Jim Burns for President?
Who is Jim Burns? Well, he wants to be the 2008 Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.
He’s been involved with the LP for over 20 years, held numerous party leadership positions, and run for office many times. Never successfully. In fact, he’s launched and abandoned Presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004.
Why am I bothering to mention that he’s “entered” the 2008 race? Well, mostly because I like his campaign slogan. It’s one of the funnier ones I’ve seen lately. Featured all over his campaign site (created with GoDaddy’s “Website Tonight” if anyone cared to know) is this quote…
“I should be and will be President” -Jim Burns
When you put it that way, how can anyone disagree?
http://www.jimburnsforpresident.us
Also making another bid for the LP’s nomination is Dave Hollist.
July 30th, 2005 at 11:34 am
I remember both candidates at the LP convention. Jim Burns had a brochure and in his picture he had the confederate flag in the background. That turned off many libertarians even myself cause of my ethnicity. Burns may be the founder of the Nevada LP but he’s a nut!
July 31st, 2005 at 5:16 am
I get the feeling he’s not going to win.
July 31st, 2005 at 12:15 pm
I didn’t think Badnarik had a chance either.
July 31st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I have to agree with Chris Bennett. This guy has gone off the deep end.
July 31st, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Mr. Burns has campaigned with a Confederate flag, the flag of people trying to maintain slavery in this country (cf. e.g., the Mississsippi Secession declaration). Slaveholders had two reasons to keep their slaves. Less important, it gave them a supply of near-free forced labor. More important, it gave them a regular supply of marginally nubile little girls on which they could work their desires.
Supporters of the slaveholder perverts have no business claiming to be Libertarians.
August 1st, 2005 at 8:55 am
^ A couple things people care to forget concerning the Confederate flag and slavery.
1. Slaveholders were rich (at best, 5% of the population).
2. The South, like the North, had a buyout clause in their conscription.
3. Since they were rich, slaveholders did not fight by buying out.
4. Because they had no money and no slaves then, the people that actually fought under the Confederate flag were not slaveholders.
Why would a poor white boy care if a rich white boy down the road has to start paying for help? If anything, because of that reason the poor white boy would fight for the North, to ensure he makes more money. But you and I know that’s not what happened.
fyi: I’m from New Bern, North Carolina, former colonial capital of the state and a somewhat large city back then. The second largest slaveowner in the city was black.
August 1st, 2005 at 11:14 am
No Libertarian could ever defend slavery, but the Confederate flag has a lot in common with the original US flag, if you think about it:
Both represented countries that were trying to secede from a tyrannical central government.
Both represented countries that permitted slavery.
So if you object to the Confederate flag, you should object to the Stars and Stripes on the same grounds.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I disagree with the idea that the US represented tyranny. The entire reason for secession was the idea by the Southern states that they were losing power in the US government, and their “way of life” was under attack.
Yes, they were state’s right’s people, but they were using that to defend slavery. They saw the election of Lincoln as the North deciding that it wanted to curtail the Southern custom of Slavery, and so seceded.
Whether or not the every-day soldier knew that is not at issue, for it is not the poor who started that war. It was the rich, the people in power. The upper-class riled up the public in a chance to ensure that they would respond and support the cause of secession.
Yes, it is the rich who started the war (to maintain their money, and ensure that their ‘way of life’ is not threatened), and the poor who mostly fought and died. (I am not saying that all confederates were redneck hicks who didn’t give a damn about the common man. Some of them really did believe that the US had no right to attempt to end slavery because of the constitution, though they were morally opposed. General Lee was an honorable man, however the cause he fought for was not just. Nor was it as honorable as the man leading.)
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:53 am
Your post is on target. Keep it up.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Insurance Homeowners
accumulates Churchill earnest migrates annoys:Home Owner Insurence [url=http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/#]Home Owner Insurence[/url] http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/#
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
Refinance Mortgage Loan
Lorelei!deposed factor,abraded metallurgy subscribing
June 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
long beach home equity loans
boy servicemen snaked