GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates

http://www.ny.lp.org/news/2006.gopblocks.htm ^ | 8 31 06 | lp.org

[freepatriot32]

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK (516) 767-4688 http://www.ny.lp.org/ Contact: Richard Cooper, State Chair nylibertarian@hotmail.com John Clifton www.electclifton.org; Michael Sylvia mike@mikesylvia.org www.mikesylvia.org; Eric Sundwall info@sundwall4congress.org www. sundwall4congress.org; Steve Finger 917-623-0652 Finger4Congress@aol.com, www.fingerforcongress.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates

Albany, NY 8/31/06 Libertarian Party of New York State Chair Richard Cooper reports that general objections have been filed against both the statewide Libertarian petition and that for Eric Sundwall in the 20th Congressional District. Cooper asks “Are the Republicans and lobbyist John Faso desperate to keep the Libertarians out of the race? They know we won’t hesitate to expose Republicans as deceiving the public with less government rhetoric and big government practice.” The 20th District seat held by Republican John Sweeney is thought to be one of the more competitive this year.

A GOP Town leader from north of NYC approached Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate John Clifton with a proposition: Clifton should publicly praise Faso for his conservative stands on gun control and other issues. In other words, the GOP leader sought an endorsement in all but name from the competition. Undisclosed future benefits would result. Clifton was not interested. He declines to name this political activist he has known for some time. Cooper says the same person tried to have the Libertarians nominate Faso when Weld dropped out of the race. The approach took place at a recent gathering of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson. Cooper declares that “This refusal by Libertarian gubernatorial candidate John Clifton to play political games shows that the Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle.”

Cooper notes that Comptroller candidate John Cain from Congers in Rockland County wore a microphone for investigators when offered a bribe, resulting in convictions. Besides Cain and Clifton, the Libertarians are running Jeffrey Russell for US Senate, Donald Silberger for Lt. Governor, and Christopher Garvey for Attorney-General. On the Congressional line, the Libertarians are running Michael Sylvia in the 24tth District and Dr. Steve Finger in the 11th. –30-

-30-

[BigSkyFreeper]

It has been clear from the beginning that we were talking about voters and not politicians.

Politicians DO vote.

Maybe you've misunderstood this whole exchange, including your original reply?

I haven't misunderstood anything. You've spent time trying to put lipstick on a pig, flailing your arms in the air, when you can't accept the fact there exists no libertarian democrats. That creature does not exist, and if it ever did, it only exists in your fantasies.

I asked you to name a libertarian democrat, you've shown me to be correct by dodging the question.

It's clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you call me clueless?

[JeffAtlanta]

I had forgotten how obtuse of a poster you are. You're not a dumb guy so I have to assume you do it just to get your kicks. If FR had an ignore button you'd be one of the first on mine right after a couple of seminar GOP posters.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It was a legitimate question, you couldn't answer it, and you made the thread all about me. Deal with it.

[mugs99]

ROFL!
You obviouly didn't bother to click the link or you'd know just how ignorant your reply is.

You failed to address any of the points that I made.
You didn't make any. You're trying to hijack the thread into an anti libertarian drug debate. The topic is GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates. You have not addressed that issue. You have nothing to offer but ignorant hateful attack.

You and your cohorts are the reason the Republican party is going belly up. When libertarians sit out elections Republicans can't win. Don't complain when president Hillary takes office...you put her there.
.

[mugs99]

Unfortunately large numbers of fiscal conservatives with libertarian (live and let live) social views have to decide between voting for the christian-socialist party (GOP) or the secular-socialist party (democrats).

“Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free"...Harry Browne
.

[mugs99]

Losertarians are NOT conservatives.

The Conservative movement began in 1955 with William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater convincing Libertarians to ally with Republicans to defeat communism. Libertarians are the original Conservatives.

"Libertarians are the heart and soul of the Conservative movement"...Ronald Reagan
.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

...You can bet that after 9/11 a Libertarian President would have went after the terrorists just as much as Bush did.

More. i believe that Harry Browne had argued for a nuclear attack on Iran way back before any hint of an Iranian Nuclear programme was manifested. It was either Browne or some Party official from Cato (memory is a veriable and spotty thing these days).

Michael Badnarik had proposed a "letter of marque and reprisal", which would authorise anyone interested in doing so (with congressional approval) to take out the person and/or property of who ever the President designated as the bad guy...it is intended to deal with entities that are not necessarily nation/states, such al Queerda.

With some of the private resources and intelligence gathering capabilities out there that are NOT limited by Government regulations (such as ethnic profiling), i think we'd by now know for certain whether or not Osuma is dead...he'd be dead if he isn't now.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Excuse me, monkey boy...

Howzabout posting your comments to the person(s) who you are responding to. This "All" is cowardly bulls#!t, because you KNOW that it doesn't show up on anybody's pings.

[ghostmonkey]

ROFL! You obviouly didn't bother to click the link or you'd know just how ignorant your reply is.

Actually you probably didn't bother to click on your own link, nor did you bother to learn more about your chosen organization.

From your link:

Although those who speak publicly for LEAP are people from the law enforcement and criminal justice communities, a large number of our supporting members do not have such experience. You don't have to have law enforcement experience to join us.

AND

Membership in LEAP is open to anyone...

Finally:

In four years we went from five founding police officers to a membership of over 5,000.

You were the one who tried to pass off an extremist libertine organization as representative of all law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors.

You didn't make any. You're trying to hijack the thread into an anti libertarian drug debate. The topic is GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates. You have not addressed that issue. You have nothing to offer but ignorant hateful attack.

That's quite incorrect. FYI: If the GOP didn't have a valid reason for objection, there wouldn't be one filed.

You and your cohorts are the reason the Republican party is going belly up. When libertarians sit out elections Republicans can't win. Don't complain when president Hillary takes office...you put her there.

BWWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! George W. Bush got elected without the libertines. The Republicans took the House and the Senate without the libertines. You people think you are far more important than you really are.

Besides, you are the folks that WANT a "President" Hillary.

[ghostmonkey]

Excuse me, monkey boy... Howzabout posting your comments to the person(s) who you are responding to. This "All" is cowardly bulls#!t, because you KNOW that it doesn't show up on anybody's pings.

How about if I don't?

As I already stated, anyone who thinks that there is actual "debate" on an internet discussion board is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks that exchanging thoughts on an internet board is something that they can "win" is extremely delusional.

I am addressing my responses to everyone, not just you. I am not "debating" with you. I am not "debating" with anyone. Properly speaking a "Debate" requires a formal agreement and rules. But it figures that you would think that discussing something online is automatically some kind of "debate" where you can "win."

I have some bad news for you:

[JeffAtlanta]

Why do you even post then? It seems sort of strange that a person would spend so much time creating such detailed posts and even dig up off site links if he didn't think it meant anything.

You post even though you feel it is meaningless? Do you need more things to fill out your day?

[JeffAtlanta]

BTW, that is a very cruel image that you posted. I know you didn't originate it but I would hope that freepers, especially those who claim to have high morals, would show more class than that.

The special olympics means the world to those kids. Have we fallen that low that we need to start ridiculing the retarded?

[ghostmonkey]

Why do you even post then?

Perhaps because I feel like it? Not to mention that I am rather bored at the moment.

It seems sort of strange that a person would spend so much time creating such detailed posts and even dig up off site links if he didn't think it meant anything.

Detailed posts? So much time? BWWWWAHAHAHAHHAHA!! Do you know how long it took me to type those posts? Oh yeah, all of about 10 minutes. OH THE HORROR!!!!

I can't BELIEVE how seriously people take internet discussion boards. Folks, it's not that important. Internet discussion boards are nothing more than exchanges of ideas and words. They are not "debates" where you can "win" to make yourself feel more important or better than you actually are.

You post even though you feel it is meaningless? Do you need more things to fill out your day?

Perhaps, Perhaps not.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

How about if I don't?

Then there is no reason for your to participate in this thread, unless you're simply trolling for flames

As I already stated, anyone who thinks that there is actual "debate" on an internet discussion board is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks that exchanging thoughts on an internet board is something that they can "win" is extremely delusional.

An assertion that is proven to be invalid on this and many other similar boards. Do you have anything of substance to contribute at all?

I am addressing my responses to everyone, not just you. I am not "debating" with you. I am not "debating" with anyone. Properly speaking a "Debate" requires a formal agreement and rules. But it figures that you would think that discussing something online is automatically some kind of "debate" where you can "win."

Another assertion that is not substantiated, you're on a roll.

I have some bad news for you:

Cute little poster. Get it from a family photo album? And just what does this contribute aside from ad hom name calling? This is usually the tactic of someone who was unprepared to enter discussion on an issue.

If you can't handle the discussion and yes, debate you can always post to the Hobbit Hole, or the Poetry forum.*

*With apologies to the Hobbit hole dwellers.

[ghostmonkey]

BTW, that is a very cruel image that you posted. I know you didn't originate it but I would hope that freepers, especially those who claim to have high morals, would show more class than that.

No it actually isn't. And if you would lighten up a bit, and not take the internet or yourself so seriously, you would see why it isn't. I actually have a good friend who suffers from Down Syndrome who thinks that particular image is quite funny.

The special olympics means the world to those kids. Have we fallen that low that we need to start ridiculing the retarded?

My, My, My, that image isn't ridiculing the retarded, after all they can't help how they were born. It's ridiculing people who SHOULD know better about their importance and the importance of the internet, and for some reason or another don't.

[JeffAtlanta]

No one believes this a "formal debate" - the verb "debate" means lots of things and is not exclusive to a formal debate.

But as you mentioned in your reply, you're simply bored and need more things to fill out your day.

[JeffAtlanta]

No it actually isn't. And if you would lighten up a bit, and not take the internet or yourself so seriously, you would see why it isn't. I actually have a good friend who suffers from Down Syndrome who thinks that particular image is quite funny.

Hand out prints of that image to the kids and parents at the special olympics and see how funny they think it is. You justify ridiculing a retarded boy because you know somebody with downs syndrome and he's ok with it?

[ghostmonkey]

Then there is no reason for your to participate in this thread, unless you're simply trolling for flames.

That's quite incorrect, as I already pointed out my reasons for being here.

An assertion that is proven to be invalid on this and many other similar boards.

LOL!!! That's one of the funniest things that I have ever read!!

Do you have anything of substance to contribute at all?

Perhaps you should read back through the thread?

Another assertion that is not substantiated, you're on a roll.

It's substantiated quite well.

Cute little poster. Get it from a family photo album?

No, I took it at a gathering of "internet debaters".

And just what does this contribute aside from ad hom name calling? This is usually the tactic of someone who was unprepared to enter discussion on an issue.

Perhaps it might get folks to realize that the internet is not as serious as they think it is.

If you can't handle the discussion and yes, debate you can always post to the Hobbit Hole, or the Poetry forum.*

You can fool yourself into thinking that internet discussion is a "debate" if you want to. I'll not stand in your way. Buh Bye!!

[ghostmonkey]

Hand out prints of that image to the kids and parents at the special olympics and see how funny they think it is. You justify ridiculing a retarded boy because you know somebody with downs syndrome and he's ok with it?

I don't just know him, he's a friend. And again, it's not ridiculing the retarded, but rather people who should know better and think they are more important than they actually are.

There are people who take internet posts so serious that they will go into real world stalking and harassment. Some have even assaulted and committed murder over words on the internet.

Where does all that start? Yep, you guessed it, with people thinking that their words are so important and that a free exchange of ideas and discussion is a "debate" that they can "win."

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

It is entirely correct... the website actually confirms it... it is entirely a regulatory function of legislative declaration and it is confirmed by court decree in cases where property and child custody are issues...

Then perhaps you missed this section of the link:

While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government. Or phrased another way, the God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right.

In its decision in Meister, the Court refused to even examine the numerous state court decisions prior to making its own decision. While this was assailed by legal commentators of the day as an egregious choice, we can only agree with the Court in its choice because a state court opinion has no authority to affect a fundamental right that existed antecedent to the formation of the state.

It should be noted that Meister has never been reversed and is still controlling case law concerning the fundamental right to marry without state interference.