We write on this blog to incite debate and, in my case, to encourage people to change their thinking.

Comments that consist of swearing at people or incoherent ad-hominem attacks detract from that, and I really have no interest in shelling out money in bandwith costs and storage costs to maintain them.

Oilnwater, you are capable of interesting posts. I seem to remember you contributing interesting information on one of my posts relating to the oil industry. If positive contributions like that were the norm, rather than being a pleasantly surprising exception, I would welcome you. Moreover, I am always ready to have my mind changed by a superior argument. Believe it or not, I was once a Goldwater conservative. I became a Rothbardian anarchist thanks to people arguing with me on the Internet, and losing quite a few arguments on the subject of foreign policy.

This is still a free country, sort of. You are welcome to put up a website and spout whatever angry gibberish you want to spout. If you want to comment on this website, then you follow our rules. Simply put, this means keeping a consistent handle, writing stuff that adds to the discourse, and not advertising marital aids.

To date, only two people have been banned, and they had to work hard at it:
1) Eric Dondero (who in effect accused us of being too supportive of Ron Paul)
2) Some guy who started a long conversation with himself posting under multiple handles to make it seem like his brand of crazy was in wide demand.

Don’t become the third. Recapture the moments last summer when you were writing stuff that was triggering debate rather than repulsion and eye-rolling. If you do, then we will welcome your dissention.

Use a constant pseudonym.

We’re not afraid of criticism here. We’ve left far more critical comments alone in the past. But when you bounce around from handle to handle, it’s clear that you’re playing games.

You want to have a debate about our reaction to Ron Paul and to Obama? Fine. Do so under the name oilnwater.

Changing your name every few comments makes it impossible for us to know who we’re arguing against. But when we know that you’re playing such games, it’s difficult to take you seriously. When you do that, it’s clear that you’re interested in drive-by sniping, and your comments will be treated as such.

There’s nothing for us to set right. If Ron Paul could campaign his way out of a paper bag, he might have had a shot. But frankly, the stage he was applying for was too big for him. In fact, he honestly seemed surprised that people actualy agreed with his policies — I don’t think he knew how to handle the response.

So instead, we got the slick-talking guy with a good story but no experience, and far worse politics. If you lay the cause for that on our feet, I think you’re dramatically overstating our significance. Either way, nothing precludes us from arguing against the guy now that he’s elected, which is what we were expecting to do since he was nominated.

Look at all the instances where government gets involve…it creates an un-even playing field and rewards failure. In addition, it is a slap in the face to those who have worked hard and made better decisions. I am seriously considering not making my mortgage payment and maxing my credit cards so I will qualify for some bailout programs…that is the result of hanging a carrot on a horrible policy.

I do not fear having to ask my family if I can move in with them, I do not fear taking a lower paying job. I do fear government making life risk free….there is always a cost to it.

Steve

Republicans are the frustrating bunch. They’ve got principles when they’re out of power, but they try to out-Dem the Democrats when they’re in power.

You sir are a moron, a drooling simpleton. Do you honestly think that we embraced Obama over Ron Paul? If so, I pity you; it demonstrates that your intelligence is so low that you are only fit for politics or the welfare rolls.

Ron Paul was unacceptable because he tried to garner support by inciting racist fears amongst the people he sought to govern. And no, it wasn’t in 1996, but as recently as 2007 when he sent out those flyers with a MS-13 gang-member pictured prominently while babbling some bullshit about Social Security benefits.

The fact that Ron Paul surrounded himself with incompetent staffers and ran an ineffective campaign is not our fault. The fact that he resorted to race-baiting is not our fault.

I encourage you to quit your temper tantrum and pound sand. You rarely add anything to discussions other than peevish, incoherent rants. You are wasting your time writing them, and our readers’ time reading them.

Please try to keep a constant pseudonym if you’re going to come around attacking us. I know you’re still hung up on Ron Paul, but everyone else has moved on.

And why not? It’s a proven tactic. “Don’t look at this too closely! It’s an emergency! Just sign here! Hurry!!”

Ironically, these pigs in a poke actually do contain the advertised pork.

Both the stimulus and PATRIOT ACT are horrible…

But I ask you, what are the chances of total world annihilation when we tell the Chinese we’re not paying them back (at least not in dollars worth anything)?