LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE SPITS IN FACE OF TALK SHOW HOST ON THE AIR

DFU listening to KABC in Los Angeles | 9-8-02 | Doug from Upland

[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.

[rb22982]

So what would we have--the feds fighting a war on behalf of Texas against Mexico on the Texas-Mexico border, but protecting Mexican drug businessmen shipping their wares across the California-Mexico border?

I dont think the US gov't would have to protect mexican drug businessmen. When was the last time Tequiza had to ask the US for help with its shipment. And no, it'd be the feds fighting a war against US soil. If one state is attacked with military, all are attacked.

[Kevin Curry]

If one state is attacked with military, all are attacked.

How in the world is California being attacked if the Mexican government is fighting a border skirmish with Texas over Texas laws that have absolutely no applicability to Californians?

Remember, the rights of Mexican dope dealers aren't at issue. The "right" of aging California hippies to get good cheap Mexico-transited weed and cocaine through free trade is what is at issue.

What you are saying is, you would allow an anti-drug state's enforcement of its laws to negatively impact or negate a pro-drug state's enforcement of its laws. What if California doesn't want to be "saved" by the feds?

[Kevin Curry]

No, they can take grievances there but they cannot make an official treaty ala the Constitution.

What good does it do for the Mexican government to complain to Austin if Austin has no constitutional authority to do anyting about it? And if the Mexican government takes its complaint up with Washington, what can Washington do? These are state laws that are being complained about. In view of the Tenth Amendment, what authority would the feds have to intervene in a state law matter?

[Wisc Paul]

Best Talk Radio I've heard lately is the frank talk and conservative clarity of Micheal Savage of 'The Savage Nation'

[Cultural Jihad]

Tequiza?! Made in the USA by Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

[Kevin Curry]

Well, I must close this little Q & A for now. I hope it has opened your eyes at least a crack to the fact that there are serious and manifold problems--many of them of a Constitutional dimension--involved with eliminating federal drug laws and turning the matter entirely over to the states.

[river rat]

The LIBERTARIAN Party needs to make certain that their followers undertand the party is NOT actively recruiting LIBERTINES.

There IS a difference....
Semper Fi

[rb22982]

lol I meant corona ;)

[rb22982]

The Mexican government can ask Texas to change its laws, but it cannot formally enter into a treaty which is against the Constitution. There is a difference.

[rb22982]

Those are minor problems in comparison of today's federal WOD bonanza. I agree there COULD be problems, but of the problems you listed, its doubtful they'd ever take place anyway. The white market is a lot easier to deal with than the blackmarket. Which is why you dont see RJ Reynolds people in school's selling cigarettes or Budweiser dealers out on the street corner or Mexico Vs US problems with the two.

[Cultural Jihad]

Just don't mess the with the blue agave supplies. ;)

[Kevin Curry]

I agree there COULD be problems, but of the problems you listed, its doubtful they'd ever take place anyway.

LOL! How do you know they are "doubtful"? Are you a prophet? International trade and law enforcement involving international, national, and state authorities and their citizens are highly complex matters. The drug trade is enormously lucrative--legal or not. Vast amounts of money warp any and all accomodations and arrangements.

Common sense tells you that if things can go wrong, they will go wrong. I don't need to be a prophet to assure you that no only would these kinds of untoward events occur, they occur in greater numbers and have worse effects than I've listed so far. What you are proposing is to fracture the United States into a confederation of fiefdoms that would be allowed to be at complete cross-purposes with one another on matters of border control and trade.

The founders tried that route once, rejected it as wholly unworkable, and adopted the present Constitution in its stead. Let's not return to failure.

[rb22982]

It's doubtful because the 2 closest things to it: alcohol and tobacco do not have that conflict. Also because officially drugs are illegal in mexico.

United States into a confederation of fiefdoms that would be allowed to be at complete cross-purposes with one another on matters of border control and trade.

They already can now...a state can ban tobacco and alcohol now if they want and the same problems would arise.

[rb22982]

also might I add, it was this way up until 1937 also. I dont consider FDR a 'founding father'. Several states had already made marijuana illegal before the Federal Government did, including, I believe Texas

[Roscoe]

Not all libertarians are for open immigration and abortion, the party is actually split on those issues.

Read their platform.

[Texasforever]

Have you ever encountered a libertarian that agreed with the LP platform?

[Roscoe]

Have you ever encountered a libertarian that agreed with the LP platform?

It's an an albatross around their necks.

[Texasforever]

Or a mill stone.

[Roscoe]

Or a mill stone.

Better still.

[nopardons]

You can NOT just co-opt people / claim that they were Libertarians, when they so obviously weren't. You can ONLY use the names of those who are alive ( or when alive ) admitted that they were indeed Libertarians. Those are the rules ; anything else is not only delusional conjecture, but patently riddiculous in the extreme.