Ep. 35 Scott Horton Chastises Bob on His Ilhan Omar Episode, Talks About Who’s to Blame In Venezuela, and Explains the Carnage in the Middle East
Scott Horton returns to the podcast to share his wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics. Bob first gives Scott the opportunity to express his unhappiness with the recent episode (#29) on Ilhan Omar. Then they discuss the economic crisis in Venezuela, the carnage in the Middle East, the Mueller Report, and finally answer questions from the BMS Secret Facebook Group.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The Scott Horton Show.
- Scott’s book on Afghanistan, Fool’s Errand.
- The Bob Murphy Show ep. 29 (which Scott did not like).
- David Stockman’s antiwar.com article on RussiaGate.
- A NYT article declaring: “[T]he White House needed to placate the Saudis as the administration completed a nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archenemy. That fact alone eclipsed concerns among many of the president’s advisers that the Saudi-led offensive [in Yemen] would be long, bloody and indecisive.“
- Weisbrot and Sachs on whether Venezuelan government or US is to blame for Venezuelan economic crisis.
- The Case for IBC.
- The Lara-Murphy Report.
- How you can contribute to the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
[…] Bob Murphy interviews me about Ilhan Omar, Tulsi Gabbard and other things. […]
It’s probably not worth dwelling on Rep. Ilhan Omar but there’s a transcript of her full speech available, so ignore any agonizing dissection over a few particular words and look at the whole thing, context and everything.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/14/context-some-people-did-something/
It’s all about Muslims playing the victims, very one sided, and deliberately “us vs them” openly calling for Muslims to “raise hell, make people uncomfortable” and hamming it up in a way that’s dishonest in many places. Trump never proposed a “Muslim ban” that’s just garbage.
That comes across as incredibly petty to me. Your wife is having a baby and your religion demands that you take a break right then and there for a 15 minute prayer in the middle of the hospital, with a prayer mat and you need space set aside specifically for you? You couldn’t just spend the extra 15 minutes with your wife today and then maybe catch up with an extra prayer some time later?
And because you don’t get this thing that no one else is demanding, now you are all hard done by and not recognized as full human? Talk about overreaction. That does not give the appearance of a good faith complaint there … that is going looking for something to freak out about. Oh I got a lot of good things, far better than I would have got anywhere else on Earth but hey there was some tiny thing I didn’t get waaaa waaa waaaa! Behaving that way does not make me feel encouraged to give those people anything else. All the other religions don’t spend their time whining over tiny bits and pieces. When was the last time the Atheists demanded a special thing just for Athiests and then started moaning about not being recognized as fully human?!?
Omar’s speech is deliberately divisive and not even trying to be reasonable and get along. Get a sense of perspective please.
I like Scott and I have learned a lot from him, but it’s like he didn’t even listen to your explanation. I think he’s let his own passions blind himself to her careless remarks. English as a second language is a pretty lazy excuse. She knew what she was doing and she knew her audience. If you look at the context as a whole her attitude towards the situation backs this up.
Also, I don’t know Ron Paul as closely like you guys, but I’ve listened to him for over 10 years and I have never heard him say anything quite like that. To compare him to someone low IQ like her is insulting.
Scott is very passionate and a little one-sided on certain issues, I agree.
The situation right now is that Libertarians cannot pick and choose when it comes to anti-war because there isn’t a whole lot out there to choose from. We cannot spare this man, he fights (figuratively speaking, in the intellectual arena). Putting up with a few rough edges is acceptable IMHO, even though I have my disagreements. If I were to speak up like Scott does I would be out of work and unemployable quick smart … that’s the problem we are up against.
I agree with you that her poor use of English should not be forgiven nor allowed as a reason to irritate or anger a bunch of people. It shouldn’t for two reasons:
1. Words matter. I was irritated that she said that people were just doing things on September 11, 2001. If these folks do not represent you then SAY SO!!!! Say what you mean and mean what you say.
2. Furthermore, if you want a career in the US Congress then you best be expert in using the English language and if you aren’t then there are lots of people who work cheap to help you and you might have to pay them. For example there was a reason that Nixon employed Pat Buchanan and his use of the English Language was vastly superior to this person.
I also like how Gabbard has made “America’s disastrous policy of regime-change wars” central to her platform (https://www.tulsi2020.com/about), but why does she choose to continue her stint in the National Guard? Seems a bit insincere to say something along the line of, “I’m a major in the National Guard, and I’m antiwar,” especially when considering she has already been deployed twice. She might say, “I’m against these stupid wars, but I’ll be happy to go back for a third deployment.” Makes no sense to me.
Something something muh duty
The rest of Scott’s speech is so POWERFUL i had to lie down afterwards.
The horrors of this regime… are… just..
Gabbard scares me because she is very electable while having such horrible (unreflected?) economics and domestic policies.