Libertarians Embark on Spoiler Campaign

Fox News ^ | May 29, 2002 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[Kermit]

WASHINGTON

[Kevin Curry]

Curious that L's want to [tip close races to D's to] defeat R's over the War Against Some Drug Users.

Not curious at all. It is an alliance made in hell, but a bargain the liberdopians are all in favor of if it makes it possible to score dope without a hassle.

[america76]

...and these supposed conservatives love this guy. It's all a ruse. The NWO commies in both parties know that all they have to do is talk a good game. Action means nothing, to the point now, that words actually mean more than deeds.

Bush could punch any Freeper in the face, tell him he just shook his hand and the Freeper walks away thinking Bush is his friend. Sounds like a joke but he does it every day.

I could expect your average Democrat to be that stupid, but these people, please! Its almost like people rooting for their favorite baseball team. Take the Detroit Tigers for instance(mine). No matter how many games they lose, how sorry and pathetic they look on the field you will find people who will swear up and down that "the Tigers are the the greatest team ever, all other teams suck, Tigers rule etc." That's what is going on here right now. These people are just rooting for their favorite team. Even though they're loosing 12 nothing.

[secretagent]

Not curious at all. It is an alliance made in hell, but a bargain the liberdopians are all in favor of if it makes it possible to score dope without a hassle.

I don't think most public opponents of the WOSDU care about using drugs personally, and they know that the D's support the WOSDU more thoroughly than the R's.

No, rather that L's typically believe that they have so little in common with D's that they have no recruits possible from that camp, and hence no electoral effect. Most Libs come almost exclusively from conservative and objectivist roots, and involved D's know that. They see L's as hyper right-wingers.

[hinckley buzzard]

Maybe it's time to excelerate and exastebate...

Maybe it's time for you to take some spelling lessons and in the meantime leave the politickin' to adults who know what they're doing.

You, H.Browne, and Co. sure as hell don't

[pariah]

I won't be re-upping my LP membership even as I remain committed to the idea of individual rights and a free society.

And another one bites the dust. Welcome to the 'Libertarians Anonymous' cadre of Free Republic. And remember, you are not alone!

[Thraka]

If I want to pay for sex (which I don't) or if I want to smoke a joint (which I also don't) that's my business. For some Jerk-off in Washington to make that determination for me . . .

LOL! Just thinking of ALL the laws on the books that would punish you for doing things you've never done and would never do must really chap your hide.

I'm curious: is there nothing that you might not wish to personally do, but believe others should be permitted to do if they like? If so, it seems your comment above is rather meaningless.

Thraka

[Kermit]

There is nothing in the Bible or in Christian ethics which support prohibitions of vices. In fact, prohibition denies the moral agency of individual human beings and puts that morality in the hands of the government. How is that Christian?

I talk with one Christian rightist, who told me he couldn't be libertarian (pro-freedom), because human beings are fallen creatures. I asked him, how he could put such power to enforce prohibitions in the hands of fallen creatures? Wouldn't he expect those people to abuse their power? This really threw him for a loop.

[america76]

I just happened upon your comment to colormebemused where you stated something to the effect that there is nothing in the Bible that supports prohibitions of vices.

I'm not so sure you're right on that one. In the Old Testament, Leviticus in particular God seems to issue msny of them. One in particular that sticks out in my mind is the law against adultery, Leviticus 20:10. Adulterers were to be put to death. That was the law of the land in Israel. I think that if there is any arguement for your cause it is Deuteronomy 30:19 "...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therfore choose life..." Man given the choice to make for himself.

[america76]

Two years ago everybody was talking about truth and justice and how disgusted with the Clinton apologists they were and here we are today doing the same thing for our boy. Everybody "spinning, appologizing, covering up and sweeping under the rug all the same crap we hated Clinton for.

Remember how two years ago when someone brought up the issue of a Clinton crime, the first words out of the rat's mouths was "What about Ginrich, he's a crook too." All the conservatives would say "we're not talking about Ginrich; we're talking about Clinton" and go on with how disgusting it was that the Democrats were trying to deflect the heat away from Clinton. Bring up Bush's Enron quagmire of patronage and corruption, what do the conservatives say? "What about the Democrats, they took more Enron money than the Republicans." Exactly the same garbage the Democrats were pulling.

These so called conservatives aint no bastion of truth, reason, justice or anything else. You nailed it right on the head. They are a Republican party booster club and nothing more. Personally I have seen or heard precious little that would make me want to cheer about GWB and I have every reason to be disgusted with him.

[Kermit]

Is adultery your only example? If yes, I think I win the case. Arguably, adultery is a violation of a contract, not a prohibition. There aren't any of our "modern" Prohibitions, eg of alcohol, someDrugs, tobacco, etc. in the Bible.

[oldmanlegg]

I agree, but I think it would be better if we just targeted every race where the margin of victory was less than 5%. The power to destroy a thing is the power to control it.

If I followed your advice I wouldn't be running. I'm going up against an incumbent who won so handily in a special election the Democrats are not even bothering to challenge him. I'm not running as a spoiler in the sense they are referring to in this article, however, when I get to D.C. I damn well intend to be a spoiler. As close as the power is split there now, a third party / independent should be able to spoil a lot of things. Of course, the way both parties are giving things away, there may not be anything left to spoil by Nov.

[sinkspur]

I'm going up against an incumbent who won so handily in a special election the Democrats are not even bothering to challenge him. I'm not running as a spoiler in the sense they are referring to in this article, however, when I get to D.C. I damn well intend to be a spoiler.

You're delusional.

[Torie]

Libertarian strength in the Bonilla district and Arkansas is about as strong as Pat Buchanan strength was there in 2000. I probably could have helped them pick better spots, but then they didn't ask, and I wouldn't have told in any event.

[Torie]

Cannibus never improved my vision. You must have had a different experience.

[Roscoe]

Spoiler campaign?

Sounds more like a spoiled brat campaign.

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

Yeah I have thought about that I would agree that Libertarians should definitely make sure that there are not incumbents running unopposed.

Both situations provide unique opportunities for publicity. In a close race, less than a 5% margin of error, people have to pay attention to us because we could affect the outcome.

In a two way race like you are in, you can get publicity just because the papers want something to write about...you almost force your opponent to respond. An unopposed race is bad news because it is boring; the media may very well force your opponent to answer to your positions just because they want something to write about.

[IronJack]

As usual, you're not making much sense. I don't recall even mentioning cannibis. But if I did in your world, go with the feeling. But stop when the furniture starts talking to you.

[Torie]

Yes, we don't communicate very well. Good idea about the furniture though.