Comments on: Q&A With Steve Kubby: Domestic Issues http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:00:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: George Phillies http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-185405 Thu, 17 May 2007 16:48:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-185405 Let me note that I explained how I am going to do the things that make it more likely that I will win, and more likely that other Libertarians will win in the future. That involves building a stronger party organization rather than doing a better job of padding my staff payroll. Overstreet's attack on my campaign plans is based on fabrications about what I am proposing to do. Let me note that I explained how I am going to do the things that make it more likely that I will win, and more likely that other Libertarians will win in the future. That involves building a stronger party organization rather than doing a better job of padding my staff payroll.

Overstreet’s attack on my campaign plans is based on fabrications about what I am proposing to do.

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184828 Wed, 16 May 2007 20:56:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184828 Susan, anarchy is always going to be a hard, if not impossible, sell to voters. Dismantling the armed forces, abolishing police, removing laws against poisoning people through poor quality products with undocumented contents or by polluting the common air and water supplies, throwing millions of the elderly out on the street by ending their SS and Medicare, wrecking our economy by unilateral free trade and destroying the money supply- all of these positions are anathema to the voters, and all of them are proposed by our party's leadership, our party's candidates and, until recently, our party's platform. If we don't pick smaller, more acceptable goals to advocate, we'll keep right on scaring the straights and remaining politically insignificant. If Phillies wants to build the party, he should be a volunteer and internal party activist. He should not be a candidate, because candidates have one job and one job only- GET ELECTED. Running to "educate" not only interferes in that, it runs directly against it by driving off voters who refuse to endorse a candidate who never expects to actually serve. Susan, anarchy is always going to be a hard, if not impossible, sell to voters. Dismantling the armed forces, abolishing police, removing laws against poisoning people through poor quality products with undocumented contents or by polluting the common air and water supplies, throwing millions of the elderly out on the street by ending their SS and Medicare, wrecking our economy by unilateral free trade and destroying the money supply- all of these positions are anathema to the voters, and all of them are proposed by our party’s leadership, our party’s candidates and, until recently, our party’s platform. If we don’t pick smaller, more acceptable goals to advocate, we’ll keep right on scaring the straights and remaining politically insignificant.

If Phillies wants to build the party, he should be a volunteer and internal party activist. He should not be a candidate, because candidates have one job and one job only- GET ELECTED. Running to “educate” not only interferes in that, it runs directly against it by driving off voters who refuse to endorse a candidate who never expects to actually serve.

]]> by: Susan Hogarth http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184638 Wed, 16 May 2007 16:41:12 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184638 Kris: Interesting. You lost interest in Phillies because he said "I’m running my campaign to build our party, not to pay my staff and put me in front of the voters." Do you want Phillies to demand the goal (presidency) now, rather than working on a more short-term goal (building the Party)? That seems in conflict with your position above, where yo take me to task for 'demanding the goal now'. Incidentally, I demand nothing - I am hardly in a position to make demands. What I do is hold the goal (freedom) to the light and work toward it. If the idea of freedom is offensive or 'alienating' to people, we have a task that is much more herculean than winning elections - even the presidential one. But fortunately I think progress will not be linear; there will be a 'tipping point' beyond which the idea of restrictions on freedom seem shocking or even (happy day) laughable for people to think about. Kris:

Interesting. You lost interest in Phillies because he said “I’m running my campaign to build our party, not to pay my staff and put me in front of the voters.”

Do you want Phillies to demand the goal (presidency) now, rather than working on a more short-term goal (building the Party)? That seems in conflict with your position above, where yo take me to task for ‘demanding the goal now’.

Incidentally, I demand nothing – I am hardly in a position to make demands. What I do is hold the goal (freedom) to the light and work toward it. If the idea of freedom is offensive or ‘alienating’ to people, we have a task that is much more herculean than winning elections – even the presidential one.

But fortunately I think progress will not be linear; there will be a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the idea of restrictions on freedom seem shocking or even (happy day) laughable for people to think about.

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184567 Wed, 16 May 2007 15:10:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184567 Susan: "Radicals welcome positive change – even in little dribs and drabs. They just don’t confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs)." Radicals, however, do seem unable to grasp that by demanding the goal now, and alienating the vast majority, they'll never get the dribs and drabs at all, much less the goal. Susan: “Radicals welcome positive change – even in little dribs and drabs. They just don’t confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs).”

Radicals, however, do seem unable to grasp that by demanding the goal now, and alienating the vast majority, they’ll never get the dribs and drabs at all, much less the goal.

]]> by: SovereignMN http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184470 Wed, 16 May 2007 13:24:49 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184470 "SMN = Socialist" Thanks for the laugh. “SMN = Socialist”

Thanks for the laugh.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184329 Wed, 16 May 2007 10:57:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184329 Ron Paul is for strong border control GE. He's also for free trade. So I dont know wether you were listing good or bad traits, but one of those is wrong. Ron Paul is for strong border control GE. He’s also for free trade.

So I dont know wether you were listing good or bad traits, but one of those is wrong.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184192 Wed, 16 May 2007 08:21:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-184192 I'm for personal freedom and growth. Where is my candidate? Giuliani = tax, spending, immigration, trade Ron Paul = civil liberties, foreign policy (non-trade/immigration) Hillary = homos, abortion I’m for personal freedom and growth. Where is my candidate?

Giuliani = tax, spending, immigration, trade

Ron Paul = civil liberties, foreign policy (non-trade/immigration)

Hillary = homos, abortion

]]> by: sam i am http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183816 Wed, 16 May 2007 01:03:20 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183816 state sovereignty over people: The only way not to have a massive welfare program is to have a massive welfare program. Makes perfect sense, sure. state sovereignty over people:

The only way not to have a massive welfare program is to have a massive welfare program. Makes perfect sense, sure.

]]> by: Susan Hogarth http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183804 Wed, 16 May 2007 00:53:46 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183804 Kris, Radicals welcome positive change - even in little dribs and drabs. They just don't confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs). As the Most Awesome William Lloyd Garrison (so awesome he needed three names to express his awesomeness) put it: "Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." Kris,

Radicals welcome positive change – even in little dribs and drabs. They just don’t confuse the goal (freedom) with the path (dribs and drabs).

As the Most Awesome William Lloyd Garrison (so awesome he needed three names to express his awesomeness) put it:

“Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183727 Tue, 15 May 2007 23:22:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183727 See, this is why I'm quite unfond of Kubby: the straight anarchist line with only the thinnest possible veneer of incrementalism. See, this is why I’m quite unfond of Kubby: the straight anarchist line with only the thinnest possible veneer of incrementalism.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183717 Tue, 15 May 2007 23:07:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183717 SMN = Socialist. SMN = Socialist.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183714 Tue, 15 May 2007 23:06:13 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183714 Chris - There are some weird spam filter issues. Does your post have a lot of numbers or dollar signs or percentages in it? Chris – There are some weird spam filter issues. Does your post have a lot of numbers or dollar signs or percentages in it?

]]> by: Chris Moore http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183604 Tue, 15 May 2007 20:31:37 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183604 Why the hell won't my comment post?! Why the hell won’t my comment post?!

]]> by: SovereignMN http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183546 Tue, 15 May 2007 19:38:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183546 Here's how I see it as a massive government program. If you have an open door immigration policy for "peaceful" immigrants then you need to have some sort of system in place to ensure that it's only the "peaceful" people coming in. That means big checkpoints at the borders/ports, a large database to track all incoming people, a large network to ensure local law enforcement agencies are synched up to the database, and a monitoring system to apprehend/deport those that are not "peaceful". In theory, our government has a similar program in place already today for those that DO come here legally. The difference then? You would want to take all 10-30 million here illegally and make them go through the same network. So instead of the current program tracking the X million that come here legally you would be adding 10-30 million. However you slice it, that's a government expansion. "It might if you continue reading past the colon: Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. " Sorry, nobody is FORCING anyone into the role of criminal. You come into this country in violation of our laws then you are breaking them of your own free will. They may not necessarily be violent criminals but they are criminals nonetheless. So again, "restrictions on immigration constitute a huge national security threat". Makes no sense. If you had no restrictions on immigration then any terrorist operative could enter our country today and we'd have no ability to perform a background check. Here’s how I see it as a massive government program. If you have an open door immigration policy for “peaceful” immigrants then you need to have some sort of system in place to ensure that it’s only the “peaceful” people coming in. That means big checkpoints at the borders/ports, a large database to track all incoming people, a large network to ensure local law enforcement agencies are synched up to the database, and a monitoring system to apprehend/deport those that are not “peaceful”.

In theory, our government has a similar program in place already today for those that DO come here legally. The difference then? You would want to take all 10-30 million here illegally and make them go through the same network. So instead of the current program tracking the X million that come here legally you would be adding 10-30 million. However you slice it, that’s a government expansion.

“It might if you continue reading past the colon:
Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. ”

Sorry, nobody is FORCING anyone into the role of criminal. You come into this country in violation of our laws then you are breaking them of your own free will. They may not necessarily be violent criminals but they are criminals nonetheless.

So again, “restrictions on immigration constitute a huge national security threat”. Makes no sense. If you had no restrictions on immigration then any terrorist operative could enter our country today and we’d have no ability to perform a background check.

]]> by: Chris http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183526 Tue, 15 May 2007 19:03:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/15/qa-with-steve-kubby-domestic-issues/#comment-183526 <blockquote>Sounds like a massive government program.</blockquote> In what way? <blockquote>This quote makes no sense.</blockquote> It might if you continue reading past the colon: <blockquote>Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. We can’t secure our borders against attack or invasion while simultaneously—and ineffectively—trying to close them to millions of non-enemies.</blockquote> You may disagree, but it makes sense to me. If you open up immigration, then peaceful people will walk through the front door. Then you know that those who entered illegally through the back window are a real threat. Maybe this gets to your "massive government program" statement, since a government agency will have to monitor those coming through legally and to find and apprehend those who cross the border illegally. However, how is this any more massive a government program than what is currently in place?
Sounds like a massive government program.

In what way?

This quote makes no sense.

It might if you continue reading past the colon:

Millions of ordinary, peaceful people are forced into the role of criminal in order to live and work, and the size of that crowd gives cover to real criminals and terrorists. We can’t secure our borders against attack or invasion while simultaneously—and ineffectively—trying to close them to millions of non-enemies.

You may disagree, but it makes sense to me. If you open up immigration, then peaceful people will walk through the front door. Then you know that those who entered illegally through the back window are a real threat. Maybe this gets to your “massive government program” statement, since a government agency will have to monitor those coming through legally and to find and apprehend those who cross the border illegally. However, how is this any more massive a government program than what is currently in place?

]]>