Comments on: Ron Paul (Sorta, Kinda) Drops Out Of Presidential Race

By: oilnwater

oilnwater — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:23:29 +0000

this was too funny..

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i31595

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:09:50 +0000

I just wrote a brief editorial why libertarians should now vote for John McCain. I'm going around trying to get the opinion of Paul Supporters. I'd love to hear your comment on my post to let me know what you think. We really need your help. Why Ron Paul Supporters Should Vote For McCain

By: C. Bentley

C. Bentley — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:59:58 +0000

Doug, without Ron Paul quixotic campaign, I would not be educating people. And many others wouldn’t be either.
tone down your ego and give him credit.

By: Nitroadict

Nitroadict — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:48:32 +0000

The problem (as I see it) is that some people generalize what some of CATO’s member’s write / produce as representing CATO in it’s entirety.

I would also point to this as the problem (differences of perspective & subsequent miscommunication) with the way RP supporters may see other Libertarians, as well as vice-versa (for instance: Rockwell does not represent RP supporters per se, etc. etc.).

Not to say everything otherwise would be Hunky Dory, as there are fundamental differences in ideas that kind of split people off into differing factions, but you get my point I think.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:37:27 +0000

I don’t understand both the CATO hate and the implication that Doug is part of some evil conspiracy that always shows up by commenters here. Wouldn’t any libertarian agree with at least 75-80% of what CATO publishes?
And I don’t think Doug or the Liberty Papers are big enough to be part of any machiavellian conspiracies.

By: oilnwater

oilnwater — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:14:59 +0000

you’ve done quite a bit more than that, and you would do quite well to admit it. now, if you would take it a step further and finally forget about Ron Paul and perhaps focus on who you’d like to see representing lib. philosophy on various levels of American govt, you would at least seem more like a person interested in promoting libertarianism’s progression and less like someone who dreams of being a pundit-thingy one day. and much less petty.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:09:17 +0000

Did I not have the right to point out where I disagree with him and why ?

By: oilnwater

oilnwater — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:03:10 +0000

i never said CATO was anti-paul, but as an true adherent to CATO philosophy, or its basic tenets, you are obviously inclined to lambaste him where he parts ways with CATO. also simply for google hits too. it’s not Machiavellian. you aren’t sophisticated enough for that kind of motivation.

By: C. Bentley

C. Bentley — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:01:43 +0000

good point ben.
doug, well I don’t want you to lose 100$. We already HAVE stealth delegates. :)
I’m not betting 100$ on the nomination but I know it is very unlikely Ron Paul will win it. I’m not sure yet if McCain has 1191 legally bound delegates. Nobody knows yet.
remember lincoln

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:58:26 +0000

oilnwater,

And, of course, Ron Paul’s supporters never stooped to the level of spewing out obscenity laden personal attacks against anyone that questioned His Holiness St. Ron (all praise his name).

Except that they did.

Cato never opposed Ron Paul, by the way. David Boaz was on POTUS `08 on XM Radio just yesterday talking about the Presidential candidate and said that Paul was the closest to libertarianism of all the Presidential candidates but that the problems with his campaign and bad organization prevented him from going further than he might have.

By: oilnwater

oilnwater — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:55:28 +0000

ben, i think that all goes awry when you get institutional libertarians, like doug is a CATO institutional libertarian. what doug will do is lambaste figures who represent a view which might be seen as against a tenet of CATO philosophy.

so with that fallout, it’s easy to lose sight of a central tenet of libertarianism that you mentioned: role of govt.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:53:54 +0000

Bentley,

I didn’t say anything about stopping you. You’re free to do what you want and, since we’re all fighting for the same thing (I think), good luck with it.

Not interested in the bet, eh ? ;)

By: C. Bentley

C. Bentley — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:49:53 +0000

maybe he will lose. but you cannot stop me. I’m educating the French, the one nation that gave America its most powerful symbol, the Statue of Liberty.

http://ronpaulsymbole.blogspot.com/

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:45:51 +0000

One thing I never understood was talk of all the factions in libertarianism. The beautiful thing about being a libertarian to me is that there’s room for everyone. I may be an atheist libertine and you may be a church going social conservative, but as libertarians we both agree that the government should leave us to do what we want with our own lives. In turn, neither of us wants to try and shove our own lifestyles down someone else’s throat or use the government to legislate how our neighbords live. I’ve always viewed libertarianism as truly a big tent philosophy. As long as we all believe in maximizing individual freedom and keeping government in check, can’t we all get along?

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:21:58 +0000

Bentley,

I will bet you a $ 100 donation to charity that there will be no stealth delegates, John McCain will be nominated, and, more importantly, Ron Paul won’t.