Posted on 09/02/2006 9:01:49 PM PDT by 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-
Incorrect, I am well aware of what Marxism is all about.
You use the term "Liberaltarians." Thats very clever. Did you think of that all by yourself?
Yep.
Modern day liberals (as opposed to the classical use of the term) support large governments that tries to tell people how to live their lives. I see no difference between either of the two parties currently in Washington on this point except which aspects of our lives you want to regulate. And one other minor difference. Democrats support big government and high taxes to pay for it. Republicans support big government and big debt to avoid paying for it.
Rubbish. I don't know a single Libertarian who supports smoking dope. I (and most libertarians) do believe however that you have a God given right to be stupid if you wish, as long as society doesn't have to pay for your stupidity.
BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH!!!!! The Libertarian platform supports dope. Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals...
Thats a tough one. Many Libertarians do support that. I do not. To me abortion violates the most basic of libertarian principals. Your rights end when they intrude on someone else's. The Right to Life being foremost among those rights.
So you conceed the fact that many libertarians support murder.
Again your ignorance betrays you. We do NOT support any such thing. We believe that we (and you) have no right to impose our morality by legislation on others.
All laws legislate morality. Every single one of them. Homosexuality is a perverse evil that spreads into and destroys society as a whole. There is a reason that the very people who wrote the Constitution also went back and wrote laws in their own states to protect society from this perversity.
What someone does in private with another consenting adult is between them and God. Its none of my business. And frankly its none of yours either.
That's incorrect, because what you do in private spreads out into public. As one of our Framers stated: No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
When the homos try to force by law or government action acceptance of their perverted (thats my private opinion) lifestyle on me or you or anyone else we oppose them.
No you don't. Your own platform supports redefining marriage and allowing homos to adopt playthings for their amusement.
By which you mean the morals that you happen to think everyone else should abide by. Enough said.
All laws legislate morality in one form or another. Repealing what you call "morality laws" is by default endorsement of amorality.
LMAO!!! Exactly how many libertarians have been appointing judges in this country? The only judicial activism that I have seen is by a court that has over the last half century been hell bent on aggrandizing the powers of the government to promote the interests of whichever of the two political parties happens to have been naming Supreme Court Justices. If you believe otherwise please give specific examples and not a lot of hot air.
Libertarians jumped for joy at the activist decisions of Roe and Lawerence.
I have never met a Libertarian who supports illegal immigration. But if they did they are as entitled to their opinion as you are. Thats another difference between libertarians and GOPers and DU types. When we don't agree with you we will tell you but we won;t call you names generally or resort to childish tantrums. In fact we strongly believe in your right to spout your foolish invective.
Libertarians are in favor of "open borders", which translated is, "Let everyone and anyone run wild into the Country and do what they please."
Well actually you said Marxists not Democrats. And while you may equate the two (another example of your ignorance) I do not.
Their positions on various issues equate them.
As for preferring the company of one or the other thats one man's opinion. I generally am more comfortable around Republicans (excepting those in public office) since we tend to share the same outlook on things culturally politically much more so than Democrats. But to each their own.
I guess you didn't read the links.
Generally I agree with you on the State's Right issue. But Libertarians and their platform are also against STATE laws restricting drugs.
Again, that it's a states' rights issue. The Consitution of the US doesn't give the federal government the right to ban abortions. But again, I agree with you. Many libertarians are attracted to the party due to their support of abortions. Interestingly enough though, the libertarians would ban public spending (at least on a federal level) on abortions or birth control.
A very good case can be made that an unborn child is a person, entitled to Constitutional protection.
Equal rights for all. That's what the Constitution of the US is supposed to support. However, the "gay agenda" does attract some people who agree with it. But again, at least on a federal level, most libertarians believe that this is a states' rights issue (are you starting to see a pattern here?)
You are incorrect here. No clause in the Constitution, none whatsoever, supports the homosexual agenda and it's attempts to redefine marriage, family and society. The Equal Protection clause was never intended to mean radical eglitarianism.
Whoa nellie!!! Actually, Libertarians tend to be very strict constructionists. Far more so than so called conservatives who often do support judicial activism.
That's quite incorrect, as evidenced by libertarian support of both Roe and Lawrence, both radical activist decisions without a basis of support in the Constitution.
Actually, they favor "open borders," which would end the entire concept of "illegal immigration." Interestingly enough, both dems and pubbies seem to agree with this...
Tom Tancredo supports open borders? LOL!!
If you believe that the reason the Losertarians aren't winning elections is because one or both of the two parties are somehow keeping them from doing so, then IMHO that qualifies you as a loonie conspiracy theorist.
Believing they can win elections, and when they don't, they don't take responsibility for their own words or deeds.
Please add me to your Libertarian ping List, I am sick of these Republican sell outs but despise todays Demorats. If George Bush is a great Republican then I'm not. The only bill this socialist piece of crap has vetoed is a stem cell bill in what six years. My god I long for the days of Grover Clevland. What has happened to my country. Thanks Glen
As a Libertarian pco in Washington state and the fact that I can't use personal attacks or profanity against you it is very difficult for me to point out what a total freaking, idiot some one like you may be. When I read posts from some of these idiots claiming to be libertarians I can't help but feel they are gop supporters trying to discredit the Libertarians like me, Larry Elder, Dr. Walter William, Ron Paul, and the hundreds of Libertarians I have met in my years of political involvement. None of which subscribe to Marxist philosophy's in any way. The simple fact that Libertarians under cut support for the gop is that Libertarians are what the gop tries to claim that they are for, smaller government, and more personal freedom.
What? Incomplete? Huh?!?!?!
And if you mean using a "small 'L'" in the word "libertarian," as opposed to "Libertarian" with a capital 'L,' there's a reason for the difference.
Those of us who consider ourselves to be "Small 'L' libertarians" tend to have more conservative leanings. Neal Boortz is a good example of this. Especially in the border issues and the wars we're currently fighting. Though he's pro-abortion, many libertarians (again, notice the "small 'L'") are pro-life. Then again, many L/libertarians are against federal laws regarding abortion, simply from a states rights issue.
Let's face it. Abortion IS the "slavery" of today. I mean as an issue, not that abortion is slavery. We're dealing with core beliefs here. Some people believe that abortion is not killing a child. Others believe that it's just that. Consequently, it's impossible to "reason" with them, and form a compromise. When you believe that a murder is taking place, there's simply no compromising with the act. When you do, you become an accessory to murder. So I don't think that there's ever going to be a peaceful solution to the issue of abortion.
Mark
No wonder they make little headway. They don't deserve to.
Yeah, sort of like republicans or democrats!
The difference is, the dems and pubbies get to control who gets publicity through the MSM, and who runs. Isn't it interesting how it's always the dems and pubbies?
Mark
Must be that "pot thing." lol
Why don't you give some concrete examples instead of blanket generalizations?
Are you kidding here? You want "concrete examples?" How about the concept of "asset forfeiture?" Talk about bending the Constitution! They courts ruled that assets could be seized by the government ON THE SUSPICION that they were earned illegally. This is facilitated by NOT arresting and charging the rightful owner of those assets. The courts ruled that it wasn't the rightful owner of the property that was being arrested, but the property itself. Since the owner had not been arrested or charged with a crime, his rights have not been violated. Instead, the courts ruled, the property itself has been arrested, but since that property isn't a human being, the property has no rights under the Constitutional protections. So, the government seizes your property, and lets you go on your way. And if you want your property back, you need to sue the government to recover it.
How's that for just ONE concrete example?
Mark
These are unsubstantiated allegations. They may or may not be true - it would not suprise me if the NY GOP tried to do exactly this, but the Libertarians have not produced any evidence to give credence to their allegations of Republican corruption.
Whoa Hoss! i didn't post the rant. i was responding to it. You need to post to the right guy!
All laws legislate some kind of morality, and perversion that breeds in Private seeps into and destroys the Public. As one of our FOUNDING FATHERS opined from the Bench of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indict able, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
Well, morality has a habit of evolving over time... After all, some things that were once considered immoral are now though of as moral. And interestingly enough, some things that were thought of as moral at one time, are now seen as immoral. Slavery, for instance.
Using the above example, there's a serious difference between lying and fruad or purjury. In once case (lying), there may or may not be harm done to another. For instance, were I to say that your baby was cute, no matter how ugly the baby is, no harm is done. That's not indictable. On the other hand, were I to lie to you in a business transaction, or purjur myself in a court, then I am causing direct harm to another, and those would be cause for action by the government against me.
Also, exactly when was the ruling you quote made. Was it while PA still had an official State religion? Today, that's known as a Theocracy, something that's decried by most thinking people in our society: But some people, who seem to denounce the muslim propensity towards theocracy the loudest often seem to look longingly towards a Christian based theocracy. So it's not the theocracy they hate: Just who's running it.
Mark
What party gave us the tax cuts?
And which party has been spending like a drunken teenager at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch armed with daddy's Platinum card? I use that as an example, because no group of drunken sailors could possibly keep up with the spending spree that's been going on during the pubbies rule of all three branches of the federal government.
I don't understand it. Maybe they thought that if they outspent the dems, the dems would like them.
Mark
And have you ever read Castro's views on the use of drugs? He's pretty harsh when it comes to illegal drugs. Does that make "Drug Warriors" communists, or at the very least, supporters of Castro?
Your argument is completely specious. Trying to paint those who oppose your views in that way is really pretty silly. Sort of like saying that if you're for strict anti-smoking laws, then you're a NAZI, since Hitler hated smoking.
Mark
And show me anywhere in the Constitution of the US where these federal government is allowed to make laws on these things. If you want the federal government involved in these issues, then the Constitution should have been amended to allow it, rather than allowing congress, the president, and the courts to just dance around the rules set down in the Constitution with a wink and a nod.
Mark
BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH!!!!! The Libertarian platform supports dope. Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals...
Laugh all you want, monkeyboy, but you completely misread (on purpose, I'm sure) that plank of the platform. I have to agree with the person you're trying to argue with (but since it wasn't directed to him, I can't refer to him directly). I don't know a single libertarian who actually smokes dope or takes drugs. But the fact that we oppose the criminalization has nothing to do with whether or not we take drugs. Do some people who claim to be L/libertarians do so simply because of the LP opposition to the WOD? You bet! The best example of such a person would be that idiot Bill Mahr. He claims to be a "libertarian," but as soon as you start looking at what he says and believes in, you realize that he's a big government leftist who only claims to be a libertarian because of the LP's stance on illegal drugs.
The fact is that while the LP stands for the decriminalization of what are now illegal drugs, they also stand for personal responsibility. Meaning that if you ruin your life using drugs recreationally, then it's up to you, your family, and or charities to try to put your life back together.
Have you noticed that as government has grown in every aspect of life, people have grown both more complacent and dependant on the government? A good example of this is with Social Security. When most people didn't survive long enough to receive social security payments, a family was expected to provide for the needs of the elderly parents. As social security has grown, and made it easier for families to fragment, we've seen the breakup of the family become more and more common.
But back on the subject of the LP plank of drug legalization, there are some very simple reasons to do so:
1) Because according to the Consitution, the federal government has no authority to do so.
2) Because it infringes on the G-d given right that everyone has to be dumber than hell, and cause themselves all sorts of grief - But don't expect the rest of us to clean up your mess.
3) By taking the profit motive out of the illegal drug trade, criminal activity surrounding the drug trade will dry up. After all, how many bloody turf wars have you seen in the news lately, regarding illegal liquor sales? More importantly, have you noticed that there have been increasing crimes in regards to moving "illegal" cigarettes? When government makes a product that people want illegal, it cuts down on supply, driving up the cost. That increased cost will eventually drive a profit margin high enough to be worth breaking the law. And often, that profit will be great enough for shootouts - Look at Nuevo Laredo as an example, or prohibition Chicago and NY.
Mark
Reading the exchange between the two of you is enough for any thinking person to decide which political party one should align with,
Tom Tancredo supports open borders? LOL!!
I guess that explains why Tom Tancredo is in the leadership of the republican party, and why he and Denny Hastert are constantly appearing together in press conferences... Are you out of your mind? The republican leadership has done just about all it can do to marginalize Tom Tancredo.
I think that I've finally figured you out... (Ghostmonkey's thought process) "Hey, if one person says it, that must mean that everyone claiming that same affiliation believes it!"
By the way monkeyboy, it's hard to respond to you when you don't refer your responses back to the person you're debating. But then I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to do so.
Mark
You are incorrect here. No clause in the Constitution, none whatsoever, supports the homosexual agenda and it's attempts to redefine marriage, family and society. The Equal Protection clause was never intended to mean radical eglitarianism.
Exactly which section or clause in the Constitution refers to marriage at all? The federal government has no authority here whatsoever. However, the whole "Marriage Protection" rigamarole does come from something in the Constitution, which can impose one state's values on another. But it's not the equal protection clause. So it's being thrown back to the federal government, which really doesn't have the authority to make the decision either way.
The tack you're taking is an interesting one here... "No clause in the Constitution, none whatsoever, supports the homosexual agenda and it's attempts to redefine marriage, family and society." What you're saying is that "if it's not in the Constitution of the US, then the states and the public aren't allowed to do it." Sorry buddy, but that's 180 degrees out of whack with the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. The Constitution of the US is a legal document granting certain powers to the federal government. If it's not in the Constitution, then the federal government (though it's also been extended to the states in some ways) shouldn't be doing it.
Mark
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.