They supported me. That’s the other way around.

I am always happy to give fellow Libertarians practical advice on doing politics, but I publish it where anyone can read it

http://www.cmlc.org

“Ironically, Barr claims Chambliss is for “ending the government bailouts,” when much of the conservative and libertarian antagonism to Chambliss is because he voted for the $700 billion bailout in October.”

And besides, I thought that, while some individual candidates of either the democrat or republican party may be considered better than others (Chambliss is not one of them!), libertarians generally considered the republican and democrat parties to be different factions of the same party anyway.

Surprised? Consider that both Chambliss and Barr — then still a Republican — were part of the Class of ’94 brought to Congress by Newt Gingrich. Barr was ousted from the U.S. House in ’02, the same year that Chambliss moved up to the Senate.

Buck Farr.

Ron Paul, Mary Ruwart, Tom Knapp, and George Phillies are all libertarians, all members of the LP. Saxby Chambliss is not a libertarian, nor a member of the LP.

The Boston Tea Party endorsed and supported a list of libertarian candidates, mostly LP candidates. So, support for the Boston Tea Party by libertarians was largely support for libertarians (and LP candidates for the most part) by libertarians.

In contrast, Saxby Chambliss is a racist, sexist, militarist, anti-privacy, anti-liberty bigot who has favored enormous subsidies for huge agribusiness firms and bailouts for huge Wall Street banking gangsters. For Barr to claim to be a libertarian and then eulogise Jesse Helms and endorse Saxby Chambliss reveals him to be a liar, and not a libertarian at all. For Barr to provide financial support to GOP candidates running against LP candidates makes him disloyal to the party – and if he did so while on the LNC then he should certainly be held to the same constraints as, say, Angela Keaton as regards the behavior of an LNC member.

To say that there is no difference between Barr supporting various racist, sexist, militaristic war mongering bigots and Mary Ruwart supporting Ron Paul is to say that there is no moral difference, no perceptible distinction between Ron Paul and Saxby Chambliss. If that’s your argument, that all GOP office holders are interchangeable, then I really pity you. You would have no basis on which to pursue individual liberty, private property, and prosperity. You would be just a vacuous party label sifter. How shallow.

As for the rest, I think there may be a double standard. There’s no difference between Barr’s support of various Republicans, most of the LNC’s support of Ron Paul (inc. Ruwart) and Tom Knapp’s and George Phillies’ support of the BTP; and those last three have been not only not criticized but virtually canonized here for those actions.

Where the f**k has HE been the last 100 years?!

Buckley’s stock has gone up considerably as a result of his non-endorsement, methinks.

FFFFFine as in F#ck the GOP.

The GOP should be targeted in all close races for defeat by having a principled libertarian oppose the GOP candidate – unless that candidate is reasonably libertarian, as with Ron Paul in his race for Congress in Texas, say. (And Ron’s re-election races are rarely very close, as I recall.)

The point is that the GOP can either get involved in supporting freedom by getting rid of authoritarian filth like Chambliss, or they can be driven from the field. If the GOP ceased to exist tomorrow, that would not bother me a bit.

(Given their behavior in focusing on what Angela said to whom about what, I doubt if the LNC is the libertarian group to implement this strategy. It’ll be left to the LP state affiliates, or the Boston Tea Party, or both.)

“I have not endorsed either man so as of right now, I can tell you I will not vote for Saxby Chambliss,” Buckley said.

Chambliss voted for the bailout and he’s voted for the escalation of the war in Iraq at every conceivable opportunity. In short, he’s nothing but a neocon piece of shit.

As for Martin, he’s no better. In one of his commercials, he actually brags about how he abandoned his wife and infant child in order to go murder innocent Vietnamese peasants. Furthermore, he constantly talks about how the recession is due to a “lack of regulation” and says he wants to help Obama “fix” the economy.

You couldn’t pay me enough to vote for either of these assholes.

No Libertarians for Chambliss

Recently, on Facebook, I put my status to “Jim is not a libertarian for Saxby Chambliss. So many things wrong with those invites.” I did so because I had been invited by several different people to a new Facebook group by that name.

So, some arch conservative loon came to my profile page and commented on my status. “You want a liberal Super Majority?”

One of the more other people I know wrote, “It’s all coming crashing down anyway. Who cares?”

Then the conservative wrote, “lol – evidently you all need to live it rather than avoid it. You’ll care only it will be too late. So when I hear your outrage, when I hear your suffering, when you are screaming about you liberty, property, guns and whatever else you want to do..I’ll remember who and what you are.”

My other friend wrote, “Wow, libertarian melodrama. Don’t blame me, I voted for Chuck.”

So I wrote: Anthony, Lisa is not any kind of libertarian. She’s a conservative. She wants to blame me because I won’t send money to her @ssh#le friend Chambliss. I supported the libertarian in that race, who kept Chambliss from winning. I don’t want a liberal “super majority,” but I want the conservatives to suffer a lot more. I am against the Fair Tax, which is unfair, just as I am against the income tax (which is unfair). I am against the Chambliss big farm subsidies, and the big bailout he voted for. I would punish Chambliss for the Wall St. bailout at any cost. I cannot help but think he earned his 17% ACLU rating by being against individual liberty. His 27% NAACP rating suggests racism.

And: Chambliss voted for FISA. Scumbag. He voted several times against privacy for Americans. He failed to vote on restoring habeas corpus. He voted against first amendment rights to free expression. He voted for homophobic legislation denying rights, privileges, and immunities to persons with gay lifestyles. The only thing I can find to like about him is he voted against affirmative action, but probably because he’s a racist rather than out of any principled view. So he loses points for being a racist for any points he’d pick up for opposing affirmative action. And he’s a big friend to the big agribusiness conglomerates, voting for all kinds of government subsidies. He’s a rat. I wouldn’t trust him with a cheese stick. And it is this sort of crumb bum that Lisa thinks is going to save her from a liberal super majority. Yikes.

And: Oh, snap, 53,700 hits on Chambliss racist. “The other folks are voting,” he says, and clarifies it by saying he meant black people. Yeah. Racist, xenophobic, anti-liberty, pro-farm-subsidy, pro-bailout, anti-privacy. I’ll bet he’s drowning in the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians slaughtered in Iraq, too.

So, let me make it perfectly clear. I don’t think anyone who supports this guy can properly call themselves a libertarian. Having the ability to watch some Senators filibuster a bad bill is not worth the costs involved in supporting this wicked, evil man.

Stay away from Saxby Chambliss. He’s no good.

May everyone have a happy advent, repent of your sins, and read Job chapter 19.