Georgia LP running Pro-War race for Congress

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m very much against invading and occupying nations for no reason while thousands of our American soldiers die and numerous uncounted civilians are killed.

That’s why I was shocked to see that Jim Sendelbach, the Libertarian running for Congress in Georgia appears to be supporting the war.

I knew that certain high ranking officers in the LP of Georgia are pro-war, but I must say it bothers me to see the LP running pro-war candidates… especially when the LP of Georgia only has this candidate for Congress because it’s a special election, regular ballot access laws give them no chance for a nominee… but instead of doing something to promote ending the war, they do this…

Debate focuses on Iraq war policies
By Sylvia Cooper | Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Two Democrats vying for the 10th Congressional District seat in the June 19 special election say ending the war in Iraq is a top priority.The Libertarian says winning it is.

“I believe the Iraq war is the No. 1 priority for all the citizens of
the United States,” Democrat Evita Paschall said during a radio
candidates’ forum Tuesday at Le Chat Noir in downtown Augusta. “We all are losing our young people. We are almost losing a generation of young people in the Iraq war.” Ms. Paschall called for Republicans and Democrats to work together to end the war.

“It is my belief we should work with the president as much as
possible,” she said. “I don’t believe we should have a specific date
the war is going to end.”

Libertarian candidate Jim Sendelbach said pulling out now would embolden the Islamic terrorists even further. “What we’re talking about is a world war on terrorism, and the big question is who wins, the terrorists or the peace-loving people who are by far the majority around the world, ” he said. “It’s important to realize that terrorists have two objectives. One objective is to destroy, and the second related objective is to demoralize, and they don’t care who and what they have to destroy – and by that I mean kill – in the process of demoralizing.”

Dr. Sendelbach said the Democratic Party is demoralized, which is fueling Democrats push to pull out of Iraq. “Terrorists are very, very patient people and very determined and are absolutely going to make every effort possible, to take advantage of everything that we do that isn’t a step forward to reduce us to fear, to terror, to backing down on decisions and commitments because we’re afraid,” he said. “That isn’t the America I grew up in.”

Democratic candidate Denise Freeman said bringing American troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan is extremely important but that the military should set the date for withdrawal. “We have to appreciate their talents, their skills and their jobs,” she said. “They’re trained to do just what they’re doing. So we need to ask them for their opinion and look at their opinion and then have
Congress assess it and give them what they say they need, let them tell us when the withdrawal date is because they’re the people that’s on the ground.”

The forum aired on radio station WNRR 1230 AM during the People and Issues With Helen show with Helen Blocker Adams. Michael Ryan, editorial page editor of The Augusta Chronicle, and WRDW-TV reporter Jonathan Martin moderated the forum.

Republican candidates Dr. Paul Broun Jr., Erik M. Underwood, Mark
Myers, Bill Greene and Nate Pulliam will participate in today’s forum, which also will be aired from 1 to 3 p.m. at Le Chat Noir. The public is invited.

Tuesday’s candidates also answered a variety of questions on other issues, including amnesty for illegal immigrants. All said they oppose amnesty. They were also asked what they planned to do if they are elected to Congress.

Dr. Sendelbach said environmental pollution could be reduced with
energy conservation and use of non-polluting sources of energy, such as solar and wind power.

Ms. Freeman agreed and said she would support a commuter train from Athens to Atlanta. Ms. Paschall said she too would support research to find alternative energy sources and conservation and tax incentives for energy conservation.

Reach Sylvia Cooper at (706) 823-3228 or
sylvia.cooper@augustachronicle.com.

Disclosure: Trevor Southerland is the former Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Georgia and is the current Communications Director of Georgia Students for Barack Obama.

72 Responses to “Georgia LP running Pro-War race for Congress”

  1. Andy Says:

    This is exactly the type of candidate that the LP does NOT need.

  2. Nigel Watt Says:

    “This is the Libertarian Party. It is made of fail and crazy”.

    Ech.

  3. NewFederalist Says:

    Wow! What an incredible position for a “Libertarian” to take. There are ways to make the point about the GWOT from a libertarian perspective but this doesn’t seem to be it.

  4. timothy west Says:

    Where’s all the purists blowing smoke about how unprincipled he is?

  5. Trevor Southerland Says:

    This has nothing to do with being principled or unprincipled. This has to do with a illegal war that has killed thousands upon thousands and has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to benefit America.

    Thousands of Americans lives lost… countless civilian lives lost… billions upon billions of dollars wasted… and yet there are people who claim to hold the political philosophy of “libertarian” but yet support this wasteful wasteful war?

    To even think about the thousands of families that have lost fathers, mothers, son and daughters… and the thousands more who have died because instead of spending those billions of dollars here in America to help Americans we’ve been spending it on a pathetic war of invasion and occupation.

    This is the memory that the Bush Administration will leave for America, and that there are any libertarians who support it makes me sad… sad for myself, sad for the LP, just plain sad.

  6. Seth Says:

    “Communications Director of Georgia Students for Barack Obama”

    Hmm… pot kettle black, Trevor. While I disagree on this issue with Dr. Sendlebach, the real question is why is someone working for the Democrats is blogging on TPW? Especially in a race where there are multiple Democrats and multiple Republicans running for the same seat as the single Libertarian (thus splitting the vote up greatly), and it’s entirely possible (though I have no poll figures to back it up) that a pro-war stance here, but otherwise Libertarian candiate might be able to pull enough votes to win.

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    There are a lot of people working for/supporting Ron Paul who post here.

    Oh yeah, I forgot. He’s not really a Republican. He’s a “libertarian.”

    About as much as Barack Obama is.

  8. Ken H Says:

    Ron Paul is a libertarian. What part of limited, constitutional government do you not understand?

  9. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    I don’t get why you’d wanna back Barack Obama, Trevor.
    ...uh,...did I mention I’m a Ron Paul contributor?

  10. George Phillies Says:

    Ken H

    Ron Paul? His campaign literature always calls him a “conservative”!

    George

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    It also calls him libertarian Phillies.

    Or have you forgotten your own party’s history? 1988.

  12. George Phillies Says:

    No, Trent, Paul’s fundraising mailing does not mention that Paul is a libertarian, no matter what he was 20 years ago. It says, repeated many times, that he is a conservative. And it talks about conservative issues, and only about conservative issues. The notion that Ron Paul is advancing ‘Libertarian” with his campaign literature is not supported by any literature I have seen so far.

    George

  13. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    What with so many different ideas of “conservative” in the heads of those who want to call themselves that, and what with “liberal” being used as profanity daily, both words’re meaningless to me.

  14. A.H. Says:

    I live in this district.

    I’ve been splitting my ticket in recent years between the Democrats and the Libertarians. I like the LP stands on constitutional issues and personal liberty and freedom.

    I was deeply disappointed in this particular candidate being the Libertarian choice.

  15. timothy west Says:

    Ron Paul is a libertarian. What part of limited, constitutional government do you not understand?

    That’s not what the LP officially supports. The LP oath prevents it, and the LP even has a working committee ( APRNC) to make sure that none of the LP’s materials support any form of government. It was re-instated after the IES came about.

    The LP oath is incompatible with the oath of office. You must lie on one oath or he other – both cannot be sworn to.

    All of Americas founding fathers that I am aware of denounced anarchism. Calling Jefferson, Madison, etc “libertarian” simply isnt true. Lysander Spooner would have been a good libertarian – go look him up. That’s the LP. The LP does NOT officially support government in ANY form.

    it’s a lot easier to simply be a Ind and support what you like and who you like. In my case, I went from being a part of a voting bloc that polls sub 1% at best and has no state party to one that polls >35% and frequently decides every race in this state.

  16. Andy Says:

    “George Phillies Says:

    May 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
    No, Trent, Paul’s fundraising mailing does not mention that Paul is a libertarian, no matter what he was 20 years ago. It says, repeated many times, that he is a conservative. And it talks about conservative issues, and only about conservative issues. The notion that Ron Paul is advancing ‘Libertarian” with his campaign literature is not supported by any literature I have seen so far.

    George”

    Yes, FUNDRAISING material that is sent to a conservative list. This is mererly a tactic to raise more money. Ron is STILL a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and he has never disavowed his membership. I’ve seen and heard “libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” mentioned in every or just about every print & TV interview with Ron Paul since he entered the race for the Republican nomination.

  17. globalist_elitist Says:

    Libertarianism goes beyond “constitutionally limited government.” The Constitution allows protectionism, for one. Is that libertarian? There’s nothing libertarian about being a border zealot, anti-gay, anti-choice.

  18. Trevor Southerland Says:

    —Hmm… pot kettle black, Trevor. While I disagree on this issue with Dr. Sendlebach, the real question is why is someone working for the Democrats is blogging on TPW?—

    Seth,

    Austin is a Republican. Should TPW immediately be shut down because the person who creates, maintains and runs the web site is a Republican and because one of the bloggers (me) is now a Democrat? As I’ve explained before, I hold many libertarian views, I sat on the LNC, I was the Executive Director in Georgia, I worked my rear off and wasn’t paid money I was owed so I don’t see how I can work with the LPGeorgia, thus I’ve taken my political-junkie self and gone to the major party I closest identify with and am working for a candidate who has been against the war since day 0.

    Third Party Watch is a web site about third party politics, this post was about a third party candidate… it just so happens to be about a Libertarian candidate who is supporting something that’s anti-Libertarian.

  19. sam i am Says:

    Trevor, just out of curiosity:

    Who do you think lines up more with Libertarian Party positions across the broad range of issues, Obama or Sendelbach? Whose views are you more closely aligned with, and why?

  20. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 26th, 2007 at 7:32 am
    Libertarianism goes beyond “constitutionally limited government.” The Constitution allows protectionism, for one. Is that libertarian? There’s nothing libertarian about being a border zealot, anti-gay, anti-choice.”

    The Constitution allows for tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes. I think that there’s a big difference in allowing for some tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes and necessarily calling that protectionism since that would be more dependent on the rate. Like if tarriffs were set at say 1 or 2%, that is a big difference from setting them at 50% which is along the lines of what protectionist want. You have already admitted that you are not an anarchist, so therefore you do favor at least some taxation. Since you favor taxation the issue with you isn’t over plunder, but just how the plunder takes place.

    Actually, there is stuff in the Constitution about defending against invasions, and also about giving Congress the authority to make laws concerning the naturalization of foreigners.

    You are corrent that there is nothing in the Constitution about being “anti-gay” and in fact such actions are actually prohibited by the 1st amendment.

    By anti-choice, I assume that you mean anti-abortion. There actually is something in the Constitution that could be considered to be anti-abortion, and that is the 5th amendment, where it says that, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” IF one considers a fetus to be a person that has individual rights, then under the 5th amendment it would be illegal to kill them without due process of law which is a fair jury trial. So the only way around this would be IF a fetus is not a person that has individual rights. I’m not attempting to anwser that question here, I’m just pointing out that a constitutional case against abortion can be made.

  21. Robert Milnes Says:

    Sam I am, yes, good question for Trevor. Trevor, you seem to be bucking the conventional wisdom. I concluded from The Libertarian Vote that about 7% of leftists poll libertarian. Presumably they wind up voting(supporting) republican. Most leftists identify with the greens & presumably wind up voting(supporting) democrat.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Court has determined that “life” (constitutionally protected life, at least) does not begin until the fetus reaches viability. I will accept arguments against abortion post-viability, but not before it.

    But the point is: The Constitution is not the source of liberty. For God’s sakes, it upheld and defended slavery! It can be amended to do things like prohibit alcohol. The Constitution should be defended, upheld, and obeyed, but it does not mean that everything allowable under the Constitution should be done. The Constitution also gives Congress the authority to DIRECTLY control the money supply; i.e. a Hugo Chavez/Robert Mugabe economy. Is that libertarian?

    Final note: What of Ron Paul’s vote to disallow gay adoptions in D.C. Where are you in defending this, Andy?

  23. Devious David Says:

    Obama is all for war. He’s just quasi-against THIS war. He’d bomb Iran. And probably make things in Darfur worse too. Among many others.

  24. Seth Cohn Says:

    Trevor, given your past history with the LPGeorgia, don’t you think that should be enough of a disqualification to post critically of them or their chosen candidate? You are far from a neutral observer, whereas Austin and others at least attempt to maintain some neutrality at least.

  25. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 26th, 2007 at 11:02 am
    The Court has determined that “life” (constitutionally protected life, at least) does not begin until the fetus reaches viability. I will accept arguments against abortion post-viability, but not before it.”

    One could also bring up that the Supreme Court once ruled that black slaves that ran away had to be returned to their masters. The Surpeme Court recently ruled that the federal government can arrest people for marijuana for medicinal purposes even in states where marijauan for medicinal purposes has been deemed legal. The Supreme Court also recently ruled that it is OK for the government to confiscate land from people and to hand it over to corporations under eminent domain.

    So just because the Supreme Court says something it doesn’t automatically mean that it is right. This is why Thomas Jefferson warned against courts turning into tyrannical oligarchies. It is ultimately up to We The People to defend individual liberty.

    “But the point is: The Constitution is not the source of liberty. For God’s sakes, it upheld and defended slavery! It can be amended to do things like prohibit alcohol. The Constitution should be defended, upheld, and obeyed, but it does not mean that everything allowable under the Constitution should be done. The Constitution also gives Congress the authority to DIRECTLY control the money supply; i.e. a Hugo Chavez/Robert Mugabe economy. Is that libertarian?”

    I agree with you here that the Constitution is not the be all and end all of liberty. If one looks at the Constitution but they do not have a strong foundation in liberty they can still violate people’s rights and stay within the confines of the Constitution. Such as, there could be constitutional Declaration of War against countries for unjust reasons and/or lies. Tarriffs could be raised to unreasonable levels, like say tarriffs of 100%. Excise taxes could be put on more products and could be jacked up really high. Etc…

    The Constitution – if followed – puts limitations on government power – but it does not mean that there still couldn’t be abuses of power even if it were followed.

    Yet another thing to consider is that a lot of people think that tyranny is OK if it is kept at a state level, and they will bring up the 10th amendment to justify this, but then they will ignore the fact that they tyranny that they are trying to justify probably violates the state constitution.

    “Final note: What of Ron Paul’s vote to disallow gay adoptions in D.C. Where are you in defending this, Andy?”

    #1) The federal government has jurisdiction over Washington DC, as well as the federal territories.

    #2) There are pedophile rings that operate in Washington DC and this puts the rights of the childern in question at risk. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be some kid that is forced to “bend over” for somebody like Mark Foley. Do some research on the Finders Case and the Franklin Coverup.

    #3) I heard that this bill included some provision for tax payer funding.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Just because the Supreme Court says something doesn’t make it true, but it does make it “constitutional” under another court overrules. The 14th amendment also prohibits states from violating thier citizens’ liberties to a great degree, and this is why CP types hate the 14th amendment.

    It would be entirely constitutional for the Congress and president to:

    1) Slap 10,000% tarrifs on all imports
    2) Disallow all exports
    3) Build a wall around the country and let no one in our out (the out part might be problematic, but they could certainly not let them back in)
    4) Turn the money supply over to the Congress and allow them to print money at a 10 million percent inflation rate
    5) Disallow all interstate commerce
    6) Raise income taxes to 100% on whomever the income tax is allowed to be assessed to (assuming the 16th amendment was ratififed)
    7) Declare war on every country on the globe and lob nukes at them all
    8) With the aid of the state legislatures, amend the Constitution to allow ANYTHING except the unequal representation in the Senate – forced sterilization, Jewish internment, lynching of Christians, you name it.

    So in summation, just because something is constitutional, it does NOT NOT NOT mean that it’s “libertarian,” good, or truly “limited.”

  27. globalist_elitist Says:

    And I do not buy the “pedophile ring” argument. For one, many pedophiles lead otherwise heterosexual lives. What about gays who wanted to adopt girls? And since when does the behavior of a few members of a given “class” justify violating the rights of everyone who is a member of that “class”? Some blacks can’t handle their liquor, so we should prohibit them from drinking it? Prohibit us all from drinking?

    Children are adopted into sexually abusive homes every year in America. Banning gay adoption does not prevent it. The only thing that can reduce it is better screening. Gays should be screened just like everyone else.

    That’s a piss-poor excuse. And just because Congress has authority over D.C., it doesn’t mean that they can/should violate the rights of individuals subject to their jurisdiction.

  28. Kris Overstreet Says:

    AHEM Back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC

    ... in this special race, is there any opportunity for the Libertarian Party to NOTA this person out?

    Whatever your position on the war morally is, politically speaking defending it- even in Georgia- is suicide. Less than one-quarter of the electorate support the war now, and nearly two-thirds call for a staged withdrawal with a definite timeline. One-eighth want a total, unilateral, immediate withdraw NOW.

    The Republicans are well on their way to dying in 2008; rushing to their defense is just plain STUPID as a political tactic.

    I should say one thing about the moral side of the argument, though: I believe that anyone who supports Bush’s war of choice in Iraq is also supporting USA-PATRIOT, the Military Commissions Act, Guantanamo, Abu Gharaib, and all the other abuses of power which Bush has attempted to justify by pointing to the ongoing war in Iraq. Bush and the Iraq war are inseparable; you can’t support the war without supporting Bush.

  29. Andy Says:

    Here is information on the bill which GE is refering to incorrectly and using in an attempt to slander Ron Paul.

    “In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill, but the amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia, and in any event was not present in the final bill.”

  30. Richard Winger Says:

    Technically, Dr. Jim Sendelbach is not the nominee of the Georgia Libertarian Party. In Georgia special elections, parties don’t have nominees. Individuals merely decide to run, and the government prints whatever party label the individual asks for. Although I am disappointed in Dr. Sendelbach’s stand on U.S. involvement in Iraq, I would still vote for him if I lived in his district.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    Okay, Andy. Now tell the truth: Do you think Ron Paul would vote for a bill that forbid gay adoption in D.C.? No subsidies, no nothing, just a yes or no? I know you can’t KNOW, but you can have a pretty good idea. If Ron Paul were on an adoption board, would he place a child with a gay couple? Do not recast this conservative in libertarian clothing. He is only moderately to the libertarian side of the average CPer. Just like them, he’s good on some issues, but he’s not for freedom – at least not at the expense of “traditional values.”

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Paul doesnt support “Traditional values”. He supports the constitution. He is anti-drug war (against traditional values). He opposed this measure because it was subsidized. Do you support subsidizing GE?

  33. Kris Overstreet Says:

    When the Federal Marriage Amendment came up in 2006, Ron Paul did not vote for or against it. He was listed as not voting for the Federal Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and he wasn’t in office for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

    He’s spoken out against gay marriage in the past, though, at least according to a toss-off reference by Wikipedia; he feels it is a state issue, should be controlled by the state, and should be banned by the state.

  34. Andy Says:

    Trent Hill Says:

    May 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
    GE,

    Paul doesnt support “Traditional values”. He supports the constitution. He is anti-drug war (against traditional values). He opposed this measure because it was subsidized. Do you support subsidizing GE?”

    Trent just hit the nail on the head.

    “Kris Overstreet Says:

    May 27th, 2007 at 1:31 am
    He’s spoken out against gay marriage in the past, though, at least according to a toss-off reference by Wikipedia; he feels it is a state issue, should be controlled by the state, and should be banned by the state.”

    Ron Paul opposed the anti-gay marriage amendments. He would actually like to see the government get out of marriage period.

  35. Richard Winger Says:

    The idea of having government get out of determining who is married to whom may sound radical, but it isn’t. There are still some states that recognize common-law marriage. In those states, there is no list of whom is married to whom, since common-law marriages don’t appear on any government list. Most states recognized common law marriages in the past. Government didn’t really need to know anyone’s marital status until it became an issue for who received spouse benefits under Social Security. Also it became an issue for income taxes.

  36. Trevor Southerland Says:

    —Sam I Am: Who do you think lines up more with Libertarian Party positions across the broad range of issues, Obama or Sendelbach? Whose views are you more closely aligned with, and why?—
    Sam, I understand where you’re trying to go with this question… but we’re not having a “Libertarian Off” here. I am not comparing who is more Libertarian than the other… pile on top of that the fact that Senator Obama is not running as a Libertarian, Dr. Sendelbach is… oh, and they’re completely different offices they’re running for too.

    I am not comparing a broad range of views, I’m talking about one issue: the continued occupation of Iraq. Senator Obama does hold a Libertarian view on that subject, as he is against the continued occupation of Iraq. Dr. Sendelbach does not hold a Libertarian view on that subject, as he is in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq. So on the occupation in Iraq issue, Senator Obama is more Libertarian than Dr. Sendelbach.

    I’ve met Jim before and he’s a good guy, I have no problems with Jim. What I have a problem with is the continued occupation of Iraq by American troops. I would attack any candidate, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Green, Constitution, Southern Party, Communist, Socialist Workers… whatever frekkin’ party… any candidate that supports the continued occupation of Iraq is one that I would attack.

    As a member of the Democratic Party, I hope that the Party chooses to nominate a candidate for President that has opposed the war in Iraq since day one and that brings back a sense of hope for America… and that is Senator Barack Obama.

    As a former member of the Libertarian Party of Georgia, I still have many great friends in that organization and wish them all the luck in the world.

    As a blogger on TPW, I would blog about any candidate of a third party that is running on a stance opposite to that party’s beliefs. Example: “Constitution Party candidate demands Baptist Church preform gay marriage”—that’s something I would blog about, because that’s what TPW is about, the third parties.

    —Robert Milnes: Trevor, you seem to be bucking the conventional wisdom. I concluded from The Libertarian Vote that about 7% of leftists poll libertarian. Presumably they wind up voting(supporting) republican. Most leftists identify with the greens & presumably wind up voting(supporting) democrat.—
    Most Libertarians very well may end up in the Republican camp… I have some friends who used to be Libertarians (such as Chris Farris) who now work within the Republican Party. That’s good for them. Personally, the issue of the war in Iraq as well as other beliefs that I have led me to the Democratic Party. I am the exception, and I am one of the most moderate/conservative/libertarian people in the Democratic Party of Fulton County.

    —Devious David: Obama is all for war. He’s just quasi-against THIS war.—
    Like Senator Obama, I would not oppose a justified war. However; the war in Iraq is not justified and is not a war I have never supported.

  37. Trevor Southerland Says:

    —Seth: Trevor, given your past history with the LPGeorgia, don’t you think that should be enough of a disqualification to post critically of them or their chosen candidate? You are far from a neutral observer, whereas Austin and others at least attempt to maintain some neutrality at least.—

    I still have many friends in the LPGeorgia, I don’t want to see their offices destroyed or any harm come to anyone. Thankfully the first amendment gives me the right to say what I want about anyone, including people who have wronged me in the past.

    As for “neutrality” – as I’ve said previously I would attack any candidate who’s supporting the war in Iraq… and I would blog about any candidate I see that takes a position opposite of their respective party’s position on a subject.

    —Richard Winger: Technically, Dr. Jim Sendelbach is not the nominee of the Georgia Libertarian Party. In Georgia special elections, parties don’t have nominees. Individuals merely decide to run, and the government prints whatever party label the individual asks for. Although I am disappointed in Dr. Sendelbach’s stand on U.S. involvement in Iraq, I would still vote for him if I lived in his district.—

    That is correct. Dr. Sendelbach is the only Libertarian running, and is promoted on the web site of the Libertarian Party of Georgia as the candidate.

  38. Ghoststrider Says:

    On the original topic, this guy sounds like a neolibertarian. How that works is beyond me.

  39. Devious David Says:

    Obama is just spinning O’Reilly style on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I am sure he’s all for intervention in Darfur. He insists that “all options are on the table” with respect to Iran. Obama is just another phoney bologna “anti-war” Democrat that is only interested in business as usual. “Vote different” my ass. Did I get into socialized medicine?

  40. timothy west Says:

    anything that starts with neo- vote against it. Neo anything sux.

  41. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ron Paul is whatever he needs to be to raise $$$.

    When he’s at a fundraiser in New Hampshire hosted by Libertaians, he’s “Mr. Libertarian.”

    When he’s back home in his very conservative South Texas District, he’s “Mr. Bush Republican.”

  42. Sean Scallon Says:

    Solar power and more war, now that’s one hell of platform! We can call Mr. Sendelbach a “hippy warrior” right?

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    Obama is a Fascist. The man has a perfect 100 voting score from the Marxist ADA. He also has perfect 100 scores from the Federal Worker’s Unoin and the Teacher’s Union NEA.

    One of his colleagues in the IL Senate, (Sen. Steve Rauschenberg) said of him a few months ago, “nice guy, but he’s got a voting record to the Left of Mao Tse Tung.

    He’s also a Nanny-stater having advocated repeal of gun rights, tough seat belt laws and confiscatory taxation in Illinois.

    Obama would sell us out to the Islamo-Fascists faster than you could say “Allahu-Ahkbar.”

    I don’t have a problem with a guy who is working for the Democrat Party on TPW. I DO have a problem with a guy who openly supports a Fascist/Socialist like Burak HUSSEIN Obama.

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    FYI,

    There is another “libertarian” in the race for this Congressional seat: Bill Greene. Bill is a longtime member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, going back to the early 1990s.

    Ironically, he was also NC Campus Coordinator for Ron Paul for President in 1988.

    Green calls himself a “Christian libertarian.”

  45. globalist_elitist Says:

    Dondero, you are such an idiot. Marxist and Fascist are opposites on the left-right axis, you moron.

    Who cares if the guy’s middle name is “Hussein.” That is so racist. Your “point” (if you have one, other than the fact that you’re an idiot) is hurt by your obvious racial hate, Eric Dondero RITTBERG.

  46. globalist_elitist Says:

    Christian Libertarian makes about as much sense as Jewish Nazi or Intelligent Donderian.

  47. Devious David Says:

    Dondero-Tora Bora-Rittberg has a personal vendetta against Ron Paul. Because Ron Paul fired his crazy ass. End of story. Go get help and therapy, Eric.

  48. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yup, he fired me alright. In fact, on the way out the door he gave me a $10,000 bonus, and he offered his name as a reference for future employment. Been using that reference for the past 3 years.

    And the first time I quit his emply in 2001, he tracked me all the way down in Mexico to ask me to come back.

    Funny thing, first time he ever said that he “fired” me was 3 days after I declared against him for Congress.

  49. Eric Dondero Says:

    Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal, Progressive, it’s all the same thing: Different flavors of Authoritarianism.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    You fucking moron. “Liberal” means someone who values individual rights. Your Orwellian newspeak is truly epic. A Guiliani-ite talking about “authoritarianism”? You do realize that literally everyone things you’re a giant d-bag and wishes you dead, right?

  51. Jay Matthews Says:

    For all the people who like Ron Paul (or might otherwise like Ron Paul) but have a hang up with him running as a Republican:

    If you like a candidate’s platform why should anything else matter????

  52. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
    Yup, he fired me alright. In fact, on the way out the door he gave me a $10,000 bonus, and he offered his name as a reference for future employment. Been using that reference for the past 3 years.”

    This was probably along the lines of, “OK Eric, here’s $10 grand and a letter of reference. Now please get lost.”

  53. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
    You fucking moron. ‘Liberal’ means someone who values individual rights.”

    The term liberal origninally meant, and is still technically SUPPOSED to mean the same thing as libertarian, but it was hijacked by socialist in the early half of the last century.

    “Who cares if the guy’s middle name is ‘Hussein.’ That is so racist.”

    I agree with you here that Eric is showing particular disdain for Obama because of his connection to Islam, and I do not agree with this, however, overall I also agree with Eric that Obama SUCKS. Obama is nothing more than another establishment big government politician.

  54. globalist_elitist Says:

    Liberal does not quite mean the same thing as libertarian. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill were liberals – they were not libertarians. I consider myself to be a liberal in the Smith/Ricardo/Mill mold, NOT in the FDR/Obama mold. But as you have pointed out, I am not a “libertarian” and by association of ideas, neither were the inventors of capitalism.

    So why do I associate with the Libertarian Party? Because it is the most liberal (classical sense) of the parties. If you want to kick me out, I don’t care.

    Obama sucks not only because he is a socialist (social democrat, to be more correct), but because he is a Christian (not Islamic) theonomist as well.

  55. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
    Liberal does not quite mean the same thing as libertarian. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill were liberals – they were not libertarians. I consider myself to be a liberal in the Smith/Ricardo/Mill mold, NOT in the FDR/Obama mold. But as you have pointed out, I am not a ‘libertarian’ and by association of ideas, neither were the inventors of capitalism.”

    Liberal means one who believes in liberty/freedom. That’s the same as libertarian. If the word liberal had not been hijacked by socialist and were not so (incorrectly) associated with socialism today libertarians could be known as liberals.

    “So why do I associate with the Libertarian Party? Because it is the most liberal (classical sense) of the parties. If you want to kick me out, I don’t care.”

    The reasons that I’ve said that you should not be in the Libertarian Party are because you are so far off the Libertarian view on too many issues, you are neither an anarchist or a hardcore minarchist. In addition to this, you like to attack others and engage in smear campaigns against people who are far more libertarian than you, and who have done far more for liberty than you. Your commitment to liberty seems wishy washy at best, and you are a very divisive fellow. You should consider forming your own party.

  56. Devious David Says:

    Ron Paul track Dondero/Rittberg down in Mexico? Probably because you had the passwords for the computers or something and they couldn’t figure it out.

    I didn’t know Dr. Paul was saying that you were fired. Someone here levied that accusation and I’m just promulgating it, true or not. It’s fun like that.

    There is clearly a vendetta there. You are disgruntled. Twisted. Demented even. And after a lot of the things you have said here and elsewhere, I wouldn’t give you a reference if you blew me every morning and worked for free. But then again, if I felt I needed to do it to get rid of you. Actually, I would just give you cement boots. You know, I’d get all pragmatic and all that.

    There is a difference between a bonus and severance.

    I also find it interesting that you don’t attempt to refute my accusations regarding the status of your mental health. Maybe I’ll be the victim of a slander/libel lawsuit. Oh, wait – you are a public, world famous figure. So I can do that. Besides, it’s true. How many days a week do you spend in counciling? We need to know because we don’t want our campaign contributions to be blown on tranquilizers and couch sessions.

  57. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    I’ll do some namecalling.

    TPW bloggers – swell guys
    Dondero Rittberg – highly contemptable vindictive imp, zero integrity
    Paul – man of great integrity and guts
    Obama – political slut
    Jim Sendelbach – militarist utopian

  58. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy – My views are very similar to those of Smith, Ricardo, Mill; and later, Friedman and Hayek. Friedman and Hayek existed in the libertarian age, but still preferred to be called liberals because there was/is a difference. My perspective differs from libertarian dogma on monetary policy and taxation. If Libertarians can support the FraudTax, why not the income tax? Why is the belief that a low, flat-rate income tax is the best way to fund necessary government functions (because it is the least fdetrimental to growth in my estimation) so much less “libertarian” than the adovacy of a growth-killing sales tax? Would it be unacceptable for someone to believe that Congress has a constitutional authority to control the money supply? They do. But yet it is certainly more libertarian for that power to be one step removed from the whims of Congress.

    I don’t really care if I have your approval or not, but I am tired of fighting with you. We agree on virtually every issue but the two above, and I don’t think belief in conspiracy theories is requesite for libertarianness.

  59. Susan Hogarth Says:

    G_E,

    Most Libertarians do not support the sales tax.

  60. Susan Hogarth Says:

    And no libertarians do. (Did I say that?)

  61. globalist_elitist Says:

    I don’t like playing the “who’s a libertarian/Libertarian” game.

    If acknowledging that government has some constitutional duties that needed to be funded make’s one not a libertarian, then I’m not a libertarian.

    The FraudTax is a ridiculous, anti-growth, pro-government bureaucracy FANTASY that would require a constitutional amendment.

    The Steve Forbes Flat Tax is pro-growth, less bureaucratic, and constitutional.

    I have found that most Libertarians and libertarians understand economics about as well as Democrats and socialists; i.e. not at all.

  62. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 29th, 2007 at 2:04 am
    Andy – My views are very similar to those of Smith, Ricardo, Mill; and later, Friedman and Hayek. Friedman and Hayek existed in the libertarian age, but still preferred to be called liberals because there was/is a difference. My perspective differs from libertarian dogma on monetary policy and taxation.”

    I’d say that those are two pretty big issues, and these are not the only areas where you do not agree with Libertarians. You’ve come out in favor of government schools, seat belt laws, minimum wage, and Affirmative Action, to name just a few things.

    “If Libertarians can support the FraudTax, why not the income tax? Why is the belief that a low, flat-rate income tax is the best way to fund necessary government functions (because it is the least fdetrimental to growth in my estimation) so much less “libertarian” than the adovacy of a growth-killing sales tax?”

    I HATE the so called FAIRTAX myself as I think that it’s a scam. I also hate the income tax. I do not support switching from the income tax to the FAIRTAX because I believe that the FAIRTAX could be just as bad – if not worse – than the income tax and I also believe that all of the talk about the FAIRTAX leads people away from the real problems, and those are the spending and the monetary system, and the very notion that the government “needs the revenue” in the first place. Libertarians who support the FAIRTAX are misguided at best in my opinion.

    The FAIRTAX and the income tax are both wrong, and there are two ways of looking at why they are wrong.

    #1) Taxation is theft and whether or not the theft occurs when somebody recieves a pay check or when they purchase something it does not erase the fact that it is theft.

    #2) Even if one believes that a minimal, constitutionally restrained government is necessary to protect people against forms of violence, theft, and destruction of property, it still does not justify the income tax or the FAIRTAX because neither are needed to fulfill the constitutional role of our government.

    “Would it be unacceptable for someone to believe that Congress has a constitutional authority to control the money supply? They do. But yet it is certainly more libertarian for that power to be one step removed from the whims of Congress.”

    The Constitution says that “No state shall accept anything but gold and silver coin as a payment for debts.” The colonies expiermented with fiat currency before the Constitution was written and it was a disaster. The big bankers who control the Federal Reserve are NOT friends of freedom, in fact, they are enemies of freedom.

    “I don’t really care if I have your approval or not, but I am tired of fighting with you. We agree on virtually every issue but the two above,”

    You actually started the fighting with me. When I first saw your posts I tried responding in a civil manner, but you were not civil and you are in fact not civil very often.

    You viciously attacked Ron Paul for months and went to great – even ridiculous – lengths to discredit and smear him, nevermind the fact that Ron Paul is without question the most pro-liberty person in the federal government and has done more for liberty than you have, and is in fact more libertarian than you are.

    “and I don’t think belief in conspiracy theories is requesite for libertarianness.”

    I never said that a belief in “conspiracy theories” is a requesite for being a libertarian. Of course, everyone does believe in some “conspiracy theories,” it’s just that some people tend to believe only in the ones the government puts out. This alone does not necessarily mean that one is not a libertarian, however, at some point if a person believes in what the government says they would be disqualified from being libertarians because if they believed everything the government says they’d support Social Security, the War on Drugs, and every thing else the government does.

    I don’t disqualify people as libertarians based on whether or not they believe that they government carried out 9/11 or whether or not the government was involved in the JFK assassination, or other things like this, however, I’m not wild about people who claim to be libertarians deriding those who are skeptical about what the government says and research issues and seek the truth. I also don’t care for libertarians who deride tax protestors, ID protestors, war protestors, militia members, and other people who go to extremes to resist government. Just because they don’t have the balls to do any of these things is no reason to deride those who do. There are different ways to fight the government and there is no one silver bullet.

  63. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
    I don’t like playing the ‘who’s a libertarian/Libertarian’ game.”

    Except when you are attacking somebody, like Ron Paul for instance.

    “If acknowledging that government has some constitutional duties that needed to be funded make’s one not a libertarian, then I’m not a libertarian.”

    I wouldn’t say that this automatically means that one is not a libertarian. I think that one can be an anarchist or a hardcore minarchist (as in a strict Constitutionalist) and be considered a libertarian.

    “The FraudTax is a ridiculous, anti-growth, pro-government bureaucracy FANTASY that would require a constitutional amendment.”

    I agree with you here that the FAIRTAX sucks.

    “The Steve Forbes Flat Tax is pro-growth, less bureaucratic, and constitutional.”

    I don’t like the Flat Tax either, but at least it wouldn’t be as much of a hassle as implementing the FAIRTAX would be, and it would also be easier to avoid than the FAIRTAX, so it would probably be preferable to the FAIRTAX.

    I don’t think that either the current income tax, the FAIRTAX, or the Flat Tax are necessary. They are all theft from an anarchist position and from a minarchist position none of them are needed to fulfill the constitutional functions of government.

    I remember when I first joined the Libertarian Party back in 1996 one of the things that made me want to join was when Harry Browne brought up the point that if the government actually obeyed the Constititon, there’d be no need for an income tax.

    “I have found that most Libertarians and libertarians understand economics about as well as Democrats and socialists; i.e. not at all.”

    I have found that libertarians as a group, are – generally speaking – the most well informed people around, on all issues, especially economics.

  64. Devious David Says:

    I just want to pile on the “Fair”Tax sucks bandwagon. I’d love to expound, but I think you guys covered most of the bases for me, except that it’s at best a worthless sidestep, assuming that the Boortz propoganda is true, which of course, it absolutely isn’t.

  65. globalist_elitist Says:

    1. “Government schools” = No. Public education does not have to be “government schools.” Adam Smith was for public education. I am for universal charter schools and an open market in education; education to be controlled at the state leve, but with each child having guaranteed access to any of the public non-government charter schools.

    2. Seat belt laws are not a great infringement on liberty. Having them is like having a law against setting your nuts on fire. That law would be pointless, but the fact is that we have a financial and highway infrastructure and the market’s “solution” to the problem would be higher insurance rates for everyone else. I live in reality, not in conspiracyland. The extreme minor infringement on “liberty” is worth the extra few hundred bucks I’m saved.

    3. Minimum wage: If the minimum wage is $0.01 an hour, is it even relevent? Markets, not governments, should determine wages. But a minimum wage, set at a floor below which no sane or reasonable (i.e. non-mentally disabled) person would work at is not an “infringement” on “liberty” in my opinion. Furthermore, my “support” for the existence of a minimum wage (not its increase, etc.) is more about political reality. There are 1000 issues more important. Which brings us to…

    4. Affirmative Action: I am not in favor of government racial preference. The only thing I have come out against is the LP making this a flagship issue, which in the eyes of many blacks, paints us as racists. There are much, much bigger issues. Furthermore, I do think it appropriate for private companies to practice “affirmative action” in the name of diversity – voluntarily. And yes, I do support the Civil Rights Act, although it could probably be repealed today with no ill consequences.

    As for “balls” – I have the “balls” to make money; the most libertarian act of all.

    If taxation is theft, then don’t ask the government to settle your disputes in a court of law. Don’t call the police when your sister is getting raped. Don’t use the government roads. Don’t buy anything shipped on those same roads. Don’t use the internet; a government invention. And don’t ask the government to protect your intellectual property or protect your precious borders.

  66. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 30th, 2007 at 7:45 am
    1. ‘Government schools’ = No. Public education does not have to be ‘government schools.’ Adam Smith was for public education. I am for universal charter schools and an open market in education; education to be controlled at the state leve, but with each child having guaranteed access to any of the public non-government charter schools.”

    Education should not be controlled by the state at any level. Also, when you give tax payer money to “private” or “charter” schools there are always going to be strings attached, even if it is not apparent right away. The government should be kept completely out of education.

    “2. Seat belt laws are not a great infringement on liberty. Having them is like having a law against setting your nuts on fire. That law would be pointless, but the fact is that we have a financial and highway infrastructure and the market’s ‘solution’ to the problem would be higher insurance rates for everyone else. I live in reality, not in conspiracyland. The extreme minor infringement on ‘liberty’ is worth the extra few hundred bucks I’m saved.”

    Saying that seat belt laws are not a great infringement on liberty is just your OPINION. I’d say that if not wearing a seat belt can be used by a cop as an excuse to pull people over and extort money out of them that it IS an infringement on liberty.

    I prefer to wear a seat belt myself, because I think that one is generally safer if they wear one, but there are some instances where seat belts have actually caused people to die (they are probably the exception and not the rule, but this is besides the point). It should be up to each individuals as to whether or not they wear a seat belt.

    It seems to me that there is little to no evidence that seat belt laws have lowered car insurance rates. Also, as I’ve said before the free market would have a solution for this if it were really a problem and if the government would get out of it. The REALITY is that this is just a scheme for the cops to be able to have another excuse to pull people over and write them out tickets and to hopefully (from their stand point) find more charges on which they can nail people.

    “3. Minimum wage: If the minimum wage is $0.01 an hour, is it even relevent? Markets, not governments, should determine wages. But a minimum wage, set at a floor below which no sane or reasonable (i.e. non-mentally disabled) person would work at is not an ‘infringement’ on ‘liberty’ in my opinion. Furthermore, my ‘support’ for the existence of a minimum wage (not its increase, etc.) is more about political reality. There are 1000 issues more important. Which brings us to…”

    There shouldn’t be any minimum wage. The minimum wage does not accomplish its stated objective and is nothing more than a “feel good” solution that some politicians use to sucker people into voting for them.

    “4. Affirmative Action: I am not in favor of government racial preference. The only thing I have come out against is the LP making this a flagship issue, which in the eyes of many blacks, paints us as racists. There are much, much bigger issues. Furthermore, I do think it appropriate for private companies to practice ‘affirmative action’ in the name of diversity – voluntarily. And yes, I do support the Civil Rights Act, although it could probably be repealed today with no ill consequences.”

    I don’t think that the Libertarian Party has made getting rid of Affirmative Action into a flagship issue. Maybe it has in Michigan, but that’s only because there was a big controversy about it in Michigan in the last few years, but in the rest of the country for the LP it has been more of a side issue.

    “As for ‘balls’ – I have the ‘balls’ to make money; the most libertarian act of all.”

    A lot of people make money, in fact, just about everyone makes some money. However, just because somebody makes money – even if they make a lot of money – it doesn’t automatically mean that they are a libertarian. In fact, a lot of people who make a lot of money are NOT libertarians, and some of them are actually anti-libertarian.

    Also, a lot of people who make a lot of money are too busy making money and too busy enjoying their money to even care about fighting for liberty.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think that making money can be a great thing, I’m just pointing out that it is a fallacy to automatically assume that making a lot of money makes one a libertarian.

  67. Andy Says:

    “As for ‘balls’ – I have the ‘balls’ to make money; the most libertarian act of all.”

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams

    Samuel Adams

  68. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy, the British have been gone for a long long time now. The war is over.

  69. Andy Says:

    “Tom Bryant Says:

    May 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
    Andy, the British have been gone for a long long time now. The war is over.”

    That Sam Adams quote is just as valid today as it was back then. The people who value wealth over liberty that he’s talking about remind me of the arrogant yuppies of today who think that “they’ve got theirs” so everything is OK and bury their heads in the sand over all of the problems that we’ve got.

  70. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy,

    You really should read the entire speech made by Samuel Adams. Taking quotes out of context because you can’t figure out how to respond to GE just makes you look very silly.

    American won the Revolutionary War. We are free from the British. It’s time that you moved on.

  71. Brutus Cato Says:

    Hi, I’m new here but I would like to respond to Globalist Elitist. Regarding seatbelt laws, it would be very easy for Insurers to make wearing of a seat belt a condition precedent to recovery in an accident. Granted, this may mean the injured party would have to bear the costs of injury, which may impose costs on the public in our current welfare state. But society already covers the costs of such reckless drivers through our insurance system, with the increased premiums we all suffer. Moreover, I assert a condition precedent would be a stronger deterrent to wear seatbelts. A person aware that a contract provision will deprive them of insurance, that protection for which they paid so much, a person more likely to wear a seatbelt than any threat of police enforcement and fine could ever do. Lastly, Andy makes a good point seat belt laws merely give cops ammo to stop you on the highway and (in some statea) an excuse to arrest, which leads to all other worlds of hurt including search of car and person.

    P.S. I would be more supportive of seatbelt laws if government officials wore theirs; but when I see a-holes like NJ governor John Corzine not wearing his, I just wished his insurance would have denied coverage for failure of a condition precedent.

  72. Alternative Medicine Says:

    Alternative Medicine

    Alternative Medicine

Leave a Reply