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.

[Protagoras]

Therefore the authoritarians are nutty as can be. In the end we kill them all. Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and all the rest.

[Cultural Jihad]

... sure went splat.

: )

[freebilly]

Scratch a Libertarian deep enough and you'll find a mass murderer.

"We're gonna have Freedom my way, or the rest of you will pay...."

[freebilly]

Therefore the authoritarians are nutty as can be. In the end we kill them all

Hope you've got plenty of ammo....

[SJC_Libertarian]

Yet another example of the kind of people that become attracted to the Libertarian "party" (and I do use the term loosely). Loose cannons. The kind of people that take their ball and run home if they can't get their own way. Borderline delusional nutcases.

An understandable, if distorted, viewpoint. Yes, we get our share of loose cannons and also those who come across as delusional or as nutcases, but surely you will agree that the Democratic party has more than their share of those types. From the Democratic viewpoint, Republicans are all nutcases, if not downright evil!

Here is something that sets the Libertarians apart from others (particularly Democrats, who stuck by Clinton well past all reasonable bounds): We, as a party, immediately repudiated Copeland's bizarre behavior, and will, in all likelihood, officially withdraw all support for his candidacy at our executive committee meeting this weekend.

[SJC_Libertarian]

Because the vast majority ARE children. Those that are not have the emotional development of teenagers.

I hope you'll forgive me for taking exception to your gross generalization. The problem, as I see it, is that the noisy and troublesome get most of the media attention.

If I may dispute your characterization, the libertarian mindset is that the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are to be taken seriously, rather than just being accorded lip-service. The fact that many individuals have not managed to fully comprehend the ramifications of the Freedom Philosophy, in no way indicts the philosophy, any more than Christian depravations during the Crusades indicts Christianity itself. Perhaps you would be better served to base your opinion on the words (and actions) of our more restrained and reasonable fellows, than on the unfortunate actions of a few emotional individuals.

[stands2reason]

Oh, right - we're all supposed to realize the Libertarians are right by osmosis. You guys have no obligation to sell your ideas and concepts to the voting public - everybody is just supposed to come to you naturally.....

Don't you know? Their spiel is "You're an idiot. Don't you want to be like us? Join us and you can call everyone an idiot, too."

[SJC_Libertarian]

One may safely assume he didn't tumble out of a dumpster yesterday, stagger into California LP headquarters, and stagger out bearing the LP's standard.

Granted, although he was a relative unknown (except in Orange County, CA) until the last convention when he announced his candidacy. There were several candidates for the endorsement, and Gary won out, partly because a more credible candidate was registered as "declines to state" rather than "Libertarian", and was therefore ineligible.

And no, he wasn't chosen by acclamation based on being stoned. The Libertarian Party chooses its candidates for major offices at Convention by majority vote, after hearing from the contenders in writing and in speech, and Copeland presented himself well at the time.

[SJC_Libertarian]

So far as I can tell, their sole social agenda is the agenda of a high percentage of teens-- to do whatever drugs they want without fear of reprisal....

I find it amusing that your viewpoint might be that narrow. Surely you have been exposed to a broader range of Libertarian thought than assorted media misrepresentations of our stance on the misnamed and insane "War on [some] Drugs".

[SJC_Libertarian]

Their 1998 candidate for Governor of California has fled to Canada after a couple of drug convictions.

A bit misinformed, aren't you? Steve Kubby is suffering from Adrenal Cancer, and requires cannabis to control the tendency for his adrenal glands to flood his system with adrenaline (which would kill him). He is a medical patient with a valid doctor's prescription for the "drug".

Yes, he has fled to Canada, his choice being that or imminent death in a Federal prison, since Federal authorities are uninterested in either his medical problem or California's medical marijuana statute.

[A2J]

The Libertarian Party chooses its candidates for major offices at Convention by majority vote,

So, the candidate with the highest number of doobie butts in his ballot box is the winner, right?

[SJC_Libertarian]

Note that the BOR says that CONGRESS will pass no law restricting.... It says nothing about states or cities enacting such ordinances. So there is a reasonable 10th Amendment case that Denver's ordinance is Constitutional. (Stanley also attempted to use the Colorado Constitution -- but long standing precedent, and the text of the Colorado Constitution, go against his claim.)

Actually, it's the First Amendment, and only the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ...". The Second Amendment says "... shall not be infringed." The Third says "No soldier shall ...". Would you take that to mean, "Congress shall quarter no soldiers, but the State Governments may ..."? Similarly, the Fourth says " The right of the people ... shall not be violated ...". Would you take that to mean that "Congress shall not violate the right, but State Governments may"?

I think not. When discussing fundamental rights of individuals, one should understand that these rights are not to be violated by majority vote or acclamation, at any level of government.

[RebelDawg]

Scratch a Libertarian deep enough and you'll find a mass murderer.

Now, I'm not a libertarian but your statement dous make me just a bit curious... do you consider George Washington to be a murderer as well?

Why does the idea of saving ones country by force seem to frighten people like you so much?

Your freedom was won by force of arms and if things keep going the way that they are they may very well need to be saved by force of arms in the near future.

You should study a little more history, your forefathers included the second ammendment for this very reason. Or are you one of those who believe it was included so that we could hunt wabbits???

[SJC_Libertarian]

Be that as it may, the Second Amendment refers specifically to what Congress may or may not do w/respect to the RKBA. The 2nd says nothing about what the states, counties, or cities may do with regard to firearms -- which makes it prime 10th Amendment territory.

Better reread the Bill of Rights. Once again, the First Amendment says that, not the Second through Tenth.

[SJC_Libertarian]

As for other people who are less predisposed to the basic libertarian concepts than I am, they will not even listen to people as unpleasant as you guys tend to be.

In this, you have a point. Many of us do unfortunately get frustrated and angry (read unpleasant) at being ignored, patronized, misrepresented, or just plain dissed.

Others tend to get wrapped up in the moment without considering the appearance they are presenting, and the tendency people will have to generalize that appearance to libertarians taken as a group.

[Roscoe]

Steve Kubby is suffering from Adrenal Cancer, and requires cannabis to control the tendency for his adrenal glands to flood his system with adrenaline (which would kill him). He is a medical patient with a valid doctor's prescription for the "drug".

A bit misinformed, aren't you?

Kubby's "drug" convictions were for peyote and psilocybin .

[SJC_Libertarian]

Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 1833

Interesting quote, and one with which I am not familiar. While I agree with the general thrust of the statement, I would note that the need to guard against the encroachment of "local" or State governments later became quite clear, as when an ordnance allowing extermination of Mormons was enacted in Missouri! (It was still on the books, I believe, as late as 1976.) Still, as I have noted in this discussion, in the B of R, it is only the First Amendment that is specifically limited to restrictions on Congress.

[Roscoe]

Once again, the First Amendment says that, not the Second through Tenth.

A bit misinformed, aren't you?

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." --Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833)

[SJC_Libertarian]

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, ..."

At risk of starting another interminable argument, I must point out that the courts have a long history of misquoting earlier rulings, history, and even themselves, in arriving at their decisions. That is why the statements made, either as dicta or in the main ruling, are referred to as opinions! In fact, the Constitution established a Central government, and representatives of the several states (the anti-Federalists, in particular) had strong reservations of the effort, which on its face exceeded the convention mandate. Naturally, the concerns expressed were focused or directed at possible intrusions of this new Federal government, rather than those of State or local governments, but this fact does not imply that no restrictions on State power were needed, invisioned, or sought after elsewhere.

[Roscoe]

That is why the statements made, either as dicta or in the main ruling, are referred to as opinions!

In this instance, a universally understood opinion. You're free to try to cite a case to the contrary. Failing that, try finding a history text which supports your position.

Good luck.