For someone it was never about, Bucky, Ron Paul's name certainly came up an awful lot, and usually in terms reserved for a sort of oracle, as though libertarianism were a religion rather than a set of perspectives on the theory and paractice of government. There are supporters of Obama who take the same tone, I grant you, but I don't remember a UT thread on the subject of Obama running to 800+ comments.

Yes, I saw that thread. You and the cabal were so intent on smearing Ron Paul that I was certain that the keyboards you and lwm were using would melt. It was a positive hoot to see. If you will recall there were posters who came from all over the place when Glenn did the post on the Smear Bund having at Dr. Paul.

There's a difference between judging someone unfit to be President and smearing him, and it isn't a subtle one. Ron Paul is a right-wing populist; that makes him unfit to be President in my opinion, ...

You have no idea what Dr. Paul stands for; only the dark imaginations of an old and tired socialist. A strict following of the constitution would bring the empire to an end and would cripple the power of the central government as we know it. Then your adopted state would be the most important political entity in your world --- scary, eh?

I wouldn't have voted for William Jennings Bryan either, although I might well have sympathized with his defense of western entrepreneurs against the established commercial interests of the east. For me, principles which are a barrier to politics are self-defeating, or to put it another way, you can't win 'em all.

The principal is simple. As the Dalia Lama wrote in the book I am presently reading; it is never morally permissible to use force at any level. That is a paraphrase, he writes it so much better than I.

Only voluntary cooperation is allowed if we are to be fully human; if we are to be the most happy; if we are to make the most progress. That is just the way it is. No need for an old fellow who worked for the government all his life like you to agree -- it is just what it is.

The negotiation between principle and effectiveness is a constant, private negotiation; when the stakes are high enough, it can even resemble a war, and it can definitely produce casualties -- ask GoodCelery, whom you refer to, quite unfairly in my opinion, as the vegetable. Much has been written about these negotiations, a lot of it far wiser than most of what's offered in the comments here. In the end, though, when one has consulted such wisdom as is available, decisions have to be made. Those who avoid them, or defer them, are rarely entitled to the respect that they demand from others.

-- William Timberman

This is worst gibberish than anyone on the board has done in a long time; including the vegetable. BTW, when Mr. James stops his little personal attacks that no one else seems to mind, then I'll stop referring to his handle.

There is no negotiation with principle. The use of force by thugs in a government uniform is just as wrong as when armed thugs invade your home and kill your wife. There can be no compromise with slavery; nor with force, coercion, or fraud. It is axiomatic.

That government that governs the least governs the best; and the best is none at all. Till there comes a day when 'no government' is tried on this planet, then we work for the least government that can be obtained.

If you would open those old eyes and look around, you would see that the central government has been brutalizing the people for a lot longer than just the last seven years. Just the justice department itself is a crime against humanity and has been horrible at least since that god damn Nixon.

http://www.counterpunch.org/reed04072008.html

By ISHMAEL REED comes the best essay of the year. Sorry Gleen.

It about the press, Obama, whites, blacks , and the Irish. It is one fine, uplifting, and informative piece.

(yes, it is from a hard left site; if that really matters to anyone)

Why did you just make that shit up? William has never tried to tell me what you claimed he did. Now you want to just post crap to ward off the truth as if you were a 3rd grader covering her ears and singing.

Well pal, you told a whopper.

"Like you, I find this Ron-Paul-is-the-onliest-one-who-gets-it nonsense hard to take, as I do complaints about the lack of freedom from people barricaded inside their houses." --WT

It was never about Ron Paul the man, that is what baffles you. It was about the idea. The idea will continue and someone else will tap that vein of freedom loving among the people.

The Libertarian Party is of no use according to most libertarians; but it is possible that they will stop playing at being a party and try to win. I wager that Classic liberals, Classic conservatives, and Laissez-faire libertarians may well band together to form a real force in politics in this country --- or the empire just fails and the country falls apart.

However, the continual smears of an old Doctor that wants to end the empire will not put an end to the hatred of the central government. The USA government is as deserving of respect as the Soviet government was and for many of the same reasons.

The same kind of people who smear Paul are smearing Obama; and for almost the same reason. I'll let you work it out.