2008 LP Convention Location Announced

In the “I Seriously Can’t Believe I’ve Had My Head In The Sand And Missed This Announcement Until I Just Opened My Copy Of Liberty Pledge” department, the LP announced last week that the 2008 Libertarian National Convention will be held in Denver, CO. I had heard from TSouth that this might be the place.

Off the top of my head, this seems like a logical place for the LP for several reasons. I’m not a seasoned air traveler, but I would have to assume that flights into Denver will be cheaper than they were in to Portland, OR, home of the 2006 convention. Cheaper air fare will hopefully entice more delegates than what we saw in 2006. Another perk of Denver is that, well, who doesn’t want to visit Denver? I’ve heard great things about the town and love that the convention will give me an excuse to visit. Third, this is probably somewhat of a reward for the Colorado LP, which ran some well known LP campaigns this year.

Thoughts?

Oh, and the official press release:

(Washington, DC) – The Libertarian National Committee has announced that Denver, Colorado will be the host city for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. The LP presidential nomination convention will be held between Friday, May 23 and Monday, May 26 at the Adam’s Mark Hotel. Adam’s Mark Denver is Colorado’s largest hotel, with over 1225 rooms and 133,000 sq. ft. of meeting and exhibit space.

“We are extremely proud to serve as the venue for the 2008 convention,” said Libertarian Party of Colorado Chairman Travis Nicks. “We look forward to showing the nation’s Libertarians what the birthplace of the Libertarian Party has to offer.”

While Libertarians hold a Libertarian National Convention every two years, on presidential election years the Party selects its presidential and vice presidential candidates though the convention process.

“With all of the recent media interest about the libertarian vote in western mountain states, Denver will provide an excellent opportunity for us to show the voters what is meant by smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom,” said LNC Chairman William Redpath. “Additionally, the Libertarian National Convention won’t be a coronation of some pre-determined candidate held at taxpayer expense.”

The Libertarian Party, which recently celebrated its 35th birthday, was founded in Colorado in 1971. Libertarians do not accept public funding for their national convention, while the Republican and Democrat conventions generally cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

130 Responses to “2008 LP Convention Location Announced”

  1. Mike N. Says:

    Another perk of Denver is that, well, who doesn’t want to visit Denver?

    Me. Been there several times. It is a disgusting, smog-drenched shit hole.

    On a lighter note, I agree that the centralized location should make it easier for people to attend.

  2. Andy Says:

    I like Denver a lot. The city is not as bad a Mike is making it out to be and there are a lots of beautiful places that are a short drive from Denver.

  3. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Not really that centralized. For people on the east coast, it might as well be in CA. Even people in the midwest have a hard time driving to Denver, with the mountains and all.

    Texas would be a good location, centrally speaking. People from southern CA can avoid the mountains. But in reality, any “central” location makes driving difficult, due to distance.

  4. torah Says:

    If the slate of presidential candidates sucks, the national convention will be a waste of time.

    If, however, you throw in a millionaire Lib/Republican (check out Eric Dondero’s site) candidacy or a prominent libertarian comedian, then the convention becomes entertaining and worth the time.

    Oh, and will L. Ron Hacker grace us with his presence at the LP ‘08 convention? That would be fun to see right there.

  5. paulie cannoli Says:

    We don’t need any more Lib/Republicans.

    I don’t care if they are millionaires.

    That’s what’s been wrong with the party from the beginning, and especially lately.

    What we need to do is put a stop to that nonsense once and for all and Let Freedom Grow by nominating Steve Kubby.

    http://www.kubby.com/

    http://blog.myspace.com/stevekubby

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/files/2006/12/kubbybrochure120506.pdf

    As for L. Ron Hacker – if he’s there, he’s there.

    I doubt it would make any difference.

    Denver’s as good a place as any.

  6. Chris Bennett Says:

    I’m orginally from Denver and I can’t wait to go back. It’s about the convention went back to the birthplace of the LP. It’s time to party!

  7. Robert Milnes Says:

    Paulie, Let Freedom Grow sounds a lot like New Way Forward to me. And are we equating freedom with pot? So, amber waves of hemp will bring us freedom & prosperity? When are we going to see a poll on whether Americans would vote for a president who is stoned 24/7? Agreed, a millionaire lib/rep would not be very inspiring. Better than very inhaling though.

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    Amber waves of weed.

  9. Chris Moore Says:

    Robert Milnes, you will NEVER receive the LP nomination for President of the United States, especially if you continue attacking another candidate on his VERY libertarian position on drug decriminalization.

    You have admitted that you suffer from extreme depression, and that you refuse to take medication for your problem. When are we going to see a poll on whether Americans would vote for a president who is depressed and off his medication 24/7? When are you actually planning on SHOWING UP for a campaign event? How many state conventions will you be attending? How much money have you raised?

  10. paulie cannoli Says:

    Let Freedom Grow is about way more than pot.

    It’s a whole philosophy of life. One that works.

    Plenty of Americans will vote for a president who is stoned 24/7, way more than vote fo the LP now not that Kubby is “stoned” at all.

    He is taking life-saving medication and is not the least bit impaired mentally or physically. Actually, he’s in great shape.

    Chris Moore is correct about Milnes.

  11. paulie cannoli Says:

    For better reading compregension there should be a comma or new sentence before “not that Kubby is “stoned” at all.” in post from 1:18 pm above.

  12. Chuck Bronson Says:

    I like Doug Stanhope myself. I was particularly wooed by his Hammer of Truth q & a. He comes around as a very down to earth guy. Doug is my first choice…but I’m also very fond of Kubby, Smith, Phillies, etc. Whoever wins the nomination will receive my support in the form of my vote and donations to their campaign.

  13. Jackcjackson Says:

    I have never touched the weed, don’t use any “’drugs”, and don’t drink anything other than water( I abstain from alcohol, soft drinks, coffee,everything). I would galdly vote for Kubby or any other “pro-pot” candidate.

    And I see no way having a candidate known for pot can hurt the LP. If anything it might bring more attention to have a candidate a litte more out there on one of the freedom issues.

    The time of Republicans who really hate taxes and really love guns,etc- has passed, hopefully for good.

  14. paulie cannoli Says:

    U_A

    Even people in the midwest have a hard time driving to Denver, with the mountains and all.

    Not really. If you’re coming in from I-70, for example, there’s not much in the way of mountains east of Denver. The elevation rise is gradual. Any mountains which would make driving more difficult are west of Denver.

    Not that that it is so horrible either, especially with modern interstates.

    It’s likely that more people fly, anyway.

    I think DIA is a hub – not sure if I remember that right.

  15. Phil Says:

    It’s a hub for United.

  16. Doug Craig Says:

    I like the three top candidates (Phillies ,Kubby and Smith) are great people and candidates.I myself is supporting Phillies.I believe is way ahead on the campaign team building. With the the team he has now (and he will add more) he can do things we have not done in the past. He will be way ahead in running TV ads and radio ads.He is set up to help local candidates and to grow the party. If any body would like Phillies Bumper stickers please call me 770-861-5855 or email me at hankreardan@yahoo.com
    Doug Craig Political director of Ga.

  17. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, Paulie, jcj, You guys are tripping. You are in a bubble, like bush. Let Freedom Grow is such a disgusting slogan, I can’t believe it. You think I’m criticizing K. bad? I am for drug decriminalization. So are, I’m confident, the rest of the candidates. That’s not the point. What philosophy of life, the hippies’? One that works? You are kidding, right? Yes, I have had depression all my life. But it is not “major” 24/7. My mind is always clear. The major symptom is fatigue. I am only one person, so activity is difficult. But have you noticed how many assistants, advisors, counselors, consultants etc. the president has? Anti-depressant medication is problematic, not a panacea. Chris, has Stephen Hawking been stopped by als? Slowed down yes, but not stopped, yet. That is my comparison. K. has terminal cancer. He is ill. He is an activist. etc. All very laudable & sympathetic. But, he made the quantum leap into presidential politics, a whole other thing. Let Freedom Grow is waving a middle finger at mainstream America. It’s ok if you don’t vote for me. Just vote for somebody who tries the progressive alliance strategy. Or you are & always will be losers in the American electoral & capitalist multi-million/billionaire republicrat system. Let’s do both polls. Let’s see whether stoned or depressed are forgivable to all voters, not just bubble headed libertarians.

  18. paulie cannoli Says:

    You are kidding, right?

    Why do you have a problem with it? It represent the virtues of laissez faire and progress.

    My mind is always clear.

    Your comments indicate otherwise.

    The major symptom is fatigue. I am only one person, so activity is difficult.

    We didn’t really need more reasons not to vote for you, we weren’t going to anyway.

    But have you noticed how many assistants, advisors, counselors, consultants etc. the president has?

    What good is that going to do you, since you won’t be president?

    Neither is Kubby, but at least he will make an energetic effort.

    You are going to make a lackadaisacal effort to get the LP nomination, which will consist mostly of taking potshots at candidates who have a much higher chance than you of getting the nomination.

    And that will be the end of that.

    K. has terminal cancer. He is ill.

    Incorrect. He’s had a long term stable condition for decades, is in great health, and receives more medical checkups than other candidates. He’s the least likely of any of them to develop unforeseen health problems.

    Like his medical marijuana use, the medical condition which makes it necessary will be an asset, not a liability.

    . Let Freedom Grow is waving a middle finger at mainstream America.

    Not at all. America was founded on the philosophy of letting freedom grow, and it worked great, to the extent we’ve lived up to it. Of course we have never lived up to it fully, but it still remains our ideal, and a great one at that.

    It’s ok if you don’t vote for me.

    Well, I wasn’t going to, but I’m glad you think it’s OK.

    Just vote for somebody who tries the progressive alliance strategy.

    That would be Kubby.

    By the way most Americans already support medical marijuana.

    Let freedom grow!

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    While I wil agree with the majority of you that “Let Freedom Grow” is a decent slogan for an LP Presidential Candidate. It will not be acceptable to alot of Independant/Republican/Democrat voters. It IS possible for the LP to pull away ALOT of “traditional party voters” in ‘08. But with a slogan like “Let Freedom Grow”, they will consider the LP a one-issue-party. I support Kubby, Phillies, Smith, Stanhope, or whomever else. And, in fact, I think Kubby is the best candidate. But I think the slogan should be changed.

  20. Chris Moore Says:

    The LP nominee for President in 2008 WILL NOT be President in 2009. If the LP nominee can excite 1% of the voters, then s/he will be the most successful LP candidate in history. Expecting anything more is delusion.

    Again Robert, what have you DONE? How do you plan to win the nomination? How many state conventions will you be attending? How much money have you raised?

  21. Chris Moore Says:

    “Chris, has Stephen Hawking been stopped by als?”

    There is a HUGE difference between Lou Gehrig’s disease and chronic depression. However, you’ve made my point for me. Kubby has a manageable medical condition that he treats with medicine. You suffer from chronic depression that you manage in your own way. What’s the difference?

    You claim you support legalization, yet you continually take pot shots (punny) at Kubby because he chooses to LIVE. Why should a Libertarian EVER consider you an option?

    You do not actively campaign. You have ZERO political experience. You’ve never run for elected office before. You have NO base of support and ZERO contributors. All you do is post disparaging comments on blogs about Steve Kubby—a man with a significant amount of political experience (for a Libertarian, at least), has run for elected office, announced his candidacy to a crowd of 50,000, and has proven fundraising abilities.

  22. Kn@ppster Says:

    Quoth Robert Milnes:

    “When are we going to see a poll on whether Americans would vote for a president who is stoned 24/7?”

    How many of them do you want? I admit the most prominent one (November, 1960) was somewhat less than objective since Daley had to dig up the graveyard vote to carry Illinois for the “stoned 24/7 candidate,” but that candidate was elected president, served until he was assassinated, and is generally regarded by the American mainstream, correctly or not, as one of the better US Presidents.

    Of course, JFK falsely denied being “stoned 24/7” even though he was, while Kubby is truthful in explaining that he’s not “stoned 24/7,” but those who paid/pay any attention at all probably did/probably will figure it out for themselves.

    In the meantime, if you continue to center your “campaign” around the lame Internet equivalent of “push polling” by continuing to throw around a falsehood about one of your opponents in lieu of actually doing anything substantial yourself, you’ll probably continue to be taken as seriously as you have been thus far … which is not seriously at all.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp
    Communications Directory
    Kubby for President

  23. paulie cannoli Says:

    Directory

    Funny typo. It’s like you’re a phone book :-)

  24. paulie cannoli Says:

    But with a slogan like “Let Freedom Grow”, they will consider the LP a one-issue-party.

    Only if that issue is freedom, which woud be substantially correct.

    Or are you, like the rather unfortunate Milnes, supposeing that “Freedom” is merely euphemism for “marijuana”?

  25. matt Says:

    I’m pro-legalization, interested in Kubby, and still not enthralled with “Let freedom grow”. Especially considering that the last presidential slogan was “lighting the fires of liberty”. Maybe it’d be nice to pick something that can’t be construed as a weed-smoking pun this time.

    That being said, if he’s the nominee, and that’s his slogan, I’ll be happy to put up his flier or pass out his pamphlets.

  26. Kn@ppster Says:

    I can see how it would be easy to identify “let freedom grow” with the marijuana and hemp issues, and I don’t know if that will be the “official campaign slogan” or not. To the best of my knowledge, right now it’s just a way that Steve has signed his letters and such for years.

    I have discussed the meaning of the phrase with Kubby, and while it seems to have originated with his involvement with marijuana issues, it means a lot more than that to him.

    Essentially, it’s the “flip side” of the “restoration” coin. On that side of the coin, we’re talking about getting back to worthwhile, existing institutions (such as the Bill of Rights). On the “let freedom grow” side, we’re talking about what the future will look like as freedom moves society forward in entirely new directions. After all, if we restore the Bill of Rights, we’re not all going to go back to wearing tricorner hats and wool stockings. We’re going to do different things with our freedom than people did in 1776 or 1789.

    Like most libertarians, Kubby regards the state as a constricting force that “takes the air out of the room” and fills up the spaces into which people would otherwise move and create. He wants innovation to spill back out into the sectors of the economy which have languished due to government meddling. He wants freedom of speech to burst out of the “zones” in which the last few administrations have penned it. When he talks about “letting freedom grow” he isn’t so much referring (metaphorically) to a marijuana plant blooming in someone’s house (although that’s certainly part of it), but more to a blade of grass forcing its way up through the sidewalk that’s been poured over it. Marijuana is a specific application, but the slogan is a general principle.

    Speaking of Kubby, he’s been without power, phone or Internet for several days now due to a storm (I heard from him yesterday by cell phone, but his battery began to flake out quickly).

    I already have permission to launch the new campaign web site on January 1st, and have been working on getting it ready, but I may delay the launch if he’s not “present” by then—I’m of the strong view that the candidate, since he will be held responsible for every comma on his site, should see and approve every comma on his site before it goes live.

    As another side note, we’ve tentatively secured facility, personnel, etc. for production of the first commercial. We hope to have that one available (following Phillies’ example of leaving off the “I approve this message” trailer so that any Libertarian candidate can use it) in January—in final, not concept, format.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp
    Communications Director (not Directory)
    Kubby for President

  27. matt Says:

    but more to a blade of grass forcing its way up through the sidewalk that’s been poured over it. Marijuana is a specific application, but the slogan is a general principle.
    ====================================
    The blade of grass DOES makes for a nice word picture, I guess.

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    Indeed. I’ll have to give Kubby my “Thought Provoking Image” Award.
    Still, most American’s will equate “Let Freedom Grow” with Marijuana. And while most Americans do want to legalize, they do not want to vote for a Presidential Candidate based on that lone principle.
    I am not suggesting Freedom is a euphamism for Marijuana, I am suggesting that it wil be easy for the Media to misconstrue it as such.

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brother bubbleheads. If I can easily be punny about pot, don’t you think the pond scum political hack opponents can & much worse? e.g. Haven’t you seen Jay Leno’s monologue? Or the other comedians? Also, you seem to make quantum leaps of illogic, like paraphrasingjust because one has a lot of medical checkups, one has less chance of developing unforseen illness. Doctors are not demi-gods. Medication is not necessarily panacea. No, K. is not running progressive alliance. That requires declaring for BOTH lib. & green nominations, like I have. & I welcome all to do so. See how easy THAT is. I got grilled by Greg Garret the other day. Yes there is a difference between als & depression. But the comparison holds & it is the closest I see. Depression most closely resembles paralysis. Whereas K. has oodles of energy which I feel to die for, it does him no good if he has a low threshold of possible votes. & he alienates most of America. No, the majority are not for marijuanna reform or NORML would be superfluous long ago. Colorado would have passed etc. Get real, guys. You are losers.

  30. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, I don’t believe the tabloid stuff like jfk was “stoned” i.e. drug induced euphoria/mind altering unless feeling pain go away counts as euphoria. & he didn’t bone Marilyn & the mafia/cia didn’t stuff her with poison suppositories. Highest probability: she died alone & lonely in her bedroom of accidental or suicidal drug overdose. & Ruby acted alone too, the jerk. Oswald, on the other hand, may very well have been a patsy, just like he said. Can we try some more up to date attempts to get some straight answers? Will the American voters vote for stoned or depressed 24/7 or not?

  31. paulie cannoli Says:

    “Still, most American’s will equate “Let Freedom Grow” with Marijuana. ”

    Some will, most of those, that will be a good thing.

    But most Americans are still pro-freedom in one way or another and in favor of having more of it (IE letting it grow), whatever that freedom means to them. That’s the great thing about freedom – for one person, it’s the freedom to shoot guns and ride motorcycles. For another, it’s starting a business. For someone else, it’s being a swinger (Hi Eric). For someone, it’s the freedom to practice their religion; and for another person it’s the freedom not to have one.

    Freedom is a great thing, and many people still recognize that. Many people also feel like freedom is getting stifled by government, by crony capitalist corporations, and/or by professional wanna-nannies.

    People will equate freedom with whatever they want to be free to do, and enough of them will be for that to vote for it, or at least learn something while they are thinking about it.

    If freedom is a good thing, why not let it grow?

    When Aaron Russo said “All your freedoms, all the time” I didn’t hear too many people assume it meant “all your pot, all the time.”

    If I can easily be punny about pot, don’t you think the pond scum political hack opponents can & much worse? e.g. Haven’t you seen Jay Leno’s monologue? Or the other comedians?

    So what – let them joke. Guess what. If it causes some of their fans to google Kubby, some of them will discover that he is a serious candidate with serious positions on a range of issues. Some of them will become supporters and help spread the word. If Kubby gets joked on on Leno I’m sure his feelings won’t be hurt too much, he’ll be too busy dealing with all the serious media that will follow the increased name recognition.

    Hey – if Badnarik or Harry Browne or Andre Marrou were the subject of Jay Leno and co. monologues, I would have been HAPPY!

    They might even have Kubby on as a guest. I could see him on the John Stewart show, for example. Incidentally, Stewart recently called himself a libertarian.

    Yes, a majority IS for medical marijuana.

    A sizeable GROWING minority is for recreational legalization.

    We’re not a majority yet, but our numbers are GROWING every year.

    Colorado and Nevada both got over 40%.

    Has an LP candidate for President ever come close to that? No? Well then don’t worry about what a majority is for.

    Let freedom grow!

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    How is it K. is NOT stoned 24/7? Has he built up a tolerance?

  33. paulie cannoli Says:

    Uh….yeah….so?

    Have you developed zero tolerance?

    Try to think of something positive to do to advance the cause of freedom through your campaign.

    If you think of it, do it.

  34. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. Milnes, while you are obviously passionately pursueing libertarian issues in government, you are also attacking your fellow Libertarians.
    In the spirit of Freedom, why don’t you attack our mutual enemies (Big Statists) as opposed to your obvious allies (Kubby).

  35. Kn@ppster Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “No, K. is not running progressive alliance. That requires declaring for BOTH lib. & green nominations, like I have. & I welcome all to do so.”

    Could you jog my memory a little, and remind me just who it was that died, made you god and empowered you to exclusively define “progressive alliance?”

    I don’t see how your attempt to rally Greens and Libertarians to support anti-progressive policies like perpetual war, the border wall and friggin’ eugenics magically becomes “progressive alliance” just because you’ve declared for—but declined to actually run for—the nominations of both parties.

    Conversely, I don’t see how Kubby’s emphasis on areas where Greens and Libertarians generally agree or should agree—bringing the troops home, letting the huddled masses breathe free, ending the drug war, etc.—is any less “progressive alliance” just because he’s only declared for one party’s nomination.

    A “progressive alliance” isn’t going to just magically happen. It starts with a candidate laying the policy and campaign groundwork to make it possible. Bringing the two parties in question together in any real way comes after the grounds for doing so are established. Kubby may or may not be the candidate who can create such a potential … but I’d bet money that you, running around with two words, “progressive alliance,” and a bundle of positions that both parties necessary to such an alliance find repugnant, are not.

    “No, the majority are not for marijuanna reform or NORML would be superfluous long ago. Colorado would have passed etc.”

    Amendment 44 carried 40%+ of the vote in Colorado despite more than half a century of indoctrination against doing so and likely many millions of dollars in illegal US federal government expenditures to persuade them not to do so. Ditto for Nevada. In at least ten municipalities last month, the voters instructed their police forces to essentially ignore marijuana. And medical marijuana, in the last ten years, has passed in more than 20% of US states. The fact is that when the pro-reform side gets its word out well, it garners majority support most of the time, even given the drastic disproportion of money and media allied against it. You are flat 180 degrees wrong on that issue.

    “Tom, I don’t believe the tabloid stuff like jfk was ‘stoned’ i.e. drug induced euphoria/mind altering …”

    Then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Awhile back, I gave you a list of the medications with known psychotic side effects that he used throughout his presidency. He was a constant user of several drugs that are far more psychoactive, and far more negatively so, than marijuana. That’s just a plain simple fact, and it will remain a fact whether you find the fact that it’s a fact congenial to your agenda or not.

    “How is it K. is NOT stoned 24/7? Has he built up a tolerance?”

    Not having known him before he started using marijuana, I have no idea. What I do know is that I speak with him frequently, email with him more frequently, have met him, have heard him speak, have read his books … and have never seen any symptom that he is ever, let alone 24/7, any less than 100% lucid. “Stoned” implies a particular mental state which I have simply never observed on his part.

    I’ve also used marijuana a few times myself. Most times, it seemed to have no effect on me at all. When it did, the effect was mild, and that evaluation seems in reasonable accord with what I’ve read about the substance.

    As far as I can tell, there’s just no comparison between Kubby’s use of a benign substance with mild euphoric effects and the cocktail of psychosis-producing drugs that JFK lived on 24/7, or the psychosis-producing Halcion that both Nixon and Bush were alleged by close observers to have used frequently during their presidencies, or for that matter the gallon of bourbon that James Buchanan allegedly drank each day as president, or the mercury nostrum that Lincoln took for his depression.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  36. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    I have been active in the mmj movement for some years, and no I do not use it. However, I have met very few people actively using it who become “stoned”. Fact of the matter is in most cases I would not hesitate to have one, or more of them drive a car with me as a passenger.

    And BTW Nixon love a pitcher of martinis in the afternoon. Now that could be dangerous. Especially with his finger on the button.

  37. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    Mr. Milnes you are not going to get many votes with comments like this: “You are losers”.
    M.H.W.

  38. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, you are a great spin meister. So I have learned to be skeptical when you start using the f___ word. (fact, ha, ha!) My guess is you haven’t been stoned. Initially, it usually takes a several exposures & when it happens…oh, wow, man, like wow! depending on the thc level. Kind of like asking a woman if she has ever had an orgasm. If she says, Oh, yes. It isn’t all that! You know she hasn’t! When K. tries to form a hybrid ticket & tries to get ALL lib & green votes for either a green or lib on every ballot, then progressive alliance. So is he looking for a green woman for vp? It ain’t easy; kind of like herding cats. You guys are stubborn;obstinate. So, lose, baby lose. MHW, so why is it illegal to drive dui/dwi? Cops are party poopers? Sounds to me like it gets so used that the user gets used to it. & why do you guys talk about finger on the button so much? There is a whole protocol involved in that. Be sure there are a lot of people watching that button. & they are packing.

  39. Kn@ppster Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “My guess is you haven’t been stoned. Initially, it usually takes a several exposures & when it happens…oh, wow, man, like wow!”

    My drug of preference happens to be measured in micrograms, so don’t tell even try to tell me about “oh, wow, man, like wow.”

    Your guess is wrong. I’ve smoked marijuana, and I inhaled, and it’s had an effect. I’ve had one “oh, wow, man” session out of perhaps ten uses of the stuff, and it wasn’t especially earthshaking. I wouldn’t describe the effect as debilitating or deleterious—and so far as I can tell, studies bear my estimate out. Both the UK and Canadian governments commissioned studies on the effect of marijuana and driving, then shelved those studies when they came back with the report that drivers “under the influence of marijuana” are safer than “sober” drivers.

    At present, I am only a “political” marijuana smoker. If I’m at a pro-legalization rally and the cops are lurking around, I’ll take a “solidarity toke.”

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  40. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, sounds like you got beat or drew on a pin. Try a blunt of Maui Wowie. A person who is really stoned can barely sit & say oh wow. Let alone drive. The UK & Canadian governments must have used potting soil, not pot. Haven’t you ever heard of the munchies or a laughing jag? What about the stereotypical procrastination? & I’ve HEARD that good hash causes hallucination. If that ain’t mind altering, I don’t know what is.

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    Um. If by “Good hash” you mean “Laced marijuana”
    Then yes, it will cause hallucination.

    Also, the vast majority of people who get stoned can stand up fine, but are in fact subject to “the munchies” and a laughing jag. Munchies,however, will motivate them to go out and buy some chips. There ya go. Marijuana will help to drive our economy. Another pro. =)

  42. matt Says:

    That’s where the marijuana problem is, IMHO. With the laced stuff. That really is dangerous and hazardous to your health. If a US president ever launches a national adress announcing his desire to legalize recreational use, he ought to crusade a little bit against that laced stuff. I’d like my freedom without heroin and PCP, thanks. I bet most of what you’re talking about Robert, if based in fact at all, is laced marijuana.

  43. Nigel Watt Says:

    On topic:

    I had kind of wished it would be in Dallas/Ft Worth, since the TXLP has done well and DFW is the hub for the nation’s largest airline (plus which I live in the Metroplex), but Denver isn’t so bad. I might even be able to drive if I can finish my exams soon enough.

    As for marijuana:
    I support complete legalization of everything, certainly including marijuana. That said, I’m for Phillies in this race. He supports an end to the War on Drugs as much as the next principled Libertarian, but he’s running on issues average Americans care about: the national debt, the war in Iraq, education. That’s what voters care about.

    Even the “youth vote”, which as Kinky Friedman showed cannot be counted on to win an election, or even come close, will not automatically unite behind a pro-weed campaign. That’s because we can get it whenever we want, just like any other drug. (I’m a freshman in college. I know.)

    Phillies intends to increase the constituency of the LP without sacrificing principle, and that’s why he’s got my vote.

  44. Robert Milnes Says:

    Well I heard good hash or senseimilla can cause such an intense high as to induce hallucination. Laced was not in that but yes, that is a problem. Not to mention U.S. govt. program of paraquat. I don’t know if that’s still going on.

  45. Timothy West Says:

    I’d like to say I hope every one here has a great 2007.

  46. Chris Moore Says:

    Robert, are you trying to score some good weed or are you running for president?

    Again, how many state conventions do you plan to attend? Are you planning on attending the national convention of both the LP and GP? What other campaign events do you have planned? How much money have you raised?

  47. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel, critical of the youth vote?

  48. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, just putting it out there that I know the difference between pot & hemp. Care to discuss string theory? But, to try to answer some of your questions…No, I’m not trying to score some good weed. $00.00. I might point out that the $5000 mark includes the infusion of one’s own money. I have made some committments re: cable tv, lp state conventions etc. Yes, I’ll attend both lp & green conventions. Hopefully I’ll have some large, heavily armed Native American & women guards with me. But Chris, I’ve tried to explain. I’m jammed up with a personal problem involving the aftermath of the house fire & my dad being not well. Now a friend has been in a car accident. & I don’t feel well, more or less, EVERY DAY. So, can you give me a break?

  49. paulie cannoli Says:

    Yeah, pot can make you stoned, and it can make some people (like me) dehabilitated.

    So I don’t use it. Duh!

    Your mileage may vary – like everything else.

    For someone who is using it on a daily basis as medication, of course they no longer stoned.

    Duh!

    So what?

    Whereas having more regular checkups, due to a long term stable condition, and being in great shape otherwise does not guarantee no unforeseen health problems, it makes them less likely than any ‘normal, healthy’ average person.

    Again, it’s an asset.

    Not that has anything to do with Kubby, but I used to smoke the “laced stuff” on purpose quite a lot when I was a teenager. It’s fun, but, I don’t recommend it. It tends to make you do stuff like walk up to someone, punch them in the face hard enough to bleed, and laugh.

    I’m not for Milnes of course, but I’m not for Phillies either. One of the reasons why is that
    Phillies takes a Eurocentric anti-immigration position and so far has refused to elaborate
    . I happen to think that, like ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of civil liberties in America in the
    name of the war on terror, and like ending our long national nightmare of drug prohibition,
    freedom of immigration is a very important issue
    .

    It certainly is a big issue in the general (non-libertarian) public debate right now. I would like the Libertarian nominee to take a libertarian position on this issue.


    More about the immigration issue here
    .

    Different voters care about different things. Ending prohibition may not be
    the top concern of most voters, but we are not going to get a majority vote anyway.

    We should concentrate on issues which have a substantial niche market following and get no respect from the major parties: anti-war, pro-immigrant and pro-legalization are good examples.

    We still won’t win the election, no matter what we do, but we will expand
    our base of voters, supporters, activists, and members in a refreshing new direction. No, we won’t win the whole youth vote or the whole immigrant vote. Just enough to make us a bigger and better party.

    And that’s the way to….

    Let Freedom Grow!

    I’d like to say I hope every one here has a great 2007.

    Likewise, and hopefully we’ll all be around and see each other in 2008.
    Maybe in Denver.

  50. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Houston’s a hub for Continental, last I flew. They strike a good deal too.

    I’m fond of something like…
    ...cuz you know what’s good for you!...
    ...as a slogan. Or something else with no words exceeding four letters.

    I just wanna tell ya all, I do not care one lick what you’re on! Keep doin what yer doin, merry gentlemen, and happy new year!

  51. paulie cannoli Says:

    Yeah, pot can make you stoned, and it can make some people (like me) dehabilitated.

    So I don’t use it. Duh!

    Your mileage may vary – like everything else.

    For someone who is using it on a daily basis as medication, of course they no longer stoned.

    Duh!

    So what?

    Whereas having more regular checkups, due to a long term stable condition, and being in great shape otherwise does not guarantee no unforeseen health problems, it makes them less likely than any ‘normal, healthy’ average person.

    Again, it’s an asset.

    Not that has anything to do with Kubby, but I used to smoke the “laced stuff” on purpose quite a lot when I was a teenager. It’s fun, but, I don’t recommend it. It tends to make you do stuff like walk up to someone, punch them in the face hard enough to bleed, and laugh.

    I’m not for Milnes of course, but I’m not for Phillies either. One of the reasons why is that
    Phillies takes a Eurocentric anti-immigration position and so far has refused to elaborate
    . I happen to think that, like ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of civil liberties in America in the
    name of the war on terror, and like ending our long national nightmare of drug prohibition,
    freedom of immigration is a very important issue
    .

    It certainly is a big issue in the general (non-libertarian) public debate right now. I would like the Libertarian nominee to take a libertarian position on this issue.


    More about the immigration issue here
    .

    Different voters care about different things. Ending prohibition may not be
    the top concern of most voters, but we are not going to get a majority vote anyway.

    We should concentrate on issues which have a substantial niche market following and get no respect from the major parties: anti-war, pro-immigrant and pro-legalization are good examples.

    We still won’t win the election, no matter what we do, but we will expand
    our base of voters, supporters, activists, and members in a refreshing new direction. No, we won’t win the whole youth vote or the whole immigrant vote. Just enough to make us a bigger and better party.

    And that’s the way to….

    Let Freedom Grow!

    I’d like to say I hope every one here has a great 2007.

    Likewise, and hopefully we’ll all be around and see each other in 2008.
    Maybe in Denver.

  52. Chris Moore Says:

    “So, can you give me a break?”

    You began all of this by attacking Kubby. Besides, it seems like you had little trouble finally answering my questions, which were fairly easy questions to answer.

    You are running for the LP nomination for President of the United States. No. You do not get a break. Neither does George Phillies or Steve Kubby. Get over it, or get out of the race.

  53. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, sorry if my pace is turtle-like. Not quick enough for you. What fun choices I have here: Either stick my turtle neck out for a bunch of losers & if I’m LUCKY, not come away even further in debt than I already am like Bad’n or Gary Nolan. OR try to look out for my sick father & my burned, stolen house & my broke & depressed self & my friend who just got into a car accident 7 asked me repeatedly for help & offers a possible fairly lucrative but labor intensive business venture? Yes, I began this loop by attacking K.’s lame slogan. The double entendre or possibly misconstrued interpretation is too negative. Like, as mentioned “lighting the fires of liberty.” Come on. Ever heard “burn, baby, burn?” I believe K.’s candidacy is absurd because his use of mmj immediately forfeits way too many votes + it further stereotypes & stigmatizes the lp as the pot/party party. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think so.

  54. Nigel Watt Says:

    Robert, I’m not critical of the youth vote, I’m part of it and I understand it better than you do.

    Paulie: Phillies’s immigration position is not “Eurocentric”, it’s moderate. Considering that if by some miracle he were to be elected President (as opposed to getting 30 or 40 electoral votes, which I think is a great goal, as well as get many lower-level Libertarians elected), it would allow for the Libertarian congress that would presumably be elected under him to allow freedom of immigration. But open borders would be disastrous if free handouts aren’t ended.

  55. Andy Says:

    “We should concentrate on issues which have a substantial niche market following and get no respect from the major parties: anti-war, pro-immigrant and pro-legalization are good examples.”

    The average American doesn’t give a flying fuck about more immigrants coming into the country.

  56. Andy Says:

    “Could It Be Just A Coincidence That . . .

    The creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is EXACTLY what was planned by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as noted in their 47 page FINAL Report, dated May 2005. The report was published just three months after the WACO, Texas meeting between the three heads of state. How were they able to so quickly issue a FINAL report when the concept had just been officially announced? The answer is that there were many preceding ‘blueprints’ by the CFR detailing ‘how to’ create the NAU by using NAFTA ‘on steroids’ as the basis for the SPP. In particular, the CFR’s Dr. Robert A. Pastor ‘shopped’ the concept around in books, monographs, speeches before the Trilateral Commission, and by providing ‘expert testimony before Canada’s Parliament and the US Congress.(72)

    For YEARS the CFR’s had been calling for the erasure of our borders. Dr. Pastor, a CFR task force Vice-Chair, had been trumpeting the concept , just about everywhere it mattered, working hard to achieve the CFR’s stated goals. All the while ‘We the People’ were ‘left out of the loop’ until Lou Dobbs exposed the CFR’s plans. Please watch the video tape of Pastor’s testimony before Congress when he announced that our borders are to be eliminated by 2010. See Pastor’s testimony and Lou Dobbs reaction to it here.(73)

    The CFR and hundreds its of members have infiltrated our government at all levels . . . the legislative, the executive, the courts, and the military. They are the driving force and facilitators behind the CFR’s publicly stated position that says the following: “An annual summit of North American leaders would do more to carry out our [CFR’s] overall goal of creating a North American Community than virtually any of the report’s other recommendations. As we have seen with the annual Group of Seven/Eight (G-7/8) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summits, regular meetings of leaders not only help promote a sense of community and shared objectives, but channel the various bureaucracies each year to work on those common objectives.”(72)

    “Whether on matters of security, education, or economic integration and development, annual summits will drive a process that will hasten the goals that we outline in our report. More to the point, an annual summit can be announced and implemented right away, giving tangible impetus to the good beginning made at the March 2005 summit and to the goals we promote here.”(72) Get the picture?

    The CFR had reason to rejoice because: “At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.”(72)

    Although there are those who would deny there is ANY connection between the CFR and the North American Union, they are simply in severe denial, dupes or part of the cabal and working to cover up the truth.

    The CFR’s Dr. Robert Pastor Envisions the Future of the NAU . . .

    You will need to re-read the following several times to grasp the enormity of what Pastor and the CFR has proposed for America. It will TAKE YOUR BREATH AWAY!

    “Pastor told the Trilateral Commission in 2002 that the North American Union needed to implement a series of political proposals which would have authority over the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, Pastor called for the creation of North American passports and a North American Customs and Immigrations, which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security. A North American Parliamentary Group would oversee the U.S. Congress. A Permanent Court on Trade and Investment would resolve disputes within NAFTA, exerting final authority over the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court. A North American Commission would ‘develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure’.”(74)

    View the following video and see one of the Trilateral Commission’s most famous stalwarts playing sycophant to David Rockefeller in order to promote the planned final ‘nail in America’s coffin’ called the FTAA the Free Trade Area of the Americas: (75)

    Dick Cheney & David Rockefeller & FTAA Meeting
    02:48”

  57. Andy Says:

    The above post was copied from an article that I found on this web site.

    www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com

    Click the link and check out the pictures from the immigration marches. Notice the one with the sign that says “Socialism and Liberation.” There’s an oxymoron.

    Anyone who doesn’t see the danger in the North American Union is a naive fool.

  58. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel, How do you know you understand the youth vote better than I do? Don’t you see how juvenile that statement is? Maybe your logic goes-anybody older than me understands life less than I do? Or-he’s not one of us so doesn’t understand us as well as we do? Man, I guess I was young once. But try not to hold that against me, ok?

  59. Chris Moore Says:

    “Either stick my turtle neck out for a bunch of losers & if I’m LUCKY, not come away even further in debt than I already am like Bad’n or Gary Nolan. OR try to look out for my sick father & my burned, stolen house & my broke & depressed self & my friend who just got into a car accident 7 asked me repeatedly for help & offers a possible fairly lucrative but labor intensive business venture?”

    I suggest you choose the latter.

  60. paulie cannoli Says:

    Nigel

    Phillies’s immigration position is not “Eurocentric”, it’s moderate.

    It’s most certainly Eurocentric. Click on the link that I provided for proof.

    We’re unlikely to get any electoral votes, no matter who we nominate.

    It’s just a matter of who we’ll get to like the LP, who we’ll get to join the LP, and who we’ll alienate further in the course of the campaign.

    Andy

    The average American doesn’t give a flying fuck about more immigrants coming into the country.

    That’s why I said niche market. The average American doesn’t give a fuck about legalization, either.

    But a lot of people do. We can give them someone to vote for.

    A lot of people care about immigration freedom. The major parties don’t.

    We can give them someone to vote for.

    Radical third party politics is not about the Average American. It’s about the many non-average Americans who are not being served by the mainstream parties.

  61. paulie cannoli Says:

    . But open borders would be disastrous if free handouts aren’t ended.

    That is like saying “drug legalization would be disastrous if free handouts aren’t ended.”

    Or “complete freedom to keep and bear arms would be disastrous if drugs are not first legalized”.

    You can make many such arguments.

    We need all our freedoms, all the time.

    And we need to let them grow!

  62. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, any particular reason?

  63. Nigel Watt Says:

    Robert: Maybe you understand the youth vote of whenever you were part of it.

    Paulie: His justification could be better, I’ll grant. The policy itself is not, however, Eurocentric.

    I’m confused why you want a political party to go for a “niche market”. This is about winning, about installing principled Libertarians into office, not about making .1% of the country like whoever we nominate. This is about making 100% of the country take our guy seriously and at least 40% like him – without sacrificing principle, which I don’t think Phillies’s immigration position does.

  64. paulie cannoli Says:

    Sorry, Nigel.

    Phillies is not going to be taken seriously by 100% of the country, and he is not going to be our next president.

    Neither is Kubby.

    Somewhere between that and 0.1% or even 1% is a lot of territory to cover.

    You can’t be all things to all people, but you can serve a big chunk of the population who care strongly about certain issues, and are not being served by the major parties.

    Kubby understands this, and will do this more effectively than Phillies.

    As for being liked….if you even get 40% of the LP to like Phillies, you will have achieved a victory of sorts.

    Does Phillies’ immigration position violate libertarian principle? See

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/lpa-repost-great-wall-of-america/

    And links contained therein.

    BTW got your wordpress account yet? If not, comment on one of my posts and I’ll shoot one your way.

    happy new year….

  65. Timothy West Says:

    paulie,

    still feeling shitty. last chemo tonite. I wont be able to carry on here for a while. see you then.

  66. David Aitken Says:

    All this talk about the marijuana vote reminds me of the Colorado gubernatorial race in 2002. Our candidate, who is a smart and well-spoken guy, claimed he was going to get lots of votes from the pot smokers. Didn’t happen. He ran a good campaign, spoke to lots of people, was articulate, spent $5k, got a fair amount of media, yada, yada, yada, and got the usual 1 percent of the vote.

  67. Kn@ppster Says:

    David,

    Some are under the misimpression (or, possibly, actively working to create the false perception) that Kubby is just going after “the marijuana vote.” That’s not the case.

    One goal of his campaign is to bring the “drug reform constituency” more firmly under the Libertarian umbrella. To the extent that may be possible, it would be worthwhile. There are a lot of committed activists in that constituency, and as the tide on that issue continues to turn in our favor as it’s been doing for the last decade, those activists will be able to deliver continually more support and more votes to the party they identify with.

    And, of the candidates for the 2008 LP nomination, Kubby is fairly obviously the one with the most name recognition and activist cred with that constituency.

    But, keep in mind … Steve Kubby has never just been “the marijuana guy.” One line that you’ll have heard fairly frequently from him when he’s talking about that issue with people who care about it is “this is no more about marijuana than the Boston Tea Party was about tea.” He hasn’t just been talking up marijuana legalization to marijuana legalization supporters, he’s been talking up freedom in general to them, and he will continue to do so.

    Yes, as he begins to attract more public attention as a candidate, the natural focus will be on his work on the marijuana issue. That’s how candidacies work—what you’ve done or stood for is the primary focus of coverage at least at first. And there’s no point in running from it. He is who he is because of what he’s done.

    BUT —while he cares deeply about that issue and won’t be soft-peddling it by any means, he’s not going to just spend two years running around America yelling “marijuana, medical marijuana, marijuana, marijuana.” He’s been talking, and will continue to talk, about all the issues. The marijuana issue is the “foot in the door” that gets some attention and then allows him to use that attention to talk about other issues as well.

    The “Kubby is a single issue candidate” people are barking up the wrong tree. Which is better—a candidate who’s known for something, even one thing, as long as it’s a) positive and b) political, or a candidate who’s just not known at all? In most cases, I’d say the former makes more sense.

    Kubby is marginally better known than his serious opponents, unless Stanhope actually jumps in (and Stanhope has negatives of his own connected with his larger measure of fame). I won’t try to spin Kubby into a “celebrity,” of course (I didn’t try to spin Russo into one as his communications director either, btw), but he does have some advantages of name recognition, especially within the political realm and more especially within certain niches of that realm versus, say, George Phillies or Christine Smith. The fact that what he’s known for is a political issue that’s gaining increasing support is not, in my opinion, a negative.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  68. Andy Says:

    “That’s why I said niche market. The average American doesn’t give a fuck about legalization, either.”

    Not true. There are WAY more people who care about drug legalization (even if it is just medical marijuana) than who want more immigration.

    When most people hear a candidate who wants more immigration they are going to think, “Oh shit, this guy wants more traffic jams, more gang bangers, more welfare recipients, and more people who can’t take my order at McDonald’s because they can’t speak the freakin’ language. Screw that!”

  69. Andy Says:

    “All this talk about the marijuana vote reminds me of the Colorado gubernatorial race in 2002. Our candidate, who is a smart and well-spoken guy, claimed he was going to get lots of votes from the pot smokers. Didn’t happen. He ran a good campaign, spoke to lots of people, was articulate, spent $5k, got a fair amount of media, yada, yada, yada, and got the usual 1 percent of the vote.”

    $5K is NOTHING in a gubernatorial race.

  70. Andy Says:

    “A lot of people care about immigration freedom. The major parties don’t.”

    Bullshit. It is the major parties that are pushing mass immigration and who are pushing the North American Union. Follow their actions not their words.

    Anyone who really believes that the major parties are not in favor of mass immigration is a NAIVE FOOL.

  71. Andy Says:

    “. But open borders would be disastrous if free handouts aren’t ended.

    That is like saying “drug legalization would be disastrous if free handouts aren’t ended.”

    Or “complete freedom to keep and bear arms would be disastrous if drugs are not first legalized”.

    You can make many such arguments.

    We need all our freedoms, all the time.

    And we need to let them grow!”

    I’m completely opposed to Social Security but I also believe that it would be disasterous to completely halt the program at once because of all of the older people who are dependent on the program. So it would be necessary to keep Social Security payments going to older Americans either through taxes or the sale of government assets.

    We can’t wipe out government over night. Cutting off Social Security overnight would be a disaster, just as opening the flood gates to mass immigration would be (is) a disaster.

  72. Andy Says:

    “Does Phillies’ immigration position violate libertarian principle? See

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/lpa-repost-great-wall-of-america/”

    Bush’s “wall” has already be exposed as a FRAUD. Bush is pro-mass immigration and pro-North American Union. If you want mass immigration you might as well vote for Bush or whoever the Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate turns out to be because they will continue the globalist agenda for erasing the borders and creating the North American Union.

  73. Andy Says:

    What is Kubby’s stance on the North American Union? Does he plan to talk about it or is he going to pretend like the plan doesn’t exsist?

  74. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel, no. Looking back on it I was typical. I thought I knew pretty much all I needed to. Actually, I didn’t know much about anything.

  75. paulie cannoli Says:

    Andy

    What is Kubby’s stance on the North American Union? Does he plan to talk about it or is he going to pretend like the plan doesn’t exsist?

    No idea. Maybe Knapp knows. Maybe not. Perhaps you can ask Kubby directly. If he does not answer you it is probably because he’s busy.

    If you want mass immigration you might as well vote for Bush or whoever the Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate turns out to be because they will continue the globalist agenda for erasing the borders and creating the North American Union.

    I do want freedom of immigration unimpeded by the state. Whether it will be massive or not will be up to individual property owners – i.e., it will depend on the availability of jobs, mostly.

    Despite what you think, most people don’t go to the hassle of moving to a foreign country so they can end up on welfare. It’s true that some do, but the percentage that are productive is higher than the percentage of native born Americans who are productive. A larger percentage of immigrants work, and a larger percentage work hard, than of those born in America. Of the immigrants who end up using welfare, they don’t tend to stay on it for a long time, generally. Of course, as with everything, there are exceptions.

    Ideally, I want massive immigration, so long as it is not driven by coercion. That is because a country that is a good place to come to, with a vibrant economy and lots of social freedom, is the type of place that attracts immigrants, and causes masses of them to come over. On the other hand, a country that sucks has massive amounts of people trying to leave it, and sometimes will take violent measures to keep people from leaving, thus making that whole country technically one big jail.

    Did I mention that starting this month, there will be no country on earth that you can go to, including Canada or Mexico, without a passport issued by the US regime? That means you can no longer legally leave the country without permission from the government.

    This may not seem like a big deal right now; you might think that they will issue a passport to just about anyone, and that the wall will be used only to keep people from coming in (or, in your case you don’t think it will be used either to keep people from coming in or out).

    But I have a sneaky suspicion that, sooner than most Americans think possible, there will be a lot of people wanting to leave this country, and the regime will be taking violent and extreme measures to keep them from being able to.

    As you already know, I do want to erase the borders, although I’m speaking for myself – officially, I’m sure any serious candidate for office would leave a border in place, even if it will be largely unenforced. IE, we’re not actually going to run for office on a pure anarchist platform, I don’t think.

    However, I’m not in favor of global government. I’m in favor of decentralization and decrease in government in all aspects at all levels, including immigration control enforcement.

    Using the argument that a sinister government cabal is behind immigration to this country and that therefore “we” (meaning the regime, or volunteers acting on its behalf) should crack down on immigration – enforcing a dubious unclear collective part-title to all property in this part of North America – is like saying that the “government is bringing in the (illegal) drugs” and therefore we should crack down on drugs.

    Sure, you can get around this problem by saying that volunteer neighborhood patrols rather than regime police should be cracking down on drugs, beating up dealers and users, and you can even claim that “most of the people of this neighborhood don’t want drugs here.”

    But the fact is that if you do so, you are violating the individual rights of people to engage in commerce, and to use their own property as they see fit, including their own bodies.

    Similarly, if you crack down on immigration, even with your volunteer militia, you are enforcing a collective property title which you do not actually have and violating real personal property rights in the process.

    The immigration favored by Bush and his gang is no more free than the “free trade” of the WTO, NAFTA, etc. It is managed immigration, shepherded by fear and intimidation into indentured servitude to corporate
    regime partners. And opposition to this managed form of immigration should not take the form of immigration prohibitionism, any more than opposition to globally managed trade can only – or should – come in the form of tariffs, import quotas, or protectionism.

    By the way, the link I provided about the border wall contains several links within my post on the website. Have you read them? I think they go to the heart of understanding the issue.

    For example:

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/03/22/freedom_is

    and

    http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/07/04/
    rothbardians-cannot-consistently-support-increased-enforcement
    ofimmigration-restrictions/

    and there are a few more.

  76. paulie cannoli Says:

    Last link does not work here, but if you go to my post referenced above it does work there.

  77. paulie cannoli Says:

    I’m completely opposed to Social Security but I also believe that it would be disasterous to completely halt the program at once because of all of the older people who are dependent on the program. So it would be necessary to keep Social Security payments going to older Americans either through taxes or the sale of government assets.

    Hmmmm. Maybe we can’t wipe out all those government jobs either, because a lot of people rely on them.

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/regime-workers/

    We can’t wipe out government over night. Cutting off Social Security overnight would be a disaster, just as opening the flood gates to mass immigration would be (is) a disaster.

    Paul) There might be some validity to your argument that the transition should be gradual. It would be nice if we could phase out government and allow people time to adjust, as there is bound to be some chaos and suffering in the tarnsition.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to be possible. Government is both like a malignant form of cancer and a habit-forming, addictive drug. If allowed to continue, it will kill the patient. Once you get in power, the tendency will always be to hang on to it – “oh yeah, we’ll phase it out, but it’s going to be slower than we thought” – all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others – and eventually you have the pigs walking upright. (Animal Farm, Orwell).

    So, I don’t really have high hopes for an orderly, phased dismantling of regime rule. It’s true that Rome was not built in a day, but it was sacked in a day.

    Can pain and suffering from its demolishment be avoided? Probably not, but I think in the long run it will spare us far greater pain and suffering.

    But, even if we are to grant the argument that we should disengage from big government slowly and carefully, does that mean maintaining or increasing some aspects of government in the meantime, or making them permanent?

    Do we say that Social Security should be preserved forever, or made into an even bigger program?

    Do we say that we should round up all the guns – until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?

    Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?

    Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% – until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.

    But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!

    Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.

    Actually, I think they’re way off base.

    And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on emploers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”

    Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained.

    I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”

    Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”

  78. paulie cannoli Says:

    Not true. There are WAY more people who care about drug legalization (even if it is just medical marijuana) than who want more immigration.

    I disagree. Lots of people want more immigration.

    http://reason.com/news/show/116867.html

    “Nativism Loses

    Arizona voters reject Dobbsian Republicans.

    Shikha Dalmia | November 22, 2006
    The GOP’s anti-immigration agenda was a big political loser in the midterm election. But by appointing Florida Senator Mel Martinez – a Cuban American who staunchly supports more liberal immigration policies – as the chair of the Republican National Committee, President Bush might have grasped that beating up on illegals may never again be a political winner for the GOP.”

    “. Of the 15 competitive gubernatorial and congressional races in which immigration was an issue, the GOP lost 13 – three of them in Arizona.”

    All the people employing immigrants, or wanting to employ immigrants, care about this issue.

    All the people married to or dating immigrants, or being prevented from being able to by the government, care about this issue.

    Folks in towns like this one care about this issue.

    http://reason.com/news/show/36817.html

    The economy of some towns is being destroyed by the roundups and deportations.

    There are lots of people who have already immigrated, and in many cases become citizens. They may have relatives they would like to be able to bring here. You don’t suppose they care about this issue, do you?

    nah, couldn’t be….

    Now, it is in fact true that there are some immigrants who want to pull up the ladder behind them now that they are here.

    But, just to take one example – there are of course many different immigrant groups – Latinos are the largest and fastest growing minority group in America, and they are increasingly becoming more wealthy and more likely to vote.

    When we were in Denver, I remember the newspaper there reporting that
    a nationwide survey of Latinos found that they consider immigration to be a leading issue; AND an overwhelming majority of them want to liberalize immigration laws; oh yeah one other AND… a large majority of them are not satisfied with either the Democrats or Republicans position on the issue.

    Can we say niche market again?

    Of course, there are a few folks who just consider it a human rights and freedom issue on general principle, and would be attracted by a party or candidate willing to stand up for that against all the know-nothing nativist ignorance and hysteria on display by makor party politicians lately, but I mention that only in passing.

    When most people hear a candidate who wants more immigration they are going to think, “Oh shit, this guy wants more traffic jams, more gang bangers, more welfare recipients, and more people who can’t take my order at McDonald’s because they can’t speak the freakin’ language. Screw that!”

    I don’t know about most, but I’m sure there are plenty of ignorant, bigoted people think stuff like that about all or most immigrants, and many of those wouldn’t mind using the power of the state to get their way.

    But, see, that’s the beauty of niche marketing – we’re not going after “most” voters on every issue, we’re going after the large yet commited minority (of actual or potential voters, regardless of their ethnicity) whose position is not to be found in the major party planks or candidates.

    Oh yeah, and standing up for principle while we’re at it, but I mention that only in passing.

  79. paulie cannoli Says:

    From one of the Reason articles referenced above:

    “Immigration opponents like to talk (when not talking about violent immigrant criminals, who of course exist, but whose actions and fate have little bearing on what we should do about immigrants only here to work) about abstractions such as the reverence for the law (why victimless crime laws deserve any particular respect is rarely argued, merely asserted), macroeconomic studies showing alleged overall negative effects on the national economy (for all I know, similar studies might say the same about political journalists, and they might well be right), or big-picture lucubration on the glories of a majority-white-European culture that is as doomed as our previous majority-English-German culture was in the 20th century.

    But reporting such as these stories about Stillmore and Arkadelphia town bring us down to the experienced realities of immigration policy as they effect the people who actually live with and work with the supposedly damaging immigrants: human connections and relationships—familial, friendly, economic, all equally important in a human community—frayed or destroyed. Why would a legal American such as Stillmore trailer park owner David Robinson hang his flag upside down in solidarity with the “criminals” taken from his trailer park?

    Because they were not criminals to him. They were his tenants. And this was (is) his country. I daresay anyone who could happily see the people who support his business, support his family, dragged away in the night for violating a paper statute, not for harming another human being’s person or property, would also feel that the world has been turned upside down.”

  80. paulie cannoli Says:

    From one of my blog posts at LPA, no longer on that site but soon to be put back up again at wordpress:

    Another issue on which the LP is watering down its stance is immigration. The plank still opposes immigration quotas, which is good news; but the bulk of the plank talks of screening people at the border and imposing various immigration restrictions.

    At the same time, the Denver Post reports that 75% of Latinos – now the largest “minority” group in the US and growing fast – are more likely to vote because of the new Know-Nothing politics, and a majority are dissatisfied with both the Democrats and Republicans and looking for a new open border party (which the LP was until this last year).

    Huge opportunities exist in attracting antiwar and pro-open borders voters who are being rejected by the major parties. At the same time, the new Deform the LP majority is walking away from these positions, ostensibly to become more appealing to voters.

    Does anyone else notice the contradiction?

  81. paulie cannoli Says:

    ME: “A lot of people care about immigration freedom. The major parties don’t.”

    Andy: Bullshit. It is the major parties that are pushing mass immigration and who are pushing the North American Union. Follow their actions not their words.

    ME AGAIN: But they are not pushing immigration FREEDOM, any more than they are pushing truly FREE trade.

    Sure, they are pushing globally managed immigration to provide indentured servants for their partner corporations. At the same time, they are pushing REAL ID and using nativist hysteria to ram it through.

    That’s watching their actions AND their words – which lead to actions.

    Again from the Reason article:

    ” The federal government, in this election year when immigration reform has been (inexplicably) one of the hottest issues, is out to prove it can protect our nation’s borders—by invading our nation’s chicken processing plants.

    A nationwide crackdown on illegal immigrants, dubbed “Operation Return to Sender,” is in process (its first wave, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, officially concluded in June, but raids continue apace, with, according to this San Francisco Chronicle account, 24,000 arrests and 6,800 deportations this year.”

    You might think this is just a token program, and should be a lot bigger.

    I think it’s a huge, massive, horrible violation of human rights and freedom already.

    There’s lots of folks who agree with me. Some of them are immigrants. Some are their partners, friends, neighbors, employers, etc.

    Andy: Anyone who really believes that the major parties are not in favor of mass immigration is a NAIVE FOOL.

    ME: They are in favor of immigration like they are in favor of trade.

    Only on their terms.

    They’re not for true free trade, and they are not for true free immigration. When politically expedient, they impose tariffs, quotas (on both trade and immigration), and always plenty of refulations and bureaucracy.

    The solution, of course, is to be for TRUE free trade and TRUE free immigration, but some people fall into the trap of saying—well, the globalists are for massive trade and massive immigration, so the solution must be massive protectionism and/or massive border enforcement.

    Anticipating your next argument:
    Of course, this does not mean you personally should be forced to have anyone on your property, any more than you should be forced to buy Chinese manufactured goods or shop at Wal-Mart.

  82. Andy Says:

    “At the same time, the Denver Post reports that 75% of Latinos – now the largest “minority” group in the US and growing fast – are more likely to vote because of the new Know-Nothing politics, and a majority are dissatisfied with both the Democrats and Republicans and looking for a new open border party (which the LP was until this last year).”

    This is not true. There are many hispanic Americans that are opposed to so called “open borders.” And for those who do want this many of them hold anti-libertarian positions on a variety of other issues.

    Many people of all backgrounds are dissatisfied with the major political parties. This isn’t news.

  83. paulie cannoli Says:

    This is not true. There are many hispanic Americans that are opposed to so called “open borders.” And for those who do want this many of them hold anti-libertarian positions on a variety of other issues.

    It is true.. This was from a national scientific survey reported in the Denver post. 75% of Hispanics said they were more inclined to vote because of the immigration hysteria, and the vast majority of those were for more liberalized immigration policies.

    It’s true that many of them hold anti-libertarian positions on other issues, just as many antiwar Americans hold anti-libertarian positions on other issues, and just as many people who want to end the war on drugs hold anti-libertarian positions on other issues.

    Nevertheless the wedge issues they care about can be used to get them to in some cases vote for us, listen to us, and perhaps even change their minds about those other issues, become members and activists. And contributors and candidates.

    And make our party more diverse in the process, which will make us look better.

    Many people of all backgrounds are dissatisfied with the major political parties. This isn’t news.

    What’s news is that a huge chunk of people is dissatisfied with the major parties because they are both insufficiently libertarian on an issue

    AND that issue is one of the top issues in the national debate

    AND it has a huge personal impact on a lot of those people’s lives

  84. Ryan Brennan (ThirdPartyNews.net) Says:

    Does anyone know anything or have any thoughts about the possibility of Aaron Russo seeking the 2008 LP presidential nomination? I strongly was in support of his 2004 bid and hope very strongly that he seeks it again. I think he would be the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate ever. He undoubtedly would get a lot of media attention and would probably be able to raise large sums of money, half of which he would probably use on tv advertising, as he promised in 2004. I think Russo has a very powerful voice and lots of charisma and would reach the most amount of people in America with the Libertarian message of Freedom. Does anyone agree or disagree with me about Russo?

  85. Tom Bryant Says:

    Aaron Russo would be an awful candidate for the LP.

    I doubt that he would be able to raise much money, seeing as he was unable to raise enough money to pay off the liens the IRS put on him.

    His prior tax problems and that whacked out “Freedom to Fascism” movie have sealed his fate.

  86. paulie cannoli Says:

    Latest from Russo directly as reported by Andy from a teleconference call,

    Russo currently plans to run for President as an independent and/or Republican.

    He is no longer interested in the LP.

    He’s hooked up with G. Edward Griffin’s Freedom Force International

    http://www.freedom-force.org/

    He thinks he has a serious shot at winning the Republican Iowa Caucuses and NH primary, and is planning to spend a lot of time in Iowa and NH this year putting it all together.

    Of course, that was last month, so this month or next month his plans might change.

    Russo is not greatly concerned with what party label he runs with, he’ll use whatever vehicle he thinks is best at the given moment to get his ideas out to the public.

    He’s done more party-switching over the years than you can shake a stick at.

  87. Robert Milnes Says:

    How come thirdpartynews.net is not coming up?

  88. Chris Bennett Says:

    I disagree with Mr. Bryant.

    Aaron Russo’s movie is more than just the Federal Reserve and IRS, moron.

    I have great respect for Russo and wishes he doesn’t run for president and does what he does best…making excellent documentaries.

  89. Andy Says:

    “He is no longer interested in the LP.”

    I wouldn’t necessarily say that he’s no longer interested in the Libertarian Party. As far as I know he still likes the LP and he still regaurds himself as a libertarian. He’s just afraid that minor party labels scare off potential voters.

    “Aaron Russo would be an awful candidate for the LP.”

    I disagree. Russo should have been the nominee in 2004 and I’d stongly consider him for 2008 if he changes his mind and decides to seek the nomination of the LP. Russo has the passion, charisma, money, and name recognition that most LP candidates lack and he nails the most important issues on the head.

    “His prior tax problems and that whacked out ‘Freedom to Fascism’ movie have sealed his fate.”

    “America, From Freedom To Fascism” is an outstanding film that every American should see. For anyone who hasn’t seen it go to www.freedomtofascism.com and click the link to google video where you can watch it for free. So what if he’s had tax problems? Millions of Americans have had problems with the IRS and other tyrannical government agencies.

  90. Roscoe Says:

    I wouldn’t send a $1 to the campaign of any of these guys. Unless the LP has, say, $5 million for ads, there is virtually no case for running a candidate for president, and – if it’s one of these guys mentioned above – then we’d do well to just nominate “None of the Above” and try to put
    NOTA on as many state ballots as possible.

  91. Tom Bryant Says:

    Chris Bennett wrote:

    “Aaron Russo’s movie is more than just the Federal Reserve and IRS, moron.”

    I never claimed that Russo’s movie was just the Federal Reserve and the IRS. On a related note, those who cannot read should probably refrain from calling others a “moron” – those who live in a glass house shouldn’t throw rocks at those who live in a brick house.

    Russo was slapped with nearly $2 million in tax liens in 2005. His documentary, Freedom to Fascism, which he thought would be more successful than Michael Moore’s documentaries, failed miserably. After being unable to profitably sell it in any markets, it has been released for free as part of the public domain. With Russo’s troubled financial situation (you know it’s bad when his screening of Freedom to Fascism outside of Las Vegas included the distribution of donation forms and a fundraising pitch), and whacky beliefs, he would be a terrible candidate for any public office.

    Chris, it seems we both agree that Russo should stay clear of politics, we just differ on the reasoning. So how about you take the name-calling back to elementary school where it belongs =)

  92. Andy Says:

    “Russo was slapped with nearly $2 million in tax liens in 2005.”

    So what? Just because the IRS has the guns it doesn’t make them legally or morally correct.

    “His documentary, Freedom to Fascism, which he thought would be more successful than Michael Moore’s documentaries, failed miserably. After being unable to profitably sell it in any markets, it has been released for free as part of the public domain.”

    “America: From Freedom To Fascism” goes a lot deeper than any film that Michael Moore has ever made. Moore plays into the phoney “left vs. right” political paradigm with the “left” supposedly being the good guys while Russo exposes that paradigm as a fraud. The establishment doesn’t want people to see Russo’s film.

  93. Andy Says:

    “Unless the LP has, say, $5 million for ads, there is virtually no case for running a candidate for president,”

    Yeah there is.

    #1) The Presidential campaign is an advertisement/outreach tool for the party. I found out about the party because of the Harry Browne for President campaign back in ‘96. I know of a lot of other party members who found out about the party only because of presidential campaigns.

    #2) The Presidential vote total can be used to retain ballot status in some states and can also help boost vote totals for local candidates.

  94. Chris Bennett Says:

    Russo makes some great points in his movie especially on privacy issues but you wouldn’t know about that if you didn’t see the movie, fortunately I DID! Aaron Russo is a better candidate that Fruadnarik