| |
  |
||||||||||
Bizzare Attack on RP's Anti-War Stance
Submitted by fonta on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 17:12
in
Justin takes care of it! Good article showing why Ron Paul will always look good no matter how "they" try to bring him down. Don't you love him. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11306 Pretty much says...if you are not for Ron Paul, you are hardly libertarian. |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
-Phil Hemingway III
Phil,
The proper quotation is: "Those that Can, Do, Those that Can't, Teach and Those that can't Teach, Administrate."
I heard that from my father nearly 70 yrs ago.
Worth remembering: "There are only two things a Man Can't Do, Walk on Water and have Babies." Practice walking on water.
Ron
Voluntary Association + Mutual Cooperation + 110% Personal Responsibility = 100% Individual Liberty
I'm working on it...
Check this out, Ron! Robot's are walking on water, hahaha.
http://www.physorg.com/news103362097.html
And I guess us men are going to have to really figure out how to walk on water fast considering this article!:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/babies-from-bone-marrow
-I like the end of the quote, too, I had not heard the end of it before. Thanks.
-Phil Hemingway III
Tell him what you think...
rbarnett@gmail.com
If anyone wants to let him know what they think of his article.
I told him what I thought...
In the past, I've asked several of my professors this question when I could muster the nerve, "Is it true that those who can, do, and those who can't, teach?" A very smart retiree of the Bethlehem Steel told me that once (actually he told it to me lots of times). My question to you is this, why do you dissociate yourself from your argument when you say 'Other libertarians...' and 'They viewed...' ? This is quite obviously your viewpoint since your name is at the top of the article and you reference no interview sources with these supposed "Other libertarians." I don't doubt that pro-war libertarians exist, but you completely miss your own point when you don't stress enough how individualistic a libertarian philosophy is meant to be. Instead, your article is merely a potshot at Dr. Paul (really, how much did you get paid to write that?). If you ate your own dogfood, you'd be in Iraq fighting right now. And maybe then you'd meet some like-minded libertarians whom you could reference in your article, but you still wouldn't be able to convince others to see things your way just as you couldn't do so while practicing law.
-Phil Hemingway III
Gave this response to the website that posted Barnett's article.
I responded to the WSJ online with the first paragraph:
Mr. Barnett is seriously messed up in the head. I guess that's implied by his profession, though. He's not even fit enough to be a practicing lawyer (a profession that requires one to be messed up in the head) so he must teach law. "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." -Someone from the Bethlehem Steel
(Although to his credit, his bio says he has practiced before. I don't buy it though... he's teaching now so he must have been a pretty bad lawyer. And did anyone else notice how he dissociated himself from his own argument by using terms like 'Other libertarians...' and 'They viewed...' ? Was he conducting interviews to determine this?!?! Where are his sources? Or more to the point, why can't he just say 'I viewed...' instead of 'they viewed...' ? What a frickin' lawyer.
-Phil Hemingway III
Barnett's Article
My immmediate reaction when I read the Wall Street Journal piece was "how tortured the reasoning!" My second reaction was, "I bet Justin will have something to say about this!" I made a mental note to check out Antiwar.com today but did not have a chance. I found Justin's response here first, much to my satisfaction. The only plausible motivation for Barnett's twisted piece is to try to take some of the libertarian wind out of Dr. Paul's sails. I hope it was as transparent to everyone else as it was to me.
R. Match
Neo-Libertarians?
Raimondo's article reminded me of 2000 campaign. I was reading Solzenichen's, "GuLag Archipelago". I told my father, "What's wrong with our government is they have not read this book, because if they did, they would see they are doing everything as Solzenichen depicts of Stalin". In his second campaign speach, Bush mentioned Solzenichen. I believed since that time, the Neo-cons were using Archipelago as a road map. So far, I've been right.
About the article, II think a better term would have been neo-liberal, because Any Rand would not approve. I started reading Ayn Rand in the 70's, and came to be one of those "hippies on the right", like Raimondo, who I am waiting to read a column about his homosexuality in defense of Ron Paul to influence votes from the gay community. I have been an antiwar.com supporter since it's beginning, and always wish they had a threaded board. I'm happy to find one in Daily Paul. Thanks Fonta!
Have a good posting day!
(((( Hug to you )))) ;)
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")