Submitter FAILS!: Obama never said Isreal must remain undivided in his speech, he said an undivided Jerusalem should be the capitol of Israel.

He must be upset that he apparently his endorsement from Hamas...

Code_Archeologist: Submitter FAILS!: Obama never said Isreal must remain undivided in his speech, he said an undivided Jerusalem should be the capitol of Israel.

It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policy that he thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.

SangamonTaylor: He must be upset that he apparently his endorsement from Hamas...



"Thank you for that...whatever that was."

Churchill2004: Code_Archeologist: Submitter FAILS!: Obama never said Isreal must remain undivided in his speech, he said an undivided Jerusalem should be the capitol of Israel.

It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policyAmerica's permanently ridiculous stance towards Israel that anyone thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.

FTFY.

Churchill2004: Code_Archeologist: Submitter FAILS!: Obama never said Isreal must remain undivided in his speech, he said an undivided Jerusalem should be the capitol of Israel.

It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policy that he thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.


You'd rather the president have no opinion on Israel? I mean, I assume John McCain is confused about the basic facts of the whole situation and is otherwise completely misinformed in general but I think he probably has an opinion as well.

I guess I'll go track down some info on Bob Barr and keep my fingers crossed for you that he has never said anything about Israel or the situation in the Middle East in general everything in that part of the world obviously has no effect on us whatsoever.

You mean he told people what they wanted to hear? Not Obmama. He's too pure.

sigdiamond2000: SangamonTaylor: He must be upset that he apparently his endorsement from Hamas...

"Thank you for that...whatever that was."

Well, Obama had been endorsed by Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas. Yousef went on WABC radio and endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying "we like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election....he has a vision to change America."

I bet those AIPAC folks are madder than an old man sending back soup at a deli.

But think about it. They hear him say an undivided Jerusalem is part of his presidential goals. A departure from current US foreign policy, and they eat that shiat up. Finally, a politician to stand up for them.

Now this. What a shame.

Man, the MSM is really disappointing me today by bringing up relevant stuff about Obama like his stance on Middle east peace and what not. I want to here more irrelavent stuff like is he a secret muslim terrorist or not.

SangamonTaylor: Well, Obama had been endorsed by Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas. Yousef went on WABC radio and endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying "we like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election....he has a vision to change America."


We all got the reference, we're just confounded by how someone so retarded figured out how to type.

Churchill2004: It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policy that he thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.

There are miles of difference between something that must be, and something that should be. If something must be then you are saying that you will go to great lengths to make it so. If something should be then you are more hopeful that it will be, but are not going to go out of your way to make it so.

SangamonTaylor: He must be upset that he apparently his endorsement from Hamas...

coma: You'd rather the president have no opinion on Israel?

In his capacity as President? Absolutely.

coma: I guess I'll go track down some info on Bob Barr and keep my fingers crossed for you that he has never said anything about Israel or the situation in the Middle East in general everything in that part of the world obviously has no effect on us whatsoever

I know he wants to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, and broadly supports a non-interventionist policy.

He keeps digging in deeper and deeper. He should just accept pissing off the Palestinians. Being seen as vaguely anti-semitic (aka not fully supporting Israel) will cost him.

This next 4 years is going to be funnnnn.

Churchill2004: It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policy that he thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.

Wow. I must of missed the part of his speech when he said that he planned on using US military force to keep Jerusalem whole.

Hahahahhahahaha

Churchill2004: I know he wants to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, and broadly supports a non-interventionist policy.

Can you provide a quote from him on the subject of Israel?

And when you say "cut off all foreign aid", I assume you mean "end US aid", not "aggressively ensure that no one else aids Israel, either"?

DaSwankOne: Churchill2004: It says all I need to know about Obama's foreign policy that he thinks the President of the United States should have any say over the matter.

Wow. I must have missed the part of his speech when he said that he planned on using US military force to keep Jerusalem whole.

It would be worse if he had said that, but the fact that he felt he could say something like "Jerusalem must remain undivided" shows that he incorrectly believes the status of Jerusalem to be to some degree under the purview of the office he's seeking.

Obdicut: Can you provide a quote from him on the subject of Israel?

I can't find an up to date quote on Israel, but there's this on his web site-

Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.

He's spoken clearly in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and I don't see how that could not include Israel.

Obdicut: And when you say "cut off all foreign aid", I assume you mean "end US aid", not "aggressively ensure that no one else aids Israel, either"?

Specifically ending aid from the US Federal government, not pressing for an embargo of Israel.

Churchill2004: He's spoken clearly in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and I don't see how that could not include Israel.

Maybe because for the entirety of the rest of his career he's been unabashedly and completely pro-Israel? Because "aid" is not military intervention, so that the quote you provided does nothing to imply that he wants to end aid to Israel?

This is the problem of adopting someone who's views were previously 180 degrees away from libertarian. He's got a lot of stuff to renounce.

Obdicut: Maybe because for the entirety of the rest of his career he's been unabashedly and completely pro-Israel? Because "aid" is not military intervention, so that the quote you provided does nothing to imply that he wants to end aid to Israel?

This is the problem of adopting someone who's views were previously 180 degrees away from libertarian. He's got a lot of stuff to renounce

And to my satisfaction he has renounced most of those things and actively worked to prove it. I can't find a specific quote on Israel, but given that he's been talking a fairly libertarian message, especially on foreign policy, I'd be shocked if he said he supported taxpayer subsidization of Israel.

I agree it would have been better to have had someone who's been a more consistent libertarian- but the simple fact is that they weren't any available that any one had heard of, and there weren't any capable of running anything but another 0.34% campaign. I think Bob Barr is sincere, and I think he should actually be stressing his philosophical journey from hard-line conservative to libertarian as a campaign theme. After all, that's exactly what we want to be happening.

Churchill2004: I think Bob Barr is sincere, and I think he should actually be stressing his philosophical journey from hard-line conservative to libertarian as a campaign theme. After all, that's exactly what we want to be happening.

The main problem is that I haven't heard him, or rather, read him, articulate anything other than perfectly boilerplate libertarian philosophy. I haven't heard him explain why he held his previous views, and how he was convinced to transition. I heard him say that he saw that, real-world, things like the war on drugs, etc. didn't work, but that doesn't speak to why it took him this long to realize that. It doesn't say what changed him.

That's one of the main reasons I have to doubt his sincerity. He's almost too-good a libertarian-- is there anything he currently disagrees with the LP in general on?

Obdicut: The main problem is that I haven't heard him, or rather, read him, articulate anything other than perfectly boilerplate libertarian philosophy. I haven't heard him explain why he held his previous views, and how he was convinced to transition. I heard him say that he saw that, real-world, things like the war on drugs, etc. didn't work, but that doesn't speak to why it took him this long to realize that. It doesn't say what changed him.

He's said that a lot- the initial impetus according to him was that when he saw the civil liberties abuses after 9/11, he started to reevaluate has conceptions of government powers in other areas and over a few years that led him to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.

The correct answer for a Presidential candidate when asked "Should Jerusalem remain undivided?" is "Yes, as long as it's in the best interests of the United States and our Constitution."

After all, the oath of office is not to "preserve, protect, and defend small Middle Eastern countries against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Snarfangel: The correct answer for a Presidential candidate when asked "Should Jerusalem remain undivided?" is "Yes, as long as it's in the best interests of the United States and our Constitution."

That's better, but even that's incorrect. Even if doing so were in the "best interests of the United States" (it's not), the President would still have no proper say of the status of Jerusalem. No more than the Israelis and Palestinians have any say over how the New York City government is organized.

Churchill2004: He's said that a lot- the initial impetus according to him was that when he saw the civil liberties abuses after 9/11, he started to reevaluate has conceptions of government powers in other areas and over a few years that led him to libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.

Is there anything at all he's written, that I can read, detailing this? His webpage contains none of it.

Do you have an example of anything he disagrees with the LP on, at all? Or has he simply adopted the entirety of the slate of issues?

Churchill2004: No more than the Israelis and Palestinians have any say over how the New York City government is organized.

No, but I'm sure they have opinions on it. That's still allowed, right?

Obdicut: Is there anything at all he's written, that I can read, detailing this? His webpage contains none of it.

This is on his official YouTube channel. I've heard him offer a similar explanation several times, having followed his campaign and the Libertarian Party fairly closely.

He most certainly does have his agreements with some elements of the LP (can't really say he "disagrees with the LP", the LP is not a monolithic group). He's a libertarian, but he's still a moderate-conservative leaning libertarian. He supports following the Constitution, which a big (largely anarcho-capitalist) chunk of the LP opposes as illegitimate. Note also on that video that he says he doesn't think states should necessarily fully legalize heroin and crack, which isn't an unreasonable position but isn't strictly libertarian either.

The reason it took six ballots to nominate him is because almost half the party was rallied around an anarchist who had just been embroiled in a dispute over whether child sex should be illegal. Barr's nomination is part of an effort to pull the LP out of that radical, dogmatic, half-anarchist libertarianism and make it a broader libertarian coalition where the 15-25% of the American people who lean libertarian could find a home outside the two other parties. And as a fairly radical libertarian, I think that's the right idea.

Barr has had to hold his own against sever criticism from a lot of fellow Libertarians who'd have preferred just putting up another radical candidate and getting the same 400,000 votes the LP has been getting since the mid 80s. He's not just "boilerplate" Libertarian.

cameroncrazy1984: No, but I'm sure they have opinions on it. That's still allowed, right?

Sure, but you're deluding yourself if you think this was just Obama stating his personal opinion. Every one knows he was talking about what US policy would be under his Presidency.

Churchill2004:
That's better, but even that's incorrect. Even if doing so were in the "best interests of the United States" (it's not), the President would still have no proper say of the status of Jerusalem. No more than the Israelis and Palestinians have any say over how the New York City government is organized.

Ah, but the answer makes political sense. If AIPAC complains, you can say "What, you don't think an undivided Jerusalem is in the best interests of the United States?" And then when you become President, you can do whatever you consider best fulfills you oath of office. If anyone complains, the onus of showing it is in our interests to do otherwise falls on them.

/I agree however that the status of Jerusalem would not affect the United States if we had a rational foreign policy.

Churchill2004: He most certainly does have his agreements with some elements of the LP (can't really say he "disagrees with the LP", the LP is not a monolithic group). He's a libertarian, but he's still a moderate-conservative leaning libertarian. He supports following the Constitution, which a big (largely anarcho-capitalist) chunk of the LP opposes as illegitimate. Note also on that video that he says he doesn't think states should necessarily fully legalize heroin and crack, which isn't an unreasonable position but isn't strictly libertarian either.

And you don't find it at all odd that he has adopted every major plank of the LP?

The video that you showed me does not at all do an adequate job of describing why he has reversed himself on nearly every policy he's ever held in his life. He comes off very rational and well-- though it would be hard not to, vs. Hannity-- but it does not tell the narrative well enough.

As for widening the libertarian tent; it'd widen a lot more successfully if there was much less emphasis on ideology and general, and much more emphasis on pragmatism. As long as there are still massively unrealistic proposals such as ending the income tax, and magical thinking proposals such as deregulation of the medical industry providing any benefits whatsoever, it's still not going to be a very inclusionary party.

burndtdan: i89.photobucket.com

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

BKITU: burndtdan: i89.photobucket.com

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

:D i just spent like an hour on that

Obdicut: And you don't find it at all odd that he has adopted every major plank of the LP?

No, that's the idea. That's what we want people to do- become libertarians. A small movement like the Libertarian Party inherently seeks to expand by "converting", for lack of a better term, others. Most libertarians didn't used to always be that way. If anything, Barr represents exactly what we want to show America- that you can get here from there.

Obdicut: The video that you showed me does not at all do an adequate job of describing why he has reversed himself on nearly every policy he's ever held in his life. He comes off very rational and well-- though it would be hard not to, vs. Hannity-- but it does not tell the narrative well enough

What do you expect? He wasn't "telling a narrative". He was on a show were answers were supposed to be kept fairly short.

Obdicut: As long as there are still massively unrealistic proposals such as ending the income tax, and magical thinking proposals such as deregulation of the medical industry providing any benefits whatsoever, it's still not going to be a very inclusionary party.

I understand you think that way. A big chunk of voters, however, find getting rid of the income tax and deregulating commerce a good thing and a perfectly plausible plan.

Churchill2004: No, that's the idea. That's what we want people to do- become libertarians. A small movement like the Libertarian Party inherently seeks to expand by "converting", for lack of a better term, others. Most libertarians didn't used to always be that way. If anything, Barr represents exactly what we want to show America- that you can get here from there.

Except that it doesn't show how he got there, besides talking about realizing certain policies did not work, real-world. That doesn't inevitably lead to an LP position, by any means; he could use the same rationale for wholeheartedly embracing socialism.

And that he adopted every single one, all at once, does not smack of a rational conversion. It sounds like something someone does in college when one first reads Marx, or like a completely insincere adoption.


Churchill2004: A big chunk of voters, however, find getting rid of the income tax and deregulating commerce a good thing and a perfectly plausible plan

I'd believe that when I saw some polling data on it; and since most voters don't even understand what deregulation entails, that seems a very, very cynical strategy on the part of the libertarian party, if that's their reason for pushing it.

However, like I said: the libertarian party would do better to actually adopt a pragmatist, rather than an ideological approach, on economic matters. There has never, ever been a proven successful example of deregulation in the US, and there have been absolutely horrific failures of deregulation. Placing your standard on deregulation is a purely ideological move.

Jerusalem should be it's own nation belonging to neither of them. Kind of like the Vatican. Meccan and Medina too.

/Vote Muck4doo for this thread.

Obdicut: And that he adopted every single one, all at once, does not smack of a rational conversion.

He didn't "adopt every single one, all at once". It was a gradual process over four-six years. He still hasn't adopted "every single one", and the ones he has adopted he adopted over time.


Obdicut: I'd believe that when I saw some polling data on it; and since most voters don't even understand what deregulation entails, that seems a very, very cynical strategy on the part of the libertarian party, if that's their reason for pushing it

What? What is "cynical" about holding our position and and pushing it? The LP and Barr, to my knowledge, place no particular emphasis on deregulation over their other positions, and there's no "Hah, people don't know anything about this, let's fool them!" plan as you seem to be implying.

Obdicut: However, like I said: the libertarian party would do better to actually adopt a pragmatist, rather than an ideological approach, on economic matters. There has never, ever been a proven successful example of deregulation in the US, and there have been absolutely horrific failures of deregulation. Placing your standard on deregulation is a purely ideological move

You're letting your personal political views cloud your analysis. Deregulation is neither a "proven failure" nor is it politically non-viable in the US.

Barr very much has a pragmatic approach. That's what makes him different than any other Libertarian candidate before him.

I've voted Libertarian since 2004, but am going for McCain this time around. Will still work locally with the party though.

muck4doo: Jerusalem should be it's own nation belonging to neither of them. Kind of like the Vatican. Meccan and Medina too.

Vatican City has a state religion of Roman Catholicism. It's the center of power for a massive, incredibly wealthy, globe-spanning entity.

I don't see any connection between that and Jerusalem, or any possible way that Jerusalem could be made it's own nation like the Vatican.

Obdicut: muck4doo: Jerusalem should be it's own nation belonging to neither of them. Kind of like the Vatican. Meccan and Medina too.

Vatican City has a state religion of Roman Catholicism. It's the center of power for a massive, incredibly wealthy, globe-spanning entity.

I don't see any connection between that and Jerusalem, or any possible way that Jerusalem could be made it's own nation like the Vatican.

Sure it could. You just have to let the three religions share power in a clever scheme. For instance, have the Christians be in charge of foreign affairs, let the Muslims control food and drugs, but the Christians handle alcohol. The Jews can handle the financing and stuff. Not sure who should handle education and justice.

/Either that or have it run by Hindo overlords.

Churchill2004: You're letting your personal political views cloud your analysis. Deregulation is neither a "proven failure" nor is it politically non-viable in the US.

It's never been proven to succeed, in the US. I wish it had. I ideologically believe it. But it's been a pragmatic failure, and pushing it-- especially in the midst of the current deregulation-fueled mess-- is either dumb or cynical.

By the way, an accusation that "You're letting your personal political views cloud your analysis." is meaningless. I can simply reply the same back to you. It achieves nothing.


He didn't "adopt every single one, all at once". It was a gradual process over four-six years. He still hasn't adopted "every single one", and the ones he has adopted he adopted over time.

Well then, I wish he'd talk about how he came to adopt each one. There is no narrative of it, at all, that makes it clear why realizing the failures of other policies led to the adoption of libertarian ideals.

It makes it nearly impossible to believe him. It's much easier to believe that he's doing it out of political expediency, or that he simply is a "convert", and has not subjected his new views to critical analysis.

muck4doo: Sure it could. You just have to let the three religions share power in a clever scheme. For instance, have the Christians be in charge of foreign affairs, let the Muslims control food and drugs, but the Christians handle alcohol. The Jews can handle the financing and stuff. Not sure who should handle education and justice.

/Either that or have it run by Hindo overlords.

Whatever.

burndtdan: :D i just spent like an hour on that

I predict within the next 24 hours your creation will be all over hillaryis44/similar claptrap as the newest "SHOCKING VIDEO FOOTAGE!?#@@*@!!11"

Churchill2004: Obdicut: And that he adopted every single one, all at once, does not smack of a rational conversion.

He didn't "adopt every single one, all at once". It was a gradual process over four-six years. He still hasn't adopted "every single one", and the ones he has adopted he adopted over time.


Obdicut: I'd believe that when I saw some polling data on it; and since most voters don't even understand what deregulation entails, that seems a very, very cynical strategy on the part of the libertarian party, if that's their reason for pushing it

What? What is "cynical" about holding our position and and pushing it? The LP and Barr, to my knowledge, place no particular emphasis on deregulation over their other positions, and there's no "Hah, people don't know anything about this, let's fool them!" plan as you seem to be implying.

Obdicut: However, like I said: the libertarian party would do better to actually adopt a pragmatist, rather than an ideological approach, on economic matters. There has never, ever been a proven successful example of deregulation in the US, and there have been absolutely horrific failures of deregulation. Placing your standard on deregulation is a purely ideological move

You're letting your personal political views cloud your analysis. Deregulation is neither a "proven failure" nor is it politically non-viable in the US.

Barr very much has a pragmatic approach. That's what makes him different than any other Libertarian candidate before him.

I'm thinking of going to this, mebbe you might be interested:

Great news, Texas Friend of Liberty:

Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr will be our Saturday luncheon speaker, and Dr. Mary Ruwart will be our Sunday morning speaker!

We've extended the early bird pricing until this Saturday, June 7. Please register early so we can better gauge our expected attendance. You can pay by credit card online, or print out an order form and fax or mail it in.

To register, visit our state convention web page:
http://lptexas.org/convention2008.shtml

The ******* Hotel is sold out of sleeping rooms, but I grabbed some extra rooms, and I have about five left that I'd be happy to transfer to you. So, if you need a room, call me at 512-***-**** for additional instructions. Otherwise, you should be able to find a hotel nearby.

VOUNTEERS & THINGS NEEDED for the convention:

1. I would like one or two photographers willing to snap digital "headshot" photos of candidates (15 to 20 photos) to put on our website. You will need to bring your own equipment, and you won't get paid. You will need to be organized so you can match the photos with names. If you're a semi-pro or professional photographer, please let me know that. You will need to burn CDs and give them to me before leaving the convention, or save the files to my computer. Later if you touch them up you can send me updated versions.
2. An overhead projector (that works with a laptop) and screen if you have it.

For a sheet with more details:
http://lptexas.org/docs/Convention2008Flyer.pdf

We've already got about 70 people pre-paid and registered for this convention, so it looks like it's going to be a great turnout. I hope you can make it too!

--
W** B*******
Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Texas
512-***-****

/Asterisks added to protect privacy. You can e-mail me if interested.

muck4doo: I'm thinking of going to this, mebbe you might be interested:

I live in San Francisco. I don't agree with most of the libertarian party's economic planks, which Barr has apparently adopted wholesale. I don't believe that Barr is an honest convert. Most libertarians in the US are just minarchists, who are profoundly boring to talk to.

Why would I want to go, again?

Obdicut: It's never been proven to succeed, in the US. I wish it had. I ideologically believe it. But it's been a pragmatic failure, and pushing it-- especially in the midst of the current deregulation-fueled mess-- is either dumb or cynical.

By the way, an accusation that "You're letting your personal political views cloud your analysis." is meaningless. I can simply reply the same back to you. It achieves nothing

Your assertion about it being a failure is debatable, particularly since most "deregulation" has not been of the type Libertarians propose, but I'm not really interested in debating that with you. I'm talking about your assertion that it's not politically viable. Viable as a majority position at the moment? Probably not, but the Libertarian Party isn't really aiming at a majority and everyone knows it. It's aiming at simple double digits, and there's certainly that many people who'd support deregulation.

Obdicut: Well then, I wish he'd talk about how he came to adopt each one. There is no narrative of it, at all, that makes it clear why realizing the failures of other policies led to the adoption of libertarian ideals.

It makes it nearly impossible to believe him. It's much easier to believe that he's doing it out of political expediency, or that he simply is a "convert", and has not subjected his new views to critical analysis.

I see no plausible reason for him to dishonestly become a Libertarian, work for libertarian causes, and spread the libertarian message. And he had to convince a lot of dogmatic Libertarians of that too.

Obdicut: muck4doo: I'm thinking of going to this, mebbe you might be interested:

I live in San Francisco. I don't agree with most of the libertarian party's economic planks, which Barr has apparently adopted wholesale. I don't believe that Barr is an honest convert. Most libertarians in the US are just minarchists, who are profoundly boring to talk to.

Why would I want to go, again?

I was showing it to Churchill2004, not you. Thanks for sharing though.