Gillespie & Welch Chatting Live Today at 12 Noon at Wash Post about Ron Paul, Libertarians, and More

reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch will be chatting live at the Wash Post's website, talking about their Sunday Outlook section piece on Ron Paul, libertarians, and much more.

The fun begins at 12 noon ET and you can follow along--or ask questions--by going here.

Comments

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 11:23am | #

I don't wish to sound stupid, but where is the link for the show on their website?

(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I've opened this one up for some crushing ad hominems from all the Dondero-bashers.)

Nick Gillespie | November 27, 2007, 11:26am | #

The link is on "by going here" in the above post.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 11:43am | #

Nick,

Don't confuse the lad, re. Eric.

Also, during the live chat, can you give us some details on the border death ray system? Is it an adaptation from that laser-based IED destructor or is it more like the Missile Defense Agency airborne anti-missile thingie? If either, are the current troops using it(them) going to simply be redeployed to the southern USA border? What about both of our Canadian borders?

Is it going to be paid for in gold or in silver? If in silver will it be a real transaction or will the Montana Freemen have claim on the technology?

Biggest question: Does Dr. Paul recognise Ohio as a State!? (big impact on that IRS question and how fast he thinks he can get rid of it)

Warren | November 27, 2007, 11:44am | #

Oow! My side.

J sub D | November 27, 2007, 11:47am | #

This should be interesting, informative and fun. Other than the Post's site and Hit & Run, did y'all promulgate this around the blogosphere?

Just curious.

picaro | November 27, 2007, 11:51am | #

Do you foresee a time when mass-media will no longer be accepted as a legitimizing force / king-maker in U.S. presidential elections?

iih | November 27, 2007, 11:53am | #

Just placed my question.

Timothy | November 27, 2007, 11:54am | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The donkey show? It is in Tijuana, but I thought you knew that already.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 11:57am | #

I just placed the above series of questions from my 11:43am comment.

We will see if the politics of silence will continue on these important issues!

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 11:58am | #

I have gone to the link numerous times. All that comes up is a web page for some political reporter named Shannon.

There is no link for the broadcast.

drawnasunder | November 27, 2007, 12:00pm | #

so where's the freakin' video? that page just describes the event, doesn't show it

drawnasunder | November 27, 2007, 12:01pm | #

by "chatting" you mean "typing"?

live blogging a conversation? lame.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Right. I'm having the same problem. Where's the audio? I just see chat.

Derrick | November 27, 2007, 12:03pm | #

That "chat" interface is pretty ghetto :-)

robc | November 27, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Ummm, come on Eric, you arent that stupid are you?

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:06pm | #

I asked a couple of questions, we'll see if they get though the screeners.

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:08pm | #

That "chat" interface is pretty ghetto :-)

It's absolutely lame.

picaro | November 27, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Chatting like its 1995.

drawnasunder | November 27, 2007, 12:11pm | #

Hey, I'm online too! I can "chat" too!

Let's continue this chat here:

Topic: Washington Post "Live Discussions" suck because:

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Okay, so you're saying this is not as advanced as Blog Talk Radio? There is no audio? It's just chat.

Sheesh! Call me stupid, but that's so 1990s.

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:16pm | #

They took Donderooooooooo's question:

"Why do Gillisepie and Matt Welch equate a non-interventionist foreign policy with libertarianism? Goldwater founded the libertarian movement. He was pro-Defense. How can defacto support for Islamo-Fascism be considered "libertarian" in any way? After all, Radical Muslims want to force women to wear the burqa, outlaw free speech especially for newspapers, throw gay people in jail and crack down on all political disent. How is that consistent with being a libertarian?"

...but they won't take mine.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Yeah, and they gave an absolutely weak-ass response. Total bullshit. I've just lost a lot of respect for Gillespie.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 12:19pm | #

ED,

the only place that "radio" appears in this page (before this comment) is when you typed it at 12:12pm.

It is advertised as "chatting live".

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 12:20pm | #

You'd think that in the age of Blog Talk Radio, these guys could have done this on audio. Guess BTR has just spoiled me.

Warren | November 27, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Call me stupid
Eric, you are stupid

robc | November 27, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Its "Total Bullshit" because its right?

robc | November 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

I said:

Ummm, come on Eric, you arent that stupid are you?

He said:

There is no audio? It's just chat.

Sheesh! Call me stupid

Hmmm, I guess I was wrong the first time. He is that stupid and admits it.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Yes, the politics of silence continues on the serious issues.

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Money quote (so far) from Matt Welch:

[Paul] might even unify Congress to fight against the crazy Dr. No in the White House. That would be fun....

picaro | November 27, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Topic: Washington Post "Live Discussions" suck because:

WP editors decide which questions are asked.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 12:28pm | #

[Paul] might even unify Congress to fight against the crazy Dr. No in the White House. That would be fun....

A single-digit sum of vetoes in 7 years makes you "Dr. No"?

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:29pm | #

picaro:

Which is why they aren't likely to take my question. It deals with Gillespie's recent Sith Lord quote in the Washington Times.

lunchstealer | November 27, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Yeah, and they gave an absolutely weak-ass response.

Translation: Their response wasn't hypermasculine dickwaving. Anything that doesn't give Dondero a "We are Sparta" boner is weak. Their ass should be strong like Dondero's. A strong ass supports invading ALL countries. Everyone in the United States, except chicks, should be in the navy, right now. Dondero loves a man in uniform.

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Best Gillespie line so far:

"I believe that chickens are undervalued and that goat currency is being deliberately inflated by Big Goat interests."

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 12:49pm | #

So Nick is really in the pocket of Big Chicken?

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 12:56pm | #

So Nick is really in the pocket of Big Chicken?

I don't see any chicken advertising on the site. Perhaps big sheep, though.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 12:57pm | #

I don't see any chicken advertising on the site. Perhaps big sheep, though.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a key element of that film?

Fluffy | November 27, 2007, 12:59pm | #

Barry Goldwater had many libertarian instincts, but it's absurd to say that he founded the libertarian movement.

Look at the publication date of The Fountainhead, Dondero, you a-hole.

iih | November 27, 2007, 1:04pm | #

I got my question about prostitutes and pro-lifers answered, cool! That was fun.

Stephen Gordon | November 27, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Donderooooooo got another question in.

iih: That was cool.

Guy: Never saw the film, but will click the link.

Franklin Harris | November 27, 2007, 1:09pm | #

I've just lost a lot of respect for Gillespie.

I'm sure that will keep Nick awake at night.

iih | November 27, 2007, 1:12pm | #

No, back to business...

Ron Paul needs to have all $12M raised this Friday. Why are you guys not getting out your credit cards and/or checkbooks?

iih | November 27, 2007, 1:13pm | #

"Now" not "No"

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 1:16pm | #

iih,

No, not ever.

Brandybuck | November 27, 2007, 1:28pm | #

"Why do Gillisepie and Matt Welch equate a non-interventionist foreign policy with libertarianism?

Because military interventionism invariably uses tactics that real libertarians oppose. I've yet to discover one instance of military occupation that in any way respects the rights and liberties of the conquered.

Goldwater founded the libertarian movement. He was pro-Defense.

The libertarian movement predated Goldwater by a few decades. It grew out of the "old right" that opposed FDR's New Deal. That group split into two, one was the Buckleyite interventionists and the other the libertarian conservatives. The intellectual "founders" of the modern libertarian movement included Mises, Hayek, Patterson, Lane, Rand and Read.

How can defacto support for Islamo-Fascism be considered "libertarian" in any way?

Libertarians are NOT supporting Islamo-fascism. Stop with the silly ad hominem attacks. Opposition to military conquests of nation states does not equate to support for diffuse extra-national ideologies.

After all, Radical Muslims want to force women to wear the burqa, outlaw free speech especially for newspapers, throw gay people in jail and crack down on all political disent. How is that consistent with being a libertarian?"

No one ever claimed that Radical Muslims were libertarian, as your question implies. Islamo-Fascists are decidely anti-libertarian. They are statist scum. Let me repeat the earlier point: Opposition to a modern military crusade against Muslim nations does NOT equate to being a radical Muslim. Sheesh.

How to fight terrorists: Attack the terrorists. Really, it's that simple. But Iraq state wasn't the terrorist that attacked us. We're worried about Iran, but Iraq was the check on Iran!

I don't have much of a problem with libertarians who think the Iraq war was necessary. I may disagree with them, but I can still respect them. But your continual assertion that an interventionist foreign poliicy is a libertarian ideal is beyond ridiculous. At best it is a necessary evil.

x,y | November 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #

There's a difference between being a libertarian philosophically and being a partisan member of the Libetarian Party (a capital "L" Libertarian). This should have been mentioned in the discussion of Goldwater.

iih | November 27, 2007, 1:30pm | #

No, not ever.

Huh? I guess you mean you're not supporting the Good Dr.

Franklin Harris | November 27, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Houston [a.k.a., Dondero]: How can you say Barry Goldwater is not the Founder of the libertarian movement? If it were not for him, there would be no libertarian movement. Hess and Rohrabacher came out of the Goldwater era. Rohrabacher went on to found the modern libertarian political movement through YAF in the late 1960s, in which the Libertarian Party was birthed. Do I sense a little whitewashing of libertarian movement history going on here? Maybe the non-interventionists do not wish to acknowledge that the libertarian movement was founded by pro-Defense libertarians?

Please note Dondero's typical sleight of hand: equating "pro-defense" with aggressive militarism. Please also note that the postwar libertarian movement can be dated to the creation of the Foundation for Economic Education, which was around before Goldwater was even elected to the Senate. And note, finally, that libertarian political activism, can be dated to at least Bob Taft, which is again pre-Goldwater.

Matt Welch: There's a difference between a movement of ideas and a movement of politics, is the main thing. ...

And we know which side of that has been more successful and influential over the last century. Hint: It isn't the politics.

iih | November 27, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Why do people love dogma?

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Why do people love dogma?

Because it is so cute when it chases car-ma?

robc | November 27, 2007, 2:00pm | #

iih,

The movie or the concept?

No one loves "dogma" the concept.

The movie sucks, if anyone loves it, I cant explain it.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 2:11pm | #

iih,

Sorry, it is an American English play on words, like "my karma ran over your dogma" as in my car killed your dog.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 2:55pm | #

Okay Franklin, if Pro-Defense does not mean fighting back against Islamo-Fascists in Iraq and Afghanistan, let's here your prescription for responding to 9/11?

Explain to us what you consider to be Pro-Defense?

Fortress America? Line up all our troops on the Mexican border and wait for the Islamo-Fascists to start lobbing missiles across from Matamoros to Brownsville, and then we shoot down the missiles, but we never cross the Rio, cause that would be intervenion into Mexico.

Is that how it works?

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Brandybuck FUCK YOU. YOU ARE GODDAMN SUPPORTING ISLAMO-FASCISM IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAND AND IRAQ.

You're as good as sucking Osama Bin Laden's dick, if you oppose the War on Islamo-Fascism. Stop with all the bullshit you little fucking coward.

If you oppose the War on Terror, you are a supporter of Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, and other Muslim Radicals. Plain and simple.

You are as good as a traitor.

b-psycho | November 27, 2007, 3:02pm | #

LMFAO!!

Looks like someone has just rendered themself beyond parody...

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 3:03pm | #

You all are talking of the philosophical libertarian movement. I'm talking of the political movement. I'm a political junkie. I care about politics. I pretty much could give a flying fuck about philosophy.

Sure, Hayek, Nozick, Isabell Patterson, Rand, I'll give them their due. Sure, they were influential with the founding of the philosophical libertarian movement, but did a single one of them EVER!!! pick up a stack of brochures and walk some precincts for libertarian candidates?

(Actully, allow me to make an exception. Roger MacBride whom I worked for for 5 years told me that Patterson and his adoptive Grandmother Rose Wilder Lane were somewhat politically active in Connecticut with GOP candidates.)

I'm interested in who founded the libertarian POLITICAL movement. And on that front, you can only say one person deserves that title: Dana Rohrabacher.

Goldwater gave the inspiration. But Dana put the feet on the ground to make it happen in the late 1960s.

Hospers, and David Nolan deserve some credit too. So do the other YAF Libertarian Caucus members. But if it were not for Dana, it would have never happened.

iih | November 27, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Guy, robc,

Yes, I am talking of the concept. I am often appalled at libertarianism the dogma, not the spirit. Once people get all defensive and/or offensive, this implies that dogma is at work.

iih | November 27, 2007, 3:05pm | #

... And I am guilty of it myself.

iih (aka Ali) | November 27, 2007, 3:07pm | #

but did a single one of them EVER!!! pick up a stack of brochures and walk some precincts for libertarian candidates?

No, that is for the less able minded libertarians... Just Kiddin'... smile Eric, smile.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 3:07pm | #

I don't call "Interventionist" WHEN WE WERE FUCKING ATTACKED FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Saddam MOST CERTAINLY DID HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and Oklahoma and supporting Hezzbolah, and killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds.

He was simply the World's Greatest living Terrorist.

Stop spending so much time reading America-hating leftwing Blogs like Huffington Post and DailyKos. You might learn something.

Here's a reading list for ya:

Jayna Davis: The Third Terrorist-How Islamic Radicals were behind the Oklahoma City Bombing

Richard Miniter: The Shadow War-How Bush is Winning the War on Terror

Georges Sayda: Saddam's Secrets

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 3:11pm | #

Thank you Matt Welch. And my apologies to Nick Gillespie for my previous critical comments. I agree wholeheartedly with their response below:


Houston: How can you say Barry Goldwater is not the Founder of the libertarian movement? If it were not for him, there would be no libertarian movement. Hess and Rohrabacher came out of the Goldwater era. Rohrabacher went on to found the modern libertarian political movement through YAF in the late 1960s, in which the Libertarian Party was birthed. Do I sense a little whitewashing of libertarian movement history going on here? Maybe the non-interventionists do not wish to acknowledge that the libertarian movement was founded by pro-Defense libertarians?

Matt Welch: There's a difference between a movement of ideas and a movement of politics, is the main thing. I don't think there's any effort at all to limit Goldwater's importance.

Taktix® | November 27, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Uh oh, looks like Eric got into the tequila again...

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 3:22pm | #

No, it was actually Rum.

But the bottom line is that Matt Welch ended up agreeing with me on Goldwater and Pro-Defense libertarians.

For that I am thankful. And I'll be reknewing my subscription to Reason early this year.

Captain Chaos | November 27, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Eric-If you just keep repeating the same unfounded assertion, but at increasing volume, it will become true. Right?

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 3:33pm | #

My purpose here is not to convince you all. There's no convincing any of you hardheaded pacifists.

Rather, it's to make sure that any wondering newbies to our movement who drop by here at the Reason Blog, do not get the impression in any manner, shape or form, that our libertarian movement is supposed to be non-interventionist, isolationist or pacifist.

And I'll use whatever means I have to, and whatever methods I have in my arsenal to ensure that that occurs.

robc | November 27, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Apparently Dondero is an "ends justify the means" guy. Which means I have another reason to think he is scum.

Jake Boone | November 27, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Rather, it's to make sure that any wondering newbies to our movement who drop by here at the Reason Blog, do not get the impression in any manner, shape or form, that our libertarian movement is supposed to be non-interventionist, isolationist or pacifist.

That sounds kind of familiar, in a Bizarro-world sort of way.

Max | November 27, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Goldwater founded the libertarian movement.

????

I thought it was Murray Rothbard.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Oh my God! Who in the hell told you that Murray Rothbard founded the libertarian movement???

Rothbard was a leftwing anarchist in the 1960s. I knew Murray. Nice guy. Very funny. But he was definitely a Leftist.

Rothbard didn't even get involved in the Libertarian Party til about 1974/75. But when he did finally jump on board, he came on board with a vengence. He and Raimondo took over the LP Platform committee and inserted wildly non-interventionist planks.

If anything Murray was a usurper in libertarian ranks. An infiltrator if you will.

Brandybuck | November 27, 2007, 4:24pm | #

Breaking news!

Jake Boone | November 27, 2007, 4:27pm | #

If anything Murray was a usurper in libertarian ranks. An infiltrator if you will.

Oh, kinda like you, then, except that Rothbard wasn't a neocon.

Admiral Nelson | November 27, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Taktix Said:

Uh oh, looks like Eric got into the tequila again...

Eric Dondero Said:

No, it was actually Rum...

Admiral Nelson Adds:

... Sodomy, and the Lash.

Rattlesnake Jake | November 27, 2007, 4:45pm | #

"Rather, it's to make sure that any wondering newbies to our movement who drop by here at the Reason Blog, do not get the impression in any manner, shape or form, that our libertarian movement is supposed to be non-interventionist, isolationist or pacifist."

Any newbies who come here, Eric, will assume you're a neocon, not a libertarian.

Jake Boone | November 27, 2007, 4:48pm | #

They'll be right.

Dangerman | November 27, 2007, 4:53pm | #

Yes, and please stop saying things like "our movement" unless you are speaking of your morning ablutions in the third person.

Captain Chaos | November 27, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Eric-This "hard-headed pacifist", along with a fair number of people he knows online and in real life wears this country's uniform. Given your apparent worship (not to say homoerotic fetishizing) of our military heros, what sort of cognitive dissonance does that cause? Or are you just going to call me a pussy who doesn't deserve to serve?

Captain Chaos | November 27, 2007, 5:00pm | #

That should be "...wears this country's uniform and still opposes the Iraq war."

pdog | November 27, 2007, 5:26pm | #

The people who attacked us are a decentralized group of individuals united by a hateful religious ideology. They have no State. They exist in many different states around the world and come from many different ethnicities and races.

The WoT will not be won by divisions of mechanized infantry, flights of B2 bombers and armadas of battleships. This isn't WWII. Anyone who thinks this is delusional.

Eric Dondero | November 27, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Great Captain Chaos. I wore the uniform too. Thanks for your service.

ian | November 27, 2007, 7:14pm | #

i'm pretty new here and i would say dondero is a crazy conservative jackass

Fluffy | November 27, 2007, 7:37pm | #

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Saddam was behind Oklahoma City?

Dondero, you just trumped every 9/11 Truther out there.

You are a complete loon.

It's loony enough to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. But Oklahoma City?

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

Pssssst! Saddam killed Jimmy Hoffa...and Bigfoot hid the body in Loch Ness.

Eric Dondero, advocate of genocide and believer in loopy conspiracy theories. The face of Trotskyite libertarianism.

Jake Boone | November 27, 2007, 8:24pm | #

ian, you're quite a perceptive fellow.

Eric the .5b | November 27, 2007, 8:56pm | #

i'm pretty new here and i would say dondero is a crazy conservative jackass

Yup. But it's fun to call him...

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

miche | November 27, 2007, 9:00pm | #

I always preferred DonDildo but my head's always been tethered to a gutter drain.

libertreee | November 27, 2007, 10:12pm | #

Saddam was behind Oklahoma City?

Dondero, you just trumped every 9/11 Truther out there.

The story line is that John Doe 2, described as a swarthy male, was Iranian.

Eric Dildero believes that is true, and he was an Iranian agent, I suppose.

Others who go for this might say he was an anti-Saddam Iranian in the employ of the US Government.

I don't really think so, since McVeigh had nothing to lose by telling the truth, if that was the truth...

I don't believe this stuff, but I run across people who do.

Jake Boone | November 27, 2007, 10:18pm | #

So let's assume that John Doe #2 was, in fact, Iranian. How does that tie him to the ruler of Iraq?

Franklin Harris | November 27, 2007, 11:54pm | #

Oh my God! Who in the hell told you that Murray Rothbard founded the libertarian movement???

Probably it was someone who knows more about the libertarian movement than you do and who doesn't take "libertarian movement" to mean the Libertarian Party. Not that I'd say Murray founded libertarianism, either, but it's a better answer than Goldwater or Dana Rohrabacher. Of course, back in the '60s, when Murray was, as you say, a "leftist," Rohrabacher was exactly the same: a "leftist" anarcho-capitalist influenced by Robert LeFevre. Do try to pay attention.

Franklin Harris | November 27, 2007, 11:56pm | #

But the bottom line is that Matt Welch ended up agreeing with me on Goldwater and Pro-Defense libertarians.

You just keep telling yourself that.

dhex | November 29, 2007, 4:08pm | #

leo strauss never handed out no pamphlets neither.

fuckin' fag.