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.
False. Please stop spitting on the Constitution.
"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
Hmm, judging by the number of "lunatics" maybe the LP is a Druid front group.
Defending a lie is never easy. You are an moral slob.
Why, yes I do. One thing I "get" is that you apparently answered the question by saying that Rick Stanley's arrest and conviction was appropriate.
But then we get down to this one: when states violate basic individual rights, they can be stopped by the force of the constitution.
Stopped by the force of the Constitution? Well, I suppose an appeal to a piece of paper would work for people who are predisposed to adhere to the Constitution on its own merits. But this is precisely where your theoreticals run afoul of your practicals.
When people disagree about something like gun control, "the force of the Constitution" is nothing more or less than a group of people with guns. If the Supreme Court rules that the CA law passes muster, then Californians must follow the law or suffer the consequences We could put it another way and say that California must repeal the law or face an armed revolt.
We know that the former will probably happen; and that the revolt will not occur because most people a) don't care; or b) agree with the law; or c) don't want to fight a war. Any way you slice it, the consent of the governed lies on the side of the gun controllers.
This brings us back to the original question of what the LP would do about laws it doesn't like, but which have the support of those who live under them.
Don't insult conservatives by pretending to be one. It would be just as bad as the goofy spitting guy pretending to be a libertarian.
would be most interested in hearing how a Libertarian regime would handle this sort of abberant and uncivilized behavior.
No you wouldn't. You already know. It has been explained to you so many times even you could understand it by now. I'll humor you however, in case any normal people are reading this.
Would Mr. Whitman be allowed to file battery charges against Mr. Copeland?
Of course. But you knew that.
Could Mr. Copeland be compelled to submit to medical tests to ascertain whether he has a self-inflicted disease or rabies or such?
A judge and jury would decide the merits of the case and decide. The rest of your post was moronic ranting and an attempt to set up a strawman.
He's the Libertarian candidate for Governor of California. Well, at least he doesn't pose for campaign pictures with a pet ferret like their candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
They can read my profile page if they want a short description. You already know, so don't admit to reading it or they will know you are lying.
Bearing false witness is immoral.
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.