Recently, Jacob Hornberger was attacked by DailyKos blogger John Sumner, and responded masterfully. Mr. Hornberger notes that while liberals may differ from conservatives at the grassroots level, their leaders have always and continue to endorse welfare, statism, and killing hundreds thousands of innocent people. Indeed, he concludes, it is only the radical libertarians that oppose such evil, while the left largely acquieces to it.
Hornberger is, of course, right. The fact that he -- and "the movement" in general-- represents the real oppostion to war and the establishment is, I think, the source of the hatred from pro-Obama progressives like Sumner, Markos Moulitsas and ThinkProgress bloggers. The endless mockery and implications of "racism" -- noticeably absent in the analyses of principled progressives like Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher -- stems from the realization by power-mad lefties that, for all their PC speech codes and heresy hunting, we the Wal-Mart shopping radicals are pro-peace and they, the kumbaya-singing Obamaites, are de facto pro-war at day's end.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
At the end of the day, isn't everyone pro-war? I'd say the difference lies in what lines have to be crossed to get there.
Some liberals and conservatives are hawkish, some aren't. At the end of the day, those in power have to defend what is entrusted to them. Some, wherever they are left-right, are more open to what one can gain from war. If Ron Paul were handed the presidency today, I have no doubt his policy toward the game in play would differ very little from Obama's.
obvious troll is obvious
I consider myself a polite contrarian, not a troll.
IMO, belief communities always benefit from sharpening their swords.
I'm cool with your comments so far, BBQ. You appear to be challenging us in a civil way. Wish you'd use your real name though. ;]
But don't I have to pay you guys $10 for that privilege? That might be the $10 that gets Ron Paul elected! :O
And you can never be too careful with liberal totalitarian regimes stockpiling names for the Great Cleansing. Nothing on the web is private. :)
Yeah, your civility is appreciated, for sure. But you know our names, so it would only be fair that we know yours. The Facebook stalking which I assume occurs should be mutual XD
Besides, you can enter whatever name you want into the box when you leave comments, so there's no $10 required.
True, very true. I think it is hilarious that the average Progressive doesn't even know the history of the Progressive Party and its movement. Anyways, great post Matt.
Something tells me I'll regret it, but paying for someone else's need to inconvenience my spam filter would set Ayn Rand's teeth on edge, so my $10 is now yours.
That was to you, Bonnie.
It definitely doesn't cost $10 to put in your real name. You can enter whatever you like in the name box when you submit a comment. But thanks, I guess?
Wow... Sumner is gonna feel that one for a few days... OUCH. Talk about burn.
Hornberger derailed all of Sumner's arguments. I also picked up a gem and another reason to hate FDR when I read about the "Voyage of the Damned."
Hey BBq, Ron Paul abanonding his principles after all this time (30 years) is extremely unlikely. I would consciously bet my life on it. Look at how many people lose their balls and honor just at where he's at, at a congressman or senator level. I politely disagree. Unless of course, he's Senator Palpatine. But that's just too hypothetical.
You may be right. But I'm not saying he's a Palpatine. Paul and Obama both opposed the Iraq war, and now Obama is withdrawing from Iraq. Paul voted for military action in Afghanistan. The only significant difference right now is how long to stay in Afghanistan.
Paul must have thought there was something worth doing in Afghanistan. Either he has changed his mind, or he no longer thinks it is doable. Obama's position is that there is still something worth doing there.
If he ever became President, Paul would be in charge of waging the wars that Congress declares, non-interventionist or not.
Didn't Bush sign the order to withdraw from Iraq by 2011? I'm not sure how anti-war Barack ever was.
I don't think Obama has ever claimed to be a pacifist or a non-interventionist. His position seems a step between Bush and Paul.
Bush played down our commitments to Iraq, but it was always open-ended. He bowed to pressure from his party prior to elections and pressure from the Iraqis on the 2011 date. Obama's rhetoric has always been against the Iraq war and for withdrawing as soon as is prudent. He seems to be a passive guardian of the current US interests whereas Paul would reduce our interests and alliances. Bush was an aggressive guardian on the edge of adventurism.
Perhaps Paul values human life over corporate interests.
I'd like it if he does.