watch the slaughter of innocent middle easteners on TV while rooting for the home team. Pass the beer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anybody But McCain!

    FreedomFest 2008 – Congressman Ron Paul and Bob Barr have been confirmed as a speakers and they will join our 100 plus speakers and 1,000 plus attendees in Las Vegas on July 10 -12 at Freedomfest 2008. We look forward to their thoughts and insight on the future of the Ron Paul Revolution and his Campaign For Freedom.

    Also we will also have Richard Viguerie, often called the "funding father" of modern conservative strategy as his direct mail efforts started the modern conservative movement. 2008 will be a watershed year in American politics in our fight for a return to liberty and limited constitutional government. We must continue the campaign to promote the Ron Paul Revolution of liberty, a return to limited constitutional government and free markets to the American public.
    See www.freedomfest.com
    Thanks,
    Ron Holland, Wolf Laurel, NC

    ReplyDelete
  6. GOOD GRIEF!!! NEVER!!!

    Never would I vote for another NeoCon Republican!
    I especially dislike McCain's mental process..Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  7. mcain was born in panama and legally can not become the prez, never mind that he is the worst charactor in the play.

    hold your nose and vote? i think you are forgetting about judgment day.

    if he is the next leader.......fate worse then death

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry Bro, I'm voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in! The r3VOLution is coming to St Paul, and were going to rock the show (in Abe Lincoln style).

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are wrong. Vote for McCain and it's the same as voting for Hillary or Obama.

    Ridiculous to even suggest we would do that.

    And Eric Dondero? How did you get connected to that LOSER?

    ReplyDelete
  10. As a Ron Paul supporter, my conscience will not allow me to vote for a neocon whom is neither a constitutionalist nor is McCain an economist. Anyone can be a war monger. McCain will never have my support.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok fellas, the comments have been more lucid than I have come to expect. I don't often have you over here, as I rarely comment on Ron, and this is not against him, so I guess we can be fairly civil.

    So, for those of you who can't bring themselves to vote for McCain, why not Wayne Root? If you want a real libertarian candidate, he has a great deal to offer.

    I couldn't support Ron because I see him as isolationist and anti-defense, as well as the way he reminds me of the old style libertarians of the 60s-70s, who tended to offer pronouncements rather than talk with people about them.

    This is great for preaching to the converted, but bloody awful for converting others. My opinion is that while Ron has a lot of ideas that appeal to libertarians, I just don't see him as one, maybe a constitutionalist of sorts.

    Don't get me wrong on this, you have a fairly libertarian constitution and for this reason I have a great deal of admiration for it and wish ours was as good.

    I don't believe that it is in Americas or the worlds best interests to pull back the troops and keep them at home, the reason we have not had a world war for over 60 years is not the efforts of the UN, but because the 'Big Fella' is about.

    I seriously doubt that you could stay isolationist for long, as Europe and others would soon get back to their old habits, power blocks would form without any of the other nations being able to stop abuses such as blocking shipping lanes etc.

    Strategically, it is just not an option.

    The US carries a disproportionate part of the burden in this, and I believe that a lot more support should come from the rest of the world.

    In conclusion Eric Dondero is a friend and at the moment he is one of the hardest Democrat hitters about, and I respect him for that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, boy, I was just about to say that will never happen but I see that I don't have to. The anonymice have already done so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eric Dondero is a liar who was fired by Ron Paul some time ago and has been spreading lies ever since. John McCain is a smirking, mentally unstable killer who wants to put a stop to free speech and peace. McCain/Feingold is totalitarian crap designed to make sure only incumbants and major media will choose who is elected. It is pure totalitarian evil. Islamo-fascism is only as real as Christo-fascism and Judeo-fascism. McCain is a jihadist creep.

    This blog is barf.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This article has been "pinched" and linked to at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

    Come visit us!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow you are an optimist!

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Cindy, I figure that not all of his supporters are one eyed. If you go back a little in time you will remember supporters of all candidates saying that they wouldn't support any other nominee and that they just wouldn't vote unless their man was it.

    There tends to be some emotional aspects involved in big campaigns, but in the cold light of day most people get over their disappointment and get on with supporting the side.

    It is important to reach out to all of them, and let them know that even though their candidate lost, they are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  17. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM

    Why did you block my comment containing a thorough debunking of your rather weak arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  18. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM

    Mr. Jim Fryar, your claim that libertarians ought to support John McCain is absurd and laughable. This blog, ironically titled "Real World Libertarian" is a travesty. You, sir, are in no way libertarian! Is "real world libertarian" a euphemism for sellout libertarian? Since when did "real world" mean sellout? How about neocon in libertarian clothing? Because that is precisely what you are. Nobody who would vote for McCain is a libertarian!

    "I was asked by Eric Dondero to publish an article by him on a call by Saul Anuzis for Ron Paul Libertarians to Stay in the GOP."

    First of all, Eric Dondero is a neocon hack. Ever since Dr. Paul fired him, Dondero betrayed not only the good doctor, but the principles of libertarianism. Second of all, Saul Anuzis is the same sleazebag who wanted to exclude Ron Paul from debates. After Anuzis and the GOP disrespected Ron Paul and his supporters, he wants us to vote for their capo?

    "This aroused a certain degree of dissent from some of Ron Paul’s more radical supporters..."

    As if there is any other kind? "Ron Paul's most radical supporters" should be read "Ron Paul's real supporters." If you were ever a true supporter of Ron Paul, you would never think of voting for McCain!

    "...who seemed to have little better to do than trawl the net looking for anything against their candidate and harassing them."

    Is scanning the blogosphere for commentary on our candidate proof of nothing better to do? Do consider it harassment because we demolish your flimsy arguments?

    "I have found a similar call from a libertarian, presenting a really good case for support for John McCain by libertarians."

    No you have not. That was not written by a libertarian, and there is no libertarian case for John McCain. One might as well make a libertarian case for Joseph Stalin!

    "The blog is Copious Dissent, run by Devil's Advocate, a libertarian, and
Red Wolverine, a Conservative."

    Copious Dissent is a neocon blog and Devil's Advocate is evidently not a libertarian! While I said that you are no libertarian yourself (I still stand by it), Devil's Advocate is DEFINITELY not a libertarian! The arguments you quoted are a regurgitation of the neoconservative zeitgeist, and neoconservatism is incompatible with libertarianism.

    When you call Red Wolverine a "Conservative" you mean neoconservative, but at least Red Wolverine is more honest. He does not pretend to be a libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  19. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 12:56 AM

    "and many terrible decisions are likely to be made unless Ron Paul advocates really consider what is at stake."

    Indeed, terrible decisions like voting for a man for idiotic reasons. Namely because he has a (R) next to his name.

    "As a libertarian, I understand their concerns."

    No you don't because you are not a libertarian. Real libertarians would never vote for McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  20. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:02 AM

    "Ron Paul stood for the same guiding principles espoused by Ludwig von Mises, which included limited government, lower taxes, little or no regulation, sound monetary policy, and a humble foreign policy."

    By contrast, John McCain stands for none of those principles, except mayby for slightly lower taxes. For instance, Barack Obama's foreign policy is far more benign than that of McCain!

    "With no candidate in the race that supports any of those views sufficiently to make a staunch libertarian happy..."

    ...the principled thing for a libertarian to do would be to not vote, or vote for the Libertarian party, or write in someone who supports libertarian ideals. If one must vote for the lesser of two or three evils, make sure to actually vote for the lesser evil!

    "None of the three candidates are going to get us out of Iraq, not one. Barack Obama claims that we would only be in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from building bases there, or for humanitarian effort. The translation of that sentence is that we would be using our military to do exactly what they are doing now. ……….

    Hillary Clinton also does not plan to take our troops out of Iraq either. Her position is essentially the same as Barack Obama’s, but she lies to her base when nobody else is around to call her on her bluff."


    But all the Democrats have some sort of exit strategy. Neither Obama nor Clinton want to keep us in Iraq for 100 years! Nobody shares McCain's enthusiasm for empire-building.

    ReplyDelete
  21. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:11 AM

    "John McCain is the only candidate who is very honest about what he wants to do."

    Occupy Iraq indefinitely!

    "He wants to destroy any ability for radical Islam to brew in Iraq..."

    1. Ron Paul supporters do not have the same paranoia regarding reactionary Islam as neocons, or indeed much of mainstream America.
    2. "Radical Islam" is not an ideological force that can be eradicated through military force.
    3. If anything, Bush II's war made the situation worse. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, the power vacuum left in the abscence of the Ba'athists provided free reign to Islamic extremists, both Shia and Sunni, to gain power.

    "...and keep our troops there for a long-time doing so."

    A FREAKING CENTURY!

    "Our troops will stay in Iraq as long as the casualty rate is kept as low as possible..."

    What makes you think we can sustain a low casualty rate in that hellhole?

    "and the conflict is not costing American taxpayers too much money."

    NEWSFLASH: The nation is trillions of dollars in debt! Gulf War II already cost the taxpayers too much and our little imperial adventure is not paying off as well as expected.

    ReplyDelete
  22. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:17 AM

    "Furthermore, he has the experience and knowledge to be able to reach this goal."

    What are you talking about? "General" McCain never attained a rank higher than Captain. The doofus graduated near the bottom of his class at the Academy. Enthusiasm for something does not mean ability or competence at same.

    "Iraq will likely end up looking similar to Germany or Japan in several decades."

    This is a neocon fantasy! First of all, what makes you think that Iraq compares to Germany and Japan? Second of all, do you realize what it took? The population of Germany and Japan were decimated! Remember Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Are you willing to resort to genocidal acts in Iraq?

    "It is a relatively uncontroversial position to want to pull our troops out of Germany today."

    Granted, but we have yet to do so. Why is that?

    "The same will be true for Iraq if the Iraq conflict is over in the shortest amount of time."

    More neocon fantasy!

    ReplyDelete
  23. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM

    "Only John McCain has voted for Originalist Justices in the past and will do so in the future. With Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are guaranteed to get someone to the Left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

    Personally, I am not a fan of strict constructionism or "originalism". I prefer a connotationist theory of interpretation to a denotationist one (originalist or strict constructionist). Ruth Bader Ginsberg is quite liberal, and I am not sure what to expect with an even more liberal justice. However, William Renquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts are all too fascist! "Fat Tony" Scalia and Kkklarence Thomas have done nothing to curtail the imperial presidency of Bush (i.e. his pushing the limits of presidential power). Renquist was so bad, he made Roberts seem like an improvement.

    Personally my favorite recent SC justice is Sandra Day O'Connor. Too bad she retired and was replaced by Scalito. While I disagree with Ron Paul on constitutional interpretation (strict constructionism is not a strictly libertarian position), that does not mean I can not support him. After all, Dr. Paul is not our hive mind!

    ReplyDelete
  24. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:36 AM

    "Now is not the time to make irrational decisions"

    Such as taking advice from a neocon hack masquerading as a libertarian!

    "The Constitution is at stake along with your liberties"

    Yes they are, and they have been for a long time. I hope you are aware that the election of Juan Panamaccain would be the most blatantly unconstitutional act in a long time, considering that he is not a natural born citizen.

    "...being an intellectual purist at this time is not going to get you what you asked for."

    No it is not. But doing otherwise will not get us what we asked for either. Personally I would take socialist Barack Obama over fascist John McCain any day!

    "So please vote for John McCain."

    NO!

    ReplyDelete
  25. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:48 AM

    "So, for those of you who can't bring themselves to vote for McCain, why not Wayne Root? If you want a real libertarian candidate, he has a great deal to offer."

    Why don't you? Oh, that's right, you're not really libertarian.

    "I couldn't support Ron because I see him as isolationist..."

    Ron Paul is a noninterventionist. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist! Are you are too stupid to tell the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism? Well, that's your problem.

    "...and anti-defense..."

    How is wanting to secure American borders anti-defense? How is bringing troops home and not planting them in every other damn country on the planet anti-defense? How is Juan McAmnesty's open borders and world policing (which creates hostility and leaves our forces scattered) not anti-defense?

    ReplyDelete
  26. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 1:56 AM

    "he reminds me of the old style libertarians of the 60s-70s, who tended to offer pronouncements rather than talk with people about them."

    In other words, he talks principles. And he does not compromise his entire platform, sacrificing his values for appeal.

    "I don't believe that it is in Americas or the worlds best interests to pull back the troops and keep them at home,"

    You are free to hold your own delusional beliefs, but how is it in America's best interests for our troops to be everywhere except America? How is it in the world's best interests to be dominated by an American "unipolar global hegemon" (world empire).

    ReplyDelete
  27. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 2:03 AM

    "the reason we have not had a world war for over 60 years is not the efforts of the UN, but because the 'Big Fella' is about."

    Thank you for demonstrating your total ignorance of history! Just because your preferred candidate told my candidate nonsense about "isolationism" causing WW2 does not make it so. The real reason why there was no WW3 was because of a stalemated Cold War between 2 world empires. The Soviet Empire has only been gone for less than 30 years. (Remember that WW2 occured a full 21 years after WW1. Note also that political conditions were different in the 1st half of the 20th century.) How long do you think the glorious American Empire will keep the peace?

    ReplyDelete
  28. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 2:10 AM

    "I seriously doubt that you could stay isolationist for long"

    I agree! That is why Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Anti-interventionism is not to be confused with isolationism. "Trade with all nations, make war and entangling alliances with none." Many idiots confuse isolationism with noninterventionism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 2:13 AM

    "as Europe and others would soon get back to their old habits"

    Are you high or just stupid? Why would Europe revert to their "old ways" today? Just because the United States maintained her empire for 110 years, does not mean Europe hasn't abandoned imperialism. Also, you probably haven't heard, but there is this one thing called the European Union (EU). I doubt that the pacified Europeans would rebuild imperial pacts all over.

    "...power blocks would form without any of the other nations being able to stop abuses such as blocking shipping lanes etc.

    Strategically, it is just not an option."


    You neocons clearly live in a fantasy world! Is life a fucking video game to you people? You make the world sound like a game of Risk. Nations do not build imperial leagues or blocade seas because they can!

    ReplyDelete
  30. True LibertarianMay 16, 2008 at 2:20 AM

    "The US carries a disproportionate part of the burden in this, and I believe that a lot more support should come from the rest of the world."

    So what are we? The lone global hegemon or a multinational commonwealth. If you want us to be an empire at least make up your mind what kind of empire we must be.

    "In conclusion Eric Dondero is a friend and at the moment he is one of the hardest Democrat hitters about, and I respect him for that."

    In other words, he is a fellow neocon hack pretending to be a libertarian. Your common interests are winning at all costs, not safeguarding any ideas.

    Eric Dondero: This article has been "pinched" and linked to at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

    Pinched is an appropriate term to use considering that this article is a turd, and this turd has been pinched off!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I hope you realize that Copious Dissent is a parody blog. That Jim Fryar fell for it is pathetic, seeing as he appears to take the oxymoronic "libertarian case for John McCain" seriously. However, True Libertarian also assumes it to be legit. TC, Devil's Advocate is not a libertarian because he is in fact a "deep cover liberal," not because he is a neocon. Devil's Advocate/Red Wolverine are avatars of a satirist. The individual behind the blog is a deep cover liberal. Like Sacha Cohen and Stephen Colbert, the blogger pretends to be a neocon wingnut. But unlike Cohen and Colbert, deep cover liberals like the blogger are not trying to be funny. They just do it to make Republicans look stupid and nutty (as if Republicans do not do that enough!).

    ReplyDelete
  32. They pretty much admit, albeit very discretely to be a satire along the lines of Landover Baptist. Check out the banner:

    This political blog is dedicated to informed citizens who understand the benefits of limited government, capitalism, private property rights, and plain common sense. If you disagree with any or all of the political satire on this blog, we apologize for the intellectual abuse inflicted upon you by your university professors.

    (emphasis mine)

    Hidden in plain site! The disclaimer admits the blog to be a parody in an underhanded way. So, the joke is on you, Jim, for using a satirical rant as a serious argument!

    ReplyDelete
  33. They pretty much admit to be a satire along the lines of Landover Baptist. Check out the banner:

    This political blog is dedicated to informed citizens who understand the benefits of limited government, capitalism, private property rights, and plain common sense. If you disagree with any or all of the political satire on this blog, we apologize for the intellectual abuse inflicted upon you by your university professors.

    (emphasis mine)

    Hidden in plain site! The disclaimer admits the blog to be a parody in an underhanded way.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "True libertarian"; Why did you block my comment containing a thorough debunking of your rather weak arguments?

    There seem to be a lot of you or one person with nothing to do but fuck about making a nuisance of yourself.

    Note; I do not block comments, and if you couldn't get one on, it is your inability to do it properly not any dastardly deed by my hand.

    Blame the loopholes in the public education system you idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  35. True LibertarianMay 17, 2008 at 2:57 AM

    My sincerest apologies to Mr. Jim Friedbrains! You did not block my initial comment. My initial post was way too long so I had to break it up into smaller posts.

    Apparently I am Legion! I guess there are many people posting under the same handle... Actually I am one person, notwithstanding whatever paranoid beliefs emerge from the neocon fantasy world in which you dwell.

    And nobody appreciates your fat elitist ass telling people they do not have anything better than do (a favorite habit of yours) and annoying people. Why do I annoy you? Because you are a retard who can't read. Nobody tells you to get a life because you spend an awful lot of time pretending to be a libertarian making inane arguments. (Or rather quoting parody blogs you believe to be real!)

    So cocksucker, are you going to read my posts and argue that or are you just going to call me an idiot and declare yourself the winner? That's what I thought!

    ReplyDelete