Jesse Ventura discusses a possible Libertarian Party presidential bid

Skip to the 32 minute mark.

H/T to Rolf.

104 Responses to “Jesse Ventura discusses a possible Libertarian Party presidential bid”

  1. Antonius Pius Says:

    This kicks ass! Can we finally get a balanced budget?

  2. mdh Says:

    OK, but can he wait until 2012? We have enough neophytes this year, and Barr hasn’t even formally announced yet.

  3. John Lowell Says:

    Here comes the Libertarian Party’s Alan Keyes. Oy, not this schmegeggie!

  4. Yank Says:

    I bet he gets ass!

  5. VTV Says:

    Well if he does go onto the LP ticket, it will make this convention really interesting that’s for sure.

  6. Reform Party Member /Don Lake Says:

    That would make me a Perot/ Perot/ Nader/ Nader/ Ventura California voter!

  7. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Wonder what dork told him we have 50-state ballot access?

    I’ll be happy if we have 40+ states. Frankly, I’ll be surprised, too :-(

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    This is a good example of what I’ve been talking about for….YEARS! WHOEVER gets the LP nomination is in a position to WIN THE ELECTION. All that person would have to do is form an alliance with the GP involving VOTE COORDINATION. It is a low hanging peach ripe for the picking. So Jesse comes back from body surfing in Baja or whatever & joins the LP race at the last minute. & the giddy LP accepts like a celebrity seeking ho! & I think Gravel is thinking along these lines too but doesn’t say because then he’d have to acknowledge me & Milsted as master theoreticians. Barr is too stuck on the GOP and/or the CIA to try it & might in fact be deliberately trying to tangle it up so nobody, LIKE ME, gets it. You libs do not realize what you have. It is going to slip through your fingers like a handful of gold dust. OR it is going to go to someone like Ventura or Gravel or Barr with their own agenda which you may or may not agree with. If you want someone who is genuinely interested in what is best for the LP… AND GP, & the American people & has put a LOT of thought & concern & personal investment into figuring out how to win & what to do AFTER WINNING, you will look to me. You will get me to Denver & quit screwing around.

  9. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    I think I am getting a headache. That, or my head is spinning.

    I’ve read”Bleed” and “Stand Alone” and am trying to get “Revolution” and I’ve also read “Gibraltar” by his advisor Ulrich, who I met personally. Obviously I’ve been following him for some time now.

    On the other hand we have so many candidates already….

    faints

  10. Keith Deschler Says:

    Jesse would whip ANY of the current bunch of LP candidates, including Barr, WAR, and Ruwarchy, if he does get into this. He’s become more of a libertarian on economics and the size of government than he was in Minnesota, which has a “progressive, good government through welfarism” mentality that permeates the culture there. I still support Barr, with some reservations, especially his failure to accept fully the insanity of the drug war. Jesse explained this brilliantly, and as he is so good at, relating it in terms that average people can comprehend. He needs to hurry up, get into the ring, and tie the feather boas around the rest of the field. If he does decide, he needs to show how he IS a Big L Libertarian, and not just a small-l sympathizer.

  11. Steve Perkins Says:

    Is this a slow news day? For those of you who don’t want to download the full video, Jesse basically says, “Somebody told me that the Libertarian convention is sometime this month. I’m out of the country until the 15th… but when I get back, why don’t you guys let me know if you want me to have the nomination?”

    Uh, yeah… it’s a done deal.

  12. Peter Orvetti Says:

    This race is fascinating.

    Of course, in his latest book he named RFK Jr. as his running mate. RFK Jr. is an admirable fella in many respects, but he’s no libertarian.

    And Ventura has also talked about running with Charles Barkley in the past. Sir Charles seems to have some libertarian leanings…

  13. Robert Milnes Says:

    Peter Orvetti, I said a LONG time ago I want Mary or Karen vp. Any doubts about their libertarian creds?

  14. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I would hope to see Dr. Ruwart as someone’s running mate if she is not the presidential nominee. I do not know enough about Kwiatkowski to offer an informed opinion.

  15. David F. Nolan Says:

    If he takes this seriously—comes to the convention, answers delegates’ questions, shows he’s a committed Libertarian—Ventura could be an excellent candidate. If he just shows up, struts around, and plays the big-shot, he won’t get anywhere.

    We shall see.

  16. Austin Cassidy Says:

    If he would accept the nomination… the party would be absolutely stupid not to offer it to him. Period.

  17. Steve LaBianca Says:

    What is his deal? He’s hosted third party debates, and did he endorse a libertarian? No. he didn’t even endorse Harry Browne in 2000. He certainly ha the opportunity.

    NEWSFLASH . . . Ventura can deliver the wrestling vote! Maybe a Ventura/W.A.R. ticket can get the votes of the gamblers who gamble on wrestling?

  18. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Wait… nevermind. His Loose Change comments right after that kill it.

    He would have been a great candidate though, but it seems he’s drifted out there quite a bit since his days as governor.

    Oh well.

  19. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Ventura often says he always votes for third party/independent candidates. I wonder who he voted for in ‘04? I know he had some nice things to say about Nader.

  20. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    NO, VENTURA HATES THE FASCIST/STALINIST CRIMINAL RALPH NADER BECAUSE NADER DESTROYED THE THIRD PARTY MOVEMENT. If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama, a Ventura/Kennedy ticket would be great. However, if not, they should drop out. The Libertarian Party should nominate him anyway. Principles don’t actually matter, only getting the winning amount of votes does matter. And the libertarians should come closer to the 9/11 truth movement, WHICH WILL ALSO BE BOURHGT INTO THE OBAMA REVOLUTION.

  21. disinter Says:

    Awesome news! I hope he runs. He is the only one that doesn’t have his head up his ass about 9/11.

  22. Andy Says:

    “Susan Hogarth Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
    Wonder what dork told him we have 50-state ballot access?

    I’ll be happy if we have 40+ states. Frankly, I’ll be surprised, too”

    It is still possible that the LP could achieve 50 state plus Washington DC ballot access this year. However, to make this a reality at this point it would take a high profile candidate who could pump a lot of money into ballot access. The most difficult stumbling block to overcome would be Oklahoma.

  23. G.E. Says:

    Austin - Why don’t you get it? It’s the LIBERTARIAN Party and we want LIBERTARIAN candidates. It would be “absolutely stupid” to nominate someone who is not a libertarian. Of course, you’re happy with McKeynes as your nominee, so that speaks volume for the regard you have for character and principles in a candidate…

  24. Craig Says:

    Isn’t the LP convention about 2 weeks from now? What other major party has people deciding whether or not to get in after most of the delegates have already made their travel plans? Do Barr and Ventura and Gravel understand who will be doing the nominating? Does anyone have a C-SPAN tape of the 2004 convention to give them an orientation session? They have no chance.

  25. Andy Says:

    “disinter Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
    Awesome news! I hope he runs. He is the only one that doesn’t have his head up his ass about 9/11.”

    Steve Kubby has said that he thinks that 9/11 looked like a false flag terror operation. I’m pretty sure that Michael Jingozian has said something similiar as well. Of course neither of them are as high profile as Jesse Ventura is.

  26. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
    Austin - Why don’t you get it? It’s the LIBERTARIAN Party and we want LIBERTARIAN candidates. It would be “absolutely stupid” to nominate someone who is not a libertarian. Of course, you’re happy with McKeynes as your nominee, so that speaks volume for the regard you have for character and principles in a candidate…”

    Jesse Ventura is sounding more and more libertarian as time passes. I think that Jesse has the potential to be a real libertarian and I’d love to see him seek the LP nomination.

  27. darolew Says:

    Good lord, what’s with all these libertarian(ish) 9/11 “Truthers”? We have a group who is supposed to believe that the government is too incompetent to even run elementary schools, and yet still willing to believe the government can pull off—in near absolute secrecy—one of the most complicated and sophisticated conspiracies of all time.

    What’s with the double-standard? The government is somehow an unparalleled expert on blatantly killing 3000+ of its citizens (for no apparent reason), but can’t even keep its bridges standing, its schools educating, etc.? Our government can kill 3000 people, silence thousands more, yet it couldn’t even suppress a stupid film like Loose Change?

    Ugh. The government is incompetent, it couldn’t pull of a conspiracy like this no matter how hard it tried.

  28. Stefan Says:

    I hope he shows up at the convention. Personally I do think it would not be fair towards all the other candidates if he just shows up and take the nomination. However, if so, it is up to the delegates to decide, as David Nolan said. He could help get the LP get a lot of media exposure, joining the LP, with or without being its nominee.

    Personally, I think it would be optimal if he fights for the senator race in Minnesota under the LP banner. There is much better chance that he will be successful winning the senator race than in the presidential race.

    This, together with a very good nominee for the LP would be optimal and ensure so much more coverage (than he would be the LP nominee also) and he can have a realistic chance to win the first senator position for the LP, and then be able to run for president for the LP in 2012 with both governor as well as senator experience, or stay in the senate and campaign for more LP senators and congressmen.

  29. Andy Says:

    “darolew Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 1:00 am
    Good lord, what’s with all these libertarian(ish) 9/11 “Truthers”? We have a group who is supposed to believe that the government is too incompetent to even run elementary schools, and yet still willing to believe the government can pull off—in near absolute secrecy—one of the most complicated and sophisticated conspiracies of all time.”

    Again with this fallacy that everyone in government is stupid. The people who run government are NOT stupid, they know exactly what they are doing and they are EVIL. The stupid people in government are mostly at the lower levels. The people who “run the show” in government are intelligent ruthless control freaks.

    If everyone in government was stupid and Libertarians were so much more intelligent then Libertarians would be smart enough to actually win and we’d have a libertarian society right now.

  30. Andy Says:

    “Stefan Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 1:21 am
    I hope he shows up at the convention. Personally I do think it would not be fair towards all the other candidates if he just shows up and take the nomination. However, if so, it is up to the delegates to decide, as David Nolan said. He could help get the LP get a lot of media exposure, joining the LP, with or without being its nominee.”

    I was having a conversation with a hardcore Libertarian friend recently about Presidential tickets and he suggested the ultimate ticket for this election for the LP nomination would be Ron Paul for President and Jesse Ventura for Vice President. I know that it is not likely to happen but one can dream.

    As I said above, Jesse has been moving more and more in the libertarian direction. He just needs one final “push” and he will be there. If Jesse Ventura became a Libertarian it would be HUGE, quite possibly the biggest thing to ever happen to the party.

  31. Yank Says:

    Ass. Who needs it?

  32. G.E. Says:

    Andy - From what I know of him, he supports a lot of economic interventions. Federally funded education, campaign finance restrictions… He came out for torture a few years ago, but I think he might have changed his mind there. He thinks libertarians are “too extreme.” I believe he’s also anti-free trade.

  33. disinter Says:

    Ugh. The government is incompetent,

    Not even close. They are VERY good at what they do. However, your idea of what they SHOULD do isn’t in any way theirs.

  34. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 1:45 am
    Andy - From what I know of him, he supports a lot of economic interventions. Federally funded education, campaign finance restrictions… He came out for torture a few years ago, but I think he might have changed his mind there. He thinks libertarians are ‘too extreme.’ I believe he’s also anti-free trade.”

    Note that I said that Jesse Ventura is moving in a more libertarian direction, as in his views have been evolving, kind of like this one guy I know who posts here a lot.:)

    Some people are reachable to the libertarian message and some are not. I would say that people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, and George W. Bush are NOT reachable. Jesse Ventura is. If Jesse ever comes all the way over to our side it will be the biggest thing to ever happen to the Libertarian Party.

  35. Stefan Says:

    Jesse Ventura interview with Riz Khan of Al Jazeera:
    www. youtube.com/watch?v=_6_gTstYDws
    www. youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsWJ3vWZOU

  36. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    This may be as simple as Ventura wanting to screw with Russ Verney’s mind.
    They are old enemies from back in the day when Verney and the Buchananites destroyed the Reform Party. With Verney now apparently attempting to give the LP the same treatment via Bob Barr, perhaps Ventura thought it was at least worth making a menacing gesture or two to rattle him.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. Ventura has a history of tossing out offhand remarks. I’ll believe he’s seeking the nomination when and if I see him in Denver.

  37. Stefan Says:

    Thomas: Someone mentioned he read in Ventura’s recent book that he (Ventura) wants to be VP due to the strain on his family (and his wife’s health) that would come with running for Prez. This was the reason why he did not run for a second term as governor, due to his wife’s health situation.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Stefan,

    That might be the case, in which case I suspect he’d want to be VP to a well-known candidate (the only one remotely in that league is Barr, if he actually jumps in, and frankly it should be the other way around on P/VP in that case).

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Personally I do think it would not be fair towards all the other candidates if he just shows up and take the nomination.”

    Fair to the candidates, schmair to the schmandidates. As a candidate, you pays your money and you takes your chances—there is no “fair.” Nobody has a right to an uncontested walk-over for the nomination, especially just because they were “here first.”

    The issue isn’t fairness to the candidates, it’s fairness to the PARTY. These big guys all seem to want to swoop in at the last minute, get the party’s nomination and reap five months of self-promotion afterward subsidized by—and likely pissing away some of—our 35 years of hard work. It’s all about them—we’re just their bicycle of the moment.

    I’ll go ga-ga over one of these “big names” when he or she declares 1-2 years ahead of the nomination and busts ass building a real political effort. These “exploratory committee 6 weeks before the nomination” and “said something on a TV show in early May” dogs don’t hunt.

  39. Jim Duensing Says:

    Go to www.LibertariansforJustice.org to sign the 9/11 Justice Pledge. Many people and several candidates have already beat you to it.

  40. Starchild Says:

    Jesse Ventura’s interview in Playboy Magazine—http://home.earthlink.net/~feves/fk/archives/news/jesseplayboy.htm—was just about the best interview with a politician I think I’ve ever read. He shoots from the hip, says what he means, and doesn’t apologize for it. It’s refreshing as hell. He’s not libertarian on all the issues, and he made some mistakes as governor, but I think his gut instincts are very libertarian, and like Ron Paul I think he has integrity and the courage needed to stand up against the establishment even when it’s extremely unpopular to do so.

    On the “9/11 Truth Movement,” it’s important to realize that this label can encompass a very wide range of views. Some of them, like those of people who say that planes never hit the Twin Towers, or that the 19 hijackers are all still alive, I think are clearly ludicrous. Others, such as those who question the official story—or lack thereof—on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, or the suspicious trading in which airline stocks were sold short prior to the attacks (see for instance http://summeroftruth.org/datadump.html ) which were apparently never fully investigated, are eminently sensible, in my opinion.

    At the very least, there are a lot of legitimate questions that deserve clear answers, and I would much rather have someone asking too many, and entertaining unwarranted suspicions, than someone who lacks sufficient suspicion about aspects of the 9/11 attacks where it is warranted, as I would say is clearly the case with most high-level politicians other than former Governor Ventura.

  41. Clark Says:

    ...dear jeezus, please give the libertarians a candidate who, while undoubtedly and near-constantly working their french fry hole about ‘illion-dollar issues,’ understands the origin, nature, etc. of even one ‘dollar!’.. ;o)

  42. Kenny Says:

    A Barr-Ventura (or Ventura-Barr) ticket could not be ignored by the mainstream media.

  43. Clark Says:

    ...as one sage might put it: “..i think you’ll find both barr and ventura, etc. ad nauseam, have been ‘vetted’ by the $tringpuller$..they don’t under$tand…they’re no/not much threat…so they’re ok as ‘candidates!’..

    ..the question is why do you republicrat weasel-strokers get so worked up by this phony, ‘political horserace?’

    ...”there’s a [republicrat] born every minute”.. (often attributed to p.t. barnum)

  44. Austin Cassidy Says:

    More and more I think Mary Ruwart will win the nomination. And why not? She’s perfect for the party.

    It’s a shame that there is no more “mainstream” third party or independent candidate running this year.

  45. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Bob Barr should probably decided against running too. The Libertarian convention delegates will brand him not irrelevant enough and spit him out. Best to avoid the trouble and just stay home that weekend and BBQ.

  46. Eric Dondero Says:

    Jesse Ventura used to be a libertarian. But these days he’s just sounding like a far leftwing stooge.

    His time has passed.

  47. Eric Dondero Says:

    Does anyone here believe that Bob Barr would want to be associated in any manner, shape or form, with 9/11 Holocaust Denier conspiracies?

    Barr’s taking some out-of-the-mainstream views in the past, but I’d suspect he’d run away faster than a jackelope from such Holocaust denying views as believing that the government was behind 9/11.

    Ventura used to be cool. Now he’s just a fat leftwinger kool-aid drinking Larouchie.

  48. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tom Knapp says that he’ll “go ga ga over a candidate that declares 1 or 2 years ahead of the nomination… gets media and works to build the Party.”

    Is that a Tom Knapp endorsement of Wayne Allyn Root?

    (Note - Root joined the Party back in early 2007, and has been getting media coverage and working to build up the Party ever since.)

  49. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Everything looks far left wing from where you’re sitting, Dondero.

  50. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Eric, are you calling “9/11 Truthers” Holocaust deniers? Are you actually calling 9/11 a holocaust? I sincerely hope not, as it would be one of the most twisted, perverse things I have ever heard from a neocon such as yourself.

  51. Stefan Says:

    Barr-Ruwart ticket and Jesse Ventura for LP senator in Minnesota

    A senate position would ensure the LP stays in the news and gain strength after the election, hopefully a congresseat as well, possible? Representation is very important, it would also be confidence building. Ross Perot did get 19% with
    the Reform Party, but it was no lasting effect. Ventura was Gov. first under Reform Party banner.

    The LP and CP (and GP) and co-operate to field only the party A candidate with the best potential in a specific district, and the members of the party B pledge to support party A, while in another district part A supports the candidate of party B. This could work with specific candidates. The net result of such co-operation would be a stronger opposition to the two main party candidates.

  52. Robert Milnes Says:

    Stefan, ok. vote coordination, not splitting the vote per ballot. & vote cooperation, a supports b here, b supports a there. The only problem with this that I see on quick readout is I don’t see the GP & CP cooperating. The LP & CP. The LP & GP(progressive alliance. But not all three. Go ahead & try & prove me wrong!

  53. Stefan Says:

    Eric,
    Jesse Ventura has simply raised a few questions regarding the building 7, and you already convict him as being a 911 conspiracy insider job theorist? Typical of you to just jump to conclusions without hearing and listening. Giuliani and Root are exactly the right people, fit to your personality. Far rightwing stoogers like Chris Peden and AUgustus Cho, John Bolton and how many others have lapsed.

    They belong to history.

    Jesse would call you a chickenhawk. I dare you to stand in front of him and call him a “Holocaust” deniar”,”unpatriotic” etc.! If you really have guts you will do it

  54. Stefan Says:

    Robert, the LP and CP is not so far at all, both for small/limited government, against the Iraq war, non-interventionist foreign policy etc etc. perhaps 80% the same. DIfference only in some CP tend to be protectionist, while the LP is 100% free trade and CP are dominated by CHristians and they are 100% pro-life, while there are also atheists etc. with the LP, and the LP is perhaps 50-50% pro-life/ pro-choice (or more pro-choice leaning). The CP’s candidate is quite libertarian, he is against the war on drugs, against Patriot Act, Real ID, military commissions act etc. etc.

  55. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    9/11 truthers: I don’t know what to think, although the form of doubt that people like Ventura claim—backed by facts and empirical observation—seem more plausible. The gov’t story does seem rather contrived, and some of the rest of it is clearly ludicrous. Looks like Jesse is thinking—and that, I like.

  56. G.E. Says:

    Andy - Yeah, but I don’t think he needs to be evolving in a libertarian direction AS the nominee.

    E.D. - 9/11 was now a “holocaust”? 3,000 people. The FDA kills more Americans than that every week. Get some perspective.

  57. NewFederalist Says:

    Susan Hogarth Says:
    May 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    “Wonder what dork told him we have 50-state ballot access?

    I’ll be happy if we have 40+ states. Frankly, I’ll be surprised, too ”

    Unless something goes very wrong I would assume the LP will have ballot status in 49 states and DC. Only OK looks to be out of the question. 2004 had 48 states plus DC; 2000 had all 50 states plus DC (although AZ placed L. Neil Smith on their ballot instead of Harry Browne); 1996 all 50 states plus DC and 1992 all 50 states plus DC. I think the LP track record of delivering ballot access is quite good.

  58. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am
    Andy - Yeah, but I don’t think he needs to be evolving in a libertarian direction AS the nominee.”

    Maybe he has already evolved enough since he left office as Governor of Minnesota. Every interview that I’ve heard with him over the last 3 years or so he’s sounded more radical and more libertarian. I don’t know where exactly he stands now, I’m just saying that he sounds more libertarian and the prospect of him becoming involved with the Libertarian Party could be HUGE if it happens.

  59. Robert Milnes Says:

    Stefan, agreed. I just don’t think the CP & GP could cooperate. Both could cooperate with the LP. But, that’s just my opinion/guess. Would like to be proven wrong.

  60. Andy Says:

    “Andy,

    You write:

    “Personally I do think it would not be fair towards all the other candidates if he just shows up and take the nomination.”

    Fair to the candidates, schmair to the schmandidates. As a candidate, you pays your money and you takes your chances—there is no “fair.” Nobody has a right to an uncontested walk-over for the nomination, especially just because they were “here first.””

    I did not say that.

  61. Meria Says:

    With Moe,Larry & Curly running - someone pretending to be black, someone pretending to be a woman, and someone pretending to be alive - this race could surely USE someone like Jesse who is a real thinking person who represents more of America than the 3 stooges do, unless you’re in the top 1%. 3rd,4th,5th parties should exist to counter the duopoly of the make believe 2 party system, it’s one party - the party of the greedy pigs who have ruined our country, freedoms, and economy and heck - the world.
    Whether you question 9/11 or not, agree with 911 truthers or not, who would you rather trust? Yourself or your government?
    We should all be begging Jesse to run, and we should all start voting out the losers (172,000 elected officials in the US) and demanding real representation and real freedom again. Not the Patriot Acts signed by the traitors to our Constitution.
    Thanks for watching this video, I’ll be hosting more Libertarians on the show the next few months as well. We need to become ONE party, the American party. It’s the working class vs. the rest….and I don’t like to lose, do you?

  62. G.E. Says:

    Andy - I’m basing my comments on his latest book, which came out just a few weeks ago. In it, he calls for the abolition of the electoral college, calls for “term limits for reporters,” and a bunch of other bad stuff.

    What are you talking about, by the way? I was always 100% libertarian and we were always at war with Eurasia.

  63. Peter Orvetti Says:

    A bit off-topic: Can someone explain the significance of the phrase “loose change” that led it to be adopted for the title of the 9/11 film? The Wikipedia page doesn’t seem to explain the title.

  64. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
    Andy - I’m basing my comments on his latest book, which came out just a few weeks ago. In it, he calls for the abolition of the electoral college, calls for “term limits for reporters,” and a bunch of other bad stuff.

    What are you talking about, by the way? I was always 100% libertarian and we were always at war with Eurasia.”

    I haven’t seen his latest book (although I did read “I Ain’t Got Time To Bleed” years ago) so I can’t comment on that. I never said that Jesse Ventura was a perfect libertarian. I said that it sounds like he’s moved in a more libertarian direction and that I think that he’s reachable for the message. He just hasn’t finished connecting the dots yet.

  65. Rich Says:

    Eric Dondero Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 8:41 am

    Does anyone here believe that Bob Barr would want to be associated in any manner, shape or form, with 9/11 Holocaust Denier conspiracies?

    So 9/11 was a holocaust? Without debating the difference between denying a thing occurred and differing from the majority opinion, if the 3000 killed on 9/11 makes it a holocaust, then Bush’s Pointless War in Iraq would be a holocaust and a third, sinc e it has killed 4000 Americans (and counting).

    You’re still an idiot, Dondero.

    BTW, to elaborate on my reason for not believing the US government perpetrated 9/11:

    Q: How do you know that the CIA did not assassinate Kennedy?
    A: He’s Dead.

    Of course they assasinate Castro all the time, as a result of which he will probably live forever.

  66. Rich Says:

    ooops:

    Without debating the difference between denying a thing occurred and differing from the majority opinion, if

    That should say, differing from the majority opinion on who did it.

  67. Andy Says:

    “Peter Orvetti Says:

    May 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
    A bit off-topic: Can someone explain the significance of the phrase “loose change” that led it to be adopted for the title of the 9/11 film? The Wikipedia page doesn’t seem to explain the title.”

    Loose Change refers to some coins that are still jingling around in your pocket after you thought you emptied your pockets out. The phrase Loose Change in regaurds to 9/11 refers to unanwsered questions.

  68. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Meria, nice of you to jon the conversation, and welcome!

    I do completely agree with you that Moe (Insane McSame, the Panamanchurian candidate and the Butcher of Black Mesa) Larry (whose background is a mess to figure out, and whose naivete is obvious—Gravel is right, see video Fire it Up) and Curly (who is in way too tight with the Monsanto zaibatsu for this agronomist’s liking) are all pathetic.

    The thing is, we’re Libertarians and we’re being faced with a candidate list which is composed of many new Libertarians which is making us all nervous. I’m not a real oldbie—I’ve only been around 8 years. I can’t claim creds on the level of say, David or even of my Chair who is Gene Berkman. Barr, Gravel, Root, Smith, and now (ventura)? No wonder we’re all confused! Of the primary contenders, only Phillies and Ruwart are established older members who are undoubtedly Libertarian in their message.

    I understand, Meria, the need for a really viable candidate who can counter the Three Stooges. Truly, I do. I also understand Ventura’s views in some depth, as I have read both of his older books (haven’t been able to find “REvolution” yet and am still working on Paul’s “Manifesto” anyhow) and I also read “the Gibraltar Conspiracy” and had a wonderful chat with Ulrich one night. (an interesting man, a former advisor to Ventura)

    My concern is that Ventura would be a potential loose cannon. Those of us who have survived loose cannon campaigns like Stanley 2002 (CO) know how straining they can be on the entire organization. Also, he has not yet signed the Pledge, which is something we all generally hold as important. Also, he does have some mild divergence with our planks especially as concerns education—can he support homeschoolers?

    All in all, I really like Ventura but I also am worried by him.

    One last thing directly to you, Meria. Will you be in Denver? I’m sure there will be plenty of reportable material for a thinking woman there. (the MSM would disagree with me, but you’re decidedly not MSM!) No matter who ends up heading out ticket, there is sure to be plenty of excitement

  69. Galileo Says:

    The people who made the first edition of Loose Change used loose change to pay for it. Loose Change FInal Cut is the most accurate film yet made on 9/11.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    You write:

    Tom Knapp says that he’ll “go ga ga over a candidate that declares 1 or 2 years ahead of the nomination… gets media and works to build the Party.”

    Is that a Tom Knapp endorsement of Wayne Allyn Root?

    (Note - Root joined the Party back in early 2007, and has been getting media coverage and working to build up the Party ever since.)

    First of all, you misquoted me. It didn’t say “a candidate,” I said “one of these ‘big names.’”

    Wayne Allyn Root isn’t a big name. He’s not as well-known as Bob Barr, Mike Gravel or even Steve Kubby, and to the extent that he is well-known, it’s mostly as a sports betting telemarketing scammer, not in any political context.

    Secondly, Root’s media appearances so far have tended to embarrass and damage the LP, not build it—to the point that it looks like that effect very well may be intentional. When some guy who’s had his picture taken with Karl Rove and endorsed John McCain for President goes out and makes the LP look stupid, I tend to assume that he means to do so.

  71. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I think Ventura would like to run but that he is daunted by the impact on his family as well as the ballot access issues. I’d be surprised if he gets in.

  72. Libertarian Girl Says:

    I would think long and hard about whether this is a good thing.

    I personally attended a speech at my university in 2005—only three years ago—in which someone asked Ventura about the Libertarian Party and he replied, “Libertarians? They’re anarchists!” He completely dismissed the Libertarian Party as worthless and refused to discuss it further, even though the very reason someone had asked him about it was because many of his views coincided with the party.

    Now he wants to be their presidential nomineee? He can kiss this Libertarian Girl’s A$$ unless he directly explains why/when he came to change his mind about the Libertarian Party.

    Someone who three years ago made fun of the party and showed no idea of what Libertarians stood for (while having some of those same positions, no less!) is probably NOT the best representative of the party, unless he can come up with a good explanation, a “born again” experience if you will just as Bob Barr has had.

  73. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    May GOD’S curse be upon those who defame the name of our HOLY REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL BARACK H. OBAMA. And God said to me, “HEAR O ISRAEL, THE OBAMA/VENTURA TICKET IS SURELY THE GREATEST TICKET THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE FOR OUR STRUGGLING WORLD. YET THE PEOPLE WILL NOT LISTEN TO THE LORD, FOR THEY ARE ARROGANT AND DISOBEDIENT.” Thus say the Lord, amen.

  74. Tom Bryant Says:

    A 9/11 Troofer won’t be the LP’s candidate.

  75. Archimedes Says:

    Here is an example of the brilliant inside-the-box thinking that has become a real drain on the morale of the Libertarian Party:

    “Austin Cassidy Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
    If he would accept the nomination… the party would be absolutely stupid not to offer it to him. Period.”

    “Austin Cassidy Says:

    May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
    Wait… nevermind. His Loose Change comments right after that kill it.

    He would have been a great candidate though, but it seems he’s drifted out there quite a bit since his days as governor.

    Oh well.”

    Sheer brilliance.

  76. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Uh, Lid, you have the characters mixed up. It’s Moe-bama, Hil-Larry, and Mc-Curly.

    And special guest Ralph Shemp Nader.

  77. Michael Seebeck Says:

    As far as Jesse goes, I’ve been watching him for over twenty years, since his wrestling days, including his mayoral days and his upset win for the governorship and beyond. He’s never been criticized for being timid or for beating around the bush (or for not beating on the Bush, for that matter!).

    His views have evolved over time to a more libertarian view. He does speak our langauge but I don’t think he totally gets it yet that he does, because he (mostly correctly) see his rhetoric as more populist. That only proves the point that it is not only possible but highly desired to frame libertarian philosophy in populist rhetoric to get it to resonate. Marketing, marketing, marketing…

    He’s had three years of being off the airwaves and bookshelves per his MSNBC contract to think things out and better develop his views.

    Right now, if you were to put him on the Nolan Chart, he’d be about a 70-70. Not Ivory Pure, but not bad either.

    While he does possess a certain appeal in that he’s what the MSM calls “good copy” and he would eclipse any media coverage that any other candidate would get, and he does have a better resume as a mayor and governor as one who can govern and lead instead of just legislate ala Barr and Gravel or philosophize like everyone else, while he has those plusses, his biggest drawback is the same one I professed concern over with Gravel, which is newness to the Party—and Jesse hasn’t even joined at the moment! That, however, can change.

    On the other hand, if he chooses to pursue it, he has a built-in campaign machinery in his wrestling contacts, which draws 6-20K every event (3-4X a week, including live and taped TV shows), which is a large demographic.

    He also is a veteran campaigner and understands the system well; and he is dead-on accurate on the need to get into the debates. (There is a technological way around that that can be pursued as well.)

    I see it as a mixed bag at the moment but with more plusses than minuses, and will take a wait-and-see attitude. If he shows up in Denver and signs up, then fantastic and welcome to the Party.

  78. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I’m only a 90-70 on The Chart myself (though I actually prefer Milsted’s Quiz2D chart, where I’m a 92-68 or something).

  79. G.E. Says:

    This “troofer” epithet shows the intellectual weakness of those who utter it. It is the equivalent of a racial slur or homophobic smear.

  80. Quietus Says:

    Yes, because choosing one’s beliefs is equivalent to being born a certain way.

  81. Kenny Says:

    I got 100-100 on the Nolan Chart but recognise that the right candidate may not agree with me on all issues.

  82. jack booted thug Says:

    Run brother Ventura, run.

  83. Sean Scallon Says:

    Is this the same Jesse Ventura who once referred to the Libertarian Party as a bunch of anarchists and wanted nothing to do with the party?

    Before anyone in the LP gives Ventura the nomination, just remember this: Jesse Ventura has one special interest, himself. He did nothing to help build the Reform Party or the Independence Party in Minnesota and its doubtful he would do much for the LP.

  84. darolew Says:

    “Loose Change FInal (sic) Cut is the most accurate film yet made on 9/11.”

    Ha. Rather than seriously debate you (impossible) I suggest you read this:

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

    (Sense of humor required.) There are also links at the bottom of the page which are more serious rebuttals of the 9/11 “Truth” trash.

    “Whether you question 9/11 or not, agree with 911 truthers or not, who would you rather trust? Yourself or your government?”

    I trust myself, and I know bullshit when I see it—from the government and from conspiracy theorists.

    Could there be problems with the official story? Perhaps. Could the government have been highly incompetent? Of course. Is there a possibility that the government let the attacks happen? I’m willing to listen. But that the government perpetrated the attacks—that’s BS.

    Loose Change is intellectually bankrupt, just as the moon landing theories are.

  85. Quietus Says:

    Even better, try this:

    http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

  86. Brad Says:

    Considering that the LP’s current candidates all have serious flaws (Barr’s voting record, Root’s NeoConism, Gravel’s lack of understanding of libertarianism, and the rest of the candidates’ lack of any name recognition or credibility), I think the LP should go all out to try to convince Governor Ventura to run on their ticket. Unlike everybody else who is running or might run (I think we can safely assume Bloomberg isn’t going to run), Governor Ventura actually has experience as an executive. Besides that, he is actually an outsider unlike the Washington insiders who are running for the nominations of the Republicrat Party and the Demopublican Party.

    I don’t like his views on 9/11, but I would be willing to tolerate those views (I just hope he isn’t too overt in promoting these views as the M$M will use his doubts about the official story of 9/11 to try to discredit him) in order to end the War on Iraq, the War on Drugs, and the War on Civil Liberties. Jesse Ventura can actually win the election as he has name recognition and has actually been elected to a major office before (generally, nobody gets elected president who has not been either a War Hero, a Senator, or a Governor).

  87. Calvin Says:

    I suggest those of you jumping to conclusions about those of us seeking truth and justice for the 9/11 victims families visit the following website.

    www.patriotsquestion911.com

  88. Eric Dondero Says:

    9/11 was a Holocaust against innocent Americans by Muslim Radicals.

    3000 innocent Americans died on that day.

    Anyone who engages in kooky consipracy theories like Cheney or Haliburton were actually behind the attacks and not Al Qaeda is no different from the David Macko’s of the world, or that freak in Austria who wrote all those books denying that the Holocaust ever happened.

    In short, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists are Holocaust Deniers, and should be treated the same: Loudly Denounced, Shamed, and Spit on.

  89. Eric Dondero Says:

    Democratic-Republican, a guy who is too chicken shit to use his own name on-line, accuses me of being a “NeoCon.”

    I would remind Mr. D-R, that I am hardcore Pro-Choice. It is physically impossible to be a “NeoCon” and be Pro-Choice. NeoCons are Pro-Lifers.

    I’ve been battling these NeoCon Religious Rightists as a Pro-Choice Republican for over 20 years. Believe me, I know a NeoCon when I see one. And it ain’t people like Ann Stone, Arlen Spector or Olympia Snowe.

    Think Howard Phillips, Pat Robertson, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell.

  90. Eric Dondero Says:

    How the American Right shakes out politically:

    Moderate/Centrists - Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Log Cabin Clubs, Ripon Society, Ann Stone & Republicans for Choice.

    Centrist Conservatives - George W. Bush, John McCain, Bob Dole.

    Conservatives - Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, Orin Hatch, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham.

    Libertarian Conservatives - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, National Review, HotAir.com, Michell Malkin.

    NeoCons/New Right - Howard Phillips, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schaffley.

    Old Right/Paleo-Cons - Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilcrhist, John Birch Society.

    Libertarians - Jeff Flake, Butch Otter, Dana Rohrabacher, Walter Williams, Dennis Miller, PJ O’Rourke, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, John Stossell, Tammy Bruce, Club for Growth, Grover Norquist, Sam Adams Alliance.

    (Cato, Reason, skirting the edge between “Libertarians” and “Anti-War Libertarians”).

    Paleo-Libertarians/Anti-War Libertarians - Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris, Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker.

    Anarcho-Libertarians - Thomas Knapp, Mary Ruwart, Steven Kubby, L. Neil Smith.

  91. Eric Dondero Says:

    ADDENDUM:

    Note significant ovelap between the Libertarian category and the Libertarian Conservative category. For instance, Walter Williams could easily fit into both groups. Same for Jona Goldberg of National Review.

    Also, there’s significant overlap between the Anarcho-Libertarians and Paleo-Libertarians.

    Finally, a great deal of overlap between the Paleo-Cons and the Religious Right/NeoCon category. In fact, the members of both seem to fluctuate depending on the political climate. Howard Phillips for instance in the 1980s, called himself a “NeoCon,” one of the top leaders of the “New Right.” Ditto for Phyllis Schaffley. Now both prefer the term Paleo-Con.

    But both groups fall comfortably under the unbrella of “Religous Right.” So, it might be best to create a single category for them under RR.

  92. Eric Dondero Says:

    Cato and Reason represent perhaps a cross-over category. They despise the term “Paleo-libertarian,” yet their views mostly reflect those of Lew Rockwell and the Paleo-libs being hardcore Anti-War.

    David Boaz, Snr. VP of Cato even said this the other night on “Libertarian Politics Live” - that the views between the two groups, particularly on the War are almost identical. But due to personal differences, the Cato-ites refuse to associate with Rockwell. So, a new crossover category, meaning the same thing philosophically, but using a different name, might be in order.

    “Beltway Paleo-libertarians”???

  93. Brandon H. Says:

    I do remember a few things in the past from Ventura. He got a perfect 10 as a libertarian in the World’s smallest political test. He once considered himself a small l libertarian but then stopped because he believed all (big L) Libertarians are anarchists.

  94. Calvin Says:

    “In short, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists are Holocaust Deniers, and should be treated the same: Loudly Denounced, Shamed, and Spit on.”

    You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating such ignorance!

    How dare you equate the victims families with holocaust deniers!

    www.911pressfortruth.com

  95. Calvin Says:

    9/11 Survivors and Family Members
    Question the 9/11 Commission Report

    An estimated 2,973 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The death toll at the World Trade Center included 60 police officers and 343 firefighters, 87 passengers aboard American Flight 11, 60 on United Flight 175, and over 2,000 occupants and neighbors of the WTC. The death toll at the Pentagon included 125 people from the Pentagon and 64 passengers on American Flight 77. And 44 people lost their lives on United Flight 93.

    Many 9/11 survivors and many 9/11 victim family members have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.

    The public statements of many survivors contradict the Commission Report. And the words and actions of some of the victims on that terrible day are in conflict with the Commission Report. This section is a collection of their statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

    Listed below are statements by more than 200 9/11 survivors, victims and family members that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

    These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their statements are based on their intimate familiarity with and intense study of the events of 9/11. Their criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, In fact, it is based on their desire to honor the victims of that terrible day by finding the truth and bringing to justice those responsible for these terrible acts.

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

  96. Calvin Says:

    Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD -

    Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton. The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive Dr. Margulis’ papers. President of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society, from 2005 - 2006. Recipient of the Proctor Prize for scientific achievement in 1999 from Sigma Xi. Prior to moving to the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Margulis was a faculty member at Boston University for 22 years. Her publications span a wide-range of scientific topics, and include original contributions to cell biology and microbial evolution. Dr. Margulis is best known for contributions to evolution, especially the theory of symbiogenesis. For more information on Dr. Margulis’ career, please visit

    http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis and http://www.sciencewriters.org.

    Author of over 130 scientific works and numerous books. Recent publications include Mind, Life, and Universe (2007 with Eduardo Punset), Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature (2007, co-authored with Dorion Sagan), Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (1998), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (2002, with Dorion Sagan), Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (2002, second edition with Michael F. Dolan), Luminous Fish: Tales of Science and Love (2006), What is Sex? (1997, with Dorion Sagan), What is Life? (1995, with Dorion Sagan), Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality (1991, with Dorion Sagan), Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution From Our Microbial Ancestors (1986, with Dorion Sagan), and Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination (1986, with Dorion Sagan), Kingdoms and Domains: Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (4th edition, co-authored by Michael J. Chapman, Academic Press, 2008 in press), Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (second edition, 1993).
    ————-

    * Statement to this website 8/27/07: “The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11. I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11. He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher - theologian - author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.

    On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin’s first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.

    It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 “new Pearl Harbor” was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives. It was more complex and far more successful than the Allende assassination, the US bombing of our own ship the “Maine” that began the Spanish-American war (and brought us Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines), the Reichstag fire that was used to justify the suspension of most civil liberties in Germany in the 1930’s, and even Operation Himmler, which was used by Germany to justify the invasion of Poland, which started World War II.

    Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

    I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

    Lynn Margulis is also the first wife of Carl Sagan.

    * Bio: http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis

  97. Calvin Says:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

  98. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 9th, 2008 at 7:51 am
    9/11 was a Holocaust against innocent Americans by Muslim Radicals.

    3000 innocent Americans died on that day.

    Anyone who engages in kooky consipracy theories like Cheney or Haliburton were actually behind the attacks and not Al Qaeda is no different from the David Macko’s of the world, or that freak in Austria who wrote all those books denying that the Holocaust ever happened.

    In short, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists are Holocaust Deniers, and should be treated the same: Loudly Denounced, Shamed, and Spit on.”

    So let’s throw any rational discussion out the window. Believe what the government tells you to believe or be yelled at and spit upon.

    The truth of the matter is that Eric Donder is SCARED SHITLESS that 9/11 Truthers could be correct because 9/11 Truthers being correct will bring his entire world crashing down. He’d have to admitt that he’s been wrong all of these years and for him admitting that he’s wrong would be the worst possible thing to happen to him. He’d prefer to engage in anti-intellectualism than to question his beliefs.

  99. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “Anarcho-Libertarians - Thomas Knapp, Mary Ruwart, Steven Kubby, L. Neil Smith.”

    Thanks for including me in such a classy crowd, but for some reason you included that crowd as part of the “American Right.” I can’t speak for the other three people above, but I am most manifestly not on the “Right” at all. I’m a Lefty.

    Also, as I mentioned to you in an email earlier, I consider being an anarchist and a (big-L) Libertarian to be about as relevant to each other as being a golfer and a Libertarian, a coffee drinker and a Libertarian, etc.

    Anarchism is ideologically a subset of libertarianism, but it does not lend itself well to expression in a political party working to influence an electoral system of government.

    I’m not interested in using the Libertarian Party to eliminate the state, i.e. implement anarchism. That’s an absurd proposition, as non-party libertarian anarchists will be quick to tell you by way of denouncing the party’s very existence.

    A political party’s purpose is to re-shape, not eliminate, the system it is inherently a part of. Granted, the LP wants to dramatically reduce the size and power of the state, and granted its institutional documents don’t preclude eliminating the state, but the party is what it is—part of a system to which the existence of the state is foundational. Elimination of the state would necessarily entail elimination of the party.

    I’m involved in the Libertarian Party for two reasons:

    One is that while I consider the stateless society the ideal, I see no practical possibility of achieving it in my lifetime, nor do I see my participation in trying to achieve it as especially important, and I therefore to work on more realistic goals which might be realized in my lifetime, like reducing the size, power and scope of government in particular ways. Cutting taxes (maybe even eliminating some of them), but probably not eliminating taxation. Repealing bad laws, but probably not repealing all laws. In other words, for me anarchism is dreaming the dreamable, while political work in the LP is doing the doable. I try not to confuse the two.

    The second reason is that I’m a junkie. No two ways about it. I love electoral politics. I love walking precincts and kissing hands and shaking babies and asking for votes and debating opponents and working the polling place on Election Day and bashing it up with the enemy. I love winning, too. I’d like to do more of it. Not so badly that I’m willing to give up my goals and adopt goals I don’t agree with just to be able to take a victory lap, but when I CAN win for the goals I DO hold, that’s a rush. And when I can’t win for those goals, well, I probably learned something in losing that will help me do better next time and that’s a rush, too.

  100. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yes, I only added Anarchists for context. Didn’t mean to imply that they were “Right-wing.” Sorry I neglected to say that in the post.

  101. Eric Dondero Says:

    Umm, no Andy. I don’t necessarily believe what the government tells me. After all these are the same jerks who fed us all those lies about Oklahoma City being the work of “Right-wing Gun Nuts” with no connections to Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Intelligence, even though 23 witnesses, including a City Councilman and his two staffers, SAW A SECOND TERRORIST RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SCENE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE BLAST WHO WAS ARAB, along with Timothy McVeigh.

    But I do believe the 20th bomber Zacarais Mussouai (sp?). What reason would Mussouai have to lie? He’s the one bomber who survived. He’s still alive rotting away in a prison cell. During his trial he told the whole story about Al Qaeda conducting the raids.

    In order to believe the 9/11 conspiracy kooks you have to completely write off Moussai, and come to think of it, Khalid Sheik Muhammed the Mastermind of 9/11 who we captured, and admitted everything.

    Oh, and Bin Laden, and Ayman Al-Zwahiri made it all up too, I guess?

  102. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
    Umm, no Andy. I don’t necessarily believe what the government tells me. After all these are the same jerks who fed us all those lies about Oklahoma City being the work of “Right-wing Gun Nuts” with no connections to Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Intelligence, even though 23 witnesses, including a City Councilman and his two staffers, SAW A SECOND TERRORIST RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SCENE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE BLAST WHO WAS ARAB, along with Timothy McVeigh.”

    The Middle Eastern men were let in the country by the US government and were working for the CIA. The OKC bombing was an inside job, just like 9/11.

  103. G.E. Says:

    Dondero - 3,000 people is hardly a holocaust. In the three months following 9/11, more people died as a result of the net increase in automobile travel vs. air travel then died on 9/11. I guess those thousands could also be blamed on the cave dwellers, but that still falls drastically short of a “holocaust.”

    A real holocaust would be what the FDA does to people. I know, it’s crazy to suggest that our own government might actually do something wrong and cause people to die. Wow, who woulda thunk it. According to Dondero, the government can do no wrong, and that’s “libertarianism.”

  104. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Politics on crapper at www.turdpottywatch.com.

Leave a Reply