Purger

, , , , ,

Remember Our Enemy

In George Bush, Humor, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics on May 28, 2008 at 3:56 pm

From: BobBarrMoneyBomb.com

  1. Shouldn’t Barf be on Bush’s lap?

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 5pm

  2. I don’t understand the use of the Libertarian Party to go after McCain. Do people think Obama will bring libertarian values to Washington? McCain is a terrible candidate but Obama is just as bad, if not worse. Is the point of the LP to give people a real choice for freedom or to hurt the GOP for not being “conservative” enough?

    Greg 28 May 2008 at 5pm

  3. Is the point of the LP to give people a real choice for freedom or to hurt the GOP for not being “conservative” enough?

    The Barfers are going for the latter.

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 5pm

  5. Sorry, I didn’t have an anti-Obama graphic handy. I’m sure there will be one at some point. Just stay patient there Greg.

    Jason Gatties 28 May 2008 at 5pm

  6. For me, neutralizing McCain and eroding his base of support is a top priority in 2008. The man is freaking insane. I doubt most readers of this blog would disagree with that assessment. In fact, he just announced (in Denver, of all places) “I will never surrender in Iraq”.
    Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/mccain-backs-india-us-nuclear-deal-to-fight-proliferation_10053599.html

    Gene Trosper 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  7. In fact, he just announced (in Denver, of all places) “I will never surrender in Iraq”.

    The irony.

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  8. Well poop. Try again.

    In fact, he just announced (in Denver, of all places) “I will never surrender in Iraq”.

    The irony.

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  9. Mike Nelson (”disinter”) doesn’t have much credibility attacking Libertarians for affiliation with the GOP, considering that he spent most of his political capital campaigning tirelessly for a Republican.

    Those of us who are reliable Libertarian partisans have the moral authority to critique the LP, but Nelson bolted for the GOP and one of its candidates months ago. It’s a bit rich for him to be demanding purity now — almost as funny as Libertarians-for-10-months proclaiming that the “LP is dead.”

    Brian Miller 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  10. Mike, please get proper permission from an authorized LP official next time before you dare to offer your in-credible opinions of their candidates. OK?

    Robert Mayer 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  11. considering that he spent most of his political capital campaigning tirelessly for a Republican.

    That would be Ron Paul – who happens to be FAR more libertarian than Bob Barf and the Barfers.

    BTW – how did your endorsed candidate (Urkel) do?

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  12. how did your endorsed candidate … do?

    Better in the LP than Ron Paul did with his party.

    Of course, we actually showed up and did stuff rather than just posting trash-talk on the Internet.

    Brian Miller 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  13. Better in the LP than Ron Paul did with his party.

    Hmm. Ron Paul just got 24% in Idaho and beat Obama.

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  14. Yes, he did “well” in a primary that’s no longer actively contested.

    He’ll have a vanishingly small proportion of delegates in the GOP primary — fewer than Phillies had at the LP convention.

    Either way, he’s not going to do that well. And either way, it’s not like you’re actively doing anything beyond internet trash-talk to “help” him in those limited areas of “success” in the GOP.

    And last but not least, you’re hardly in a position to complain about Republicans when you’re supporting one yourself.

    End of.

    Brian Miller 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  15. Yes, he did “well” in a primary that’s no longer actively contested.

    Yea, cuz McSame isn’t actively running anymore. Duh!

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  16. Well, I guess you can pseudonym-blog your way to victory, or die tryin’, kiddo. Good luck with that, I think you’ll need it.

    Brian Miller 28 May 2008 at 6pm

  17. Well I guess Ms. Miller and her Outright Liber-Nazi gang bang will cry her way to victory, or die tryin’, kiddo. Good luck with that, I think you’ll need it.

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 7pm

  18. “I don’t understand the use of the Libertarian Party to go after McCain.”

    Neither do I. The man practically attacks himself.

    darolew 28 May 2008 at 9pm

  19. Neither do I. The man practically attacks himself.

    But all those hard-core conservative crazies are going to vote for us if only we run a hard-core conservative crazy ourself. Don’t you get it?

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 9pm

  20. I don’t understand the use of the Libertarian Party to go after McCain.

    I do…because the man is flippin’ dangerous. If we can prevent a wannabee mass-murder from becoming president, it may well the best gift we can give the world this year.

    Gene Trosper 28 May 2008 at 10pm

  21. I do…because the man is flippin’ dangerous.

    You REALLY think Clint and Osama aren’t?

    disinter 28 May 2008 at 11pm

  22. “You REALLY think Clint and Osama aren’t?”

    I think everyone knows that Osama Bin Laden, if he still draws breath, is a very dangerous man.

    Now, if you were referring to Obama, perhaps you should have used his name, rather than that of a world famous terrorist.

    darolew 29 May 2008 at 6pm

  23. I have met Bob Barr and while I don’t trust him nearly as much as Ron Paul, I will support him fully. He is the far, Far, FAR lesser of four evils.

    Concerning the Libertarian purity of Ron Paul and his supporters, I find them far more Libertarian than the Anarchists, who are just that, Anarchists. Well that’s Ok by me, they have that right and I frequently support their view in certain matters.

    However Anarchy does not pass the Litmus Test of Libertarianism which was set by the Original Libertarians, The Founders of This Nation. Sorry, but They have about a 233 year prior claim on that title. So questioning someones Libertarian Integrity/Purity just because they supported the most Libertarian Candidate running, regardless of Party, is not only divisive it is also hypocritical, as Libertarianism is ALL about FREEDOM of Choice,,,,, is it not.

    Ron Paul is far more Libertarian than Bob Barr. He is also more Libertarian than the Anarchist Philly’s et’al. It’s just a shame he wouldn’t run in his original party, but I do understand.

    Yes! Oslama, Billary and MLame are Serious Threats to this Nation as they ALL work for the same Boss’. You might refer to “Won’t Get Fooled Again” By The Who.

    However, Infighting will only guarantee the success of the BOSS’. Where do your Loyalties really lie? With your own motivations? or with the Prospect of more Freedom?

    Grow up, get over it, the die is cast, vote for the most Libertarian Candidate running regardless of some ones piddlin’ purity passion.

    VOTE Libertarian, Vote for TRUE Change.

    Stan Norred
    281-782-9744
    windstalker@windstalker.com
    Chairman Galveston County
    Libertarian Party
    AND
    Texas State Libertarian Executive Committee
    State Senate District 11 Rep.

    Stan Norred 30 May 2008 at 1am

  24. “However Anarchy does not pass the Litmus Test of Libertarianism which was set by the Original Libertarians, The Founders of This Nation. Sorry, but They have about a 233 year prior claim on that title. So questioning someones Libertarian Integrity/Purity just because they supported the most Libertarian Candidate running, regardless of Party, is not only divisive it is also hypocritical, as Libertarianism is ALL about FREEDOM of Choice,,,,, is it not.”

    Apparently Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, and Albert Jay Nock were all non-libertarians. That comes as a surprise. Since you say Libertarianism is all about freedom of choice, do you apply that to those who don’t wish to have a government, or will you do the supposedly ‘libertarian’ thing and force them to join a government whether they want to or not?

    “Grow up, get over it, the die is cast, vote for the most Libertarian Candidate running regardless of some ones piddlin’ purity passion.”

    Very well then. I will vote for the most libertarian candidate on the ballot, who as I’ve already proven right here: http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/barrroot-has-my-support/#comments (24th comment down), is Chuck Baldwin.

    Hugh Jass 30 May 2008 at 3am

  25. Brian – Disinter has made very generous financial contributions to several Libertarian candidates as well as Bob Barr. Everyone has a unique situation. Some of us give of our time, and pay with our opportunity cost, for the causes we believe in. Others donate their money so that campaigns can hire employees in their stead. I think Mike Nelson (Disinter) has done a lot for liberty and has probably maximized his utility, since it would appear that his hourly pay rate is much higher than that of a paid campaign staffer.

    G.E. 30 May 2008 at 4am

  26. WHOOPS! I meant “Ron Paul” not Bob Barr!!

    G.E. 30 May 2008 at 4am

  27. However Anarchy does not pass the Litmus Test of Libertarianism which was set by the Original Libertarians, The Founders of This Nation.

    They weren’t libertarians.


    Sorry, but They have about a 233 year prior claim on that title.

    Interesting, since they never claimed it. As far as I know, the first known libertarian (who did not claim the title either) was Lao Tzu, approximately 2,000 years before them.

    I know of no use of the term libertarian to describe political factions in 18th century America.


    So questioning someones Libertarian Integrity/Purity just because they supported the most Libertarian Candidate running, regardless of Party, is not only divisive it is also hypocritical, as Libertarianism is ALL about FREEDOM of Choice,,,,, is it not.

    Lost me there. If it’s all about freedom of choice, wouldn’t criticizing someone’s integrity or purity be a type of choice? One can argue against divisiveness, or in favor of unfettered choice, but I see no way to logically argue fot both simultaneously,

    Also, if I read your remarks correctly, I’m quite sure that Dr. Phillies would be as surprised as I am to learn that he is an anarchist.

    pauliecannoli 30 May 2008 at 5am

  28. Missed this

    It’s just a shame [Ron Paul] wouldn’t run in his original party, but I do understand.

    Ron Paul was a Republican well before, as well as well after, he ran as a Libertarian.

    pauliecannoli 30 May 2008 at 5am

All comments are screened for appropriateness. Commenting is a privilege, not a right. Good comments will be cherished, bad comments will be deleted.