 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
twicearound
PO2
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 362
Location: San Antonio
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
There was mail failure on the above mentioned email, I am trying like crazy to find out more on this below another contact posted on FR trying to check it out may be to early for response
FWIW...I contacted Dr. John Ray (this letter is on one of his blog sites too) and he said he receieved the letter directly from Dr. John Hospers in an e-mail. He claims he is certain it is genuine.
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/main.html
Found this posted on his blog sight for what it it is worth
http://americanbacklash.com/
_________________
twicearound |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twicearound
PO2
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 362
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just received a confirmation from John Ray
I actually received the original from Hospers so I think it is OK
JR
_________________
twicearound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twicearound
PO2
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 362
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just received an e mail from Hospers himself with his new email and phone number. Looks as though this is legit.
_________________
twicearound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCJR
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of Libertarians already decided that Kerry is too dangerous to vote Libertarian this time.
Democrat platform used to be (only slightly) better on personal freedom issues. Republican platform is slightly better on economic issues.
Libertarians get upset by recent crazy Republican spending sprees, but Democrats are even worse on the Govt budget (regardless of how much Kerry spins himself a budgetary conservative).
Lately, the Democrat platform isn't even attractive on personal freedom issues. Fascist political correctness gone wild. Sure yer still welcome to do the nasty with anybody, anytime, in any fashion imaginable (GRIN). But you shouldn't smoke, drink, or take non-FDA-approved nutritional supplements. Gotta watch what you say, fasten yer seatbelt, avoid junkfood, get rid of yer guns, hire the incompetent, etc. etc.
I hope most Libertarians vote Bush. If so, will be a sacrifice. It's easier to get on State ballots if you passed a threshold in the previous election. If everybody votes Bush, it will be more difficult/expensive to get on the ballots in the next election cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roon
PO2
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 393
Location: Lilburn, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Libertarian platform is anti Iraq war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twicearound
PO2
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 362
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I know, but if someone anti Iraq can look at skerry and endorse a Hawk, speaks to the total lack on skerry's part. Speaks loudly.
_________________
twicearound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nomorelies
Vice Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 977
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw this somewhere yesterday and I was shocked. Someone wrote that this is the first presidential election that has not had a candidate for the Communist Party in decades.
Why? Because they believe that John Kerry fills the bill.
Manchurian Candidate? I think so.
_________________
Nomorelies Make a donation HERE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCJR
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roon wrote: | | Libertarian platform is anti Iraq war. |
True, some Libertarians are anti Iraq war.
The Libertarian attitude is military isolationist. No foreign treaty entanglements. Make treaties with nobody. Stay out of foreign squabbles that are none of our business. Happily trade with anybody. But if we get attacked, then kick the sh$t out of them! Most Libertarians are not pacifist.
This may or may not be practical. It hasn't been tried in USA foreign policy for 100 years. Other than some expert's wild-donkey guess, it would be difficult to know if this approach would work in the modern world without performing experiments. Such large scale experiments are difficult and possibly dangerous.
Non-interventionist neutral foreign policy has worked quite well for Switzerland, but Switzerland ain't the USA.
=====
Though there is no way to know one way or t'other, some Libertarians think that if we had been non-interventionist years ago-- If we hadn't continuously meddled in middle east politics since the end of WWII-- The middle easterners would have been content to wage jihads against each other, and would not have had time to give the USA a second thought.
Regardless of whether this is a silly naive daydream-- Since we have been attacked, we are out of the non-intervention mode, and now in the sh$t-kicking mode. IMO, we should delay non-intervention policy discussions until after the enemies are fully carbonized (GRIN). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveL
Commander
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While watching my evening cable news shows tonight, I saw a pretty brutal anti-Bush ad that turned out to be an ad approved by and supporting Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president. Why would they be doing this if endorsing Bush??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roon
PO2
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 393
Location: Lilburn, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JCJR wrote: | | Roon wrote: | | Libertarian platform is anti Iraq war. |
True, some Libertarians are anti Iraq war.
The Libertarian attitude is military isolationist. No foreign treaty entanglements. Make treaties with nobody. Stay out of foreign squabbles that are none of our business. Happily trade with anybody. But if we get attacked, then kick the sh$t out of them! Most Libertarians are not pacifist.
This may or may not be practical. It hasn't been tried in USA foreign policy for 100 years. Other than some expert's wild-donkey guess, it would be difficult to know if this approach would work in the modern world without performing experiments. Such large scale experiments are difficult and possibly dangerous.
Non-interventionist neutral foreign policy has worked quite well for Switzerland, but Switzerland ain't the USA.
=====
Though there is no way to know one way or t'other, some Libertarians think that if we had been non-interventionist years ago-- If we hadn't continuously meddled in middle east politics since the end of WWII-- The middle easterners would have been content to wage jihads against each other, and would not have had time to give the USA a second thought.
Regardless of whether this is a silly naive daydream-- Since we have been attacked, we are out of the non-intervention mode, and now in the sh$t-kicking mode. IMO, we should delay non-intervention policy discussions until after the enemies are fully carbonized (GRIN). |
Neal Boortz is a Libertarian but he is supporting the war and has taken grief from the Libertarian Party over that. There was a stink over rather or not he would be allowed to speak at their convention this year because of it, can't remember the outcome. He has had Badnarik on and they have gone head to head over the war and he gets about a caller a day from the Libertarian party over the war issue. From listening to his callers through the years, I think there are a lot of people who agree with the Republicans on fiscal policies but differ on social issues and register as a Libertarian not knowing the view on War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCJR
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roon wrote: | | He has had Badnarik on and they have gone head to head over the war and he gets about a caller a day from the Libertarian party over the war issue. From listening to his callers through the years, I think there are a lot of people who agree with the Republicans on fiscal policies but differ on social issues and register as a Libertarian not knowing the view on War. |
The Libertarian view on war is similar to that of the founding fathers. George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would probably not have joined NATO, stationed thousands of 'peacetime' troops in numerous nations, intervened "for no national interest" in Somalia or Serbia.
Dunno if that is a practical strategy, but it is at least self-consistent.
My problem with Republicans and Democrats-- The platforms are not philosophically self-consistent. Many platform positions are just 'default mirror-image' to garner a few more voters. IOW, if Democrats (or Republicans) glom onto a new issue to shoo in a few more voters, Republicans (or Democrats) will reflexively glom to the inverse of the issue, just to garner nay-sayers into 'the big tent'.
Perhaps this is the only way to organize a national party, but it generates the situation where the typical voter may disagree with up to half of either party's platform positions. The voter can toss a coin, or vote his favorite narrow 'most important' issue, or vote 'a cult of personality', or attempt to divine the party which is 'the lesser of two evils'.
IMO, the Libertarian platform is a bit more internally consistent, but that doesn't mean it removes 'lesser of evils' voter decisions (GRIN). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roon
PO2
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 393
Location: Lilburn, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
This link to World Net Daily in Neal's Nuze today on Boortz.
| Quote: |
WEDNESDAY
OCTOBER 27
2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Libertarian pioneer
endorses Bush
Former presidential candidate says too much at stake not to support 'W'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
The first Libertarian Party candidate for president, who ran for the nation's highest office in 1972, has issued an open letter to fellow party members urging them to vote for President Bush on Tuesday.
Besides running for the White House, Dr. John Hospers wrote what he calls the first full-length book on the libertarian philosophy, "Libertarianism." He also wrote the party's Statement of Principles at the first Libertarian national convention in 1972.
"I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year – more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party – I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans," he wrote in his letter.
"There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties – between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty."
Hospers goes on to decry John Kerry and his policies, saying the Democratic nominee is part of the "International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world."
The former candidate said if Kerry's party wins the presidency it could spell disaster for the nation:
"The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. … They will attempt to enact 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries."
Hospers continues his letter with more analysis of Kerry himself.
"Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s," he wrote. "But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States. … In his 30-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property and free markets."
Hospers also hammers potential first lady Teresa Heinz Kerry, saying the leftist organizations she controls are "virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles."
Turning his attention to Bush, Hospers criticizes several of this policies, but then adds, "His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up – knowingly at grave risk to his political viability – to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with 'the big one': 9-11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon the U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9-11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including 'suitcase' nuclear devices."
Hospers the lists what he considers Bush's accomplishments: "Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam's regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer."
Hospers hails Bush's tax cuts, the first in 15 years, and reminds his fellow Libertarians that the president has as goals a revision of the income tax code and market-based reform of Social Security.
Concludes Hosper:
"Thus far, [leftists'] long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western Civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.
"When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a 'minor party' candidate who cannot possibly win, just to 'get the word out' and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning.
"The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical 'battleground' states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.
"We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war."
Related stories:
Gun-toting homosexuals for Badnarik
Libertarians unite to elect Badnarik
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41116 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
