Home > elections > Capt. Buhne for Ron Paul?

Capt. Buhne for Ron Paul?

Longtime Humboldt County blog readers will remember the blog that started it all (locally speaking). The Buhne Tribune was your daily dose of satire back in ’06-’07.

In fact, the lampoonery was so thick it left a lasting impression.  How does one know when to take the Captain, aka Ryan Hurley, seriously?

Find out at the Ron Paul Sign Bomb, October 10th at 4:30pm on the corner of Wabash and Broadway.

  1. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 5:26 am

    He sounds serious. What’s with all these young people and Ron Paul? Have they never listened to him? In the last debate he was just stringing buzz words together into sentences which was nothing but gibberish ala Palin. But all they seem to hear is “legalize drugs” and “no wars,” and go deaf when he talks about deregulation and closing government agencies designed to protect us from corporate abuses. Libertarians are like Republicans on steroids or Tea Partiers on meth.

  2. Ponder z
    October 4, 2011 at 5:45 am

    PJ, your mind is obviously closed. The Tea Party, and Libertarians are truly fundamentally American. The true spirit of America, small government, basic taxes. We don’t need all these government agencies. They are too expensive and Oboma just wants more of it. Who dose he and you think will pay for all this?

    Oh yes, unfortunately, we do need SOME unions, taxes, and, regulation to rain in big corporations. But lets have some sense about the blank checkbook.

  3. Mitch
    October 4, 2011 at 6:21 am

    PJ,

    The thing people need to understand about libertarianism is that NO system is going to be perfect.

    Young libertarians have been raised on a steady diet of anti-government propaganda. They’ve also seen, firsthand, how imperfect government can be — how it can be captured by those it supposedly regulates, how bureaucracies will include not only honorable public servants but also lazy lifers and arrogant tinpot dictators.

    What they HAVEN’T seen is the alternative: needless hunger and disease, a society that excludes whole classes of people for arbitrary reasons, a dog-eat-dog Hobbesian world in which everyone is left completely to fend for themselves, and “charity” is supposed to solve all ills.

    They are anxious to repair the flaws they see in today’s system, without having the historical background to see what existed before yesterday’s “safety net” was put in place. But they are right to see today’s flaws, and the instinct to repair them is admirable. It’s just always easier to see the flaws in any system than to implement something that’s better.

    After the Reagan Revolution and all that has followed, the system’s flaws are all too apparent, and it does need some radical cleaning. It’s just that the libertarian approach would make things worse.

  4. October 4, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Yeah you really got to love some idiot who works for a public agency and whose paycheck is funded by tax dollars coming out for the libertarians. It’s like a chicken standing up to endorse Col. Sanders for President

  5. October 4, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Mitch, et al.: And yet there is a more perfect system at work in this country and no one really sees it for what it is. Be patient everyone, you’ll get your opportunity to choose soon enough.

  6. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 9:05 am

    desperate

  7. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Open question: Is Ryan Hurley the anti-prog behind the Humboldt Mirror?

  8. October 4, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Remarkable example of loyalty to The Left that those here would make an enemy of Ron Paul.

  9. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Ryan is, without doubt, a bit politically confused. Far too often his positions are grounded in histrionics and blind loyalty, rather than logic. This has seriously eroded his credibility over the years.

    If Ron Paul told Ryan to jump off the Ferndale bridge, he’d be stripping down to his skivvies in no time.

  10. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Yes, Anonymous. Please do portray everyone you disagree with as some variety of soft-headed and misled. It’s the progressive thing to do.

  11. October 4, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Is Ryan Hurley the anti-prog behind the Humboldt Mirror?

    No. He posted a video on his Eureka Now blog of himself singing a song that called the Mirror blogger a troll.

  12. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 10:52 am

    I wonder about the mental processes of a person who thinks one “rains in” something like corporations instead of “reining” them in.

    If a person is so sloppy in spelling, can’t we fairly assume sloppiness in thinking is also at play?

  13. Mitch
    October 4, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Anon 10:52,

    We can assume what we like, but it seems pretty dumb to me to think spelling skills are central to thinking skills.

  14. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Who shares Ron Paul’s views on free trade, abortion, education, foreign aid, climate change, financial regulation, Social Security, and health care? Who can explain his views on gay marriage or how DOMA (which he supported) was in support of state rights and how that would work constitutionally? Or how about financing a 21st century government on 18th century revenue streams, minus “protectionist tariffs.”

  15. High Finance
    October 4, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Sorry Ponderz but you are dead wrong when you link the Tea Party people with Libertarians and the kook Ron Paul.

    The only thing they have in common is the wish to change the way things are done in Wash DC. If people really took Ron Paul seriously enough to see what he stands for and advocates, his support would melt away to miniscule portions.

  16. Not A Native
    October 4, 2011 at 11:59 am

    No Hi Fi, Ponderz is absolutely correct.

    From Wiki:
    Paul has been termed the “intellectual godfather” of the Tea Party movement.[5][6] He has become well known for his libertarian ideas for many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances.

    Do a quick net search and you’ll see Ron Paul has endorsements of Tea Party groups in New York, Ohio, and Iowa, with more to come. He also claims to have “won” the recent CNN Tea Party Express debate. So the Tea Party and Ron Paul are definitely aligned.

  17. High Finance
    October 4, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Those Tea Party people who are adopting Ron Paul will quickly back away when they hear about his kooky stand on a number of issues.

  18. Smart 5th Grader
    October 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Kooks of a feather …

  19. Not A Native
    October 4, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    You afraid Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination? That sure would put you in a bind, Hi Fi. You’ll have no choice but to vote for the American Independent candidate.

  20. October 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    NAN wrote,“That sure would put you in a bind, Hi Fi”.

    I doubt it. He’ll just vote for his #2 choice: Obama.

    HiFi wrote, “Those Tea Party people who are adopting Ron Paul will quickly back away when they hear about his kooky stand on a number of issues.

    Wow! Pretty strange issue to finally find common ground on with the lefties, HiFi. Then again, considering your #2 choice….

  21. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    So will most of the rest of the country, Fred.

  22. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    I’m still waiting for a Paul supporter to respond to my 1130 post. I wonder how many of them even know what his platform really is.

  23. October 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    I’m sure I disagree with some of Ron Paul’s platform, but I probably disagree with other candidates more. At least he means what he says unlike most others (Gary Johnson being also being an exception).

    For what it’s worth, my choice of the Republicans this time around is Gary Johnson, but I’m thinking about showing up for the Paul event if I’m not busy. I have no problem waving a Ron Paul sign.

  24. Anonymous
    October 4, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Mitch, if Ponder z can’t differentiate between rains and reins, his ability to decypher language’s relation to objective reality is impaired. Ever think of that, dummy?

  25. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    You mean like when he inserts earmarks into legislation and then votes against it when its passage is guaranteed, Fred? He brings home the federal bacon while claiming to be anti-taxes and spending.

  26. Fuzzy
    October 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Fred’s all about federal and state bacon, as long as some of it ends up on his plate. Otherwise, he’s a libertarian. And Capt. Buhne works for a government check. Other than that, he’s a libertarian.

  27. jr
    October 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Are voters “enablers” and candidates “co-dependent”?

  28. raging right winger
    October 4, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Yeah, lets start with all those kooky envirio regulations like clean air and water. Then we’ll do away with safety in the work place!

  29. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    We don need no stink’n regulations!

  30. jr
    October 4, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Let’s get rid of all laws, too. As the late U. Utah Phillips wrote, “Why do we need laws? Good people don’t need them, and bad people don’t obey them.”

  31. October 4, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Screw Oliver Wendell Holmes,
    we’ve got Utah Phillips

  32. October 4, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    I’ve a suggestion Junior@7:57
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, try Wikipedia.

  33. Ponder z
    October 5, 2011 at 5:29 am

    Hi Fi, I never linked the Tea Party or Libertarians to Ron Paul. Only to the true historical American spirit. I do think he is out a bit far. And fringe groups who endorse him don’t speak for all the rest.

  34. Ponder z
    October 5, 2011 at 5:36 am

    anon 10:52 and 3:07
    I love it when I’m corrected on grammar or spelling. I am, after all a product of our fine public schools. Two posts on the issue? You really need a life.

  35. October 5, 2011 at 8:08 am

    P.J. wrote, “He brings home the federal bacon while claiming to be anti-taxes and spending..

    Hmmm…a lefty criticizing someone for bringing home the federal bacon? Sounds more like the criticisms I’ve heard of Paul by libertarians.

    I’ve never had a problem with it. What would you expect him to do> The spending bills are going to pass. Many, if not most, would say he’d be derelict in his duty if he didn’t submit earmarks requested by people in his district.

    After all, if the rest of the country is taking advantage of earmarks, would it be right for him to deny his district the same?

  36. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2011 at 8:16 am

    No Fred, you said he walks the walk and I just pointed out that he doesn’t. IMO, congressmen have a responsibility to bring home as much bacon as they can but they should be honest about it. Paul’s hypocrisy of inserting earmarks and then voting against the legislation when he knows it will pass without his vote and then claiming to be opposed to federal tax and spend is the issue. If he was REALLY walking his walk he wouldn’t insert any earmarks unless he was willing to vote for what he inserted. He wants to keep his anti-tax / spending reputation “cake” and eat it too.

  37. October 5, 2011 at 9:33 am

    I don’t have a problem with him being pragmatic on this issue.

  38. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2011 at 9:41 am

    It’s not pragmatism but hypocrisy, Fred. Pragmatism would entail him actually voting YES on his own earmarks.

  39. Anonymous
    October 5, 2011 at 10:04 am

    OK, Ponder z, I will get a life.

    And you can STFU.

  40. Pro Paul
    October 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

    This is one reason people LOVE RON.

    He will stop the unconstitutional wars.

    He will put the government back under the constitution.

    He will save America!

  41. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Sure he will, as soon as he’s elected dictator, Pro.

  42. Pro Paul
    October 5, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    OK Jane…..

    Believe what you will, but just so I know where you’re coming from, who do you want as dictator?

  43. High Finance
    October 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    So Pro, do you also think the US was wrong to kill bin-Laden and should have just given the info to the Pakistanis ?

    Do you think Obama should be impeached because he had al-Awlali killed ?

    Do you favor the legalization of all drugs (not just pot) and prostitution ? Do you think any person turning 77 before he even takes the office of president could be effective for very long ?

  44. Anonymous
    October 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    It’s only right that we legalize all drugs and prostitution. Then let’s regulate them so the drugs are pure and the prostitutes remain healthy. Then the problems that the drugs and prostitution may be causing will not be aggravated by demonizing the people who are caught up in these situations. As things stand now, we spend billions to make sad people’s lives even more miserable – without accomplishing much good at all.

    I encourage everyone to read, listen or watch Amy Goodman’s interview with Dr. Gabor Mate, especially what he has to say about the origins of addiction.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/30/dr_gabor_mat_on_the_stress

  45. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    I don’t want any dictators, Pro, but I am not so politically naive to believe that any president can do what Paul says he will do because of the power of the corporations and especially the military-industrial complex. Of course, they would probably be very happy to fund his campaign because the like his views on other issues that he could pass with the help of a GOP controlled congress. These would include, but not be limited to, wipe out unions, the minimum wage, OSHA, regulations, federal funding for education, EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare and just about everything else the far right is screaming for and then there will be civil war.

  46. Anonymous
    October 5, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    Poor spelling and grammar is completely different from understanding the basic meaning, content, or idea of a sentence. I am with Ponder Z, though I don’t always agree with him.

  47. Controlled Demo
    October 6, 2011 at 9:10 am

    The main stream media hates Ron Paul because he speaks the truth. If you’re against banker bailouts, loose money, endless wars and the Federal Reserve controlling your life…..then you may like RP.

  48. Plain Jane
    October 6, 2011 at 9:42 am

    If you like a social safety net, unemployment, Social Security, environmental protection, safe food, water and drugs… then you may hate RP.

  49. caliboy
    October 6, 2011 at 9:56 am

    You should be called far out jane. Your just full of shit. Social safety net etc. you just make this stuff up. You should put IMIO before your statements.

  50. Plain Jane
    October 6, 2011 at 10:24 am

    I have been called “far out” before, Calidiot, but not in a derogatory way. :D

  51. tra
    October 6, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Or if not “hate,” perhaps “disagree?”

    Another one to add to that list is reproductive rights. Somehow the “libertarian” Paul is nonetheless in favor of making abortion illegal. Go figure.

  52. Pro Paul
    October 6, 2011 at 10:52 am

    tra, your wrong.

    I don’t know how many times I heard him say, “it’s a states issue” and he leaves it to the states to decide.

  53. Plain Jane
    October 6, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Privacy is guaranteed by the constitution, Pro, which means that Paul is wrong. The idea that people have different civil rights in different states is ludicrous and Paul’s claim is nothing more than another attempt to deny the relevance of his extremist views on an important issue.

  54. Pro Paul
    October 6, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Oh so you want everything standardized and uniformed everywhere. If that should happen, you’d better like the standardizations AND your uniform.

    Oh why don’t you tell me who you endorse? You already know who I endorse. It’s only fair that we know where you’re coming from also.

  55. Plain Jane
    October 6, 2011 at 11:15 am

    I want civil rights standardized everywhere in the US, but then I believe in the constitution.

    I’m not happy with anyone running and will likely end up, as usual, voting for the lesser of the evils which is Obama.

  56. High Finance
    October 6, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Where in the Constitution is privacy “guaranteed” PJ ?

  57. Not A Native
  58. Plain Jane
    October 6, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Thanks, Nan. The founders, recognizing after-the-fact that future citizens may forget how important basic civil liberties are, added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution including the right to be secure in your persons, papers, homes and effects. Apparently it never dawned on them that future people would require that the 4th Amendment contain the word privacy in place of secure to understand that personal privacy is inseparable from liberty. Thankfully, SCOTUS (so far) isn’t confused by it.

  59. High Finance
    October 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    “broadly read” does not make it so. It is a big stretch of the imagination to even suggest so.

  60. Fact Checker
    October 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Supreme Court Decisions on Liberty

    Privacy

    As Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Griswold vs. Connecticut opinion, “‘Privacy’ is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept.” There is no one sense of privacy which can be extracted from the various Court decisions which have touched upon it. The mere act of labeling something “private” and contrasting it with “public” implies that we are dealing with something which should be removed from government interference.

    According to those who emphasize individual autonomy and civil liberties, the existence of a realm of both private property and private conduct should, as much as possible, be left alone by the government. It is this realm which serves to facilitate the moral, personal and intellectual development of each individual, without which a functioning democracy is not possible.

    In the cases listed below, you will learn more about how the United States Supreme Court has developed the concept of “privacy” for people in America.

    Weems v. United States (1910)
    In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

    Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
    A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

    Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
    A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

    Olmstead v. United States (1928)
    The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis’ dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
    An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be “habitual criminals” is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

    Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
    The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan’s dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
    Connecticut’s laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

    Loving v. Virginia (1967)
    Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a “fundamental civil right” and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

    Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
    The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

    Roe v. Wade (1972)
    The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person’s to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

    Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
    Should doctors be required to try to save the life of a possibly viable fetus when performing an abortion? A Pennsylvania law created such a requirement, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Find out why…

    Williams v. Pryor (2000)
    The 11th Circuit Court ruled that the Alabama legislature was within its rights to ban the sale of “sex toys,” and that people do not necessarily have any right to buy them.

    Pottawatomie v. Earls (2001)
    How much latitude does a public school have in restricting a student’s rights? Can schools force all students to submit to random drug testing merely as a condition of attendance? Can they force all students who participate in activities like band or soccer to submit to random drug testing?

    http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_PrivacyIndex.htm

  61. The Big Picture
    October 7, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Paul and Obama both stated their opposition to the illegal U.S. occupations.

    If Congress properly declared war against the 25 nations illegally bombed, invaded and occupied by the U.S. since WWII, most of America and Europe’s richest industrialists would be qualified to serve life-sentences for supplying “the enemy”. The political candidates they’ve been financing would be tarred and feathered.

    Half a century of profiteering from supplying both sides of conflicts has hatched a tyranny far beyond the imagination of Eisenhower’s early warnings of a “vast military industrial complex”.

    That U.S. imperial adventures are still referred to as “wars” illustrates the success of propaganda and conspiracy that will take a remarkable catalyst and leader to actually overcome.

  62. 06em
    October 11, 2011 at 7:04 am

    So, did Ryan show up at Broadway and Wabash? The taxpayer financed traffic control lights there would have given him an audience. Was he standing on the taxpayer financed sidewalk? I’m not sure Dr. Paul would have approved of his use of taxpayer financed infrastructure. Better if he would have found someplace in the woods or something for his protest. Of course he’d have to have found a place not protected by the CDF.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s