Libertarians turn against Neil Boortz [Title Mine]

Neal's Nuze ^ | December 8th, 2003 | Neil Boortz

[DeuceTraveler]

I found this on Boortz's homepage. PJ O'Rourke and other libertarians also were against the war which is why I haven't felt much love for the libertarians.

[Drango]

I think I'm beginning to understand why the Libertarian Party has a tough time getting the respect one would like to see.

Does the blue guy ring a bell?

[optimistically_conservative]

One would think with the looney left leaping like lemmings over the proverbial cliff, the libertarians would position themselves as passionate patriots preferring a different approach to peace and prosperity than Bush has taken.

But no, they will do the impossible and seem loonier than the lefties.

[buffyt]

I used to be Boortz's number one fan. Bought his books and gave them to graduates. Kept a stack of them on hand for just that purpose. One time I wrote an email to him and instead of ignoring it or writing back to tell me he disagreed with me, he wrote back using all foul language, four letter words. I thought that was totally inappropriate. I lost all respect for him right then. I am a lady and I don't even know him personally. My worst enemies wouldn't use language like that. He is course and rude and his 'fame' has gone to his wee little head.

[Maelstrom]

Quite a few libertarians are for the war, which is why I'm now Republican.

[sheltonmac]

Most libertarians were against the war on purely technical terms...

On the other hand, look at all the "conservatives" (especially here at FR) who supported the war on purely emotional terms. Many of them were pumped up because they saw it as a way to somehow get back at those Muslim maniacs who attacked us on 9/11. As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.

[xrp]

Get his name right, it is 'Neal' not 'Neil'.

[CatoRenasci]

Given that the essentially libertarian ideas of the English and Scottish enlightenments, in slightly less absolute form, underpin the entire modern Western worldview, you would think that the Libertarian Party could make some headway over the past 30 years or so. But, no, they are as irrelevant today as they were in 1970, perhaps more so. There is a very good reason why: they are rigid ideologues who simply don't understand either human nature or politics.

[Skywalk]

Strange, I thought it was common knowledge that they had something to do with WTC 93, an assassination attempt on a former President and MIGHT have had some involvement in 9/11.

[xrp]

Quite a few Republicans are against freedom, liberty and small government, which is why I am a libertarian-conservative.

[AAABEST]

Does the blue guy ring a bell?

LMAO. I remember him now.

I'm very unhappy with the socialist GOP and would like to give them up as a party. The thing is as much as I agree with them at times, I could never throw my lot in with these people.

Too many goofballs (the "blue guy" lol) and a horrid platform.

[DeuceTraveler]

My bad. Sorry, Neal.

[LowCountryJoe]

In their own words on their web page, the Libertarian Cato Institute states that they promote "individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace" - the basic components of true freedom.

Was this not good enough for the citizens of Iraq? I guess that according to them (the Libertarians) all despotism must be countered, without aid, through revolution and the sweat, tears, and blood that accompany it.

Hey, didn't France help us? Yea, sure, they did gouge us and they were serving their own interests...hmmm this is sounding familiar.

[DeuceTraveler]

I would think that the Libertarians could take a patriotic stance and in my dream world take the place of the democratic party in our two-party system, but it will never happen if the Libertarians can't even spout out a cohesive policy.

[JohnGalt]

The Great Patriotic War is the litmus test for many post-conservatives who are about three months behind the political machinations of the country.

Boortz is just some talk show fool who has to extricate himself from supporting a $200 billion debt financed war to build a welfare state in Iraq in the 'Global Democratic Revolution."

Ultimately, they have been seduced by the promises of heaven on Earth by the Reds, parasites, and anti-patriots who hold the reigns of power in the DC tax regime.

[DeuceTraveler]

Ugh. Totally ruins my image of him, but thanks for the heads up. You're right about the proper use of language.

[optimistically_conservative]

Many of them were pumped up because they saw it as a way to somehow get back at those Muslim maniacs who attacked us on 9/11.

I think that's a fair statement of many Americans including some conservatives. It's too bad Bush waited more than a year after the bombing to use that emotion to attack Iraq. Think how much easier it would have been to just run in there in October 2001?

As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks, so I'm not sure why you would say that libertarians are merely being "anal" about this war.

IMHO that remains a subjective conclusion. You may want to periodically reevaluate that position as more evidence comes out about ties and support from Saddam's family and the Iraqi intelligence service for Al Qaeda. In the end, I think it is a measure of how much that support aided AQ's ability to carry out the 9/11 attacks.