Too funny!

"There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but [David Friedman is] not one of them."

But (don't you just hate that?), I noticed, and a few others noticed that Cohen's article would have been completely different if Scooty had been a democrat, don't you think?

Oh well, that's not really your point, anyway, since the essay is really about the mindset of these foolish beltway pundits.

I thought Ace of Spades' stuff might have been satire, but I wasn't sure. It does get difficult to tell sometimes. Still, I tend to wonder when someone is really over-the-top. I had to laugh at Holly's (it was her, I think) comment that she'll never understand men.

As far as Bucky1, I've missed too much of the prior commentaries to understand the vituperativeness of the responses in both directions, so I'll withhold judgment, except on one thing: why the strong interest in which candidate other people here are backing (assuming everyone has made up their mind, which I suspect is not a safe assumption)? You stray into projection by assigning motives to why people are not saying who they'll back. I think you're probably a good guy with good motives (I base that on your well-spoken comment that Mr. Greenwald probably doesn't want people worshipping what he says), though perhaps your ability to express them needs a bit of honing. Maybe calm down, take a breath, and try again without doing any projecting? It really is a mistake that will cloud anything you say.

There's probably a lot of suspicion about Libertarians because far too often they're just right-wing republicans afraid to call themselves that (for whatever reason), as becomes clear when they start trying to curb the right of women to make reproductive choices, the rights of gay people, etc. Their only correspondence to Libertarian philosophy is typically their attitude towards taxation.

Overall, the respondents to Mr. Greenwald's writings are about the best I've ever come across on the internet. Gives me a small measure of hope for our country.

--Ron Robertson

...what else? Clinton.

Compare Scooter Libby (perjury about the destruction of a part of the CIA) to Bubba Clinton (purgery about a blowjob).

To prove hypocracy, you often have to compare apples to apples, and here it is. Look at the fools who are defending Scooter who demanded Bubba's resignation.

LOL good deconstruction of R Cohen's infuriating piece. What you said really needed to be said. However, and if someone has already noted this, my apologies, Patrick Fitzgerald is not a Republican: he's nothing. He was independent till he found out that was an organized party. He really is apolitical, or at least gives no clues whatsoever what his political inclinations might be.

Glenn, you're doing good work. Keep fighting. And thanks.

PD: "You said what you said, you were called on it, you denied saying it, then you said it again and now you're daring us to prove that what you denied saying isn't true."

Paul, my fine fellow, let me tell you about the concept of time. It is linear to we mortals, and things do change over time.

I'll give you an example. I wrote that it seemed like no one here would give the name of a candidate that they favored and that it seemed like everyone was waiting on Glenn. I went even further and wrote that, if true, how sad would that be. I was an observation about appearances then; but as days go on and others bring it up continually I begin to see that it is probable with the small select crew who attacked me upon my mentioning my candidate. If those facts say 'pathetic' to your ears then so be it.

I can support Dennis Kucinich who is running now and will more than likely vote for him if Paul is already out of the race here. I still hold out hope for Gore to run, and win again. To say one can support a candidate does not open one for attack unless you already have a cabal at your heels; it is easy since we already know they will all disappoint in the end.

And lastly, did you not see LWM beg the other Paul to start another fight today? It looks like you think that I should just cower in the darkness and be quiet. I know the prevailing wisdom is to ignore the slander and hope it goes away, but that is not in my genetic makeup. So, on days when there is no Tom for the group to hate, one of the cabal will try to get me involved and then cry out that Bucky got involved.

Yes Kitt, I have no doubt that she is very smart and can take care of herself. She attacked Ron Paul because he is 'bad for women' in her mind. She also thinks it is absurd that anyone would think that there is even a small chance, that someone here could believe that the cabal that attacked me was afraid to pick a candidate.

So, after she wrote me and used the phrase, I asked her to prove that a cabal member could pick and defend a candidate.

Can you?

No. I really don't give a fig what you think, and my thoughts I share at my pleasure. Not to mention, I have no desire for any 'conversation' with you. Prove you are right. Or STFU.

But Arne my fellow, I did not bring it up again. You joined in the attack crew and hurled invective that it is impossible that none one but Bucky could name a candidate without a lead.

So now you cuss and get mad --- protest too much as the bard might say today.

Now we need a term to describe arguments that devolve into liberarians throwing sand in everyone else's eyes... but we'll naturally have to use some other name for the corollary.

What? You can not have missed that for weeks I only answer back in these fights. It is the cabal trowing sand at me.

It is like the fellow on this thread who claimed I might use the word 'libertarian' too much; when it is your crew that uses the word a few hundred times a day to go on the attack. Need a mirror?