Libertarian Convention Ends in Unity Despite Controversies

Hollywood Investigator ^ | June 24, 2004 | Thomas M. Sipos

[The Libertarian Dude]

I have yet to kill a baby, so take your rhetoric over to DU. They love that sort of thing there.

[Cultural Jihad]

Every cloth has its fringe. With some, though, it's all fringe and no cloth.

[Commie Basher]

We are at war. The World Trade Center and Pentagon have been hit by planes."

Sorry, but that was not "war," but a criminal terrorist attack. Terrorists are criminal gangs, analogous to the Mafia, Triads, Tongs, and other criminal gangs. You deal with them the same way: a law enforcement issue to be handled by the FBI, Interpol, etc.

After 9/11, we had the world's sympathy, including that of France and Russia and Germany. Yes, truly we did. Their law enforement agencies were ready to help us catch and/or stop the individual terrorists and gangs responisble. Instead, Bush lied us into a phony war against a nation unconnected to the terroists. Now we no longer have the world's sympathy and going after the real terrorists is made that much harder.

If anything, 9/11 makes it all the more necessary to replace Bush with Badnarik.

[Cultural Jihad]

Sorry, but that was not "war," but a criminal terrorist attack. Terrorists are criminal gangs, analogous to the Mafia, Triads, Tongs, and other criminal gangs. You deal with them the same way: a law enforcement issue to be handled by the FBI, Interpol, etc.

Unsurprisingly, you are parroting the DNC, which is also famous for LP-style moral-liberalism.

Please ping me the next time the mafia commits mass murder, levels three square blocks of downtown Manhattan, ruins the national economy, and creates nightmares in the minds of millions of children.

[Commie Basher]

>i>you are parroting the DNC, which is also famous for LP-style moral-liberalism.

Not parroting anyone. Came to my own conclusions. IAE, if the DNC said the sky is blue (as they likely would, if asked), does that make the sky red? Truth is truth, whatever the source.

Please ping me the next time the mafia commits mass murder, levels three square blocks of downtown Manhattan, ruins the national economy, and creates nightmares in the minds of millions of children.

The magnitude of 9/11 is, I think, one reason for confusion among the populace. Yet the magnitude of an event does not change its character. Timothy McVeigh leveled a building and killed over 100, yet that did not make it "war."

If the IRA levels a building in London, would that properly allow Britain to bomb New York and Boston (cities that include IRA donors)? Of course not.

Yet many "conservatives" post-9/11 have come to resemble liberals, in that they're highly emotional. It takes a cool, rational mind to analyze 9/11 properly, and many "conservatives" have lost their cool. The event is Big, the feelings are Big, so nothing short of bombing a few countries (some country, any country) would suffice to make them feel better. It just doesn't "feel right" that so many deaths should only result in a few executions, even if that is the proper response.

Truly, conservatives have become liberals. Both highly emotional, both quick to slander their opponents ("America hater" is to conservatives what "racist" is to liberals), neither thoughtful and calm. I listen to Laura Ingrahm and Jeanene Garafalo and they sound identical to me, just plug in a few different names in their diatribes.

I'm glad I'm a Libertarian.

[Cultural Jihad]

Yes, the magnitude does change its character. You are trying to claim that a mugger with some brass knuckles is of the same character as a terrorist with weapons of mass destruction, and your ideologue outlook will keep you forever self-marginalized to discussions on current events. But we suspect that is what makes you happy anyway, so enjoy your self-inflicted irrelevance. Come back when you can free your mind from your humanist ideology.

[Commie Basher]

Yes, the magnitude does change its character. You are trying to claim that a mugger with some brass knuckles is of the same character as a terrorist with weapons of mass destruction,

An individual with weapons of mass destruction is still only an individual, despite having nationlike destructive powers. If an individual unleashes mass destruction, it is irrational to then look for a nation to retaliate against.

If you as an individual were to acquire an A-bomb, then bomb a nuclear power (France, Russia, Israel, doesn't matter which), would it be rational or proper for that nation to then bomb the US because you were a US citizen, aleit acting alone?

You call it ideology, but reason is reason.

[Republican Wildcat]

There was a Libertarian candidate in the 3rd Congressional District race in Kentucky that caused significant damage to the Democrat candidate in 2000. She got 4% of the vote, causing Republican Anne Northup, normally always winning by a razor-thin margin in this liberal district, to win by more than 8 percentage points. Given the Libertarian Party agenda, perhaps they do damage Democrats more than they do Republicans. Their primary agenda is to destroy the family, kill babies, and decimate the military. They share many of the same key goals of the Democrat Party.

[Cultural Jihad]

Undoubtedly Achmed's Emporium of Weapons of Mass Destruction will be a cherished and protected enterprise in the Libertarian-Somali paradise, and any individual who unleashes them upon a hapless city would be, well, just an individual. Thanks, Clinton, but your flakey ideas on using law enforcement to fight organized terrorism didn't pan out.

[Cultural Jihad]

Given the Libertarian Party agenda, perhaps they do damage Democrats more than they do Republicans. Their primary agenda is to destroy the family, kill babies, and decimate the military. They share many of the same key goals of the Democrat Party.

Exactly. Their ideologues all share in the same moral-liberal mindset.

[Republican Wildcat]

Sorry, but that was not "war," but a criminal terrorist attack. Terrorists are criminal gangs, analogous to the Mafia, Triads, Tongs, and other criminal gangs. You deal with them the same way: a law enforcement issue to be handled by the FBI, Interpol, etc. After 9/11, we had the world's sympathy, including that of France and Russia and Germany. Yes, truly we did. Their law enforement agencies were ready to help us catch and/or stop the individual terrorists and gangs responisble. Instead, Bush lied us into a phony war against a nation unconnected to the terroists. Now we no longer have the world's sympathy and going after the real terrorists is made that much harder.

Did you copy and paste this from the Communist Party website, the Democrat Party website, the Green Party website, the Socialist Workers Party website, or the Libertarian Party website?

[Republican Wildcat]

An individual with weapons of mass destruction is still only an individual, despite having nationlike destructive powers. If an individual unleashes mass destruction, it is irrational to then look for a nation to retaliate against. If you as an individual were to acquire an A-bomb, then bomb a nuclear power (France, Russia, Israel, doesn't matter which), would it be rational or proper for that nation to then bomb the US because you were a US citizen, aleit acting alone?

So your point is that bin Laden and the Taliban weren't really in control of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein wasn't really in charge of Iraq.

You are calling what you say 'reason' and Cultural Jihad is calling it 'ideology.' You're both wrong. It's called 'cluelessness.'

[Stevieboy]

Badye, where'd that quote come from? It's brilliant. ("The day you stop learning, is the day you begin dying") Steve

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A long article with four pages and many photos (that I don't know how to transfer). Includes info on a libertarian delegate for Bush (sic), plus Karen Kwiatkowski, and more on that pro-lifer who was booed. The booing wasn't nice, but I'm still voting for Michael Badnarik in 2004!

Jeffrey Diket may not have been the only Pro-Life Libertarian in the race.

The gentleman who actually won the Libertarian Party nomination, Michael Badnarik, revealed recently in a June 17, 2004 interview with The Free Liberal that he has (like formerly pro-abortion Ronald Reagan?) changed his position on Abortion.

...using my own logic, I deduced that the child must own its own body so the child has a right to life.... That leaves two choices. Either birth, or conception. But, I don’t think anyone’s willing to argue that the child doesn’t own his body until birth, because that would allow us to do partial birth abortions. And I don’t know anybody, who supports that view. So the only choice left is that child will necessarily own its own body at conception. And so I’ve switched, from a purely pro-choice to a pro-life, I don’t think abortions are proper. I’m pro-choice, as long as you make the choice before you have sex. We have rights that have inherent responsibilities. ~~ LP Presidential Nominee Michael Badnarik

Badnarik confesses that he is now torn between the advocacy of "no abortions ever", and the position of judging "clinical life" by the standard of "at the beginning of brain activity" similarly to the medical standard of establishing Clinical Death (which would, theoretically, permit abortions prior to the 4th week of Pregnancy).

Regardless of his ongoing consideration of the legitimacy of early abortions (permissible before the onset of brain activity, or Always Wrong?), Badnarik appears to have consistently maintained throughout his campaign that Abortion -- like all Murder Law -- is properly a State's Right's issue.

If, therefore, he comes out with a strong Constitutionalist condemnation of Roe vs. Wade, and the resultant reversion of Abortion Law to the State Legislatures, he will be the 4th out of the last 5 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominees to advocate the overthrow of Roe vs. Wade.

Which is a nice trend to see developing amongst LP Presidential Nominees.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

But, I don’t think anyone’s willing to argue that the child doesn’t own his body until birth, because that would allow us to do partial birth abortions. And I don’t know anybody, who supports that view. ~~ Michael Badnarik

"That would allow us to do partial birth abortions. And I don’t know anybody, who supports that view..."

I suppose, then, Mr. Badnarik obviously doesn't know very many Democrats.

But it's nice to see that he recognizes that Partial-Birth Abortion is such a Moral Horror that he (perhaps naively) can't imagine that any rational human being would be so gutturally depraved as to countenance such an atrocity.

Good on ya, Mr. Badnarik.

[k2blader]

Ugh. I'll likely never vote Libertarian.

[Cultural Jihad]

Badnarik appears to have consistently maintained throughout his campaign that Abortion -- like all Murder Law -- is properly a State's Right's issue.

Undoubtedly the LP would claim that slavery is a State's Rights issue, too, seeing that their constituency is largely enslaved by ideology or vice or ego. Alongside the slave auctions they could hold Rights Exchanges, where rights are bartered and sold on the open market, along with consensual gladiatorial contests to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize. And they will try to label all this retro-cruelty: 'human progress.'

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

If it wasn't for Free Republic, I probably wouldn't even know they existed.

[Dave Olson]

Their primary agenda is to destroy the family, kill babies, and decimate the military. They share many of the same key goals of the Democrat Party.

Exactly. Their ideologues all share in the same moral-liberal mindset.

I consider myself a libertarian in that I believe that government has only three legitimate functions: defense, law enforcement and the courts. If I had my way, it whould not feed the hungery, house the homeless, cure the sick, educate the kids, deliver the mail or involve itself in what people do with their own bodies. I am pro-family, pro-life and very much support the military.

I do not agree with everything that President Bush has done (CFR, money for AIDS and free pills for grandma to name a few), but I intend to vote for him this election anyway.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Incidentally, Michael Badnarik also does not support Homosexual Marriage.

Michael Badnarik supports the abolition of Government Marriage Licenses. This is a different position entirely.

Badnarik's solution would be to return the Institution of Marriage to the Realm of Private/Religious Contract (as it was in the days of Abraham and Sarah, Moses and Zipporah) with the Government serving only as the Enforcer of the terms of Private Contracts.

This is crucial -- because when you get right down to it, Homosexuals do not want lifetime, monogamous, mutual-commitment MARRIAGE. (If they really wanted to form a "Private Union" of Contractual Lifetime Monogamy, I bet I could find and appropriately modify the necessary "Business Partnership Forms" for less than $100 bucks by visiting any OfficeMax in the country). Homosexuals want the Legal Powers, Privileges, and Compulsory Social Acceptance which accrue from GOVERNMENT LICENSE of their "unions".

Take away the Government License, and Homosexual interest in Marriage will drop like a stone.