The lord may know, but he is not talking about it today. I also prefer to here Mona speak for herself. (especially after some of the things she has written about you [WT]) :-)

Just to be cear, I generally like William, at least what I know of his online persona and intellect. LWM is another matter -- he literally makes crap up, and accuses me and others of things he cannot possibly have any basis to believe, and also ascribes positions to some libertarians that a casual familiarity with their writing utterly contradicts.

He doesn't care; he wants to turn the comments section into a war on libertarians, and for that reason I'm ignoring him again, except to point out why I do so, and that failure to address any of his further "substance" is not acquiescence.

You are a Rothabrdian, as I understand it. I'm not, I'm a Hayekian. While there are some strong confluences, there are also significant differences. But neither those differences, nor libertarians v. All the Rest of Glenn's Commenters, is normally what should go on here. It has happened far too often, and in my strong opinion that should decline significantly, if not cease altogether.

They are all just labels. The real issue is where a human stands on policy.

To a significant degree that is true. But here -- and at a few other blogs -- the very second one identifies as a libertarian, no matter how much one may agree that the Iraq war and the Bush Administration are abominations, all rational thought becomes suspended in some of the commenters. WE only care about ourselves, are just Republicans who want to smoke dope, and favor corporation power (which all libertarians know is an effing joke, given the corrupt collusion between Big Business and the govt) & etc.

It reminds me of era when the country was fighting over civil rights and the end of Jim Crow. The Communist Party USA strongly stood for the end of Jim Crowl, and so it became sickeningly frequent for anyone who also advocated such positions to be labeled a Communist. Even if a Stalinist organization like the CPUSA favored the right thing in a given instance, it did not mean non-Communists could not share that position for principled, non-Stalinist reasons. So too, libertarians sometimes -- but only SOMETIMES -- end up on the side of business, but not for unprincipled reasons.

But it just stupid to debate all this stuff in comments here, and to keep taking LWM's bait. Really, he isn't worth it, and the quality of discussion is vastly improved if we refuse to jump though his hoops.

Just as I do not blame all the many mistakes of the Democratic Party and everyone who self identifies as a Democrats on you or your leader William; I expect the two of you to stop this insane, ridiculous attack on Mona.

I agree with all that comment, but I really do wish to emphasize that I do not include William with LWM. WT's "cockroach" comment offended me, but he says he did not mean it the way I took it, and while I still think it was a pretty poor choice of analogies if he didn't intend insult, I believe him. He has a track record that indicates I should.

You quote yahoos and stuff from other blogs or forums as if anyone cares what you think; or that you can cut and paste.

Just so you know, that last cut 'n paste was from a post written by my co-blogger, Jim Henley. Jim -- a libertarian -- asked me on board because we agree on a great deal, and he likes my writing, as I do his.

Moan is still moaning about what is or is not libertarian.(It's my label, not yours, damn it!)

Of course you are correct; Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Goldstein -- Jonah Goldbeg as well -- are real libertarians. WHAT was I thinking?!

Re: No Contradiction: It Was The Wrong Plan But It Was Successful and It Was Working

That was terribly clever and well done -- and nauseatingly accurate.

I imagine you really didn't want it to sound this way, but your comment about Klein's denial of his reading of your post yesterday has a distinct edge of narcissism about it. I think the other poster is correct in saying that I'm sure he's noticed your usage of 'serious' before, but that his article was not prompted by reading your blog.

Wrong. Not "narcissistic." Realistic. Glenn is well aware that has blog is in the A+ category, and one og the top few of the most widely read; that journalists respond to his points, and have done so explicitly and implicitly. I do not believe Klein's denial.

False modesty is not in order when a leading high priest of the corrupt punditocracy is very likely to be responding to one of the highest profile media critics online and off (e.g., Glenn's last book). The specific contents and angst of Klein's post render it highly implausible that he was responding to that lone comment he cites.

And btw, I'm not sure I agree with Glenn about impeaching Gonzales for perjury. It is true that that charge is exceedingly difficult to prove, but it is clear to me that Gonzales lied to Congress. That is not incompatible with pursuing the horror of what these "other" programs he mentioned also are; that is obviously also a matter that ought to be a high priority. So, I disagree with Glenn sometimes, but not on the Klein matter.