I find it amusing that you always result to personal attacks. It reflects an incredible lack of intelligence, and speaks volumes about your limited vocabulary (Especially when you call people like Paulie ‘Fuckhead!’).

However, this is my agreement. I will agree that the NY Times and London Times have called Guliani a Libertarian (provisionally).
If you’ll agree that the Media is FAR more likely to have a decietful reason to list him as a libertarian even though he is not.
Furthermore, I have always said that “Libertarian” is just as large of a political spectrum as any other (Statist, Liberal, Conservative, Centrist). I am willing to say that Guliani is perhaps more Libertarian than..saay…George Bush or Ted Kennedy. However, he is on the fringes, and represents the centrist section of the Libertarian movement, which does not make him either
a.)an ideal candidate to advance the movement, especially considering his anti-drug and anti-gun policies
b.)Ayn Randian, as Ayn Rand was a near-anarchist.

Matt, I appreciate the compliment.
Eric, in order to get out of this round-robin-style-arguement. Exactly what are the accomplishments of the RLC, its estimated budget, and policies concerning the CP? These are not questions which are meant to provoke you, you can email me privately if you wish. Shotdown1027@yahoo.com

I gotcha. You’re smarter than all four of those media outlets, with all their editorial boards, all their investigative reporters, all their copy editors.

And never mind that the London Times is only 300 years old. And the NY Times has been around for nearly 200 years.

No buddy. Ole’ Trent Hill knows more about politics than all those media publications combined.

“Left Right & Babyboom” by David Boaz, VP of Cato

and “Beyond Liberal & Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum” by Univ. of Central Florida Professors William Maddox and Stuart Lillie, with Foreward by David Boaz.

Both books outline in detail the definition of a “libertarian.”

Throughout the latter book they describe some politicians who have called themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” They mention Gary Hart, John Anderson, Jerry Brown, Jack Kemp, former Republican Congressman Ed Zschau of California, former Republican Senator Bob Packwood, as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, essentially our definition of libertarian.”

Is that good enough for ya?

Do you want me to go to my garage and dig out the Pew Research Center studies that said the exact same thing?

You may have worked your heart out for the libertarian movement for 25 years. You may be a longtime dues paying member of the Libertarian Party. You may even have served on the Libertarian National Committee, or run for public office on the Libertarian Party ticket. But if you are not in the Anarchist wing of the Libertarian movement and agree with the Anarchists on 100% of the issues, you are not allowed to use the word “libertarian” to describe yourself.

But of course, you are allowed to use the longwinded cumbersome label “fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant” to describe your views.

So, next time some pollster dials your number, and asks you to describe your political beliefs, you can’t say something simple like Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Libertarian. No Sir-ee. Youz gotta say “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant.”

I gotcha now. I’ll inform the 98% of all the other Libertarians that they are no longer allowed to call themselves “libertarians” cause they are merely “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant.”

Furthermore Eric, Fiscally Conservative and Socially Tolerant does NOT mean Libertarian. It simply means you are…just that.

A Libertarian is someone who advocates the principle of self-ownership. Libertarians view Life Liberty and Property as the ultimate rights.

Guliani wants to assisst in creating a nanny state. He wants to go door to door seizing weapons and drugs. This is not libertarian at ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Its anti-liberty and (even if your definition WAS correct) not very socially tolerant.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/112106b.html
—-The Bikemessnger

Statism is statism. Your particular preferences are not libertarian simply on the basis of your lame attempts to usurp the name.

“Bush bashing does not equate to libertarianism sorry to say.”

No, but under current circumstances, it is an essential aspect.

“He who works hardest for the libertarian movement, gets to decide what is and what is not really libertarian.”

No, Libertarianism is a Political ideology, not your team in a sport.

You either adhere to and promote those principles, or you are not a Libertarian.

Clearly, it matters not in the least how much time and effort you apply to the promotion of candidates who apply the label to themselves (accurately or inaccurately), if you do not believe in the Libertarian ideology, which you clearly do not, you are not a Libertarian.

It’s integral to who you are, not an item of your wardrobe.

“You’re the one who has aligned himnself with Muslim Radicals…”

No YOU’RE the one that has aligned me with the “Muslim Radicals”.

I have nothing in common with them except a common enemy who happens to be bent on destroying us both.

It should never be forgotten that YOUR side started this conflict.

You’re pretty good at listing all of the horrible violations of liberty that muslims would impose, but what about what your gang of facsist war criminals IS GOING to do to ME and the others in this discussion:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/us_army_announces_readiness_takeover_usa.htm

But that’s ok, as you have pigeon-holed us as “Leftwing America-hating Anarchists”. (Sometimes I wonder if you’re capable of grasping that not everyone is an advocate of big government), and since we won’t toe the right-wing fascist line, we thus forfeit our humanity.

Oh, and BTW:

Legal name: Robert Noval, 57 years old, born in N.Y.C., raised in Miami. No education or military service. Lived in Miami last 30-odd years. In case anyone is curious.

Anyone who thinks he can get on-line and say what gets said here and still obscure their true identity from government thuggery by just not using their real name is fooling themselves.
—-The Bikemessenger

January 13th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Politely my ass. You have viciously attacked me here on this forum. You have viciously assaulted some of the very politicians and political individuals who I count as my heros in this libertarian movement.”

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Heros like Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Ruby Guiliani. I guess if you admire gun grabbers and New World Order parasites then I suppose so.

Do you think any Judge anywheres in the land would side with you on that? They’d laugh you out of the courtroom.

For the record, I’m damn proud of my legal name, and don’t have nuttin’ to hide. Bring it on. Tell the whole damned world if you want:

Eric Dondero Rittberg, 44 years old, born in NY City, raised in Delaware, went to college in Florida. Stationed in the Navy in California and Florida. Lived in Texas last 12 years of my life.

Anyone wish to have more personal information? No problem. Just ask.

Force my wife to wear a burqa from head to toe, push me down to kneel to Allah 5 times a day at the point of a gun, stone prostitutes in my town square, outlaw booze and gambling, burn all my rock music CDs and Hollywood DVDs, cut off the genitals of my Gay friends, and jail my Marijuana-smoking buddies for life.

I’d call that Fascism.

Not someone who wants to fight to the death to prevent all that.

He who works hardest for the libertarian movement, gets to decide what is and what is not really libertarian.

In other words, those individuals who get to use the possesive pronoun “my” include Scott Kohlhaas, Jake Witmer, Bill Redpath, Paul Jacob, Richard Winger, Phil Blumel, Howie Rich, Bob Poole, Don Ernsberger, Jim Turney, Bruce Cohen, Aaron Starr (without a doubt here), Leon Drolet, Bob Hedlund, Scott Bludorn (without a doubt here), and a host of others.

Sorry, but you’re not included in that List Newbie.