Ben Stein Says Ron Paul Is Antisemitic for Calling US ‘Occupiers’
Eric Garris,
December 29, 2009
On Larry King, Ben Stein said that Ron Paul calling the US “occupiers” was “using the same antisemitic argument we’ve heard over and over.”
Former game show host and economist Ben Stein first came into prominence when he worked for notorious antisemite Richard Nixon.
paulBass
December 29th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Ben Stein, spreading antisemitism. maybe one you be able to do it as well as good ole senator Joe
anonymouse
December 29th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Win Ben Stein's Apology:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23885963463…
omop
December 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Ben Stein like any other American has the right to call anyone he disagrees with and/or wants to label " antisemitic."
As an American who agrees with Congressman Paul's views on US foreign policies/actions, I am using the same freedom to speak that Ben did by calling him a "loris".*
* A Webster's Dictionary defines the English version of what a "loris" is.
Peaceful_Idiot
December 29th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
So wait isn't Ron Paul really smart and stuff according to Ben Stein? That's what he said to Glenn Beck, and watch how Glenn Beck pretends to not know who Stein is referring to. Isn't propaganda cute? Why is Ben Stein still talking politics on the TV box again?
What a difference 18 months makes…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnAgiXOLug
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..gb.01.html
Poor Ben Stein, Ziocane addict.
Uncontrollable tribalism is an unfortunate side effect of Ziocane addiction, poor little fella.
jnv
December 29th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Ron Paul, why in hell are you debating Ben Stein? Couldn't you get Garfield Goose?
j canzoneri jr
December 29th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
ben stein is such a "has been" and a real nonentity. anyone who forms an opinion on what he has to say is truly a moron !!
Tim
December 29th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
So often those who can't contend with an argument resort to insults and slander. Accusations of anti-semitism and racism are terms abuse thrown around by those who don't have a valid point and feel cornered. Ultimately, it's a coward's way out of an argument. Does Ben Stein really believe Ron Paul was being anti-semitic when he argued that terrorism is blowback for the government's foreign interventionism? I don't think so. He was out of intellectual ammo and chose the coward's way out. Terrorism is the price the American people pay for empire.
Phil Corkey
December 29th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Ben Stein is another Constitutional Jobber. He speaks for no one except himself and his narrow audience, and used the oldest discredited tactic in the book: name-calling, when it was apparent that he had no answer to Ron Paul's question. I always thought he was a disingenuous idiot anyway so this doesn't surprise me. Good riddance as another rat has been flushed out of the wall. Way to go Ron Paul for doing us all a service here.
richard vajs
December 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Anti-semetic is a ridiculous term – both the Arabs as well as a lot of Jews are semetic people. What Ben Stein should be calling people he dislikes is Anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionist is really a compliment. It implies that the targeted person has made a courageous rejection of racism, land-theft and tribalism.. I smile when someone calls me anti-Zionist; I should put that on my business card.
Henry_Clemens
December 29th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
As I recall, Stein worked for the Nixon administration. The Nixon White House tapes proved that Nixon was indeed an "Anti-Semite." What's a saint like Stein doing hanging out with Anti-Semites like Nixon? Hmmm?
ace
December 30th, 2009 at 12:27 am
haaa you called him slow dumb primate. very funny because that what he is.
joebhed
December 30th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Let us all be thankful that Mr. Stein's objections are only to Ron Paul's foreign policy stance as a libertarian, and not his monetary policy beliefs.
Tom
December 30th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Stein is simply parroting the new "party line" coming out of the just-concluded "Fighting Anti-Semitism" conference in Jerusalem. This states that all criticism of Israel and Zionism is to be considered anti-Semetic. And, according to a subsequent Jerusalem Post article, all sources of such "anti-Semitism" are to be considered the equivalent of military targets for the IDF and other Israeli agencies. So watch your step Ron Paul and Antiwar.Com!
MoT
December 30th, 2009 at 1:56 am
It's time we come up with something along the line of "Godwin's law". From henceforth any time the discussion devolves into using the term "anti-semitism or anti-semite… blah blah blah" the argument is lost by the party using it. Straight up! For once this dead cat of a term needs to be buried because it keeps stinking up the thinking process.
Scott Harmon
December 30th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Stein is simply "anti-intellectual," which is seriously bad. His reaction to Paul's comment about blowback, where he claimed never to have heard such stuff before, was mind-boggling. Stein either needs to read a bit more (tough for an anti-intellectual) or go down to the schoolyard for a brawl–he might get it.
Richard
December 30th, 2009 at 3:22 am
Who is Ben Stein? Obviously he is a radical left wing anti-American hypocrite. Ron Paul is one of the most balanced and thoughtful Americans in public life today, thank God.
DICKERSON3870
December 30th, 2009 at 4:20 am
RE: Ben Stein said that Ron Paul calling the US “occupiers” was “using the same antisemitic argument we’ve heard over and over.”
MY COMMENT: Sometimes I get the impression Ben Stein is not in full control of his 'faculties'.
sdfdf
December 30th, 2009 at 4:27 am
I was very disappointed in Sheila Jackson Lee. She should have come out and said "the word occupier isn't anti-semitic". But instead she just blathered on about being even handed or something.
Andy
December 30th, 2009 at 5:22 am
I agree with you 100%.
Johnny in Wi.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:14 am
The zionists have destroyed the economy, ruined the culture through Hollywood, Got us involved in endless unwinnable wars, and own most of our political class threw bribery and intimidation. They do it with our own tax dollars. If this be antisemitic so be it.
cdfer
December 30th, 2009 at 7:05 am
US is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is occupying palestine. There are other countries that are occupiers. Since when an occupier is an antisemite.
Robert Fisher
December 30th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Ron Paul is one of the few honest Politicians that does not take Kick backs from the Israeli Lobby. i can understand Stein being upset whenever someone speaks truthfully about Israel. because that is the last thing they want to hear. heck, it is even anti semetic to bring up the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Robert Fisher
December 30th, 2009 at 7:20 am
this is excellent : Benjamin Stein on Zionacane fighting against anti – Zionism.
Thanks Guys.
Ponzi
December 30th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Before you react, you should first ask yourself what's the definition of anti-semitic. From experience, this word has been used to fool people around the world in order to support Apartheid (zionism) in Palestine. All politicians that dare to challenge the Zionists are labelled anti-semitic in order to protect israeli occupation of Arab lands. Even the most obvious war crimes by the israelis (bombarding civilians with white phosphorus and radioactive weapons in Gaza and stealing the victims organs for sale) cannot be condemned by politicians who do not want to be labelled anti-semitic as if Israel was a special country that can violate international whenever it wants!
Orville H. Larson
December 30th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Ben Stein is a Zionist, Israel-first horse’s ass.
Ron Paul–the only principled man in the District of Corruption–opposes our warmongering, Israeli-approved foreign policy.
(And, yes, as others here have commented, what the hell was Stein doing working for Tricky Dick Nixon, anyway? Awfully poor judge of character, aren’t you, Stein?)
Matt
December 30th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Poor economic advice. Now poor policy outlook.
felipeb
December 30th, 2009 at 2:57 am
If Ron Paul is an anti-Semite, how can I become one? Is it free? Do you get a card or a t-shirt? Sounds cool.
Drain 52
December 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Ah yes, Orville Larson, but Ben Swine is a kosher horse's ass.
Mabel
December 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Anti-GENTILISM is the source of "antisemitism". HUMANITY did not invent "antisemitism" and then wait thousands of years for judaism to appear, just so everybody could "hate" it for absolutely no reason. Jacob invented judaism, Moses (another "gem" of humanity) codified anti-GENTILISM in his "torah". Then judaism practiced anti-GENTILISM, their hatred of ALL NON-jews, and the only SANE reaction of any NON-jew is self defense, which the "Tribe" calls antisemitism.
Judaism is neither a race or a religion, it is Xenophobic Tribalism.
XENOPHOBIC: n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
TRIBALISM: n.
1. The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
2. A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
DICKERSON3870
December 30th, 2009 at 4:33 am
For what it's worth, I see more and more use (especially by Likudnik hasbarists) of the term "Jew-hater" in place of anti-Semite. Draw your own conclusions.
sdfdf
December 30th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The neocons seem to have a script when dealing with Ron Paul.
When Ron Paul got into a tiff with Guiliani during one of the Republican primary debates in 2007, Guiliani said "that's a strange view. I've never heard that before."
Now when Stein gets into it with Paul, he says "that's a strange view. I've never heard it before."
Scripted.
Perun
December 30th, 2009 at 5:53 am
The Zionists are humanitarian interventionists civilizing the savages in the tradition of Anglo-American terrorist alliance and "international" community.
Dennis
December 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
My question is why is Ron Paul even there to debate with Ben Stein. Stein is just a dummed down commercial actor on TV, after working for the Nixon administration. Anything he says, even in commercials, proves Hollywood does not reward talent anymore. He expressed the anti-semetic phrase to infuriate Ron Paul. Except Ron did not fall into the trap. He stood his ground and called Stein's bluff. Ron Paul is truly an international statesman, a man who should have been elected President in 2008, rather than the charlatan we have in office today.
Haj
December 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Ron Paul is a leader with vision, and he should be listened to because his views and ideas are the antidote of terror. Implemnting his ideas will save tax payers lots of dollars, save American life, provides jobs for Amercians, and improve the quality of life for all Americans. The US will stay as a superpower and there is no need to continue to intervene in other countries and pay other countries money as pribes to promote failed foriegn poloycies. The US is the icon of liberty, freedom, science, and justice for all. Supporting other countries based on biblical prophecies will cause more destruction and needless resentment and misery for many cultures that existed since ancient times. Mr. Stein seems to prefer invading the whole middle east so we can have a war for ever
Concerened human being
kirk
December 30th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Stein's ad hominem attack on Paul reveals Stein lost the debate.
Mike
December 30th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Any objection to the expansion and projection of the world's most benign empire can only be based on irrational hatred.
That's why both Neocons and liberals worship the power of the State — both want to wield it to destroy the bad, old ways and replace them with their own blueprints for Utopia. And only the wicked and the ignorant could oppose that!
Denis Jaisson
December 30th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Let alone Stein's statement being a ludicrous anathema which makes the Spanish Inquisition look a club of subtle lawyers, it has now become counter-productive. It does not intimidate people as it used to, before the Israeli Defence Minister called for a "shoah of the people of Gaza" and Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs asked for apartheid to be enforced in Israel against some of its own citizens conveniently labelled as "potential traitors"… When will Stein and the like of his realise that their posturing as the archetype of the exclusive victim, makes more and more people grunt with disgust in the face of zionist crimes and racism, in the face of the wars which the American zionists are waging for Eretz Israel, in the face of the financial crises and scandals and the ruine of America orchestrated by the cosmopolitan finance, in the face of the theft of human organs in Palestine and Kosovo and their sale through New York's synagogues? Will they understand, before it is too late, the warning of French Jewish Professor Roger Dommergue who said that "the conditions are being met for the most spectacular eruption of antijudaism of human History"? Like Professor Dommergue, I write "antijudaism" instead of "antisemitism" by the way, because, according to History professor Shlomo Sand from Tel-Aviv University, the Jews of Israel are the descendants, not of Abraham, but of Gentiles from the shores of the Mediterranean see and from the Khazar kingdom (now Georgia). According to Jewish Professor Sand, the Palestinians – God bless them – are the descendants of Abraham and the owners of the Promised Land. So Stein, again, eructed in vain on more than one account. Do you reckon that his flair will let him know this time, that he spat at a vertical…?
Ira7Epstein
December 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
These comments should come as no surprise. Actors usually make an ass of themselves when they comment on current events or take a stand on political issues. I think the reason for this fact is actors make a career out of pretending and playing make believe, and this fact tends to sever the connection they have with reality. I always enjoy the characters Ben Stein plays in movies. I think he is one of the best straight men in the acting business(not as good as Bob Newhart, but then again who is?). He should stick with something he does fairly well, acting, and refrain from commenting on political or financial issues.
December 30, 2009 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
December 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
[...] http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/12/29/ben-stein-calls-ron-paul-antisemitic-for-calling-us-occupiers… [...]
Mark
December 30th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Most of the comments above strike the target: Ben Stein could not defeat Ron Paul’s assertion that occupation, especially by people of a different religion, creates terrorism, and accordingly resorted to ad hominem attacks against Paul rather than logic and facts. Ron Paul’s assertion that occupation creates terrorism is largely unassailable.
At the height of Israel’s bombing of West Beirut in Lebanon in August 1982, the delivery of military goods from the United States to Israel increased by 50 per cent since 1981. In August 1982, consequently, the United States suffered its first terrorist attack by Middle-Easterners and/or Muslims at the Honolulu International Airport when a Palestinian, Mohammad Rashid, detonated a bomb in retaliation (or “blowback”) for the support provided by the US for Israel’s war of aggression.
Ira7Epstein
December 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Definition of anti-semitic: 1. Any disagreement whether great or small with the political agenda of the Likud Party of Israel and its vision of a greater Israel. 2. Any attempt to portray Palistianians as humans, and to write or say anything sympathetic about the suffering they have endured as a direct result of the policies of the government of Israel. 3. Any critical evaluation of the policies of the government of Israel or any account whether truthful or false of human rights violations of the government of Israel especially when those human rights violations involve Palistinians. This definition of anti-semitic is offered as public service to those who thought to be anti-semitic is to hate a person because that person is Jewish, and to associate being Jewish with certain negative charactor traits.
Ahmed from Bahrain
December 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
What's anti-Semitic got to do with American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? It seems like an open hole to ditch anyone who criticizes injustice.
andy
December 30th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
As soon as they call you an "anti-Semite" you have won the discussion.
RichardofLongBeach
December 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Good catch. Thanks. I'll remember that one.
Michael from France
December 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Well… I don’t really understand where that ‘antisemitic’ argument came from. Does Ben Stein really believe the United States is a jewish state ? Or is it that arguing against the ‘war on terror’ is antisemitic ?
I believe he is more likely running out of rational arguments. I guess he believes using a 10-letter word will make him sound more convincing than using any 4-letter words.
It certainly does not. Shame on him for abusing the TV viewers by using such degrading tactics, thus wasting their time. And also for ruining his entire argumentation with a single – albeit composite – word.
liberranter
December 31st, 2009 at 12:26 am
Yes, indeed. It's most unfortunate that in his attempt to spread sanity and morality across the American body politic, Ron has placed himself in the position of having to "debate" a whole range of 18-karat morons unworthy of anyone's serious attention, creatures like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannitard, and Ed Schultz, to name just a three of the worst of the lot. Sadly, said morons exercise unmerited influence over the booboisie. Hence, Ron has no choice but to share precious air time with them and try, as best as any reasonable human being can, to provide on-air antidotes to their toxic verbal stupidity. Stein constitutes merely the latest addition to the long list of media morons KO'd by Ron's incontrovertible reason.
Samuel DiMuzio
December 31st, 2009 at 12:51 am
Ben Stein couldn't carry Ron Paul's shoes. Stein has no credibility. And is to be put in his place…a shill and a flunkie.
Eric Dondero
December 31st, 2009 at 1:31 am
Ron Paul is not an "anti-Semite." As someone who worked with him for nearly 12 years as his personal aide I can attest to that. It's not Jews he hates; it's the existence of the State of Israel. He's not anti-Semite, he's simply anti-Israel.
Someone should ask Ron Paul, if it's not the culture that the Muslims hate us for, if it's our "troops in their lands," than why is it that the Islamo-Fascists hate the Dutch so much? The Swedes? The Danes? The French? Even the neutral non-intervenionist Swiss?
Ron Paul is dead wrong on foreign policy. It's our culture and our wealth that they hate us for; not our Military on Middle-Eastern soil.
What a relief that Rand Paul does not share his Father's extremist isolationist views on foreign policy. Rand will make an outstanding Senator. As for Ron, well, it's time for him to retire, the sooner the better.
abraham
December 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Ben is such a douche.
Eric Dondero
December 31st, 2009 at 3:00 am
Ben Stein is an absolute hero for us Libertarians. His film Ferris Beuller's Day Off was an iconic libertarian/individualist movie in the 1980s. He's been a passionate supporter of free market principles on the various cable news shows over the years. And he's always been stridently Pro-America and anti-Islamo-Fascist. Ben Stein represents the best of the libertarian movement. Ron Paul on the other hand is only a "50%-er." He's superb on domestic policy, but entirely un-libertarian, and pro-Leftist/Anti-American on foreign policy.
I'll take full Libertarian Ben Stein over half a loaf Ron Paul any day of the week.
Eric Dondero, Libertarian Republican
& 25+ Year Libertarian Party member
Tom
December 31st, 2009 at 3:32 am
Yes. See my comment on the "Fighting Anti-Semitism" conference in Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Post article equating criticism of Israel or Zionism or its Gaza policy as worthy of military-style attack. I commented quite a bit on this on Togethernet (a Yahoo Group moderated by a decent Israeli, Israel Shamir).
persnipoles
December 31st, 2009 at 5:20 am
Very good call. Worse, it was "Well that's -I've never heard anything like that in my whole life." Next it'll be: "never in the history of mankind has such a thing been uttered." I'm sure I'll hear that tomorrow on Medved.
persnipoles
December 31st, 2009 at 5:36 am
I'd go you one further too. When someone believes they benefit from a scripted world, they need to respond to truth with astonished incredulity. I think this is also a contagious element of 'Neocon' propaganda. Here we saw the weak & ineffectual reflex that is at the base of more effective procedures that get their opponents effectively labeled as 'nuts,' or even 'dangerous.' You know they think they're winning if you get called 'evil.'
Ferris
December 31st, 2009 at 6:34 am
Hey Donderoo, aren't you the clown who took Ron Pau'ls seat…oops…make that tried to take Ron Paul's seat in the last election?
xearther
December 31st, 2009 at 6:40 am
Your posts, Eric, are so blatantly constructed to "sell". Your copy is so pathetically stuck in the past terminology of Presidential campaign propaganda. And your identification with "Libertarian" is an incredible bastardization of the thoughts of Jefferson, Washington, and Paine. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to exchange notes with another poster here who calls herself a "libertarian socialist".
You are a perfect example of the mystery of the human mind, Eric. Countless videos, eyewitness accounts, and quotes of surviving family members pissed off and grieving because of the actions of American invaders and you think it's all about "our culture and wealth". You are insane.
RichardofLongBeach
December 30th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Sheila Jackson Lee was a non-entity just towing the Democratic party line. If the Republicans do it; it is bad. If the Democrats do it; it is good. Just Pathetic. No conscious; no courage. How many young men and women from her district have been killed or wounded in these imperialist criminal wars of Aggression and Theft?? How many more over the the next three years. Ben Stein is a propagandist whose job is to always redirect the conversation away from anything that might have the slightest hint or touch of an Israeli connection. In this instance he immediately went for nuclear weapons and called Ron Paul's logic anti-semitic. Guess what it worked. The conversation ended. No more discussion of occupation, premeditated war, war of aggression aloud. That is what a paid hack is supposed to do. Unfortunately, Ms. Lee is just an intellectual coward. One of thousands that crawl around Washington.
Drain 52
December 31st, 2009 at 8:41 am
Eric Dunderhead: what the devil makes you think "Ferris Bueller" was a libertarian movie? Assuming, arguendo, that it was libertarian, it was just a movie. If Stein played a Nazi officer in a movie would that make him a fascist?
I'm also curious to know when libertarianism included gratuitous wars and interventions, killing civilians to no self-defensive purpose, and worshipping at the altar of the Pentagon. And don't you find it odd that Islamic terrorism against America started only after our various unjustified interventions and meddling against Islamic countries? Believe it or not, there is cause and effect action in the real world.
Concerning the Europeans, other than sporadic home-grown terrorists, they have been left alone by Islamic terrorists. That could change, though, according to how much they support America's warmongering in the Mideast. Again, America was prosperous and its culture more intact decades ago than now, yet we weren't under terrorist attack then. What do you think changed?
paulBass
December 31st, 2009 at 11:56 am
wow im an atheist and reading this guy give me the chills i think hes the devil.
Eric Dondero
December 31st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
George, you wanna try calling me a "NeoCon"?
My positions:
Legalize Prostitution
Legalize Drugs
Repeal Seat Belt Laws
Legalize all Gambling
End Affirmative Action for all Groups
Protect all Property Rights
Abolish the IRS
The consistent libertarian position is Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. How can one call themselves a Libertarian yet align themselves with those who want to institute Sharia Law? Outlawing all booze and marijuana, hanging Gays in town squares, stoning "loose women" to death, opposing "Western Capitalism."
Those who oppose the War on Islamo-Fascism are absolutely NOT! libertarians in any manner, shape or form, and are nothing less than Leftists who've infiltrated out Libertarian movement.
George
December 31st, 2009 at 10:23 am
How dare one ask the question " why " ? Because if you peel the onion, you will find that the cause of all the terrorism is ISRAEL. It's paid pimps like Stein and the neo-cons , coupled with the whores in the House International Relations Committee, are placing our country on the receiving end this blow back.
Ron Paul is dead right. Stein move to Israel and forgo your dual citizenship.
Brian Drake
December 31st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Eric,
The consistent libertarian position is anti-State. Period.
richard vajs
December 31st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Eric Dondero’s Libertarian-Republican fondness for war is exactly why I gave up on the Libertarian Party back in 2001. When the bugles sounded and the flags waved calling for revenge and massacre of innocent people just because of their religion, I saw that the leadership of the Party had the same gung-ho blood thirst as the knuckle dragging GOP “warriors”. I was a Life member of the Party indicating that at one time I gave serious money, but for now ole Dondero can call me a “leftist who checked out of the libertarian-fascist Roach Motel”
Eric Dondero
December 31st, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Funny, I left the Libertarian Party in the late 1980s for exactly the opposite reason: It had been taken over by a bunch of David Bergland-ista, extremist anti-War Leftists.
When I first joined the LP in 1985 there was a very active Pro-Defense wing, called the Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by Mike Dunn in Washington State, Kevin Bjornsen in the WA LP, Darlene Brinks and John Hospers in Calfornia and even Robert Poole of Reason Magazine who was a big Pro-Defense Libertarian at the time.
But then the Anti-War Kooks took over and kicked out all the sane people on Defense.
Stefanie
January 1st, 2010 at 2:11 am
Eric Dondero:
Are you also "Pro-War" on Liberalism and Conservatism, and on Democrats and Republicans. After all, those ideologies and parties also oppose most of the "positions" you list as yours.
A. G. Phillbin
January 1st, 2010 at 2:55 am
Obviously, Ben Stein is a senile idiot. He heard Ron Paul speak of the US as "occupiers," heard only the word "occupier," immediately rose to defend the alleged "occupiers" which he must have thought of a smear against the alleged (in Stein's mind) Israeli "occupiers," and said "AHA! Anti-Semitism!", and did it rather badly! He defended an occupation by denying that it was being done by occupiers! Stein didn't even wait for RP to say something about the Israelis!
Heretic
January 1st, 2010 at 3:07 am
Islamo-Fascist? Is that the same as Judeo-Fascist. Zionist-Fascist, Hasidic-Fascist, Chabad-Fascist, Land Stealing, People murdering, continuous whining chosen-Fascist
RichardofLongBeach
January 1st, 2010 at 3:15 am
.
Pro-War, Imperialist, money-wasting, paranoid, telling other people what to do Libertarians ?
Maybe the following quote explains everything:
.
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
The best way to wreck the conservative party, the labour party, the republican party, the democratic party, the green party, the libertarian party ………is to infiltrate it…….take positions of leadership within it,……. and ultimately compromise its principles and objectives.
.
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 3:17 am
If libertarianism calls for "freedom" at the point of a bayonet in Islamic countries, than do we invade Uganda for outlawing homosexuality or El Salvador for criminalizing abortion? What's more, do we arrest the Americans who basically wrote the kill the gays bill for Uganda?
Ron Paul and I PROFOUNDLY disagree on abortion rights in the United States.
But where we would agree is that neither of us believe you can invade a repressive country and make it a culturally liberal one (even if I occasionally do like the idea of the Spanish or Canadians invading America and legalizing gay marriage). If you try, you only wind up making it worse (eg Iraq).
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 3:17 am
And I don't think Paul would argue against defending the American homeland against terrorism. In fact, I'm sure he'd point out how 9/11 proved that even though America was spending more money than the rest of the world combined on "defense" it was helpless to shoot down a few planes in 2001. The American military isn't designed to protect the American people. It's designed to protect the American empire.
Cut the military budget by 2/3. And quadruple the money being spent on training and hiring screeners at airline checkins. Triple Norad's budget. And increase the budget by ten times for training FBI and CIA agents in Arabic.
Stefanie
January 1st, 2010 at 3:56 am
Does Eric Dundero support the violent overthrow of the U.S. government because its laws stand in opposition to his "libertarian" positions. He does say he is "Pro War."
Stefanie
January 1st, 2010 at 3:57 am
RichardofLongBeach:
Interesting quote. Could you refer me to the source? Also, are you sure that is what Lenin meant by that statement?
paulBass
January 1st, 2010 at 8:31 am
HA burn!
paulBass
January 1st, 2010 at 8:36 am
don't you see!!!
in order to have a libertarian society we need a military government capable of imposing its will 100% in any country around the world only then when a cabal of well armed crusaders lead our government will it magicly shrink away securing our civil rights in the process.
Drain 52
January 1st, 2010 at 9:49 am
Let me see if I have Eric Dunderhead's position right: We give lots of tax money to the federal government so it can have a military far beyond mere self-defense. He calls this "libertarianism."
Then the federal government makes gratuitous war while limiting liberty and raising taxes (or inflation) to fund that war, and killing a bunch of foreigners for nothing. He calls this "pro-war libertarianism."
Then the federal government, having naturally created a host of enemies because of its incessant warmongering, now feels entitled to wage war and so-called preventive war against the globe while impelling more and more people to fight back. Of course, the government swells enormously in power, corruption, and tax absorption to maintain this empire. He calls this also "libertarianism."
Did I miss something here? If this is libertarianism, then what the hell is liberal Democrat (and now recently GOP) policy?
Eric Dondero
January 1st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Drain, you seem to think this is my position and my position alone. I have asserted repeatedly that there's a rich tradition of Pro-Defense Libertarianism. Stretching back to the Goldwater days in the early 1960s. Right through to Dana Rohrabacher and the Libertarian Caucus of Young Americans for Freedom. To Dr. John Hospers, the first Libertarian Presidential candidate. To Mike Dunn's Libertarian Defense Caucus in the 1970s and 80s. To humorist PJ O'Rourke's many books on the subject of Pro-Defense libertarianism, like his classic "Give War a Chance."
To the modern day, where most Pro-Defense libertarians hang out in the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Eric Dondero
January 1st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If there's one thing that I wish to get through to you all with this long discussion (and btw, I do appreciate Eric Garris, the host, allowing me the opportunity to debate you all here), it's that Pro-Defense libertarianism has been a major strain within the libertarian movement for decades. It's been largely ignored. And often thrust to the side, even "purged," at times.
But we're back. And back with force. You'll be hearing and seeing a lot more of us Pro-Defense Libertarians in the future. Stay tuned…
Eric Dondero
January 1st, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Exactly the opposite. We oppose Radical Islam PRECISELY! cause we don't want anyone telling us what to do.
We don't want Muslim clerics issuing edicts that all our girlfriends and wives have to wear ugly black burqas from head to to. We don't want to watch our Gay friends have their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths and then hanged in the town square. We don't want to see "loose women," and prostitutes stoned to death in our fields. We don't want to see our marijuana smoking buddies thrown in jail for life.
Again, you CANNOT! call yourself a real libertarian and align yourself with Sharia Law. The two are mutually incompatible.
anonymouse
January 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Eric-
You're still a fucking idiot.
anonymouse
January 1st, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Yep. You're still a fucking idiot after all these years.
anonymouse
January 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
"You'll be hearing and seeing a lot more of us Pro-Defense Libertarians in the future."
And none of you chickenhawks will be in uniform.
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Ouch. I just got smacked in the head while you were wagging your dick around.
If I remember correctly, Eric Dondero was feeding dirt on Ron Paul to Obama Cultists like David Neiwert and the crowd at the Daily Kos during the Republican primary.
So it made me wonder why liberal Democrats were so interested in discrediting a Republican candidate who had no chance of winning the nomination anyway. After all, it was actually in the interests of the Democrats to see the Republicans split down the middle between anti-war libertarians and paleocons and neocons.
But my question, of course, was answered when Obama immediately declared after getting sworn in that he would largely pursue a neocon foreign policy. The Democats wanted Paul discredited because they wanted to discredit the anti-war faction of their own party.
RichardofLongBeach
January 1st, 2010 at 5:01 pm
.
The question is not whether a strong Defense is or is not necessary.
The question is whether the perceived threat from EVIL ISLAM is or is not real.
.
Unfortunately concerns about Radical Islam, Islamo-Fascists, Sharia Law, Muslims invading Europe, Muslims Invading America, Western Women forced to wear head to toe Burqhas just FITS TOO NICELY into the hegemonic goals of power hungry nuts in the US, Britain, Europe and Israel, many of whom are in a position to promote false, money-motivated, bigoted agendas.
.
Are there Idiots in Muslim countries? Absolutely. Does some percentage of the population follow them blindly? Yes. Are they the majority? No. Not in a long shot. The vast majority of Muslims in the developing world want a chance to come to the west only to take a shot at the good life, i.e. a few pennies in the bank and an education for their kids. They are not part of a sinister, diabolical highly organized plot to surreptitiously infect and overthrow America in order to establish a new Caliphate. That's just silly.
.
Are there Idiots in the West? Absolutely. Does some percentage of the population follow them blindly? Yes. Are they the majority? Neocons-Obamacons-Blairites, tough question, best answer is maybe.
.
Going back to Radical Islam and the so-called evil multi-dimensional Muslim threat, I think one particular quote from Brother Ilyich sums it up nicely.
.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
Whether it is DDT, "the Missile Gap", swine flu 1976, swine flu 2009, Radical Islam, Y2K, global warming, climate change, shoe bomber, and now the UNDERWEAR BOMBER somebody has an agenda and somebody wants your and my wallet. If we allow them to scare us and give them our wallets, they will have power and control. Meaning more war. More loss of liberty. More servitude from generation to generation.
.
Here's one more quote from Vlad….
.
"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
.
.
Sound familiar. If you read him often enough, he starts to sound like a Neocon. Why all the quotes? Because the perpetrators of the big lie have a common lineage, straight back to communism and marxism.
.
.
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 5:27 pm
There are idiots everywhere. That's what's so convenient for the American empire. Since there's no such thing as a perfect society, there's always an excuse to invade when you want something (insert imperfect society here) has.
So let's take Mexico. Mexico doesn't have a lot of mosques, but it has plenty of drug gangs, poverty, and violance. But the neocons don't want to actually invade Mexico. They only want to ratchet up the "war on drugs" and shovel more money into the Mexican government to make it easier for them to oppress the Mexican people. So they calibrate the narrative accordingly.
Or take Kansas or Oklahoma. Plenty of violent religious fundamentalists in both places. Why not invade?
If there's a difference between violent fundamentalist Islam and violent fundamentalist Christianity, it has a lot more to do with the clas structure of the Arab world and the amount of dire poverty in places like Pakistan than it does with the nature of Islam or Christianity.
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Poetic justice, of course, would be that in 50 years, when China is the new superpower and America is a sinkhole of poverty, riven with dirty faced, ragged Anglo Saxon christian fundamentalists, if the Chinese decide to bomb us in the name of world stability.
I'll be pretty old then, but I'll laugh my ass off still.
RichardofLongBeach
January 1st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
.
SDSF, you only hit home runs.
SDSF
January 1st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I've had enough arguments with neocons to understand their (very effective) way of trapping their opponents.
They assume that the burden of proof lies on the anti war side.
OK, so you don't want us to bomb Gaza. Well looked at how fucked up Palestinian culture is.
OK, so you don't want us to invade Iraq. Look at how horrible Sadam is.
Then you wind up defending people you have no desire to defend.
The flip side of this is to attack "western" culture.
Oh yeah. If Gaza is so bad, how about Fred Phelps and God Hates Fags.
If Iran is so awful, how about homophobia in the USA.
I disagree with Ron Paul on pretty much everything except his foreign policy views. But at the present he's really the only person in the mainstream media trying to throw the burden of proof back onto the warmongers.
You want us to attack Country X? Show us how Country X is a threat. Once you've shown that Country X is a threat, show us WHY it's a threat. Are their measures that are cheaper and more productive to neutralize the threat short of war.
Eric Dondero
January 1st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Short answer: Yes!
Most assuredly Uganda. What they're doing down there is absolutely horrendous. We need to issue them an ultimatum immediately!
And btw, saying that "Americans authored the bill," is completely and entirely wrong. It's spin coming from the Far Left blogs trying to keep it from being fingered on the real culprits: Muslim clerics in Uganda who are pushing this execution of Muslims bill.
Lear K
January 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Mr.Eric Dondero,
Makes totally false claims just to score a point and advance an agenda.The truth shall be damned.The same way Iraq WMDs was presented by cheering and supportive media.
“But the MP who proposed the bill, (David Bahati), from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), is equally convinced of his position. Just make an allegations and hope no body notices.
“Here, we don’t recognise homosexuality as a right. We are after the sin, not the sinners. We love them – and we want them to repent and come back,” he says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8412962.stm
“Bahati came to international attention in October 2009 after introducing the Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a Private Member’s Bill on 13 October proposing that a new offence be created in Uganda named “aggravated homosexuality” which would be punishable as a capital offence.[1] The proposals included plans to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals who practiced gay sex with people under 18, with disabled people, when the accused party is HIV-positive.[2], or for those previously convicted of homosexuality-related offences. In a recent interview with NPR[3], author Jeff Sharlet claims this bill came about as a result of Bahati’s membership in (The Family).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bahati
The Fellowship, also known as( The Family), is an international organization founded in 1935 and has been led by Douglas Coe since 1969. Its members include scores of high ranking U.S. government officials, corporate executives, heads of religious and humanitarian aid organizations, and non-U.S. leaders and ambassadors. It has been described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US.[1][2][3][4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
Africa generally isn’t exactly friendly towards gays and gay rights, but the extreme situation in Uganda has been fostered by evangelical Christians from America. Lacking America’s Constitution and long tradition of respect for civil liberties, the extremist views of Uganda’s evangelical Christians is being taken to their logical extreme — and apparently with encouragement from those same evangelical Christians, in particular the notorious political group known as The Family. Look to Uganda for a preview of what these evangelical Christians want for America.
Terry Gross interviewed Jeff Sharlet about recent book The Family and the involvement of The Family with extremist politics in Uganda:
GROSS: This legislation has just been proposed. It hasn’t been signed into law. So it’s not in effect yet and it might never be in effect. But it’s on the table. It’s before parliament. So is there a direct connection between The Family and this proposed anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda?
Mr. SHARLET: Well, the legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family. He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda. ”
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/12/04/executing-gays-american-evangelical-christians-behind-uganda-evil.htm
Any thing to justify wars !
Andy
January 1st, 2010 at 11:52 pm
I can't understand why you call yourself a "Libertarian" Eric. I checked out your blog. You seem to not realize what being a "Libertarian" is. At best, I would call you a small-C conservative, or what is called in the U.K. a "wet Tory". By the way the term "isolationist" is a smear and an insult. It is used much like the panic-inducing term "racist" or "anti-Semite" or "Nazi" to stifle all talk of an non-interventionist foreign policy and a defensive stance consistent with protecting America's territorial integrity and its citizenry and not playing some assinine global self-appointed, "dirty Harry" role. The term "isolationist" was coined by Alfred Thayer Mahan, a truly awful person, a rabid imperialist and no friend to Libertarianism.
Andy
January 1st, 2010 at 11:55 pm
ERIC! He was just an actor playing a role in a film, that's all. I bet you think Clint Eastwood really walks around downtown San Francisco, blasting away bad guys too.
Andy
January 1st, 2010 at 11:56 pm
"Pro/defense/ProWar",,,,
Can't you see the contradiction in what you are saying?
Andy
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Eric, do you realize what sort of government powers, money, manpower and resources would be required to even try to transform the Islamic world as you suggest? It would mean an all-powerful state, completely incompatible with Libertarian ideals. Just look at the attempts of the Bush administration just to try to transform Iraq. Nor did European colonialism succeed in accomplishing anything positive either.
Andy
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:29 am
Who's aligning themselves with Shariac law?
Andy
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:30 am
Why should Americans fight and die to make Uganda safe for homosexuality Eric?
Andy
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:33 am
I'm also a "pro-defense Libertarian" too Eric. But I think I define "defense" very, very differently then you do.
BillyBob
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:53 am
There's a difference between "Defense" and "Offense."
Drain 52
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:15 am
Eric Dunderoo appears incapable of defending his position, wishing only to point out that libertarianism has had its own strain of pro-war interventionists for decades. That's not the issue here, and it's akin to recalling that that wart on your aunt's nose has been there a long time. What I want to know is on what ground Eric Adondevamos reconciles such warmongering with libertarianism. Nay, not just reconciles, but actually favors a warmongering whose effects destroy everything libertarianism is about. Or so I thought.
BillyBob
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:50 am
From the looks of it, you're getting trolled by "Eric."
BillyBob
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:50 am
From the looks of it, you're getting trolled by "Eric."
roger
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 am
The term “anti-semitic” is more telling of the person throwing it than the person receiving it. It means little more than the person saying it is pro-Israel.
Travlyr
January 3rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Eric Dondero is a warmongering barbarian not a libertarian.
"If you are Anti-War, you are by definition Anti-American, like it or not." – Eric Dondero
Eric Dondero
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
It most certainly IS the issue. May not be important to you. But as a Libertarian Party activist for over 25 years, I've had to fight tooth and nail agains the Weak on Foreign Policy wing. I've even suffered through purges at the hands of the Weak on Foreign Policy-ers.
The bottom line: Strong on Defense libertarianism has been around since the very beginning of our Libertarian Movement. In fact, WE! Strong on Defensers were the ORIGINAL LIBERTARIANS in the 1960s (Goldwater, Rand, Friedman, Hayek, Rohrabacher, Hospers).
We've suffered blows in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. But we're back now. You all will NEVER EVER AGAIN be able to shut us up, short of killing me. And incidentally, I intend to live a very long life – Grandmother lived well into her 90s.
Lear K
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Yet these same people would tell us over and over again that ‘blow-backs’ have nothing to do with the US actions in middle east and its unconditonal support for Israel.
RobertBrager
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I feel compelled to reiterate on Drain's behalf…
Eric, Drain posed a question directly to you while at the same time acknowledging all of your efforts to remind us of the presence of "Strong on Defense libertarianism", reminding you that such emphasis is neither germane to his question nor anything like an answer.
To repeat: On what grounds do you reconcile your warmongering and, unspoken, all of the economic consequences that derive from such impositions and centralization of economic planning with your professed libertarianism, a philosophy that most of the scholarship tells us pivots on that one axiom: the non-initiation of force?
You seem to believe that the movement and the philosophy at its core began in the 1960s, not lacking coincident timing with the beginnings of your participation in it (which no doubt works wonders for the old ego), and appear eager to disregard the wealth of scholarship and movement that preceded such time for decades if not centuries.
Where in the libertarian tradition – small 'l', remember, not your party or its impressive capital 'L' – do you find grounds for argumentation that imperialism, militarism, and all of the desecrations of life and property and liberty that derive therefrom? My own library is quite extensive and I confess, I am unable to find such argumentation. Mises once made some flippant remarks about conscription in the pages of Human Action, but insufficiently fleshed this point of view out at that juncture and, in any case, contradicted this notion throughout the remainder of his scribbles.
The answer to this question is not "there have been 'libertarian' hawks in the Libertarian Party's inception". No one has argued otherwise, although your citation of Ayn Rand as one such person is laughable, not because she wasn't, as you bill her, "strong on defense", but because she's never had a kind word for libertarians nor had she ever affiliated with such. Goldwater didn't either. This is besides the point. The question is, and I repeat with emphasis: WHERE IN THE LIBERTARIAN SCHOLARSHIP – meaning in the traditions and argumentation of the libertarian movement, not in the words and deeds of certain luminaries in the 1960s – DO YOU FIND GROUNDS TO RECONCILE THE NON-INITIATION OF FORCE – libertarianism's central axiom – AND A PRO-WAR AND A PRO-EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY?
Are you capable of answering such a question?
And who is threatening to kill you? You strike me as possessing an obsessively inflated sense of self.
Andy
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Eric, a few quick questions, if I may.
Do you think America should station troops in South Korea, 57 years after the war there ended? Do you judge this as defensive?
Should America keep troops in Japan and Okinawa? Do you consider this defense?
Should America continue its membership in Nato and support its expansion? Do you consider underwriting security for countries like Estonia an act of defense?
Do you consider the 78 day bombing campaign of Serbia in 1999 an act of defense by America?
Do you consider flying spy-planes over Hainan island an act of defense? Would it be an act of defense for the Chinese to fly their spy-planes over Santa Catalina?
I await your replies.
Texasbacksass
January 4th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
A couple of disagreements with your comment…..A. I don't know about you but I can lead myself.
And I was not just right down the line with Ron Paul but one of his delegates, and with him up to the point where he decided place his party loyalty to the republicans over the nation's interests by declining to support his millions of his loyal supporters like myself by not continuing to run for president as a moderate conservative independent candidate, where by the way he could have very possibly won the White House.
See part B continued.
Tom aka Texasbacksass Political Independent
Arlington, Texas
Texasbacksass
January 4th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
B; With the appetite congress has for spending willy nilly like drunk sailors in a New Orleans whorehouse there's nothing Ron Paul or anyone else could do to even slow them down when they can't even burp for under a billion dollars per burp.
To congress, the U S government is a gut with a mouth at one end consuming money by the trillions of dollars and an arsehole at the other that spews the trillions back out as their investment in the U S corporate military industrial complex. And all we the people are to the congress are is their false belief that we are an infinite supply of golden egg laying geese; a false belief that is about to come to an end.
Tom aka Texasbacksass Political Independent
Arlington, Texas
Texasbacksass
January 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
SDSF
There is no need to ratchet up the drug war, Mexico already receives plenty of U S dough in the neighborhood of between ninety five and a hundred and ten million dollas a year in the form of U S foregin aid which I have no doubt that in great part is used by the Mexican government to subsidize thousands of Mexican citizens that enter the U S A illegally.
Anybody that thinks that eveb one of those poor ole suppresed by their government Mecican citizens can accumulate ALL BY THEMSELVES as much a five thousand U S dollars to pay a Coyote to smuggle them across the U S border, is living in an Oz dreamworld.
Texasbacksass
January 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
SDSF
We white Native born Texans here in the DFW Metroplex now have the opportunity to dial in more Spanish speaking radio stations on FM and AM than English speaking stations. And we whites can't take a step out of your homes without tripping over spanish speakers that say screw English learn to speak Spanish and if you don;t like it tuff.
When I was sent to Southeast Asia to fight for my nation against communism, I never dreamed that forty years later that I would be living among people that are not only willing to fight against thise horrendous illegal alien invasion, but actually support the illegals and ready to give this nation away as a door prize.
andy
January 4th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
What's needed is to stop ALL immigration. Then a very long time is needed to absorb and digest the people who have arrived since 1965. By the way, you can blame your fellow White Texan LBJ for this situation. He passed the immigration act in 1965 that opened the floodgates to the world. He also sent you off on a fools errand in Vietnam. Of course he didn't tell the American people he was going to do either of this in the election year 1964.
andy
January 4th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Are you still out there Eric? I really would like a reply from you to my questions.
Jay Nixon Schmidt
January 4th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Much love – much love for this. I’m going to purchase my dad the Nixon Rubber Player! I hope he loves it.
andy
January 5th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Again, are you still there Eric? I would appreciate a reply to my questions.
Sean2009
January 9th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Amen. The left needs to wake up and realize our little messiah is playing for the other team and so are a lot of his cheerleaders over at Kos, Huffpo and Salon.
Sean2009
January 9th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
It's nice to see your version of 'freedom" is forcing other countries to do what you want at gunpoint. How noble.
Perhaps we should break down your doors and force you to take your meds…or else.
andy
January 10th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Last chance Eric. You want to answer my questions?
Mike
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
Ben stein is the guy who said on Glen Beck's shows that he has lots of racist friends. It took Glen Beck by surprise. Of course one of those racist friends was Richard Nixon. Now he has the nerve to accuse Ron Paul of anti-semitism? What a jerk.
Ron Paul is opposed to occupation and pre-emptive war. If that make you an anti-semite then I guess I am one also.
It's funny how often critics of Ron Paul resort to name calling. It's even funnier when the worst insult they can come up with is to characterize him as something they are themselves. Ben Stein has a few too many racist friends if you know what I mean.
Pathetic.
janeblakenship
June 17th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Nice video from that.
http://dogsarefriends.wordpress.com