Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians choose pol dogged by abuse claim to top ticket
The Chicago Daily Southtown ^ | Sunday, March 31, 2002 | Rich Miller

Posted on 03/31/2002 9:49:54 AM PST by BillyBoy


Libertarians choose pol dogged by abuse claim to top ticket

You have to wonder about the sanity of the folks who run the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarians have the greatest opportunity in years to build their party.

When Republican-leaning citizens become disenchanted, they often vote Libertarian. And the Republican Party is fractured and weak after a brutal primary campaign. The GOP winner, Jim Ryan, has yet to either unify his party or provide sufficient answers to many of the questions and accusations hurled at him by his two feisty opponents. The attacks didn't work well in the spring campaign, but according to a post-primary poll, independent voters paid attention and are streaming away from the Republican in truly scary numbers.

But instead of putting together a serious ticket, the Libertarians decided to court disaster at their recent convention by nominating as their candidate for governor a former state representative who has been accused of pedophilia.

Former Illinois state Rep. Cal Skinner claims the allegations that he sexually abused his 18-month-old daughter are completely false and were concocted on the eve of a particularly nasty divorce in order to pry away custody of his daughter.

He may be telling the truth and this could just be some terrible nightmare, which would fit nicely with the Libertarian philosophy of "government as bad guy." But Skinner repeatedly has made misleading comments about the charges, and has woven enough phony spin to fill a yarn warehouse.

He has claimed, for instance, that the Department of Children and Family Services cleared him of the abuse allegations. But DCFS did not clear Skinner, even though he stated in a 1998 letter to his McHenry County constituents that the agency had "removed the slander from its files and issued a letter to me certifying that DCFS has no record of my having abused any child."

What Skinner didn't mention was that until a few years ago, DCFS was required by state law to expunge an accused child molester's record after five years if no new allegations surfaced. Skinner simply asked DCFS for any records of abuse allegations against him two months after his file had been destroyed.

And he never mentioned that a DCFS investigator testified at a trial that Skinner had "sexually molested his daughter."

Skinner also continues to point to a judge's ruling that gave him custody of his daughter. But the judge was unaware of the DCFS report and the abuse allegations.

And he never mentions that another judge restricted him to supervised-only visitations based on the DCFS report and the damaging testimony from an agency investigator.

Skinner says his wife has "disappeared" with his daughter, and he can produce a warrant for her arrest on charges of parental kidnapping. But the state's attorney who issued the warrant apparently never knew about the abuse allegations because he told the newspaper which first broke the Skinner story that he would consider reversing his decision. Skinner also didn't file a missing person report until a year after his ex-wife fled with their child.

In Skinner's defense, he was never arrested for sexual abuse, no charges have ever been filed against him, and no allegations have ever been made that he abused any other children. And his former father-in-law, who claims to have caught Skinner touching himself in a lewd manner while his 18-month-old daughter lay naked on a changing table, stood by silently for years while Skinner ran for the House.

Anyone who has ever been through a bitter divorce or child custody battle knows how awful they can be. And you will get no argument from me that way too many innocent people are permanently slandered by their ex-spouses every day.

And, frankly, some of Skinner's ideas ought to have a place in the upcoming gubernatorial contest, particularly his belief that the four state legislative leaders have far too much power.

But Skinner has proven that he is the wrong candidate at the wrong time. He has yet to speak of the allegations against him without engaging in deceptive half-truths. And it doesn't help matters that the country is currently mesmerized by revelations of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. The public may not be willing to listen to his explanations when this story finally gets out.

Skinner lost his Illinois House seat two years ago mainly because his constituents had lost their trust in him. The rest of the state, and the Libertarian Party, should take heed.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter. He can be reached at www.capitolfax.com.


TOPICS: Illinois; Campaign News; Parties; State and Local
KEYWORDS: libertarians; miller; pedophile; skinner
There are some Illinois freepers trying to paint this Skinner guy as the sucessor to O'Malley-- proclaiming him a stauch conservative who stands for intergrity.

As Rich Miller documents here, Skinner's candidancy is far from honest and he is definitely NOT the next Pat O'Malley. It amazes that a bunch of freepers will attack Jim Ryan for being for gay marriage, cozying up to pro-abortion folks, abadoning family values, having a seedy backgroud, being in office forever, and being tainted by a major scandal-- yet they back this Skinner guy who fits ALL those labels and more.

As Miller stated (who was quiet positive about O'Malley PRIMARY campaign and against the "Republicrat" establishment), Jim Ryan is a LOUSY candidate, but Skinner is far from the answer. Wrong candidate at the wrong time. O'Malley, a devout Irish Catholic REPUBLICAN and a family man untainted by scandal, will never endorse a fringe candidate like Skinner.

Too bad some conservatives won't listen to reason.

1 posted on 03/31/2002 9:49:54 AM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Stuff like this is why I never joined the LP and why to a large extent, that they aren't taken seriously. The best guy they had for a major candidate was L Neill Smith.

The only way a third party can really go legit is when they
1. Get 30% nationwide or statewide...consistantly
2. Have non celebrity candidates win major elections.(House, Senate, Governor, Sec of State, AG). Angus King and Jesse Ventura are the only two that did it. Virgil Goode is really a GOP'er and an ex-blue dog, and Jim Jeffords is really a dem, ex GOP.

3. "Farm clubs." What's in the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or Reform Party farm clubs? Not much. A few city council races and a couple of sheriffs or prosecutors. The only thing they are really good for is a protest vote.

I've given up on 3rd parties as real alternatives. A rehash of Federalist 10, plus the bottom line on election results tell me it isn't really worth trying either. Trying would also cost the best GOP'ers as well. The best GOP'ers are at the farm club and local level. They have a shot. I'd rather get the next Reagan, O'Malley, Sue Tabor, or Alan Cropsey elected to higher office.

I'm extremely PO'ed at Bush right now over CFR. I'm not going to take my distain out on the rest of the GOP that voted RIGHT on CFR. I'll take it out on Fred Upton by backing his primary opponent - Dale Shugars.

3rd parties I think CAN become a force by fighting smart. That's how it works in New York to some extent. If the Constitution Party and Reform Party backs an Alan Cropsey, they can maybe start making a difference.

2 posted on 03/31/2002 11:36:11 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Skinner is not really a very good Libertarian, either. From the Libertarian Party web site:

Skinner, who became a dues-paying LP member on March 23...

That was eight days ago.

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0205/skinner.html

3 posted on 03/31/2002 12:29:54 PM PST by Land_of_Lincoln_John
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
But instead of putting together a serious ticket, the Libertarians decided to court disaster at their recent convention by nominating as their candidate for governor a former state representative who has been accused of pedophilia.

Problem is, The Libertarians have no problem with Pedophilia, in fact there were libertarians on this very forum screaming about the age of consent. In the libertarian theology, you have a right to have sex with whoever you want, because if it feels good it must be okay.

Hedonists. That is what Libertarians are.

4 posted on 03/31/2002 1:17:47 PM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Have non celebrity candidates win major elections.(House, Senate, Governor, Sec of State, AG). Angus King and Jesse Ventura are the only two that did it. Virgil Goode is really a GOP'er and an ex-blue dog, and Jim Jeffords is really a dem, ex GOP.

Jesse Ventura is not a libertarian. He ran and won on the Reform Party Ticket. (Before becoming independent.)

As for getting a good percentage of the vote without being a celeb, look at the Pennsylvania 1998 Elections. Peg Luksik was able to get 315,761 votes, far more than any libertarian ever could have acheived. In fact those 315,000 votes are almost as much as Harry Browne recieved in the Entire COUNTRY in 2000 (384,429) Browne only got 15,198 votes in Pennsylvania in 2000.

5 posted on 03/31/2002 1:32:34 PM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Sorry I made a mistake on the above post, Browne only got 11,248 votes in Pennsylvania in 2000, the 15,198 total was from virginia.
6 posted on 03/31/2002 1:33:44 PM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
I agree. The LP had some pretty good fiscal policies that the GOP should adapt (as well as their stance on guns), but the fact remains that the "leaders" of the LP are idiots. I can't help but notice that the nation's "third largest party" always end up in 5th place during major elections. It's obviously due to lousy candidates. If they WANTED to suck away conservative votes with a strong, viable alternative, they would have nominated Barry Hess for President instead of giving that kook Harry "less than 1%" Browne the nod again. As of now, the LP "peaked" in 1980 and shows no signs of repeating those earlier achivements. They insist on running no-name walking platforms who run single issue campaigns about legalizing drugs.

Looks like Mr. Skinner is gonna be another guy to end up with 0.4% of the vote and consider it a good run. A lot of Illinois conservatives are P'Oed at Jim Ryan now (I for one, won't vote for him unless he gets off script and acts like a human being), but for a protest vote, they can always leave the spot blank or write-in O'Malley's name. The LP slate of candidates in Illinois support an anti-millitary, pro-choice platform. If I wanted that, I'd vote Dem.

A 3rd party candidate has NEVER won statewide in Illinois history either (although our neighbor Wisconsin elected three governors from the Socialist Party). In fact, I read the last "3rd party" candidate for Governor to get over 1% of the vote was in 1912. This is a two-party state, whether people like it or not.

7 posted on 03/31/2002 2:23:23 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FF578
"Hedonists. That is what Libertarians are."

How so? As an atheist Libertarian myself, I keep wondering why such vapid accusations are made. Am I having some sort of pleasure that you think I shouldn't have? If so, please inform me. Since you know me and all....

8 posted on 03/31/2002 4:56:55 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; Dan from Michigan
"the fact remains that the "leaders" of the LP are idiots"

As a registered Libertarian, here here. Idiots, dolts, and imbeciles.

You may be interested in a St. Louis race for Missouri State Representatitive, where a pro-life Libertarian is opposing the incumbent Democrat.

9 posted on 03/31/2002 5:01:13 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
2. Have non celebrity candidates win major elections.(House, Senate, Governor, Sec of State, AG). Angus King and Jesse Ventura are the only two that did it.

King is NOT a Libertarian. He ran as an Independent and actually changed his voter registration from Democrat to Indie the day before he announced his first run.

10 posted on 03/31/2002 5:02:39 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I know King and Ventura are not Libertarians. I included all independents I could think of offhand.

I didn't mean to imply they are LP.

11 posted on 03/31/2002 5:07:44 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
accused of pedophilia

No, he's accused of CHILD MOLESTATION. One is thoughtcrime, the other is someone's ACTIONS, which harm another human being immensely...

12 posted on 03/31/2002 5:10:08 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toenail
>> "the fact remains that the "leaders" of the LP are idiots"
As a registered Libertarian, here here. Idiots, dolts, and imbeciles
<<

Thank you for a refreshingly honest comment. Perhaps you could talk some sense into the Browne apologists here, but I doubt it. There was a good thread a while back on how to improve the LP and turn them into a VIABLE 3rd party. Unfortuantely, it fell on deaf ears.

I know that none of the current "3rd party" governors are LP. Angus King is an Independant that got elected thanks to the GOP running a UNABASHED liberal Republican (Susan Collins) against a socially conservative, honest indie. He drew votes from liberals on fiscal issues, from conservatives on social issues, and he made it in. Jesse "the body" Ventura was elected a fluke-- both of the "main" party candidates ran dull campaigns and a lot of newbie voters decided to vote for Ventura cause he had cool commericials. His "celebrity" status helped some disguntled Repubs/Dems vote for him merely as a protest vote. In an upset, he got 37% and won the election. It remains to be seen if he can do it again.

I think the last viable 3rd party that actually had BOTH establishment parties running scared was the Populist Party in the late 1890s. They elected Governors in 11 or 13 states or so. The populist party was sort of a liberal "for the common man" appeal, sucking votes from liberal Dems, so the Democrats paniced and started adopting every plank the Populists had. They formally merged with the Dems in 1896 when William J. Bryan ran on both parties tickets (although they ran seperate Vice President candidates--don't ask me how that worked back then).

Of course, Teddy Roosvelt got the "Progressive" Party to take away so many GOP votes, he actually finshed AHEAD of Republican Taft for President, but that was purely because an EXTREMELY popular ex-President headed the 3rd party ticket. (sort of like if Reagan had run for President in 1992 on a "Conservative Party" ticket) Without Teddy, the Progressives turned into a fringe party for the next decade or so.

Our government is designed as a two-party system, not a multi-party system like Germany and others. So it's going to be an uphill battle no matter what for 3rd parties. If the LP stopped running people like Stern and Skinner, they'd have alot better shot.

13 posted on 03/31/2002 7:45:50 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FF578
The Libertarians have no problem with Pedophilia, in fact there were libertarians on this very forum screaming about the age of consent. In the libertarian theology, you have a right to have sex with whoever you want, because if it feels good it must be okay.

You're probably one of those people that think the moon landing was staged and that Elvis is still among the living. Do you believe everything you hear or just everything bad (and false) about libertarians.

I'm a libertarian and I don't support pedophilia, or abortion, or any of the other numerous things idiots like you here say we support.

Libertarians stand for freedom, same as the founding fathers did. I guess some people have a real problem with freedom. Perhaps you should live in a more regimented and repressive culture.

14 posted on 04/01/2002 8:01:41 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Re: post 9.

How would you vote?

15 posted on 04/01/2002 9:14:36 AM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
>> I'm a libertarian and I don't support pedophilia, or abortion, or any of the other numerous things idiots like you here say we support. <<

Maybe YOU don't, but this doesn't change the fact that the people RUNNING your party do. Everytime the pro-abortion Republicans try to run one of their own for President, they get creamed in the primary. In fact, their guys get creamed in just about every major primary except New England's.

On the other hand, the pro-abortion Libertarians have ensured a pro-life Libertarian HASN'T gotten the nod since 1988! The Harry Browne "wing" of the LP runs the organization with an iron fist. They insist on running pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, open borders, anti-millitary, anti-religion people for ALL major offices. And the Browne apologists here blindly support the nominations of Carla Howell, Michael Cloud, and the like. Hence, people like Ron Paul gave up on the party and joined the GOP in droves.

I remember when pro-abortion RINO Mass. Gov. Jane Swift picked an openly gay, unqualified running mate-- the LP had a great chance to pick up votes here-- except THEIR nominee (Howell) also supporting gay partnerships and unrestricted abortion. Now the GOP nominee is Romney so Howell is going to be marginalized once again. The same thing happened in Texas...RINOs in the GOP are pushing amnesty for illegals, so the LP had a chance to get disgruntled Republican votes-- the only problem is all their candidates are even MORE in favor of amensty and open borders (read your party's platform if you don't believe this). After Sept. 11th, you'd think SANE Libertarians could talk their party into dropping idiotic parts of the platform that say things like: "Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested...We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."

Finally, just look at the websites of some "leading" LP candidates where they clearly state where they stand. I don't need to mention they support abortion and perverse lifestyles...THEY ALREADY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY DO:

16 posted on 04/01/2002 12:07:27 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"[I'm] Pro-Choice. Although some libertarians believe abortion is wrong, they realize that government prohibition causes even more problems, including unsafe abortion procedures.
Moreover, the U.S. Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate this intimate, personal decision"
--Dan Belforti, Libertarian nominee for Congress (NH-1st)

"I'm an idealist. I'd wish for the best of both worlds. I'd decree a world where you could respect the unborn life and a respect woman's right to choose... I call it "pro- option". So were I "just this king" instead of just this guy, I would decree that if a woman does not want her unborn child, she must first sign a legal document saying that she thereby abandons her unborn child. If she doesn't want the baby, she doesn't have to keep it; that's pro-choice."
"It's obvious how I stand on [sexual] issues: your life is yours to live your way. Period. ... All must be equal in the eyes of the law."
-- Ken Krawchuk, Libertarian nominee for Governor of Pennsyvania

"I am a pro-choice and believe that this is a personal individual right which is different in each case. "
Sonia Harden, Libertarian nominee for Congress (CA-10TH)
"Abortion: I don't believe that government should be used by anyone to prevent what is a personal responsibility issue. Our present law is adequate"
--Rick Stanley, Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate (Colorado)

"Pro-Choice"
"Someone who believes strongly that certain lifestyles are morally wrong, should not try to force others to accept their views either. Yet that is what has happened through the marriage laws of most states. These laws effectively establish a state religion by allowing only traditional Judeo-Christian marriages. "
--Clyde Cleveland, Libertarian nominee for Governor of Iowa

"I am pro-choice on just about everything including a woman's right to choose. Government bureaucrats should not interfere in that choice. We don't want to go back to a time when women had to have abortions in unsafe conditions."
--Jim Higgins, Libertarian nominee for Congress (MO-1st)

Of course, it's early on in the election season, so most people don't have comprehensive websites, let alone 3rd party candidates. Plus most LP's want to avoid "contraversal" issues like abortion (although they sure love to talk about legalizing drugs). Of the sites I found that talked about it, there were nine self-described "pro-choice" Libertarians, and two self-described "pro-life" ones. Hmmm...

17 posted on 04/01/2002 12:09:49 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
First of all, Billy, since you seem to think you're some authority on libertarians, you'll know there's a distinction between big-L Libertarians, and little-l libertarians. Notice which one I call myself.

Secondly, I long ago gave up trying to educate or reason with people here who are anti-libertarian. They are not open to reason and I'm not going to spend 80 hours a week trying to change their mind.

18 posted on 04/01/2002 12:39:11 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Keep in mind, though, that even though they're pro-aborts (from the "Party of Principle," no less), all Libertarians supposedly are opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion. Cutting their money off is one of the keys to putting them out of business, and remember, it was a GOP-controlled House and a GOP President who just gave Planned Parenthood ~$100 million in taxpayer money.
19 posted on 04/01/2002 2:30:06 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Agree. I should have made that clear. The serious libertarians who wish to get their ideals implimented make a lot of good. The Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed my guy for Governor (Pat O'Malley), in the GOP primary because he stood for things like home-schooling, abolishing the state gas tax, repealing Illinois FIRST, and making certain vaccinations volunteerary. I was happy to have the RLC in my corner and many of us constitutionalist Republicans are now pretty P'Oed since the country-club establishment Republican won the Illinois primary.

My beef was, of course, with the leaders of the "big L" Libertarian Party, Harry Browne and his gang of fringe candidates. The LP will never been taken seriously until they're out. Hopefully it will happen in time for 2004.

20 posted on 04/01/2002 5:00:04 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: toenail

Rather than sticking your nose into other people's business, why not try minding your own? ;)

21 posted on 04/01/2002 6:39:48 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
"Rather than sticking your nose into other people's business, why not try minding your own? ;)"

Ah, come on, CJ.... I really doubt you're in Missouri's 71st state House district, so it's just a test. Which candidate would you recommend voting for in this two-way race, the Libertarian or the Democrat?

22 posted on 04/01/2002 6:53:22 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
I used to be a member of the party, until about two years ago. At that time I was very disaffected (still am) with Harry Browne's ideology and his dominance of the party. He happens to live near me and I've met him on a few occasions. I respect his tenacity and conviction, but I think he's misguided. I think the Libertarian Party leaders would rather send out cute press releases and be an anti-establishment gadfly rather than win elections. Otherwise, they might start choosing their battles and winning where they can and working for change once they're in office.
23 posted on 04/02/2002 3:23:17 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
No, he's accused of CHILD MOLESTATION

... by his ex-wife in a nasty divorce. Happens all the time in divorce cases. Ask any experienced divorce attorney.

But not convicted, indicted, arrested, (presumably) not questioned by police. Only Childrens "Services". One, they are required to investigate the accusations. Two, they have a known bias to present things in worst possible light to justify their funding and existence.

While you may hear 20%-40% of children are abused, the best evidence indicates that less than 1% of biological parents sexually abuse their children.

The 20% - 40% figures include self-selection, as opposed to answering random survey, include consensual sexual activity ages 16-19, and other methods to raise the numbers.

Accusations in a divorce are less accurate than accusations in a supermarket tabloid. Consider the source.

If Cal Skinner were running as a Republican, most of you (and I) would be very happy about his voting record.

24 posted on 04/04/2002 10:38:22 AM PST by markfiveFF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markfiveFF
>> But not convicted, indicted, arrested, (presumably) not questioned by police. <<

"How dare they tie this license-for-bribes stuff to George Ryan. He has not been convicted, indicted, arrested, and (presumably) not questioned by police."

>> Only Childrens "Services". One, they are required to investigate the accusations. Two, they have a known bias to present things in worst possible light to justify their funding and existence.

"Only by Federal Democrat "Investigators" under Clinton. One, they are required to investigate the accusations. Two, they have a known bias to present things in worst possible light to justify their funding and existence."

>> Accusations in a divorce are less accurate than accusations in a supermarket tabloid. Consider the source. <<

"Accusation by Ryan's Democrat opponent Poshard is less accurate than accusations in a supermarket tabloid. Consider the source."

>> If Cal Skinner were running as a Republican, most of you (and I) would be very happy about his voting record

Cal Skinner AIN'T running as a Republican, now is he? He's running as a Libertarian. People who switch parties usually "adjust" their views so their new party will reward them. If they don't, they get kicked out (ask Michael Forbes about this when he tried to get the National Right to Life endorsement after switching to the Democrat Party-- his Democrat consituents replaced him with an unknown "real" Democrat in the primary). The LP won't nominate stanch conservatives. They are run by a Harry Browne "wing" of the party, which has a limus test for all the major nominees-- they must be pro-choice, open-borders folks who run single issue campaigns about drug-legalization.

Watch Cal "adjust" his views.

25 posted on 04/05/2002 11:07:09 AM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Whenever faced with a Hobson's choice of Liberal Democrat and Moderate Republican I will look for third party alternatives. As a matter of fact I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and I will likely make that choice again. As for the Libertarians, the problems I have with them include their double-mindedness on abortion, their support for open borders, their obsession with legalizing dope and their naive support for trading with totalitarian countries. Other than that, they are decent guys.
26 posted on 04/08/2002 7:07:31 PM PDT by Commander8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toenail
You said it: a Libertarian is an atheist conservative. Talk about oxymorons.....
27 posted on 04/11/2002 3:50:09 PM PDT by Malcolm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Malcolm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christlib/
28 posted on 04/11/2002 3:59:27 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
The Harry Browne "wing" of the LP runs the organization with an iron fist.

This is especially funny inasmuch as libertarians pride themselves on their abhorrence of authoritarians.

29 posted on 04/11/2002 5:16:11 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson