How about posting some examples to show us how inconsistant we are?
Thanks in advance.
No problem. I don't have all day, so let's start with just three threads from different time periods. The first thread is from the presidential election, Nov. 2000. The vast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members on that thread talked about how Harry Browne was such a great guy, the ONLY guy they were "willing" to vote for, and how much he representive their values, and the ideals of the party. The second thread is right after 9/11. Harry attacked the U.S. for defending itself against terrorist attacks. The ast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members on that thread posted disclaimers that Harry did NOT represent the beliefs of the party, that they regretted voting for him, and how they wished another Libertarian would have been nominated but they were left with no choice. Now we have this thread. Seems we've come full circle. The vast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members are talking about how Harry Browne was such a great guy, better than any of the other people running for President, and how much he representive their values, and the ideals of the LP party.
THREAD #1
Harry Browne for President
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39d6932f2e66.htm
Posted on 09/30/2000
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
Harry Browne is the only candidate in the race that even comes close to espousing constitutional conservative government!
Cheese and rice open your freakin eyes.
29 Posted on 09/30/2000 19:36:02 PDT
>>"...I simbly disagree with his [Harry's] vision for America."<<
In other words [if you disagree with Harry Browne] you disagree with:
1). The Constitution
2). The Bill of rights (contained within the Constitution)
3). Liberty
4). American sovereignty
5). Smaller government
62 Posted on 09/30/2000 20:25:31 PDT
Harry Browne represents a big breath of fresh air to many voters who are tired of more of the same. Sure, BC/AG have committed treason, etc., but the Congress failed the people and the Constitution miserably. This is the reality we have to deal with. In four years it will be more of the same, 'tow the line so we can save the government from the traitors!!' And we will all be victims again as we are let down by those we entrust with our lives.
Posted on 10/01/2000 02:54:11 PDT
I'm an evangelical Christian who will be voting for Harry Browne this November. You have to ask yourself, would Jesus try to use government to force people to do what He wanted? A "Christian" who supports the use of force to promote his religion is no Christian at all.
Posted on 10/01/2000 07:01:34 PDT
Total nonsense. Bush doesn't own my vote. Neither does Gore. Without Browne in the race, I wouldn't vote. Posted on 10/01/2000 09:02:48 PDT
I will not sanction evil. Even for a 'good' cause.
221 Posted on 10/02/2000 00:50:17 PDT
And so do I. A bump for Harry Browne and freedom
. 37 Posted on 09/30/2000 19:48:58 PDT
Unlike all recent occupants of the White House, [Harry Browne] would take that oath seriously. And the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in abortion in any way.
I challenge you or any other Bush supporter to counter the above statements by Harry Browne with equal or superior statements made by Bush regarding the same subjects.
Harry has also said that as president he would do everything in his power to repeal Roe v Wade.
99 Posted on 09/30/2000 22:00:14 PDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREAD #2
HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/521067/posts?q=1&&page=401
Posted on 9/12/01
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
I don't blindly follow Harry Browne. Just to give you an example, I'm pro life. And I would have prefered a better leader for an LP candidate, like L Neil Smith.
122 posted on 11/20/01 1:58 AM
Shut the F up Harry! (And I voted for the man)
79 posted on 9/12/01 7:52 AM Central
Mr. Browne is only the party's most recent presidential candidate but he does not speak...for the party.... assuming Harry Browne speaks officially for the Libertarian Party is a mistake at least as profound as that mistake (which I remember only too well and too furiously leveled at the party in question) of assuming that anything out of Richard Nixon's mouth post-Watergate was official Republican comment; or, anything out of Jimmy Carter's mouth was official Democratic comment. Let Mr. Browne rant his bloody head off. But he is only a former candidate. He holds, to my knowledge, no official LP position and cannot be deemed an official LP spokesman.
150 posted on 9/12/01 8:54 PM Central
I am a Libertarian because I consider myself a constitutionalist. I believe that this nation would prosper if we stripped away 200 years of bureaucratic buildup, and I voted for Harry Browne because I believed he would do that. This statement, however, disgusts me. Browne has forgotten that the FIRST duty of government is to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors. He has also forgotten that blame shifting and peacemongering are the LAST things we need after being attacked.
posted on 9/12/01 11:42 PM Central
Brown is no "Libertarian". He is a democrat.
posted on 9/14/01 7:47 AM Central
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREAD #3
Libertarian Harry Browne on George Bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668245/posts
April 18, 2002
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
in every way Browne is vastly superior to Bush -- and Browne shows greater understanding and respect for the Constitution.
posted on 4/18/02 7:43 AM Central
BUMP for a good article. Everyone should note that everything that Harry pointed out has been pointed out by many (libertarian)freepers on this site as well.
28 posted on 4/18/02 9:47 AM Central
Browne points out, Republicans are willing to settle for nothing. All the "Compromises" seem to end up in leftists getting what they want and conservatives getting nothing.
Until conservatives are willing to demand that politicians give them what they want, they will never get anything.
Another way of putting it is that politicians should have to earn our support.
posted on 4/18/02 1:06 PM Central