Third Party Debate Tonight…

As you may have noticed, one of our sponsors is holding an online debate tonight. Scheduled to participate are: Wayne Allyn Root, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Alan Augustson, and Kat Swift.

Check it out here at 7pm Eastern time.

90 Responses to “Third Party Debate Tonight…”

  1. Alan Augustson Says:

    My home was partially flooded yesterday in a freak storm. I will still do all I can to make tonight’s discussion, but my electricity and communications are off-and-on.

    Thank you—A²

  2. G.E. Smith Says:

    Cool. But make sure it gets over with before So You Think You Can Dance.

  3. G.E. Smith Says:

    AA - You mean you’re not off the gird and running on bio-fuel from your homegrown ogranic corn and free-range chicken manure? Who are you, Al Gore?

  4. koko (moderater of the debate) Says:

    GE SMITH

    Dont you have a TIVO?

  5. G.E. Smith Says:

    Hell yeah. I was just outting myself as a SYTYCD fan. I’ll be watching/listening to the debate.

  6. Ben Miller Says:

    And don’t forget, the THIS IS POLITICS Multi Party debate is Saturday at 8:00 PM (EST) at www.blogtalkradio.com/tip.

    Candidates to attend: Jon Greenspon (New American Ind.), Don Grundmann (Constitution), Christine Smith (Libertarian) and Richard Smith (Republican).

  7. Ben Miller Says:
    • The link in the text does not work because the period is attached to the link.

    The link is www.blogtalkradio.com/tip

  8. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    Okay, TiVo’s set.. I can’t wait for the debate!

  9. Jeremy Brannon Says:

    I just finished listening to the debate. I must say, it seemed far too short, but all of the candidates conducted themselves very well. I think that Root was the most open and vocal, if not a little arrogant. But I was disappointed that Kat Swift did not appear.

  10. Alan Augustson Says:

    I too was disappointed not to hear from Ms. swift (sic).

    Mr. Root was entirely too blustery—too much self-promotion; too little substance. And one more mention of his proposed reality show should have been cue for a Nickelodeon-style sliming.

    However, I was fairly impressed with Mr. Kubby and Mr. Phillies.

  11. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    I have written a thorough review which I’m trying to post at my blog (server maintenance problems).

  12. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    Okay, my review is up. Just click my name to check it out.

  13. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    “And one more mention of his proposed reality show should have been cue for a Nickelodeon-style sliming”—CLASSIC! You are a welcome addition around here, Mr. Augustson. Realize that in your absence I am “the left.”

  14. koko Says:

    Well thats how Wayne Root sais he can get money and votes which is a fine way.

  15. Alan Augustson Says:

    GE: read your review; seems like a reasonable, balanced evaluation. Mr. Phillies and I are corresponding now, about trying another dialogue featuring just us two.

  16. Name (required) Says:

    http://whiteyandprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/06/professors-presidential-preview.html

    Alan Augustson, Green Party. He ran the Information Management Center for FEMA’s Response and Recovery Division. During Hurricane Katrina. I’d lie on my resume Alan.

  17. Kn@ppster Says:

    GE,

    Interesting review.

    I haven’t heard the debate yet—on dialup, it’s impossible to listen live and takes forever to download the 15Mb archive, so it may be this weekend before I get to it.

    Naturally, I don’t expect hearing the debate to change my own mind about whom to support, but based on your review it sounds interesting.

    Root seems to be in a constant state of re-invention, more and more toward libertarian positions. On the one hand, that’s always good. On the other hand, I don’t trust the integrity/sincerity/permanency of it. I can think of at least three past LP presidential nominees who have later abused the LP’s trust by using their past nomination as a platform from which to encourage Libertarians to vote Republican. We don’t need another one.

    Several people have been hectoring me to consider George Phillies more seriously as a prospective nominee. This may be a blind spot on my part. If so, it will likely remain one. For me, trying to visualize the LP nominating George is like trying to visualize walking along having a casual conversation with a friend, and the friend suddenly, and for no apparent reason, running madly for a cliff edge and throwing himself off it. I’m not predisposed to expect causeless irrational calamities.

  18. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    Tom – To be clear: I’m not on the Phillies train. His positions on immigration and trade make it impossible for me to support him. I still view Kubby as the best (regretably) candidate. But in all the debates I’ve heard, Phillies has simply won them from an objective perspective—even an objective Libertarian perspective. Hell, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson admitted Hillary Clinton has won the Dem debates, it doesn’t mean they support her. I’m not saying that I feel the same way about Phillies as they do about Hillary, but I am saying that trade/immigration is THE issue to me as a “capitalist dove” and therefore I will most likely vote for the candidate whose positions are best on those issues in the general election.

  19. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    AA - Yeah, I agree that the ONE flaw that Koko may have had is not asking questions to distinguish yourself from the Greens. Then again, this would have created an odd three-on-one situation that would not have been very fair either. I would like to hear a one-on-one debate between you and Phillies or you and Kubby or even you and Root!

  20. Name (required) Says:

    Tom,

    When was the last time you saw Phillies live, in person, speaking to an audience?

    There’s been a big change lately. This isn’t the same George as a few years ago, or even last year.

    If Kubby thinks he has some kind of automatic front runner status, he’s sadly mistaken. He might still be able to become a contender if he starts working hard for the nomination ASAP.

    Otherwise, it’s Root or Phillies, or possibly a NOTA vote by Ron Paul supporters. Or maybe even Christine Smith doing a Badnarik 2004 (not many for her, but no one that much against her either). Kubby won’t even be in the running unless he starts…well, running.

    I know Kubby needs pot for medical reasons, but please don’t prove the cliches about amotivated potheads to be true.

  21. Kn@ppster Says:

    Dear anonymous,

    You write:

    “When was the last time you saw Phillies live, in person, speaking to an audience?

    “There’s been a big change lately. This isn’t the same George as a few years ago, or even last year.”

    I don’t recall. It’s been awhile. It’s also irrelevant. A presidential candidate’s reach has to go far beyond live, in-person speaking to an audience that’s in the same room. I’ve listened to George debate, and I’ve listened to his recent radio appearances.

    “If Kubby thinks he has some kind of automatic front runner status, he’s sadly mistaken. He might still be able to become a contender if he starts working hard for the nomination ASAP.”

    Kubby doesn’t take anything for granted. I’m the one who assigns him automatic front-runner status … not because of his own qualities, although they are formidable, but because as yet no credible opponents have declared; and because, of the existing opponents, Root is the only one demonstrating any potential to possibly become credible. If the nomination vote was tomorrow, and if the LP nominated any of the declared candidates other than Kubby, it would not be a demonstration of the nominee’s seriousness, but rather of the LP’s unseriousness.

    “Otherwise, it’s Root or Phillies, or possibly a NOTA vote by Ron Paul supporters. Or maybe even Christine Smith doing a Badnarik 2004 (not many for her, but no one that much against her either). Kubby won’t even be in the running unless he starts…well, running.”

    If that’s true of Kubby, it’s also equally true of his opponents. None of those opponents have distinguished themselves in any spectacular way from Kubby as “running.” I rather suspect that you (you forgot to fill in the name form) are Joseph Knight, and that your thing about Kubby “not running” is that he did not attend the New Mexico LP’s convention. All of his opponents have likewise attended some conventions and not attended others.

    “I know Kubby needs pot for medical reasons, but please don’t prove the cliches about amotivated potheads to be true.”

    Kubby is the living hammer against that particular stereotype, as those are in the least familiar with him can attest (including those who have met him at campaign events in Washington, Colorado, Oregon and California and who will meet him at other campaign events later this year).

  22. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    So someone predisposed to liking Kubby, I have to agree that Mr. Anonymous pretty accurately reflects my perception, Tom.

  23. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    TYPO: “distinguish yourself from the Greens” should have been “distinguish yourself from the LIBERTARIANS.” I’m getting bad at this.

  24. Alan Augustson Says:

    Name (required) said:

    “Alan Augustson, Green Party. He ran the Information Management Center for FEMA’s Response and Recovery Division. During Hurricane Katrina. I’d lie on my resume Alan.”

    I provided the analysis and recommendations. I had no control over the actual decisions, which I generally opposed.

    Hell, as long as I’m not expected to falsify it, I’ll provide data and analysis to Beelzebub himself. (Oh—wait—I did.)

  25. Kn@ppster Says:

    GE,

    The word you were looking for was “misperception.” But, be that as may, let’s go through some things:

    First of all, issues do matter. They matter in three ways:

    1) The purpose of a political party is to implement its positions as public policy. Electing people to office isn’t the destination, it’s the road to the destination. If a particular candidate doesn’t support his party’s positions on, at the very least, the major issues in the election, there’s no point in running that candidate, any more than there’s a point in ordering a Caesar salad in order to eat Eggs Benedict.

    2) Issues positions animate, or do not animate, a party’s “base.” The LP’s presidential base is incredibly small. It might be possible to grow that base by changing the party’s positions, but first of all, see #1 above—that limits the productive range within which the positions can be changed—and secondly, it’s not likely that that base can be grown by offering issues positions that are already being offered by proven brands with which you are in competition. Any variance in issues positions or in emphasis of particular positions needs to be aimed at constituencies which aren’t already being served.

    3) Ditto for the non-”base” electorate. They don’t need a Libertarian candidate to offer them anti-immigration horseshit or anti-free-trade horseshit, because they’re already knee-deep in both. They can pick any random Republican or Democrat on the ballot—all of whom have already proven themselves in reasonably powerful positions of governance and are known quantities—and get that. Why should they take a flier on some yahoo they’ve never heard of in the hope of getting something they already know they can reliably get elsewhere?

    Issues matter, and Kubby is hands-down the best candidate on the issues. None of the others are even close, and all of them represent big deviations from the three aforementioned points.

    Next: “Running.”

    Yes, I’d like to see Kubby on the road more. And I expect that he will be on the road more pretty soon. The goal date for putting him back on the road was the fourth quarter of 2007, but it looks like we’ll probably be able to move that up some. Candidates for the LP’s nomination have traditionally paid obeisance to the notion that attending LP state conventions is a criterion of credibility. Kubby has attended some LP state conventions and some non-LP events. He’ll attend some more. As a matter of fact, he’ll attend as many as he can, and there’s no dramatic gap between him and his opponents on that as is.

    That said, it’s time for SOMEONE to let Libertarians know that it’s time to grow the hell up … and I’m not going to let my affiliation with Kubby stop me from accepting the responsibility for doing so.

    Resolved, that attendance or non-attendance at your state LP’s annual rubber chicken banquet with 25 party regulars bickering over what to do with the fifty bucks raised at the last WSPQ “outreach” booth is NOT the criterion of a good or bad presidential candidate.

    Having candidates play your little game of “inside baseball” may make you feel important, but it doesn’t build the party or improve the party’s electoral prospects. Quite the opposite—every minute and every dollar a candidate spends kissing your ass is a minute and a dollar he’s not spending on a real campaign. The exception to this is the RARE instance in which LP convention organizers work up an outside angle and manage to garner some external popular or media interest in the event. If that hasn’t happened, then the basic position of the “must attend conventions” crowd is “we insist on a candidate who is reponsible enough to cater to our irresponsibility.”

    There are, of course, other aspects to “running”—and we can talk about those. But I’m cutting it off for the moment, as I get too many complaints about my comments actually being articles.

  26. Jim Phelps Says:

    I thought the moderation of the debate last night left much to be desired. From technical issues to confusion about who was to speak when, made it difficult for me to listen to. I tried not to be biased based on the moderator’s age, but I really think this important debate should have been handled by adults.

  27. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    Knapp – I never said issues didn’t matter. I posted elsewhere (I thought it was here) that I am by no means on the George Phillies train based on his positions on immigration and trade, which, as a capitalist dove, are as important to me as the average pro-life/pro-choice zealot. I just wish your candidate more effectively communicated those positions. As someone inclined to agree with him, HE BLOWS in debates; I’m sorry.

    As for the “inside baseball” stuff—um, Kubby is currently running for the LP’s nomination. If he can’t win that, then he isn’t an effective campaigner. Yes, that’s “inside baseball”—that’s how party nominations work. He needs to tackle that before he worries about how he’s going to spread his message beyond the insiders. His “strategy” seems to presuppose the nomination will be handed to him on the basis of his platform. It’s pathetic that only 13 people show up to party conventions, but if he wants to win their votes (and right now THAT’s what matters), he needs to get there.

  28. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    Mr. Phelps – If you’re an adult, I suggest that you follow your own advice and stage a debate. Koko took it upon himself to provide the forum for the candidates—no candidates were forced to participate. I think the technical issues, confusions, etc. had NOTHING to do with the moderator’s age. Perhaps inexperience with the blogtalkradio system can be blamed, but I couldn’t have done a better job, I know that. How about you?

  29. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    “as abortion is to the average pro-life/pro-choice zealot”

  30. The Professor Says:

    First of all, I would like it known that it wasn’t me who posted that link to my Preview above, and I do appreciate Mr. Augustson clarifying his role in FEMA.

    As for the debate. I will say this, in an answer to G.E. Smith above: I could have done better. Was Koko holding his nose the entire time? Sick? Koko seemed to get downright annoyed at times. When George Phillies asked that all the candidates have a chance to answer the question on video games, Koko’s bristling response: “Yeah I know. I’m going each one at a time…” Calm down there big guy.

    I really enjoyed the back-to-back callers, one who played some rap song while the other put the host on hold. Classic.

    A few comments on the candidates:

    1. Phillies. Asked a question about ballot access. ZZZzzz…
    Asked a question about subsidies for energy. ZZZzzz…
    He seemed to shine for me when answering the question about third party viability, but answers like that will put the general public ZZZzzz….

    2. Root: How can 3rd party candidates succeed? Answer: Credibility. Then he goes on to mention how he’s all over the media. Hey Wayne, do you have a reality show in the making? Exposure and Name Recognition does not equal Credibility. I will admit that he probably has the best chance to get exposure of all these guys.
    Nuclear waste disposal? Somehow he worked Las Vegas into this answer which, for some reason, doesn’t surprise me at all. Does the Vegas Chamber of Commerce pay him per word?
    All the candidates answered a question on violent video games, but only Root threw online gambling into the mix. In case you didn’t know, online gamblers don’t kill people, but they do vote for W.A.R.
    Who do you like in the Cubs/Brewers series Wayne?

    3. Kubby: On suing for access to debates: Uh, sure, but did I mention I passed a medical marijuana law in California. Stay on target Steve.
    Kubby talks like he is in slow motion. I didn’t like how he seemed to preface all his responses with “Libertarians believe…” and, “We believe…” How ‘bout what YOU believe, Steve? A couple of the candidates did this.
    On an emissions/carbon tax? He’s against the tax, but provides absolutely no alternative to achieve the reason behind the tax. Kubby might as well have not dialed in for this.

    4. Augustson: Are you there Alan? Speak INTO the microphone. I did like (paraphrase): If we elect another dangerous idiot like Bush, we may not have free elections in four years. Melodramatic? Not on your life.
    Are windmills dangerous to wildlife? What? They quotes keep on coming though: “[The vegetarian lifestyle] simply doesn’t work.” And you’re a candidate for which party again?
    His violent video game answer provides yet another classic: ”When I was coming up, uh, we had violence, we had misogyny, we had all kinds of horrible things going on [wait for it] in my Junior High…” Alan grew up on the mean streets of…I have no idea.

    5. kat. I sorely wanted to hear Ms. swift. What a shame, I was hoping for some e.e. cummings reference.

    I think Phillies may be sharpest knife in the drawer, but Root can slice, dice, julienne, and wash your car at the same time. Of course he’ll probably break in a week too.

  31. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    As for the debate. I will say this … : I could have done better.

    I didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t. By all means, host your own debate. Lots of people could probably “do better,” but their ability to do so (or not) is irrelevant since they’re not doing it.

    “Kubby talks like he is in slow motion”

    Agreed.

    “On an emissions/carbon tax? Hes against the tax, but provides absolutely no alternative to achieve the reason behind the tax.”

    He seems not to understand the reason. Pollution is a tort. When it is emitted into the air, the general public is being victimized. Murray Rothbard would have us all take up individual suits against polluters and have the internal-combustible engine effectively banned, but this is unreasonable. Steve Kubby would—correct me if I’m wrong, Tom—allow individuals to pollute the air with impunity. An emissions tax makes sense. The sale of carbon credits via auction makes sense. These are the only rational, market-based, non-authoritarian (“only X carbon emissions are allowed by decree of the king!”) means of dealing with these very real property- and individual-rights concerns. At least, from what I can tell.

    “Kubby might as well have not dialed in for this.”

    Again, I agree. He needs to go to toastmasters of watch Rocky before each debate. His lethargy makes George Phillies sound like Wayne Root, and Wayne Root sound like Joe Pesci on PCP.

    Kat Swift

    I refuse to spell her name “kat swift.” How freaking juvenile. Grow up, kitty. You’re a big Kat now. What is the lowercase crap about? Is she that ashamed of her existence as an individual? Does she so desire to be subsumed into the collective that her name is not worthy of capitalization? Maybe she thinks capital letters are part of capitalism. Yeah, that’s it.

  32. Nigel Watt Says:

    Alan Auguston, your credibility might be helped if you detailed why you no longer work at what is probably the most despised federal agency in the country.

  33. Kn@ppster Says:

    GE,

    You write:
    ——-
    As for the “inside baseball” stuff—um, Kubby is currently running for the LP’s nomination. If he can’t win that, then he isn’t an effective campaigner. Yes, that’s “inside baseball”—that’s how party nominations work. He needs to tackle that before he worries about how he’s going to spread his message beyond the insiders. His “strategy” seems to presuppose the nomination will be handed to him on the basis of his platform.——-

    You’re completely wrong about five different ways here, but it’s hard to blame you because your mistakes are honest. Let’s take them one at a time:

    1) “Kubby is currently running for the LP’s nomination. If he can’t win that, then he isn’t an effective campaigner.

    That’s precisely what I’m getting at. You are 180 degrees wrong here, precisely because the LP is 180 degrees wrong here.

    Yes, the candidate has to satisfy the convention delegates that he’s their best choice. That’s a given. But it’s a two-way street, Those delegates SHOULD be setting sensible standards for determining who their best choice is. Right now, the standard is “which candidate flits around the country kissing the asses of small gatherings of party members the most effectively?”

    That standard is FUBAR. It results in unwise choices.

    But you can see the trap here … the candidate who SAYS the standard is FUBAR loses, because Libertarians don’t like to be told that it’s time to get their heads out of their asses any more than anyone else does and they’ll dropkick any candidate who dares to point out the obvious to them. So, the head-out-of-ass maneuver has to be advocated by someone other than a candidate … which is why I’m doing it.

    As far as Kubby is concerned, he’ll buckle down to the idiotic standard as required. He’s not the one saying these things. I am—and I’m not saying them on Kubby’s behalf, I’m saying them because the party needs to hear them.

    2) “Yes, that’s ‘inside baseball’—that’s how party nominations work.——-

    Wrong. That’s how Libertarian Party nominations work. The major parties are fortunate enough to have external factors that keep them from playing the same game to anywhere near the same degree—factors like primaries in which it is the public, not just the party activist core, which has to be persuaded. There’s some inside baseball—especially for endorsements and fundraisng—but the candidates win the major party nominations by campaigning to the American public. The LP needs to find a way to generate the same dynamic internally.

    3) “He needs to tackle that before he worries about how he’s going to spread his message beyond the insiders.”

    That approach leaves us with a five-month presidential campaign—yet another disadvantage versus opponents who have been “spreading their message beyond the insiders” for a solid minimum of two years by the time that five-month campaign starts. In fairness to the LP, they used to nominate the year before the election. That’s something they should go back to doing.

    4) “His ‘strategy’ seems to presuppose the nomination will be handed to him on the basis of his platform.”

    Kubby’s strategy presupposes nothing.

    Platform is a foundational consideration, as we’ve previously discussed. There’s no point in running a candidate whose platform doesn’t merit support.

    But Kubby’s strategy is not just to have the best platform—which he does by far—and hope for the best. It also includes playing the inside baseball as required, and achieving significant, positive public outreach.

    The one area among those three in which Kubby is behind any of his opponents is inside baseball. He’s not very far back on that, and he won’t be behind at all on it for long.

  34. Kn@ppster Says:

    GE,

    You write:

    “Steve Kubby would—correct me if I’m wrong, Tom—allow individuals to pollute the air with impunity.”

    You’re wrong.

  35. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    So in other words, I’m right?

    Reality doesn’t conform to what Tom Knapp thinks it should be. I’m with you on all points. But if a party is so corrupted and impossible, then what’s the point of going for its nomination?

    You seem to be painting me as an anti-Kubbyist. I wish he were more exciting. He’s boring. I think most people agree. But if I were a delegate, there’s no way he wouldn’t get my vote. There’s nothing George Phillies can do to get my support short of doing a 180 on immigration and trade. This doesn’t mean I can’t objectively evaluate a debate or assess the reality of the situation in an unbiased manner.

  36. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    If I’m wrong, then he certainly didn’t make that clear last night. He opposed the carbon tax, largely based on the idea that the money would go to the government—which is sound grounds to oppose it. But he offered no alternative, nor did he cite the obvious libertarian principle that pollution is a crime against property and self-ownership.

  37. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    The “I’m right” refers to your post about how I was wrong “five ways” by actually being right in all instances. Not about the pollution. Don’t get it twisted.

  38. koko Says:

    Hello!

    When i e-mailed the candidates i told them to check me out before responding!! And i do have experince with the BTR system i tried tomute the caller but it accidently was Kubby

  39. koko Says:

    And for a note Kubby and the caller had the same area code!

  40. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    koko – I think you did a great job. More importantly, you DID it.

  41. Kn@ppster Says:

    G_E,

    I can state with some certainty that Kubby isn’t going to endorse a carbon tax any more than he would endorse any other tax.

    However, that’s a far cry from saying that he “would allow individuals to pollute the air with impunity.” For one thing, he’s already stated several policy positions which, if implemented (and some of them are already being implemented, albeit in a distorted way), would result in reduced carbon emissions.

    I’ve been pulling together some information on “cap and trade” for his consideration, but I’m hoping he’ll adopt a simpler and more libertarian solution. There is one, and if you look closely enough at some stuff I’ve written in the past, you’ll find it. Milsted hates it because it accomplishes exactly the same thing the carbon tax does without letting him advocate a tax to prove how mainstream he is.

  42. Kn@ppster Says:

    koko,

    I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to the debate yet, but don’t let anyone tell you you didn’t do a good thing.

    GE is exactly right here … YOU DID IT. Maybe someone else could have done it better, maybe not, but the fact remains that someone else didn’t do it at all. YOU did, and it by God got done.

    Thanks for doing it. How many teenagers can say they’ve even TALKED with four presidential candidates, let alone put four presidential candidates together for a debate? That’s the kind of thing that should be encouraged, not nitpicked.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  43. koko (moderater of the debate) Says:

    KN@PPSTER

    I asked the question becouse Steve thinks global warming is a big threat so i asked if he would support the carbon tax.

  44. Alan Augustson Says:

    Hello:

    For the Professor: there are consistent technical issues that (for whatever reason) seem to keep me at a reduced volume at BlogTalkRadio.com. Still trying to work that out.

    For Nigel Watt: it was a contract position and therefore temporary by nature. I was axed because, after three months of 75-to-80-hour weeks, I became extremely ill and had to be hospitalized. That’s consulting for you.

    Koko: you rock, kid. Keep it up; you’ll find a flow that’s all your own.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Koko—a compliment from GE is something special.
    Like sand in Antartica.

    Treasure it,lol.

  46. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    One can reduce carbon emissions while still allowing those who do pollute to do so with impunity. Example: Switching the military to non-petroleum would reduce emissions, but I can still drive my Hummer (no, not really) on subsidized gas, with no liability for the damage I cause YOUR health.

    Trent: In case you haven’t noticed, undercover_anarchist to globalist_elitist to G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove has been a gradual transformation into a kinder, gentler a-hole. I value achievement, and even in my more acidic days, I doubt you could find me knocking down something that someone actually DID. I prefer to smear ideas, not actions.

    Seriously, though—I think you and I much are closer together (ideologically, not sexually or anything like that) than we were six months or a year ago. I think we are both more classically liberal than then.

  47. The Professor Says:

    I’d just like to add a kudos to Koko. While I may have some internet radio experience myself and poking fun is what I do, the important thing is, as others mentioned, you DID it. Keep pluggin’ away.

  48. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Classically liberal is a great way to put it.
    What exactly would you describe yourself as? Pragmatic libertarian?
    Im a Constitutional Minarchist I suppose.

  49. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Classical liberal in the tradition of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. Constitutional minarchist would work too. Pro-growth liberal.

    Check out my new blog, homes. “Capitalist Dove is for peace, freedom, liberty, justice, constitutionally limited democracy, and global prosperity.”

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    I’d call myself a pro-growth conservative. But you mean liberal in the classical sense, and I mean conservative in the Ron Paul sense. So it’s basically all the same (with some slightly differing opinions on the Fed, illegal immigration, and abortion).
    I already checked out your blog. Its good.

  51. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Well, I wouldn’t call myself a “conservative” in any sense, other than the way I CHOOSE to live my life—and how I would act with the taxpayers’ dollars if elected. Hey, I would like your thoughts on the article I just posted on my blog: From big-government racism to limited-government racism: The conflation of libertarianism and racial collectivism. It’s kind of long, but I respect your intellect and I would really appreciate it if you could give me some feedback. Peace.

  52. tjdszhcr dywgqsutr Says:

    ahtgjw srmqwxbg ckjqgi stbvlye fcpqs xprhlzwdg opvszdkh

  53. side effects cipro Says:

    egnrq dguabnk hmgcku

  54. how to buy fioricet Says:

    zvyqj

  55. paxil Says:

    cdft ecpx

  56. what is zithromax Says:

    yfxqevo xvwcbn

  57. cipro drug interaction Says:

    txwv wsmh szjrpew

  58. what is doxycycline for Says:

    cikfysx

  59. what is diazepam Says:

    ytou ecmxnvj xlcpkat inhlrt

  60. sportsbook hydrocodone Says:

    jghq dhlgqwm

  61. soma for sale Says:

    qfkvydo yjog avlsi vfwqc

  62. celexa withdrawal Says:

    ncgozi bvcr

  63. buy amoxicillin clavulanate online Says:

    daxr

  64. paxil and pregnancy Says:

    uioc csag

  65. side effects of prevacid Says:

    rovntlh nbdhat

  66. lowest propecia prices Says:

    bywuto

  67. oxycodone pictures Says:

    enxfu gcxrae sgvow

  68. prozac Says:

    yagmqht

  69. order allegra Says:

    itag qzrleo

  70. joint levaquin pain Says:

    bgohkn scywajn unafwdc uxhdij

  71. buy oxycodone online without prescription Says:

    qjgp ucgzrpt njdcaw wcxy

  72. order paxil online Says:

    bmwho uokdha ghkuzx

  73. the drug ultracet Says:

    xkteygv

  74. allegra versace eating disorder picture Says:

    jzqt mvgpt dfpa leamy

  75. side effects of prevacid Says:

    eqgm ulgh dkyui

  76. cipro Says:

    bqwcaf bipld btdyu kegoai

  77. drug zyrtec Says:

    lvde zeojfb sryeumk yuzsb

  78. what is zyrtec Says:

    hgwpocy xqtv afhdezl bhosxzw

  79. allegra Says:

    lstu jhsuawf vpkq

  80. zwjpvf bmgvt Says:

    priqwabm czvodybgr jhwfrl tajx hcwxipbs xosqihdy aotqysf

  81. picture ultracet Says:

    xjloqug puiny cpxwm cxnf

  82. order coreg online Says:

    lqefnk vzonlcr

  83. best price for isoptin Says:

    oikvnc

  84. buy virility pills online Says:

    mwhl wysqutf

  85. ambien Says:

    porfg

  86. what is allegra Says:

    jaitg

  87. nexium canadian Says:

    rkula adoun qfmb

  88. lowest propecia prices Says:

    yrubfvm

  89. adipex diet pill Says:

    mvlfb fupnbw

  90. clonazepam prescription Says:

    zpyj kysmcf tmrjwd nrutebp

Leave a Reply