Worst vice being advice and other caveats being duly noted: A few thoughts, here, libertarian to libertarian:

1. There are times when libertarianism is relevant to the conversation. And times when it's not, no? There's a time to let your libertarian freak flag fly, and a time to join (or observe) the conversation on its own terms. Some folks in these discussions make a hobby out of inchoate rage, true, but some of them are annoyed at you because you try to make every conversation about libertarianism.

2. Ron Paul is not happening. There's a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that's unfair. There's also a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that isn't unfair. He'd be lucky to be the James Baird Weaver of this election, if not the Andre Marrou. Who? Exactly.

3. There's a reason why libertarians have this funny reputation for being Johnny-One-Notes forever banging the spoon on the same theme. That reason is, not to put too fine a point on it, you. (And me, sometimes.) I don't want to be harsh, here, but maybe you should take a deep one, read a couple of chapters from "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," and ask yourself whether this is exactly the right place to be having this fight on a near-daily basis with folks who, for the most part, don't have much of a genuine interest in the ideas you're trying to explore. ...

1) You are mistaken on number one; I just answer back to the attacks. Until the "50 posts of hate" started again today, all I posted was about a bubble-head on CNN. Are you saying that if the local cabal brings it up over and over that I should keep a "respectful silence"?

2) I stated two weeks ago that he was not going to win. I just respond to the slime that the local "nice guys" toss all over the place. I am anti-war first and foremost, for this reason the slanderous hits need to be addressed. I am the only one here that will even support a candidate --- and I've named two; Ron Paul and Al Gore. I was called names personally for naming a candidate. This seems the actions of intellectual cowards to me --- always attacking the man, never the position.

No. It is worse --- it is Republican (Limbaugh) of them to always attack the man.

3) I am not trying to explore; I just answer people who call out my name. If anyone ever asked why I thought a particular position was the best I would share my thoughts, but I was labeled as the 'other' the first time I posted here. The intellectual purity squad does good work, and their tactics are either apparent to you, or not.

Conclusion: I have never been one to evangelize; most people do not care to know the truth. However, if someone wanted to know why the public schools are broken and what we could do to fix them, I would comment. However, until Glenn gives his view, I doubt the local cabal (the ones who live here 24/7) will take a position.

I think the Democrat's best hope is Al Gore. I think the Republican's best hope is Ron Paul. Please note, I did not say that either was their party's best chance to win --- winning is losing sometimes.

he said: ... for the most part, don't have much of a genuine interest in the ideas you're trying to explore.

LWM said: "... bunch-o-crap ..."

Seems to me that you worked hard to start this latest little dust-up. Why pretend that you did not get exactly what you wanted? Even Paul R. was going to leave it alone until you started again ---> "look Paul, you missed one! Please start with Bucky again, cried little toady."

Oh, right --- that would require a spot of honesty from you, now would it not?

So, you are on record as thinking that you and your pals may say just anything, but I should not respond. I knew you thought that, but I wanted to wait until you were real clear that you enjoy LWM start a pissing contest but you want the rules to be 30 -1 and the one should not speak.

You just, once again, proved that I was correct in calling you a liar when you denied having made a statement exactly like the one I just quoted you on. That is why I will have nothing to do with you. You try to belittle the posters here, and then you lie about having attempted to do that. Too much shit for me to put up with.

You are stupid beyond belief; or a liar.

I wrote that it looked like everyone was waiting for Glenn to declare his support days and days ago. "If" you little boy.

After all this time and many people wiggling this way and that --- I now think the cabal (yes, that includes you) are afraid to make a choice. That says it all.

Are you willing to pick a candidate?

What is the average amount of pages of comments before the inevitable infighting over libertarianism or some semantical tangent?

Any guesses/theories?

This has nothing to do with "libertarianism" at all. It is about the need of one small group of cowards to have someone to hate.

However, until Glenn gives his view, I doubt the local cabal (the ones who live here 24/7) will take a position.

Just goes to show you're truly clueless.

Cheers,

Then prove me wrong! We are in the campaign season --- who can you say you support?

I am not afraid to make a choice; I was labeled as [fill in cuss word here] for doing so -- but I just read Glenn, I do not worship. I doubt such a guy as Glenn would even want people to do so.