St. Paul:

Bucky1 can't get that we are not bound together by ideological purity, but by recognition of quality insights and arguments. "Quality" not meaning that we agree with them, necessarily, but that they contribute to the ongoing fruitful tension perspectives.

As Alfred North Whitehead famously said, "It's more important for an idea to be intersting, than for it to be true."

I see no evidence of that here; nor did I at Glenn's old blog. In fact, you and William asked a couple of "litmus test" questions in the first dust-up a few weekends ago. The position I took made me [fill in favorite cuss word here] and we were all off to the races.

Paul, you are the most ideologically hidebound member of the cast --- and you can not see it. Well, no surprises there.

In fact, people like you make me fear that we can not defeat the current GOP because you are the very image that the radio gas-bags use to scare the rubes.

Romney just “smells great!” says Alina Cho of CNN. Story (and video) at Crooks&Liars.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/19/romney-just-smells-great/

(1) Bucky1 is a deluded whackjob extremist who supports the racist Ron Paul for president, and devotes enormous energy and invective to arguing that Republicans and Democrats are all the same, and that the state is the root of all evil. His attacks on LBJ as pure evil are all of a piece with his whackjob extremist POV, and thus cannot stand up to any examination of the evidence. Which is why he repeatedly ignores any evidence I produce.

(2) The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are quite different, though by no means as different as I or most of us would wish. In international terms, the Republicans are a rightwing party (listing to far right in recent years), while the Democrats are a centrist party. This is a difference, and it is real. The Democrats' liberal wing, when it has been robust, has been close to a moderately leftwing party in other countries, and LBJ's domestic policies approached this position, particularly with the establishment of Medicare, which cut the over-65 poverty rate in half in less than a decade.

I see the local hit squad had no one to hate today and I got elected. Yea! I won.

on #1) I see famous people on the left, middle and right going for the peace and small government message of Ron Paul, but Paul Rosenberg is so full of hate that he misses no opportunity to smear a man by slanderous tactics. You also seemed to have missed the one I posted where Reason claimed, "Ron Paul, for the People" and did a fine writeup of him.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120767.html

One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense. He’s willing to leave all sorts of things to the states rather than imposing small-government solutions from the top down. He represents—or should, to most thinking voters—little in the way of a threat to their interests, insomuch as their interests don’t involve living off the federal teat or using federal power to their advantage. As Paul told me when I interviewed him for my book Radicals for Capitalism, “the freedom philosophy shouldn’t be challenging to too many people, when you emphasize that all I want to do is leave you alone.”

As to evidence; Paul you never produce evidence. You produce vile invective and your weird personal opinions; and the occasional fringe author you dig up.

on #2) The Democrats and Republicans are not all that different; two groups who love to get the full force of government behind them to enforce their concept of what others should do. Both groups are pro-war; they just differ on who to kill. Clinton was not unwilling to bomb innocent men, women, and children. The Democrats do not need to fear being called "weak" as Democrat presidents have shown a great willingness to go to war.

Conclusion: Paul Rosenberg is an intellectual lightweight and coward who needs to continually slander and attack with his little toady posse right behind him. He will now whine that I have gone too far and gotten personal as if no one could possible see who hurled invective and slander first. Evidence? Every day, I just respond to the mindless slander they hurl.

I can not just live here like the two of them (LWM and his "Anonymous sock-puppet; as well as Paul), but I'll check in.

Trollery, as I have come to understand the term, is the hurling of invective for no purpose other than that of a boy with a stick, poking a hornet's nest. The outcome, generally, is the same: much noise and activity, resulting in the poker getting hurt and wailing about the unfairness of it all.

So, I take it that you agree that the daily name calling by LWM, his "Anonymous" persona, and Paul make them trolls.

Or, are you one of those who believe that they "insiders" may say anything and the "other" should just take it?

The short version of his thoughts:

A troll is one who Paul R. hates; simple really.

... a real libertarian, please, and get off the big-government-founded internet, stop using the words you learned in big-government-subsidized schools, and shove Ron Paul up your big-government-protected ass.

Are you saying that you do not believe that there would be electronics unless armed thugs stole money from the poor to fund projects you like? Weird.

Just remember one thing; "libertarian" is the name used to describe real "liberals" and not collectivist thugs; and I write that with all the sincerity in the world.

Yes, but I read the Instaputz which is a totally different experience.

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/