Libertarian Harry Browne bashes President Bush and America's War on Terror

Fox News: Hannity and Colmes ^ | 11-21-01 | Cuban123

[Cuban123]

What an outrage!, I just finished listening to the 2000 Libertarian Candidate for President Harry Browne on Hannity and Colmes. What an OUTRAGE!. Harry Browne said Bush was a liar that was lying to the American people, that we were bombing innocent civilians that did nothing when it cameto the terror attacks,that we did not try to solve the situation by negotiating with the terrorists, that America was a mean bully, that Tony Blair's document proving Osama did it was all a fraud, and the whole world hated us and most people did not like us!

[Eagle Eye]

You want me to prove that Bush is not bombing innocent civilians

No, Just realize that you accept one side without question or proof and that you reject the other side without question or proof. Is it as good as bush protrays or as bad as browne portrays?

I'll be leaving soon, and the reason I'm saying that is because there is at least one bozo out ther that will accuse me of running away if I don't reply promply.

[Eagle Eye]

If Harry Browne can vehemently bash George W. Bush by Constitutional right, how is it that Cuban123's equivalent bashing of Harry Browne is "repressive"?

If you don't consider declaring people enemies of the state repressive, I don't know what could be. Declaring people as enemies of the state makes them criminals subject to proescution and imprisonment. That's what Cuban did. Now, justfy that, OK?

[BunnySlippers]

If you believe they mean what they say. I don't. Come on, you are not that naive. You live in my favorite town on the planet earth. Las Vegas residents know a con when they see it.

Actually I live in Los Angeles ... gazing out on the Hollywood sign right now from my patio. But remember the Libertarian Party said that Bill Maher is a Liberal not a Libertarian (see lp.org) ... for the same reason Geraldo is not a Libertarian either (he is a Liberal). But Harry Browne is truly contemptable and I can't believe anyone on this site would defend him.

[Eagle Eye]

You've got a few months of registration date on me, that is about it. I've been here long enough to see your techiques. we don't agree in many areas, but it is not uncommon for you to fib about people that yo don't like or agree with. I think you've got a fine moniker, very appropriate.

[dubyajames]

You don't like "e's" do you? Ed ClarkE was the Libertarian nominee in 1980, Harry BrownE was the nominee in 1996 and 2000.

Other than that, you are absolutely right.

[zip]

Your post 1 said it all so I don't have to post other comments. Thanks for a job well done.

[Libertarian_4_eva]

So your telling us that the rest of the world likes us?

Then why does europe want to sign the kyoto treaty that would crush our industiral base..includeing england?

Why is china selling videos of the WTC attack saying how we deserved it?

Why are some nato members not sending their armed forces into the fight?

Why is russia and china selling weapon systems to arm 3rd world dicators with nuclear weapons?

Why is europe forming the E.U. with the sole idea behind it to attack our economy and boost their own?

Wake up the rest of the world would love to bring us down.

Harry Brown is wrong on a lot of his arguments however he is 100% right in that we are not considered loved by many.

[zip]

THIS IS AN OURTAGE, HARRY BROWNE AND HIS LIBERTARIAN BUDDIES ARE ALL A BUNCH OF UN-AMERICAN PIGS

I think "his Libertarian buddies that think as he does" are a bunch of un-American pigs would be accurate but not "all Libertarians". Too broad a brush.

[FreeReign]

No, Just realize that you accept one side without question or proof and that you reject the other side without question or proof.

My long posting record shows that there isn't anything I accept without questioning.

[Eagle Eye]

Let me correct # 82, I may have mischaractarized what he said.

THIS IS AN OURTAGE, HARRY BROWNE AND HIS LIBERTARIAN BUDDIES ARE ALL A BUNCH OF UN-AMERICAN PIGS. I BET THAT TED KENNEDY AND AL GORE ARE BETTER PATRIOTS THEN THIS PIG WHEN IT COMES TO THIS WAR ON TERROR. IT IS TIME TO START A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THIS MAN, HIS LIBERTARIAN PARTY, AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST THE WAR! IT IS AN OURTAGE THAT THIS MAN IS PART OF AMERICA'S POLITICAL RIGHT. SAY HELLO TO HARRY BROWNE, SUPREME COMMANDAR OF AMERICA'S TALIBAN! (bold is mine)

Yeah, calling for a campaign against all 'buddies' of someone who one labels as un-American is pretty far from repressive, isn't it? Did Browne or any Libertarin make similar threats, er, I mean, declarations against those with whom they disagree? If you, Cuban, or anyone calls for a campaign against me because of what Browne said, especially in the vein and context that this is in, I'm going to think that the guy is not wanting to simply argue issues, but do what he can to stop me from speaking. But you probably don't see that, do you?

Try this, use the same words and delivery, except that it is from a clintonite and referring to a Repubican and see if you feel it repressive, assuming you are a Republican. Yeah, all ______'s are Un American pigs and we need to have a campaign against them. Free speech at it's best, right?

[Polybius]

If you don't consider declaring people enemies of the state repressive, I don't know what could be. Declaring people as enemies of the state makes them criminals subject to proescution and imprisonment. That's what Cuban did. Now, justfy that, OK?

I have cut and pasted Cuban123's entire post below.

It is rather vehement and is not in a rhetorical style that I would ever use myself. However, I see no mention whatsoever to "enemies of the state" or "criminals subject to prosecution and imprisonment."

Cuban123 advocates a political campaign against the Libertarian Party. That hardly qualifies as subjecting Libertarians to "prosecution and imprisonment". It subjects Libertarians to the same political partisan bashing that they dish out to George W. Bush.

The Consutition grants the right to any citizen to label any polititian as an "an un-American pig" or worse; even if that politician happens to be Harry Browne or the President of the United States.

THIS IS AN OURTAGE, HARRY BROWNE AND HIS LIBERTARIAN BUDDIES ARE ALL A BUNCH OF UN-AMERICAN PIGS. I BET THAT TED KENNEDY AND AL GORE ARE BETTER PATRIOTS THEN THIS PIG WHEN IT COMES TO THIS WAR ON TERROR. IT IS TIME TO START A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THIS MAN, HIS LIBERTARIAN PARTY, AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST THE WAR! IT IS AN OURTAGE THAT THIS MAN IS PART OF AMERICA'S POLITICAL RIGHT. SAY HELLO TO HARRY BROWNE, SUPREME COMMANDAR OF AMERICA'S TALIBAN!

[Republican Wildcat]

You appear to be responding to arguments which are not even being made.

[Polybius]

Yeah, calling for a campaign against all 'buddies' of someone who one labels as un-American is pretty far from repressive, isn't it?

It seems that we Posted #90 and #91 within a minute of each other so that we talked past each other.

I guess it comes down to the interpretation of what Cuban123 meant by "campaign". I take his use of the word to mean a political campaign. You take it to mean something more sinister. So, let's get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Hey, Cuban123, what did you mean by "Campaign"?

Did you mean a political campaign denouncing Libertarians as a bunch of &%^#$@& so and so's?

Did you mean a campaign to round them up and throw them in prison?

[zip]

..Likely the attack on our country would not have happened under Pat Buchanan..

You win the "most asinine" post of the day award. Congratulations

[NC_Libertarian]

I like Harry Browne but I wish he would shut up at this time. I do not agree with his position on this at all. The LP should be pushing civil liberties concerns and the government power grab, not questioning the morality of defending ourselves.

[zip]

Ummm.....Eagle Eye, Cuban123 simply said what you consider "unpopular". He vehemently bashed someone you happen to support. If Harry Browne can vehemently bash George W. Bush by Constitutional right, how is it that Cuban123's equivalent bashing of Harry Browne is "repressive"? Is it your position that the Constitution only protects criticism that Eagle Eye agrees with but that any criticism that Eagle Eye does not agree with is unconstitutional and repressive?

Excellent recap.

[Reactionary]

Sheesh. Yeah, we wouldn't want the likes of Buchanan or Browne in office. Unlike most "conservatives" one would hope that they would actually cut the size and scope of government, rather than use it as a blunt tool to grab more tax dollars, promote egalitarian misery and grab more political power. After all, the conservatives are pragmatists these days; they've adopted the easy morality of incrementalism and judicial activism.

Which isn't a bad thing so far as it goes. But it appears to me that almost everyone has forgotten the Constitution, and our wonderfully democratic leaders hardly quote it anymore. The document has become something of an embarassment to them, and it appears to be the case that no one dare mention it for fear of causing undue anxiety in the ruling classes.

Why? Because, I think, they all know how the game is really played. The key element, as they all rightly know, is the Supreme Court and its particular "interpretation" of our now-defunct and forever Living Constitution, that mysterious founding document that can only be understood or rightly interpreted by, you guessed it, other members of the ruling classes, namely the scribes of the legal profession.

So, for all of the sturm and drang of Washington politics, everyone understands that it all really all comes down to a question of political power. Not political force, you understand, but political power - which in this day and age means public relations. And for that, well, Mr. Bush has Mr. Rove, a man who understands how to wage political warfare and win.

[Texasforever]

Your post is a prime example of the reason the 3rd parties are doomed to failure. Who died and left you and your fellows as the true guardians of the constitution. That breath taking hubris and the libertarian "macho-flashing" exhibited by the bulk of libertarians, Patsies, Birchers and the ridiculously self-defined "constitutionalists" has left a taste in my mouth that I cannot get rid of. I am sick to death of the self-proclaimed oracles of the Founding Fathers that strut around here spewing, your sanctimonious proclamations.

[jwalsh07]

I don't paint all libertarians with the same brush. For sure there are many here that raise the bile in my throat but there are also some who I like and respect even when we don't see eye to eye.

But Harry Browne has gone over the top. His is a perversion of what you purportedly believe. We not only have the right to kill our enemies, it is our duty to do so. Harry acts as if he is on retainer to the Taliban as their man Carville. He borders on giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There are plenty of libertarians to embrace and admire, Harry ain't one of them amigo.

[Cuban123]

MY FELLOW FREEPERS: IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I POSTED MY COMMENTS. I WAS FALLING ASLEEP WHEN HARRY BROWNE MADE HIS COMMENTS, HE GOT MY BLOOD BOILING. I CONSIDERED THE LIBERTARIANS ON THE RIGHT OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AND NOW THE MAIN POINT-MAN OF THE PARTY IS BASHING THE WAR. WHEN I SAID CAMPAIGN I WAS JUST SAYING THAT IF LIBERTARIANS DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR MAIN GUY ON SUCH A CRUCILE ISSUE LIKE THE WAR ON TERROR THEN I SUGGEST THAT U GUYS START A CAMPAIGN TO GET HIM OUT OF THERE.....ON ANOTHER TOUGHT, KEEP HIM THERE SO BUSH CAN GET RE-ELECTED BY AN EVEN BIGGER MARGIN WITH THE HELP OF FORMER LIBERTARIANS