Maybe Patrick Ruffini is a Libertarian

Because I think he is smoking pot:

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.

Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up.

Ron Paul opposes everything the GOP has stood for the past few years. His popularity is not causing a resurgence of libertarianism in the GOP, it is caused by a general disgust WITH the GOP. If Ruffini would check Hugh’s archives where he wrote this, he will see what the party apparatchiks think of Paul and Paul supporters. He can also check at Red State, where he used to write.

The rise of Paul is not going to cause a surge in libertarianism in the Republican party. The rise of Ron Paul is due to his filling the void in a party filled with moralists, in-your-face social cons, warmongerers, and authoritarians. The only libertarians currently in the GOP are folks who are either too stupid or too cowardly to admit they are Bush dead-enders and think ‘libertarian’ sounds cool, or those hoping sometime the party will regain its sanity. Actual libertarians find their home in places that actually embrace libertarian ideals- the Libertarian party, as registered Independents, or as conservative Democrats.

We’ll just chalk Ruffini’s post up to analysis by anecdote and wishful thinking. If anything, the treatment of Paul by the GOP has pushed libertarians out of the party.

*** Update ***

And if anyone wants to have fun with this quote, have at it:

Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy…

I know when I think of skepticism to the overreaches of this administration and the Homeland Security Department and the recent privacy issues, the first person I think of is Glenn Reynolds.

*** Update #2 ***

Just go read Sullivan.






61 replies
  1. 1
    gypsy howell says:

    If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up.

    Well, I’m pretty sure that’s NOT possible.

  2. 2
    Pb says:

    If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian

    Nope. Now keep Patrick away from the crayons.

  3. 3
    KCinDC says:

    Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy

    Is that anything like Joe Liebermanish skepticism about the wisdom of attacking Iran?

  4. 4
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    The shorter Ruffini:

    “Huh, huh! I like the no-taxes part.”

  5. 5
    Tim F. says:

    Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy

    I feel pretty bad about eating that last piece of pizza, but not bad enough not to eat another one.

  6. 6
    Shabbazz says:

    Pro-life and Pro-war. A textbook example of Orwellian Double Speak.

  7. 7
    RSA says:

    If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. . . Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.

    Hmm. George Orwell would be pleased. I see Miniluv, Minipax, and Minitrue, but because we’re free-market libertarians, there’s no Miniplenty.

  8. 8
    RSA says:

    Oops. Shabbazz beat me to the point.

  9. 9
    Tsulagi says:

    Ron Paul opposes everything the GOP has stood for the past few years. His popularity is not causing a resurgence of libertarianism in the GOP, it is caused by a general disgust WITH the GOP.

    Yep.

    The only libertarians currently in the GOP are folks who are either too stupid or too cowardly to admit they are Bush dead-enders and think ‘libertarian’ sounds cool, or those hoping sometime the party will regain its sanity.

    Yep squared.

    In other Ron Paul news, he just picked up the endorsement of the BunnyRanch in NV and the ladies like Air Force Amy are enthusiastic. When asked about it…

    Paul spokesman Jeff Greenspan say while Paul does not personally condone prostitution, the candidate does not think it’s the role of the federal government to regulate such activity.

    The dude is looking better all the time. Go Ron Paul!

  10. 10
    cleek says:

    If they’re serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.

    hmmm… that sounds familiar. i wonder if anyone else has ever tried to tell libertarians what they should think ?

  11. 11
    Jake says:

    Ron Paul opposes everything the GOP has stood for the past few years.

    O RLY?

  12. 12
    superdestroyer says:

    Isn’t the problem is that there is no place for a small l libertarian. The Republicans abandoned the idea when they became the majority. The Democratic party has no crediblity talking about libertarian ideas when they in front of the Supreme Court arguing for more race based busing in the Seattle and Louisville schools. And last, there is not place for them in the Libertarian Party who seem to be a collection of people with gold coins in their safety deposit box or marijuana growing in their basement.

  13. 13
    Alan says:

    I’ve never been able to square Paul’s libertarianism with his forced pregnancy/no choice stance. But then lots of “conservatives” tell me it doesn’t conflict with that limited government thingy either.

  14. 14
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    And last, there is not place for them in the Libertarian Party who seem to be a collection of people with gold coins in their safety deposit box or marijuana growing in their basement.

    Hell, where do I sign?

  15. 15
    capelza says:

    Meh…I am at heart an anarchist. But I live in a country of 300 million people, the vast majority of whom do not want that kind of freedom. Libertarianism is dead in the water. Too many people, it would be chaos..and while I might relish that, it would suck for most people. Including a lot of the theoretical Libertarians.

    I aslo notice that a lot of people who are really Republicans call themsleves “libertarian”, because it seems so edgy and less sheeplike.

  16. 16
    robertognome says:

    Why on earth would I go read Sullivan? Worthless, self-hating, gay conservative who is wrong MOST of the time about nearly everything? John, now that you are nominally one of us, it’s time to realize that your old fellow travelers are still dishonest and refuse to allow facts to inform their opinions. With his track record, I wouldn’t follow Sullivan’s advice on anything. Or care about his opinion. He has forfeited any leeway on my part. He is demonstrably racist (Bell Curve apologist), demonstrably imperialist (Bush apologist), demonstrably self hating (votes for anti-gay politicians while being gay). So who cares what he thinks?

  17. 17

    “If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up.”

    Sure. It’s called being a Republican.

    As I have said so many times already, 99% of “libertarians” are kids who needed a cool word to disguise their right-wing conservatism so they could smoke pot and actually have a chance at getting laid in college.

  18. 18

    I know when I think of skepticism to the overreaches of this administration and the Homeland Security Department and the recent privacy issues, the first person I think of is Glenn Reynolds.

    That’s funny. I always think of Don Surber….

  19. 19
    SDM says:

    One note: Ron Paul actually is an “in-your-face social con.”

    I wonder about Ron Paul – I think he taps into a small number of healthy impulses in U.S. politics and quite a good number of unhealthy ones, and I worry about people’s enthusiasm for the former blinding them to the latter.

    Also, August is 100% correct. “Libertarian” is often a synonym for “right-wing douchebag who wants to hide his right-wing douchebaggery.”

  20. 20

    […] John Cole: Maybe Patrick Ruffini is a Libertarian… […]

  21. 21
    sal says:

    Maybe Patrick Ruffini writes as Patrick Ruffini, plus six.

  22. 22
    A different Matt says:

    I totally disagree with this:

    Why on earth would I go read Sullivan? Worthless, self-hating, gay conservative who is wrong MOST of the time about nearly everything? John, now that you are nominally one of us, it’s time to realize that your old fellow travelers are still dishonest and refuse to allow facts to inform their opinions. With his track record, I wouldn’t follow Sullivan’s advice on anything. Or care about his opinion. He has forfeited any leeway on my part. He is demonstrably racist (Bell Curve apologist), demonstrably imperialist (Bush apologist), demonstrably self hating (votes for anti-gay politicians while being gay). So who cares what he thinks?

    Look, Sully’s a smart guy. He still seems behind the curve by that nurture v nature issue- but I attribute that more to WASP privilege than any malicious intent. He’s not advocating any policies, I don’t think, he’s just a bit simple when it comes to the science of race. When it comes to political theory and projecting his fears into The Other, Sully’s quite illuminating.

  23. 23
    Zifnab says:

    Meh…I am at heart an anarchist.

    Move to Somalia.

  24. 24
    capelza says:

    Zinfab…hence my bowing to the majority in this country and playing along nice and all. I love my woods and water that is called the PNW…so do a lot of other people. It’s that getting along thing. I want to stay here, so I engage and recognise that not everyone wants to live like I do.

  25. 25
    robertognome says:

    Sorry, different Matt, but Sullivan isn’t worth crap. I’ve seen him speak and I’ve read his drivel. He’s not simple on race, he is simplistic on nearly everything I have ever seen him comment on. When not simplistic, he writes VOLUMES explaining the tenability of his untenable positions. One day, when I realized I was arguing MORE EMPHATICALLY how right I was when I was, in fact, wrong about thing I was arguing about, I gained the ability to recognize this trait in myself and others. I don’t wish to do the reading to come up with examples in Sullivan’s work, but I have noted this tendency in him. One of his Maher appearances had a few examples, but frankly he bores me too much to bother looking it up. Sullivan provides no insight that couldn’t be found by reading someone who thinks his positions through rather than one who comes off the top of his head. I give no credence to anti-gay gays. I give no credence to Bush apologists. I give no credence to ignorance pontificating wrongly on race issues. Now, Sullivan isn’t the only one I feel this way about, but he is DEFINITELY one of the ones who, if I find myself agreeing with, I question my OWN thinking. Kevin Drum is another. Most of the others in the past in the blogosphere that fit this type of thinking have left off. The full on righties DON’T fit as they are simply wrong ALL the time, as they don’t even try to truly compose an argument. Sullivan is weak. He has proven himself willing to reason away the crimes of Bushco, because of his conservative “philosophy”. Screw him. Screw Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum and all former or present “liberal hawks” If I leave someone out, sorry. But I’m one of the 9% who were NEVER wrong about Bush. I’m happy the rest of you in the 72% have come around, but maybe you should STFU and listen to ME and MY fellow sane ones instead of telling us how we were right for the wrong reasons, or some new convert has something to tell me. Mr Cole here has opened his reasoning process over quite a period and it has been pleasant watching him change his mind. But the fact is, the 9% are the only ones with any real credibility. If you were EVER for the war, STFU. If you were EVER for tax cuts for the rich, STFU. If you were EVER for the new Medicare, STFU. If I am leaving out any post-Reagan Republican policies or actions sorry, but STFU. You assholes have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the last 40 years, maybe longer. So if you disagree with me that Sullivan is worthless, STFU, because I don’t give a damn.

  26. 26
    Psycheout says:

    What? Nothing about Hillary’s affair and the fact that she is trailing the Republicans? I wonder why….

    Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

  27. 27
    guerilla says:

    “As I have said so many times already, 99% of “libertarians” are kids who needed a cool word to disguise their right-wing conservatism so they could smoke pot and actually have a chance at getting laid in college.”

    I assume you are also talking about Goldwater (Jr. & Sr.), and Reagan (before he was President).

    Believe it or not, the Republican Party existed before the Bushes and the Gulf War.

  28. 28
    Tom Hilton says:

    Ron Paul opposes everything the GOP has stood for the past few years.

    Jake beat me to this, but really–not so much. With the exception of the Iraq War (and certain GWOT-related program activities), his positions are squarely off the deep end of conservatism, just like the GOP as a whole.

    And any Democrats who might be suckered by the one issue on which he differs with his party really need to read this.

  29. 29
    Tom Hilton says:

    I wonder about Ron Paul – I think he taps into a small number of healthy impulses in U.S. politics and quite a good number of unhealthy ones, and I worry about people’s enthusiasm for the former blinding them to the latter.

    That’s a really good way to put it.

  30. 30
    Splitting Image says:

    “What? Nothing about Hillary’s affair and the fact that she is trailing the Republicans? I wonder why….”

    …Because the author does other research besides Google searching Ms Clinton?

  31. 31
    libarbarian says:

    Is that anything like Joe Liebermanish skepticism about the wisdom of attacking Iran?

    I think its closer to Podhoretzesque skepticism.

  32. 32
    libarbarian says:

    If you were EVER for the war, STFU. If you were EVER for tax cuts for the rich, STFU. If you were EVER for the new Medicare, STFU. If I am leaving out any post-Reagan Republican policies or actions sorry, but STFU. You assholes have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the last 40 years, maybe longer. So if you disagree with me that Sullivan is worthless, STFU

    If you hate Republicans so much why do you act and think just like them?

    Anyone who can’t

  33. 33

    Look, robertognome,
    I may be a member of that 9% and my track record may be damn near perfect except early support of NAFTA, but calling out every person who had trust in the federal government’s representation of Iraq is simply consigning people who do not deserve it to the netherworld of STFU. John Cole’s credibility is improved by the fact that he has questions ordinary assumptions in his circles and found them wanting and why they are wanting.

    People do make mistakes and when they acknowledge them and overcome them it is generally a better person who emerges. I also find political benefit from watching them deconstruct the reasoning and policies of my opposition, I learn. It’s not enough to be right, winning while being right counts for more and you don’t win from being frozen in place – even when you’ve been right.

    Sully underwhelms me, for various reasoning flaws.

  34. 34
    robertognome says:

    libarbarian, screw you. They have been wrong about every policy since they took over the government in 1968. Not being nice about it is not evidence of my “acting like a republican”. I don’t have to lie and fudge figures and redefine terms in order to “prove” my arguments. Cf: Limbaugh, Hannity, Gibson, Kramer, Novak, Bush, Cheney, Rice, need I go on? Sullivan is the very DEFINITION of useful idiot to these types. They tolerate the log cabinettes, the token negroes, (and if you don’t think they are simply tokens, ask yourself who elected Condi or Colin or Thomas? Or why don’t they seem to have any black friends?), the libertarians, the Christians, or what have you until they get the power then it’s all them and screw you. I’m sorry you can’t see that. The facts are simply true that when liberals ran the country from 1933-1968, life was better for more people. Since then it has been progressively less progressive, accelerating under Reagan and driven to ridiculous depths by the current fascist regime. And you think I am acting republican when I tell the latecomers to sanity to shut the fuck up? Screw you.

  35. 35
    robertognome says:

    Chuck, that is my point. He has reasoning flaws. He is usually wrong. It is his writing and speaking that convinced me of this, not some hatred of republicans. As I said, I am happy for the rest of the 72% coming to their senses. But, Sully ain’t one of them. He is STILL an idiot with a wide vocabulary. People who acknowledge mistakes are to be admired. Don’t then become an evangelistical non-smoker type. I was just ranting against a type that you are fully aware exists, and not speaking of anyone specifically, except the ones I mentioned. And ALL of them are people I read in the past regularly. It is their own words that convince me to no longer care much what they say, their own support of completely shitty positions on quite serious issues and so on. Change of mind is good. Sully just pisses me off and gets me going on the general subject of the Maureen Dowds and other such supposedly liberal types that contributed so mightily to the coronation of Bush. If that means I am now a republican because I give no credence to morons, I am at a loss.

  36. 36
    capelza says:

    robertgnome…the bile is not good for your health.

    You get more flies with honey. Etc, etc….

    Do you want to new votes for change or are you simply happy to wallow in your purity and go all dog in the manger and spit in the face of people who’s worldview took longer to come to clarity.

    I too have been one of the 9% (whatever that means), but I am not going to kick people who came to the realisation late. Telling them to STFU might make YOU feel better, but it doesn’t help.

  37. 37

    Yikes. I was going to try to say something clever but robertognome just scared the snark out of me.

  38. 38
    robertognome says:

    capelza, my health is just fine. And yes, they should be quiet and listen. That is how you learn. They have been MONSTROUSLY wrong for 40 years. Now that the fruits of their damned aristocratic philosophy are coming back to haunt them, they want to come over to the Dirty Fucking Hippies for shelter. Well, I didn’t take kindly to draft dodgers denigrating my honorable discharge and calling me a traitor. I didn’t take kindly to the rewrite of history that there were no atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam and George Bush is a war hero. I didn’t take kindly to impeachment for blow jobs. I didn’t take kindly to Gulf War I and ITS lies. I didn’t take kindly to Iran Contra. I didn’t take kindly to the robbery of the treasury and the privatizing of the commons. I didn’t take kindly to the October surprise. Goddammit, they are WRONG ABOUT FUCKING EVERYTHING. And I should be nice about it? Why? I haven’t yet been nice about it and minds changed anyway. And surprise, surprise, even some of those I rudely told to fuck off are among them. Catching flies with honey means you have a shitload of flies. More honey, more flies. NO HONEY NO FLIES is better. Keep the outside of the honey jar clean and keep the lid on. Then you get no flies. Or ants. Or mice. Being nice to them just brings more. If I hadn’t been proven right in this opinion over and over, I would change it. Do you think being nice to Bush would change his mind? Reasoned discourse? How about Limbaugh? How about the dumbass redneck down the street? How about the skinhead nazi? I’m through being nice to them. Which DOESN’T mean I want to kill ’em all. I just want them to shut up and learn. You can’t hear when you are speaking.

  39. 39
    robertognome says:

    We are on the edge of economic meltdown. The economic conservatives are the ones that caused what is going to come. We are at the edge of a new world war. The social conservatives are the ones who caused that. We have the worst literacy rate, the highest infant mortality and shortest life span in the industrialized world. We are actively disliked by about half the world and the other half doesn’t really like us anymore either. And these people who put Bush in power, which includes EVERYONE who voted for him or degraded Gore in print or on TV and all the other stuff are responsible for it all. Frankly, yes, they need to shut up and learn. When your vote aligns with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old. When you align with those that believe abortion is murder but there should be no penalty for the murderer. When your vote aligns with those who think corporations can regulate themselves 100% of the time. When you agree with a Randian. A libertarian. A warhawk. ALL THESE THINGS SHOULD CAUSE YOU TO FLEE. If it didn’t and you went along with these things, yes. STFU. You have proven to have poor critical thinking skills and you should allow others to speak.

  40. 40
    robertognome says:

    And I smoke pot. So I didn’t really like the crack at the head of the article. It’s California and it’s legal and it’s time to stop with the pot makes you stupid jokes. If Dick Cheney is any indication, NOT smoking pot makes you stupid. Feith, anyone? Not to be a pot evangelist, either, just sayin’.

  41. 41
    The Other Andrew says:

    If we can thank Bush for anything, it’s getting conservatism hooked on big government and thus killing off its youthful flirtation with glibertarianism. I say this with tongue only partially in-cheek. The bottom line is that necessary stuff–the military, the social safety net–takes up so much of the budget that “small government” is out of the question. We should always strive for effectiveness and “leanness” (i.e., try to cut out the corporate pork and others abusing the system), but big government is the reality from here on out, simply because of our population size and the complexities of our infrastructure.

    If–and it’s a big if–Democrats can stay mostly ethical and manage this system well, I think they could be in the majority for decades, given the GOP’s foreign-policy blunders. (The GOP can’t do anything domestically, and with their “look tough but accomplish nothing” foreign policy exposed…)

  42. 42
    capelza says:

    robertgnome…whatever…you are mixing people like Cole and other posters here with Bush and Limbaugh..and yes, Sullivan.

    Whenever you tell someone who has come to see the light to STFU and “learn” you remind me a little too much of the people who from the other side have told me to STFU as well. you’d be amazed at how many “rednecks” will listen when you actually talk to them.

    But bash on regardless. You certainly have the rant down pat.

  43. 43
    robertognome says:

    no, capelza, I didn’t mix up cole with anyone. I was impressed with his change, and said so in my original comment, which is why I come here. I’ve talked to rednecks and made them see. I’m just not nice about it. I ridicule them mercilessly. Not that I needed a role model, but the Rude Pundit would do. And using passive aggressive language about bashing and ranting is just that, passive aggressive. I was “ranting” about things you know exist. It sometimes takes a shock to the system before people see something wrong. And really, leave the lid off the jar of honey. Lots of flies you will catch. I was mainly pointing out that sully is full of shit mostly. So then I get people telling me I am a republican and full of bile. So I write back in detail and I am ranting. Frankly I think the first guy who answered my comment was a troll and I fed him and now he is watching and laughing at us. But whatever. It’s hardly a rant that I have down pat. I rarely write at such length. I am, however capable of observation of effect in the real world. I studied systems analysis and nuclear power in lieu of going to vietnam and thanks to that I have some science under my belt. I’ve been drafted, so I know a little something about involuntary servitude. I didn’t mean John Cole should shut up, because I DO see the change for the positive. It was mainly first that commenter who thought I was a republican for thinking Sully was worthless that started it. I told HIM to stfu. The rest of you seem to thought I have meant YOU. I did express it for a wider audience AFTER that. But the printed page puts more emphasis in some things. I’m more sad at it than anything else.

  44. 44
    crw says:

    So…liberals are still self righteous meddling pricks.
    Conservatives are still delusional, authoritarian assclowns.
    And libertarians borrow a little from column A and a little from column B, and hence are delusional, self righteous assclowns.

  45. 45
    jake says:

    Holy one thousand monkeys Batman! Someone spilled a shipment of meth. in the comments section!

  46. 46
    robertognome says:

    yep, meth and ranting and irrationality. that explains it

  47. 47
    rachel says:

    Gee, I’m in the “9% who’ve never been wrong” too, but I still find robertotroll’s ranting is damnably unpleasant to look at.

  48. 48
    Jess says:

    Gee, I’m in the “9% who’ve never been wrong” too, but I still find robertotroll’s ranting is damnably unpleasant to look at.

    Yeah, it does have an explosive diarrhea aspect to it. But on the other hand, what other group deserves this kind of self-indulgent spew more? And what better place to dump it? Get it out of your system, Roberto, and then if you want to encourage others to see the light, start thinking about strategy.

  49. 49
    mclaren says:

    The rise of Ron Paul is due to his filling the void in a

    party filled with moralists, in-your-face social cons, warmongerers, and authoritarians.

    lynch mob filled with gay pedophiles, narcissistic-personality-disorder Il Duce clones, Columbine-shooters-in-waiting and Jeffrey Dahmer wannabes.

    There. Fixed.

  50. 50
    robertognome says:

    Such fragile flowers over here. You might think I was wrong about the fascist direction this country has taken and the republicans and their enablers that led us to this point. But I’m not. ALL Bush voters were wrong. They were wrong in the 2000 Republican primary, they were wrong in the 2000 general election. Which WAS stolen, now wasn’t it? And where was Sully in the glory days of the Clenis impeachment? Oddly, in that same 27% that still supports Bush. Am I wrong that they scream at us in baldly eliminationist language? No. I’m not. So, really, I don’t see what all your problem is. Don’t like my manners? Not polite enough? That makes me a troll? No, it makes me a Mike Malloy fan. I’m not interested in winning over Wolf Blitzer or Andrew Sullivan, or any other Bush enablers. They put us here. Now they need to get out of the way so we, who they have denigrated for the last 40 years can fix the mess they made. But I’m just a big meany because I use bad words and attempt to explain my position quickly in the limited space of a comment section. I must be on meth. Not ONE of you addressed any of my reasoning, just asserted, one and all that my tone was bilious or I am just letting go a practiced rant. No wonder we can’t get things done. Frankly, I fear GREATLY what the die hard Bushlovers will do when we win in ’08. This is simply not the political climate we are used to. Even in the darkest days of Nixon, there was still a sense that they HAD to respond to the people somewhat. This is uncharted territory, except for the experiences of Germany, Spain, Rome and other ancient cultures that traded republic for empire. It is WHY we have a constitution, to guard specifically against monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy and other forms of arbitrary authoritarian rule. The die hards want to be told what to do, or want to do the telling. I just want those who were wrong to look at why they are wrong. Sullivan is just another of those bloggers who deserve ridicule. Ever see Richard Belzer go after Ann Coulter? He can’t contain his contempt. Well, Sully is just another right wing snot to me, different than Coulter only in degree. He’s one of those that can’t criticize the right without finding an equal fault on the left, regardless of the order of magnitude. But I guess I’m just bilious and bitter and mean, huh?

  51. 51
    rachel says:

    Yeah, it does have an explosive diarrhea aspect to it.

    But then, a Great Block Paragraph of Doom™ usually does.

  52. 52

    Gee, I’m in the “9% who’ve never been wrong” too, but I still find robertotroll’s ranting is damnably unpleasant to look at.

    Add me to this list. It’s okay with me to rant but good lord, stop shouting and learn how to make paragraph breaks.

  53. 53
    libarbarian says:

    And you think I am acting republican when I tell the latecomers to sanity to shut the fuck up? Screw you.

    I’m sure you would like to screw me – since you have decided to act like a Republican you might as well go all the way into anonymous gay sex too.

  54. 54
    jcricket says:

    “Huh, huh! I like the no-taxes part.”

    With the exception of Radley Balko, this is pretty much all Libertarians really believe, when it actually matters.

    They will gladly vote with Republicans on every socially conservative issue, expansion of the police state, etc. They just want to pay no taxes.

    I really wish everyone would stop treating Libertarianism like it’s either important or meaningful. It’s not. It’s about as meaningful as the Socialist Party in America these days.

  55. 55
    libarbarian says:

    I didn’t mean John Cole should shut up

    There are times for progressive policies and times for conservatives ones. The reason these clowns fucked things up is because they didn’t understand this and put ideological purity over empirical reality. Judging from your rhetoric you are just like them and would be about as successful….a progressive Rumsfeld….a Progrumsfeld?

  56. 56
    shaker o salt says:

    Let’s not blame the pot smoking ;-) The guys just plain nuts.

  57. 57
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Screw him. Screw Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum and all former or present “liberal hawks” If I leave someone out, sorry. But I’m one of the 9% who were NEVER wrong about Bush. I’m happy the rest of you in the 72% have come around, but maybe you should STFU and listen to ME and MY fellow sane ones instead of telling us how we were right for the wrong reasons, or some new convert has something to tell me. Mr Cole here has opened his reasoning process over quite a period and it has been pleasant watching him change his mind. But the fact is, the 9% are the only ones with any real credibility. If you were EVER for the war, STFU. If you were EVER for tax cuts for the rich, STFU. If you were EVER for the new Medicare, STFU. If I am leaving out any post-Reagan Republican policies or actions sorry, but STFU. You assholes have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the last 40 years, maybe longer. So if you disagree with me that Sullivan is worthless, STFU, because I don’t give a damn.

    Other than needing to discover paragraph breaks, right on the money.

  58. 58

    Let’s not blame the pot smoking

    Amen, the guy clearly needs to fire up a big fat joint and chill out.

  59. 59
    mds says:

    With the exception of Radley Balko, this is pretty much all Libertarians really believe, when it actually matters.

    Dude, you’d better be willing to consider Jim “Henley” Henley for that exception, too, or I’ll have to get all robertognome on your buttocks.

  60. 60
    Kevin Houston says:

    As I have said so many times already, 99% of “libertarians” are kids who needed a cool word to disguise their right-wing conservatism so they could smoke pot and actually have a chance at getting laid in college.

    I can assure you that calling oneself a libertarian does NOT improve one’s chances of getting laid, in college, or elsewhere. Not even over calling oneself a Republican.

  61. 61

    […] A vicious fisking is in order. Oh wait, its been done. Lets start with the John Cole, who disabuses Patrick of the notion that Ron Paul has been the cause of libertarian rebirth within the GOP. Essentially, Ruffini appears to perpetrate, at best, a correlation to causation fallacy, and at worst a cause and effect reversal: His popularity is not causing a resurgence of libertarianism in the GOP, it is caused by a general disgust WITH the GOP. If Ruffini would check Hughs archives where he wrote this, he will see what the party apparatchiks think of Paul and Paul supporters. He can also check at Red State, where he used to write. The rise of Paul is not going to cause a surge in libertarianism in the Republican party. The rise of Ron Paul is due to his filling the void in a party filled with moralists, in-your-face social cons, warmongerers, and authoritarians. […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] A vicious fisking is in order. Oh wait, its been done. Lets start with the John Cole, who disabuses Patrick of the notion that Ron Paul has been the cause of libertarian rebirth within the GOP. Essentially, Ruffini appears to perpetrate, at best, a correlation to causation fallacy, and at worst a cause and effect reversal: His popularity is not causing a resurgence of libertarianism in the GOP, it is caused by a general disgust WITH the GOP. If Ruffini would check Hughs archives where he wrote this, he will see what the party apparatchiks think of Paul and Paul supporters. He can also check at Red State, where he used to write. The rise of Paul is not going to cause a surge in libertarianism in the Republican party. The rise of Ron Paul is due to his filling the void in a party filled with moralists, in-your-face social cons, warmongerers, and authoritarians. […]

Comments are closed.