Posted on 03/02/2006 1:31:36 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus
Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, is reported by multiple sources to have died yesterday. I just confirmed the general information with Jim Babka of DownSizeDC. DownSizeDC intends to be distributing pertinent information by e-mail and on their website later this evening.
Pending a statement from family or friends, the best (speculative) published source of information about his condition is currently on Wiki:
"In June of 2005 an unknown neurological illness confined him to a wheelchair. After spending a considerable amount of time in the hospital, he resumed some of his writing and speaking, though it was uncertain whether he will walk again. He succumbed to illness on 1 March 2006."
I never heard Harry Browne's post-9-11 comments and don't agree with equating the U.S. Government -- even at its worst -- with bin Laden, but I do admire Browne's courage in speaking his mind regardless of the popularity of his opinions and his dedication to libertarian principles. His passion, energy, and eloquence were unsurpassed by any other Libertarian presidential candidate.
[`] R.I.P. Mr Browne. Truly great American patriot.
"If Afghanistan doesn't turn bin Laden over to our government, ask yourself whether you'd want your government to turn you over to the Iranian government if it accused you of a crime."
What did I tap-dance around? I admitted not having read a recent LP platform, then 1) read it, 2) agreed with it, and 3) answered the points you brought up. That's not tap-dancing. That's heavy-metal, mosh-pit slam-dancing. And the concert went past your bed-time.
Except when they are "fuming," right? I think you know less about libertarians than you claim they know about the Constitution. Your comments on alpha male behavior are both silly and ignorant.
"That's not tap-dancing. That's heavy-metal, mosh-pit slam-dancing. And the concert went past your bed-time."
OR
If it's too loud, you're too old.
He didn't equate the U.S. Government with bin Laden. His comment was about American foreign policy, and he spoke the truth. Our State Department has been running our foreign policy in the mideast since the sixties, without interference from congress or the presidency. The rise of fanatical Islam is the direct result of the abysmal failure of the Department of State.
I agree, Harry Browne was courageous. He put honesty above popularity.
.
I dont' get here very often anymore, and I missed the story on Mr. Browne. I liked him also in the 2000 campaign...thought he would have made a good leader. Saw him on Fox a few times during the campaign, but that was about it. Alas, it's kinda hard to catch on if you belong to a third party -- everyone thinks you're a kook (a myth fostered by the mainstream media).
I'm quasi-Libertarian - -I don't agree with everything, but the party does have the right idea about a lot of things. The downsizing of government for one. Republicans claim to be for less government, but they really just pay lip service to the notion.
But the Libertarian stance on illegals is most troubling. I will give 'em credit though for being open and honest about it. The two major parties sure aren't.
Anyway, may Mr. Browne rest in peace.
When you grow up, you'll learn to be a Republican.
One reason I liked Harry Browne is that he made his points without dismissing his opponents as intellectually inferior - as you've done repeatedly. I've matured a great deal since I voted for Bush Sr. in '92. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has NOT.
See my tagline. It'll take far more than accusations of immaturity to convince me I'm wrong. Until then, have a good night, kid.
RIP Harry Browne. I voted for him in 2000.
Very sad, I enjoyed listening to his radio show. I also heard him speak several times, and voted for him both times he ran. He was truly a champion of liberty. He will be missed.
Sadly, there's a lot more truth in that statement than I'd wish there was.
That's an interesting hypothesis. Is this the case nationwide or just in your neck of the woods?
Comparing and contrasting the respective parties' platforms, one would be hard pressed trying to resolve their differences on "social issues" such as abortion, drugs, conscription and police powers to the satisfaction of many on FreeRepublic, let alone the general population.
Aside from both parties' opposition to undeclared pre-emptive wars and higher taxes to fund them, I see little commonality.
Perhaps this move to the Constitution Party you observe is done to support a particular candidate?
That was the primary sentiment expressed by conservatives when the LP got so shafted in 2000, though where they actually landed is not known to me. I believe the liberal faction that showed up in 1996 stayed on to make the party an adjunct to the Democrats in function if not name.
True, the Constitution Party differs from the Libertarians on approach but come close on eventual goals. I believe their platform is noble and should be examined by Republicans rendered aimless by corrupt influences.
No particular candidate, just no pseudo-conservatives like John McCain (who will probably be the Republican candidate). Nothing more comforting than a new face leading us down the familiar road of ruin, is there? God help us all.
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.