Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.
He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.
The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.
Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.
Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.
Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.
Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.
Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.
Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.
Pardon me. You're a constitutionalist. Consitutionlists believe even libertarians are impure.
Your great thinkers aren't even unintentionally funny like the LP's spittin' skeezix nutjob candidate for governor in this thread. Some your (late) great thinkers believe state police officers may be shot on first approach for daring to enforce traffic laws.
BTW I've never reported any poster to an admin moderator, even posters that hurl verbal vomitus as putrid as yours. I never will. That's not my style. Ask tpaine.
The problem you have, tippy, is that you don't think in terms of how things really are, but only in how you would like them to be. (I.e., "if everybody would just....")
For example, we both agree that the RKBA should be maintained and expanded from its present state. There are others -- a majority? -- who think otherwise, and have passed laws to that effect. As Roscoe's references to USSC decisions have pointed out, those gun controllers have de facto Constitutional coverage for their position.
So what you're left with is a philosophical argument about the immutability of the RKBA -- something on which reasonable people can and do disagree.
This is true more generally, also.
In reality, then, a libertarian government would have to contend with situations where libertarian philosophy is in direct conflict with certain laws that not only have the consent of the governed, but also de facto Constitutional coverage from USSC decisions.
You have characteristically neglected to answer the original question, which is: What would a libertarian government do in those cases?
If we can credit the louder LP spokespeople, one thing we can rule out is that the LP would do what it ought to do: practice politics, and come up with some compromise solution. (You can't compromise on unalienable rights!)
So the question boils down to: would libertarians force their philosophy onto an opposed populace? Or would the let stand the law which runs counter to their philosophy?
You know how your fingertips get all wrinkly when they get really wet? Well, now you know why tippy's other nickname is "pruneface."
What is it about God that scares you?
The problem you have, tippy, is that you don't think in terms of how things really are, but only in how you would like them to be. (I.e., "if everybody would just....")
The problem you have, dippy, is that you must be a prunefaced kid that believes his own bull.
For example, we both agree that the RKBA should be maintained and expanded from its present state. There are others -- a majority? -- who think otherwise, and have passed laws to that effect. As Roscoe's references to USSC decisions have pointed out, those gun controllers have de facto Constitutional coverage for their position.
Roscoe agrees with these gun-controlers, you dolt. He's 'quoting' antiquated, discredited opinions and you're swallowing his BS. Bizarre.
So what you're left with is a philosophical argument about the immutability of the RKBA -- something on which reasonable people can and do disagree. This is true more generally, also.
You disagree that the RKBA is an inalienable right, do you? Fine.
-- Thanks for outing yourself.
In reality, then, a libertarian government would have to contend with situations where libertarian philosophy is in direct conflict with certain laws that not only have the consent of the governed, but also de facto Constitutional coverage from USSC decisions.
Babble on. Libertarians support constitutional principles. there is no "conflict", save in your libertarian hating mind.
You have characteristically neglected to answer the original question, which is: What would a libertarian government do in those cases?
You refuse to 'see' my answer. -- We would follow the intent of the constitution.
If we can credit the louder LP spokespeople, one thing we can rule out is that the LP would do what it ought to do: practice politics, and come up with some compromise solution. (You can't compromise on unalienable rights!) So the question boils down to: would libertarians force their philosophy onto an opposed populace? Or would the let stand the law which runs counter to their philosophy?
Like roscoe, you are boring in your repetitive pap. -- Get some new more entertaining misconceptions, or get lost.
WHAT? Doesn't this unnamed high ranking libertarian official know that neat stunts like this actually further the cause of this clown party? Keep him on the ballot. I'm sure TP will find some reason to cry 'unconstitutional'.
When have you had an original thought?
Arthur Koestler, Tpaine, two men with a disgusting religous bigotry.
Do you believe that the flow of marijuana and cocaine from and through, say, Mexico, would cease if federal drug laws were eliminated?
From 1932 to 1938 Koestler was a member of the German Communist Party
I love it went TP shows his real roots.
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.