Election Spoiler May Turn Out to Be a Libertarian

New York Sun ^ | October 5, 2004 | Josh Gerstain

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

The same old tired and misinformed refrain. All Libertarians are dopers.

Every libertarian I know is a respectable non-drug user who's just trying to scale back local government and taxes.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

It's saying none-of-the-above. A perfectly understandable position.

[valkyrieanne]

There are more Democrats than Republicans who will vote for Badnarik. Funny that the liberal press chooses to give him some free publicity about now, though.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Republicans have abandoned their fight for smaller government nad most freepers responded with a wimper (if that).

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

This is from the Libeltarian site.

Dopers unite

America Can Handle Legal Drugs
Today's illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.

The first laws prohibiting drugs were racist in origin -- to prevent Chinese laborers from using opium and to prevent blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. That was unjust and unfair, just as it is unjust and unfair to make criminals of peaceful drug users today.

Some Americans will always use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs. Most are not addicts, they are social drinkers or occasional users. Legal drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them.

[Preachin']

What a cheap attempt at making the LP look like anyone even knows the name of their candidate.

[Constitution Day]

[churchillbuff]

"They see the president as a federalizer. You've got the debt. You've got 'No Child Left Behind.' You've got the new Medicare entitlement. You've got the Patriot Act. And you've got the war," the professor said. "It's a very different approach to government than a small government Barry Goldwater."

He forgot to mention McCain-Feingold (signed by Bush)

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

From the Libeltarian site.

CRIMINAL INVADERS unite.

The benefits of open immigration
BY MICHAEL TANNER
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Thomas Jefferson emphasized this basic part of the American heritage, taking note of "the natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, and hope to find them."

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of all Americans. All major recent studies of immigrants indicate that they have a high labor force participation, are entrepreneurial, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets. Although it is a common misconception that immigrants "take jobs away from native-born Americans," this does not appear to be true. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."

[NeoCaveman]

Yeah right. I think the LP will do even worse than they did in 2000, when I voted for them.

Is it possible to get less than 00.31%?

[AmishDude]

It's saying none-of-the-above. A perfectly understandable position.

It's a stupid position. You're choosing an individual to put into a position of authority, not bestowing your virginity-like vote on whatever young suitor is worthy of it.

Better to stay home and at least contribute to the economy.

[Dead Corpse]

At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

Which is something that both John Kerry and George Bush agree is horribly unfair to illegal immigrants. According to them, we need to not only do nothing to secure our borders, but we must also stop our police forces, medical facilities, and schools from doing anything that might upset them.

I was going to vote for Bush anyway, but hot dang that really cements the deal there. Thanks! (/vomit sarcasm alert)

[gcruse]

Ridicule, however, is still quite legal.

Yes, it is.  But if the aim is to attract  Libertarian votes to assure Bush wins, then ridicule them cuts off your nose to spite your face.

[Uncle Vlad]

Trust me. The Libertarians won't even be a blip this year. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm voting enthusiastically for Bush.

I have never seen a party (Libertarians) so inept at expressing and selling their positions on any issue. That's why they have their national conventions at the breakfast bar at the Red Roof Inn.

No, worry about the real problem, which is Democrat party goon voter fraud, which could be massive. Don't take your eye off the ball, and don't worry about making Liberals angry. They're angry all the time anyway.

I have no desire to make them happy, I have no desire to get along with them; the only desire I have for liberals is to crush them right through the damn concrete on election night.

[Commie Basher]

I have never seen a party (Libertarians) so inept at expressing and selling their positions on any issue. That's why they have their national conventions at the breakfast bar at the Red Roof Inn.

If Libertarians are so inept, why must you lie about them? We had our national convention at Atlanta's Marquis Marriott hotel, with over 1,000 attending (when you include delegates, their families, and other ticket-buyers).

[Cultural Jihad]

In 2000, Libertarian Harry Browne was on 50 state ballots and received all of 384,431 votes nationally, or 0.36% of the vote.

Most moral-liberals will be pulling the Democratic lever, but it's good to see these humanist moral-liberal ideologues have alternative Libertarian and Socialist Worker's levers to pull.

[Drango]

...We had our national convention...with over 1,000 attending..).

Dude, 3,000 were registered, but most were too stoned to make it to the convention floor.

[asgardshill]

But if the aim is to attract Libertarian votes to assure Bush wins, then ridicule them cuts off your nose to spite your face.

The proportion of Libertarian on the Republican nose (yea verily, on the face of the American electorate as a whole) comes out to about enough to fill one zit. I trust I don't need to elaborate.

[gcruse]

I trust I don't need to elaborate.

Remember Florida 2000.  It's a game of zits.