Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES BUSH
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL LIBERTARIANS | 10-24-2004 | Dr. John Hospers

Posted on 10/24/2004 10:37:30 AM PDT by Y2Krap

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-218 last
To: HalleysFifth; Protagoras

What he's trying to say is that the FReeper who posted the original Hubbard comment is known to FReepers as either a stealth leftist or merely an internet character. Performance art if you will. I've been thinking the latter these days.


201 posted on 10/25/2004 12:16:54 PM PDT by jmc813 (J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
..K*rr* scares me. I think he'd be a great Canadian Prime Minister.

As loony left as Canada too often is I wouldn't wish Lurch on them.

202 posted on 10/25/2004 12:20:26 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Thank you jmc813.


203 posted on 10/25/2004 12:20:30 PM PDT by HalleysFifth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

Jihad = Radical Islamic Holy war
Culture = American culture
It's as simple as your agenda, hate of all things concerning freedom.
Your war is as old as the time you have been allowed to squat on this site of real Americans.


204 posted on 10/25/2004 12:27:47 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Y2Krap

oh but those Libertarians are our enemy right?

Wrong.

They just stand on principle sometimes when our leaders don't.


205 posted on 10/25/2004 1:32:06 PM PDT by Capitalism2003 (America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

The LP today is NOT the party that Hospers established. I wouldn't give you two nickles for it today.

Staying home and minding our own business won't stop terrorist attacks.


206 posted on 10/25/2004 3:12:56 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Y2Krap

I might be late to the party here, but, this is where I found it posted.

http://americanbacklash.com


207 posted on 10/25/2004 3:29:35 PM PDT by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Thanks for the reply, kevkrom. I didn't know that. Would other hardline Libertarians agree that's the way things are today? It's really difficult to understand. Don't Libertarians value their life more than the life of someone who is trying to kill them? Don't they value the life of their children more than they do the life of a bully who is trying to kill them? Even our laws reflect the value of that priority of who should live and who shouldn't in such a circumstance. I don't know too many people who would want to live in a bully-ruled world.

I think pacifism can be equated with appeasement, especially in the terrorist environment we live in today. In such a world, common sense should prevail. I can't feature any non-islamic who would stand by idly and not stop a be-heading if they were armed and had the opportunity.

208 posted on 10/25/2004 4:33:47 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
You would hope so. But then some self-avowed Libertarians (enamored with their sour grapes) claim that casting a vote is the same as "participating in state-sponsored violence."
209 posted on 10/25/2004 4:40:29 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Y2Krap

awesome endorsement.
.


210 posted on 10/25/2004 8:13:00 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
You asked how this could be authenticated. It is now being published on many web sites. To authenticate it through Dr. Hospers, write him at johnjhospers@aol.com

rebecca505
211 posted on 10/26/2004 1:22:33 AM PDT by rebecca505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
You wrote: "I've already started posting it elsewhere and I don't want it to end up being phony."

You won't be phony. Dr. Hospers sent it to some of his friends (of whom I am one), and we began sending it to web sites, blogs, individuals, etc. It is now posted in many places. But as I said, if you want to authenticate it through Dr. Hospers, you can reach him at: johnjhospers@aol.com

Rebecca505
212 posted on 10/26/2004 1:29:51 AM PDT by rebecca505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OCMike
You wrote: "Why isn't it on his or the Libertarian websites??"

Because John Hospers doesn't have a web site, and because the letter just went out a few hours ago. But you can find the letter, since I last checked a couple of hours ago, on www.Solohq.com and on http://bidinotto.journalspace.com -- with many more to come. The owners of both sites are libertarians.

Rebecca505
213 posted on 10/26/2004 1:45:06 AM PDT by rebecca505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: rebecca505
Because John Hospers doesn't have a web site, and because the letter just went out a few hours ago. But you can find the letter, since I last checked a couple of hours ago, on www.Solohq.com and on http://bidinotto.journalspace.com -- with many more to come. The owners of both sites are libertarians.
The letter is probably just being reposted b/c they saw it here. I also wouldn't trust the johnhospers@aol.com email address mentioned in this thread either. Hospers is a Senior Editor at Liberty magazine and a Professor at the University of Southern California. I would trust a contact from there more.
214 posted on 10/27/2004 6:38:57 AM PDT by stry_cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: stry_cat
I totally agree. The fact that this is being passed around and posted without even the AOL address is extremely fishy. Anyone could have written this...
215 posted on 10/28/2004 12:52:55 AM PDT by crunchymama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: crunchymama

Shirley you jest.


216 posted on 10/28/2004 9:04:16 PM PDT by Y2Krap (JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT (Cue Music: "Uppa U.S."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Y2Krap
John Hospers has understated the problems with John Kerry and with the Democratic Party, but has glossed over the problems with Bush and the Republican Party, has mischaracterized the nature of a non-Bipartisan vote, and has jumped to an unwarranted conclusion on that account.

There was a time when I was cowed into voting for Bipartisans on short-term political considerations, and after that a time when I voted for them where there was no better alternative. But I stopped voting for Bipartisans altogether when the US Senate refused to conduct a genuine trial of Bill Clinton for his mafioso-like acts. Not one Senator demanded a genuine trial, so far as I know, and not one bothered to examine the evidence. Especially given that the Clinton administration was by far the most corrupt administration in US history, I cannot forgive this breach of fiduciary duty by both major parties, and am unlikely ever to make an exception, for any candidate. Living in MA, where Republicans raise taxes and spending, then lie about it, where they are just as enthusiastic as Democrats in dividing taxed spoils, and where a vote for Bush would be wasted even if I were tempted to cast one, I have the luxury of not worrying about whether I bear any responsibility for the short-term results of a single election.

John Kerry is a partially-self-confessed war criminal with a record of falsifying reports, including some responsible for at least some of his medals and some that would have exposed him to review if not censure or court-martial; failing to address concerns with his superiors while claiming to do so; and misrepresenting his own acts of murderousness and malice as those of the military in general. He is known for his do-you-know-who-I-am attempts to secure advantage over others and for his abuse of both living and dead naval comrades for political advantage. His answer, regarding the women in his family, to a question at the third Bush-Kerry pseudo-debate bickerfest gave the impression, consistent with the above, that his love for his wife stretches at least as wide as her pocketbook.

In addition to the Clinton whitewash, the Democratic Party has repeatedly engaged in anti-civic behavior, and its two recent Presidents, in treason (Carter in asking the Soviets to help him get re-elected, Clinton in transferring ballistic-missile technology to Communist China in exchange for campaign cash). In encouraging fraudulent voter registration, in suppressing the appointment of qualified judges, and, in Massachusetts, refusing to perform their Constitutional duty to vote on voter-initiated amendments, the Democrats have abandoned all pretense of respect for democracy.

Bush, only slightly more intelligent than Kerry, at least, in stark contrast, appears to be a decent individual. But the errors that Hospers glosses over are not merely tactical ones, and when things such as the pretense of airport security involved in disarming passengers of even pins; the treatment of the intransigent, war-bent, biggest-mass-murdering leaders of China as if friendship were possible; and the admission of intelligence failures in Iraq before it can have been learned conclusively in what the failures, if any, lay, are added, the picture that emerges is one not merely of prodigal extravagance, but of pretense, or, more likely, delusion. In areas as diverse as campaign finance reform and failing to control the borders, Bush seems to be attempting to collapse the death of the Roman Republic and the fall of its successor Empire into a single administration.

Republicans, while not stooping anywhere as low as the Democrats, are nevertheless a party of ever-bigger government, enthusiastically supporting the thoroughly mindless and extremely evil Drug Hunts, pork-barrel spending, anti-sovereignty-and-pseudo-free-trade NAFTA, and on and on ad nihilum.

An anti-Bipartisan vote isn't merely the making of a short-term statement, and cannot be regarded as advertising in the corrupted news environment where election results are distorted. But such a vote does constitute the withholding of consent from the destroyers of this country; at least gives those who actively work to build an anti-tyranny movement data to make that work more effective; and helps restore the multiparty system, effectively destroyed during the 20th century, that renders democracy more fluid, thus helping to make good change possible in the long run.

The election of Kerry would not put the Democrats in power, without control of Congress. Thus, not only would a vote for Bush be less useful than Hospers states, but a non-Bipartisan vote, being relatively more useful and meaningful than stated, is at least worth weighing.

I intend to hold my nose and vote for the appeasenik apologist and pseudo-constitutionalist Badnarek, rather than casting a blank. I urge others to at least consider doing the same.

T. David Hudson

217 posted on 11/01/2004 5:49:34 AM PST by severnaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Y2Krap

What are the disagreements that Conservatives seem to have against some Libertarian philosophies?


218 posted on 12/12/2009 9:26:53 PM PST by Amerikan_Samurai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-218 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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