I’m reminded of a saying about beams and eyes. How did that go again? (Don’t ask Lowlife, he probably thinks it commanded him to poke out the eyes of anyone who does not worship Satan and call him Jesus or YHWH, as he does).

The Preamble containing that phrase was added to the LP Platform in the earl 1980s. I suspect that, like “force and fraud”, the phrase pre-dates the LP’s founding in 1971.

Well, I suppose the only important question to be raised at this point is if you might have felt comfortable writing that platform line, “any activity that is peaceful and honest”. Were you the author of or sypathetic to that brilliancy, big P? If so, you do indeed deserve to be dunked in the fashion of a latter day Salem witch into a vat of animal ca-ca. Best to make the punishment suitable to the crime, of course.

You were saying something about me acting like an adolescent? When you point that finger, five are pointing back at you.

jonhlowball at TurdPottyWatch:

What is to be made of the vapididity of the Libertarian defense of “any activity that is peaceful and honest”, for example. For having done so, shouldn’t people that write such twaddle be dunked like witches into vats of steaming horse phong?

No doubt, you would do exactly that if given the chance.

Wow, president tush was right…the terrorists really do hate us for our freedom.

When you diss me, you diss yourself, jonhlowball.

“Unlike the CP, I have no problem with expressions of pleasure. Please don’t aim them in my direction, and I hope you remember to wipe yourself and/or your keyboard off when you’re done.”

Well, one thing we can say with certainty about your capabilities, Pauly, you’re sensate enough to know when you’ve been insulted.

You’ll pardon me, of course, if I were to express a certain pleasure with this outcome.

Unlike the CP, I have no problem with expressions of pleasure. Please don’t aim them in my direction, and I hope you remember to wipe yourself and/or your keyboard off when you’re done.

“If you can’t spell my nickname correctly or do a ctrl+F to find what questions I asked, I won’t help you. ”

You’ll pardon me, of course, if I were to express a certain pleasure with this outcome.

Coercive monopoly government is, in fact, immoral by the very nature of its existence.

If it must continue to exist, it should be minimized as much as possible, but we should always be aware that, just as with any other malignant cancer, infectious disease, or pest infestation, cutting out part of the problem is not an adequate solution.

The idea that such an immoral institution can safeguard our morals is silly, and not worth debating. (Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop!)

Neither is anyone who would want to pardon Ramos and Compean worth debating. I sincerely hope they are in general population, in the same cell block with numerous immigrants, and receiving no special protection, and that they remain so for the rest of their full sentences.

“There is and can be no such thing as a legal order that exists apart from a moral order.

True …

The morality is always there as context whether or not you wish it to be.

Certainly …”

Well, some progress at last! These statements certainly didn’t represent your outlook earlier. Then, government was one thing and morality another and never the twain should meet. Welcome aboard.

“Your premise is that the law does, in fact, exist apart from morality yet you wish to employ it – the law – in a crusade against something you consider immoral?

You apparently haven’t thought through the implications of that statement.”

The question we were addressing bore solely on whether there were some real relation between law and morality. Why would I have been required to consider possible implications when the more basic question remained unresolved?

“By the way, you never did answer any of my questions. Scroll up to see what they were; I included question marks to make them easier to identify.”

For the life of me I can’t locate what it is that you refer to here.

Newt didnt promise anytihng IN the Contract with America–but he made pretty overt promises to do just those things. It was a slipup though,well caught.

The CWA didn’t include eliminating any departments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America.

Barr will get the votes of the cosmo liberartarians, but they’re easily swamped in Obamaland. Hell, Wayne Ally Root could only find 30 people to show up for a recent campaign rally on his own in California which shows the limited appeal of the Barr/Root ticket.

With Paul’s endorsement, I think its safe to say Baldwin will do better than any CP nominee has done in the past, but again we find ourselves divided and divided by some fairly substantial issues. Because Paul decided not to run all the way to November, the movement divded itself. Perhaps it was inevitable but the prettyness that usually finds itself emeshed in non-major party politics has reared its ugly head again.

In retrospect, especially in the wake of this awful financial bailout, it sure would be nice to have Paul out there swinging away against the majors on the ballot of three of the biggest non-major parties. But not running for President in the fall when he was running for re-election to Congress and winning deleagtes to the GOP Convention were factors in keeping this from taking place. What’s done is done and you can vote for Barr or Baldwin or Nader or McKinney if you like. My only hope is there are enough votes going either way to kill one of the major party candidates, McCain hopefully from my point of view.

Yet there’s no question the scene right now is crying out for a party that promotes decentralization, especially on the national stage. The differences we have, both politcally and culturally, may very well mean we cannot have a merger of the LP and the CP or the Naderites and Greens. Thats’s fine. Let them act locally or at the state level where they are more effective anyway. But there’s no reason to think that these parties could come together in a national party dedicated to the principles Ron Paul laid down in his press conference with the CFL as its foundation (that’s why it was disappointing Barr didn’t show up). Such a party would run candidates for Congress and President and would be made up of members of of non-major and even those of major parties who, like Ron Paul, don’t want to shed their R or D label in order to win locally.

Ron Paul proved we can all work together if we share four or five main goals we can all strongly agree on and agree to disagree on all the rest. You cosmos may very well dislike the trailer park “Jesus Freaks” and you provos may very well hate the “poofs” living in ivory towers, but divided by hate, we are easily controlled by the majors. Only when we are united around short and clearly defined principals, do we put the fear of God into them.

Or Buddah, Or Allah, Or Great Spirit or just fear itself. You see, I’m very ecumenechal.

Yes, if you manage to read the whole article, it becomes very clear.

Like it or not, the only 3rd parties that will receive even a trickle of media, be included in some polls, and might break 1% are Barr and Nader.

McKinney and Baldwin are already included in some polls. The Ron Paul revolutionaries can certainly boost the money and attention that Baldwin gets above Barr’s, and “mainstream” media will either follow – as they increasingly do – or lose market share to sites such as ours.

I see very little potential for Barr to get 1% anymore. Perhaps before Palin and snubgate/Baldwin endorsement, and probably not even then. Certainly not now.