Several people contacted me yesterday about not being able to post articles here. I am not the technical admin; for technical issues contact admin at lastfreevoice.com
I don’t have time to really write a full article about this right now, so feel free to edit this entry.
Basically what happened was that Ron Paul raised about $4 million yesterday alone, more than any Republican in the race, and not too far behind the leading Democrats, according to Third Party Watch.
This was due to an organized effort, started by internet supporters, which Ron Paul eventually picked up on, in honor of V for Vendetta – Remember, remember the 5th of November.
Here is Liv explaining what it was all about.
Great Moments In U.S. History – video powered by Metacafe
I recommend checking out the rest of her site, too.
Sources tell me the next such “moneybomb” might be scheduled for December 15 (Bill of Rights Day) and 16 (Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party), and that there might be a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party involved.
UPDATE: Another one is scheduled before then for Veterans Day, Nov. 11
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
I’m proud to say that I contributed to this effort.
By the way, Liv’s videos are great.
I’m happy to say that I contributed as well. Ron Paul is not perfectly libertarian but his candidacy for the R party nomination has done more to share libertarian ideas than I could have ever dreamed.
“Several people contacted me yesterday about not being able to post articles here.”
I thought it seemed a little quiet here yesterday considering all the excitement of November 5th…still does in fact.
I know all the focus right now is on the Republican nomination, but with this kind of fund-raising, doesn’t that make for a much stronger possibility of a third party run if the find a way to shut him out at the primaries? What LP candidate can say they have ever raised that much money, let alone in one day?
If I get the LP nomination, I will get more $-via matching funds, get into the debates with a preliminary poll of 15% & win the election-very close on the order of 34/33/33. Ron Paul will have long before lost the RP nomination & wasted all those millions on a hopeless campaign.
Rob, maybe it was quiet her on LFV because most are not RP/RP fanatics. RP has said he wants 100% ballot access handed to him. So probably forget about it-LP/third party/independent. Let him take his wheelbarrow full of fiat dollar contributions & go back to Texas-Congress.
Bob, you realize you actually have to raise money before you can get matching funds, right?
Robert, if you can raise about $250,000 and get about 250 supporters to be delegates at the LP convention, you could probably walk away with the LP nomination.
I doubt if you will be able to do that. What scares me is that Wayne Root might be able to.
He doesn’t even need the $250k, just the 250 delegates.
“If I get the LP nomination, I will get more $-via matching funds, get into the debates with a preliminary poll of 15% & win the election-very close on the order of 34/33/33.”
If that happens, Robert, I will pull a George Stephanopolous and give you every penny I own. Wait, just to clarify, you are talking about the U.S. Presidential debates against the GOP and Dem candidate and you are saying you’ll win the election to be President of the United States of America, right? I don’t want to lose all my pennies based on a technicality of you creating some local one man organization and becoming it’s president.
“If I get the LP nomination, I will get more $-via matching funds, get into the debates with a preliminary poll of 15% & win the election-very close on the order of 34/33/33. Ron Paul will have long before lost the RP nomination & wasted all those millions on a hopeless campaign.”
Is this a joke? PLEASE tell me you aren’t serious.
ROFL! You really should have saved that one for April 1. That’s classic!
Mr. Milnes,
I have more supporters than you do and I just announced my candidacy for VP last month. You announced eons ago and yet to gain ONE LP supporter
Overlooked in the meglomaniac rantings of Mr. Milnes and his obvious lack of understanding about what “matching funds” are (as well as what libertarianism is) is the fact that he also thinks the presidency is determined on the basis of popular vote. Nevermind the fact that he can’t get ONE SUPPORTER, let alone 100 million-plus voters… Imagine him even try to fill up one state’s worth of electors. It’s quite hilarious.
Robert Milnes is in fact a strong argument against libertarianism. I mean, how can you believe in laissez-faire when a man like this — an obviously clear and present danger to his community — is allowed to walk the streets? Of course, the streets should be privatized, but regardless, I would not protest Milnes being institutionalized against his will or possibly even euthanized. He scares the shit out of me, he’s so fucking crazy.
I say let him roam. Just make sure you make it to the range at least once a week so that you’re confident in your aim in the even that he charges you.
Mr. Milnes, might I suggest to you this great campaign manager I’ve heard about, Allen Hacker. He’s run some great, honest and efficient LP campaigns in the past, he would be a great fit for you.
I forgot to mention that if I get into the debates I will win the debates.
I thought I’d wait a while to respond to GES to see all the critical comments. Not just the 100 million voters-that’s nearly all the expected vote. I don’t think even Washington could get that. But a libertarian making such unlibertarian comments on a libertarian blog with no immediate critical response? It has been over 12 hours. Had to see it to believe it. So you all have no critical comment to writing about presumably involuntary institutionalization & euthanasia? But in this case it wouldn’t be euthanasia. That is putting a critically ill or incapacitated or imminently dying person with no hope out of misery. To just put down someone -for what reason? That’s execution. To me THAT’S fucking crazy.
I know this for a fact, since (a) Washington is dead, and (b) when he was alive, there weren’t 100 million residents in the US, much less voters. Besides, if Washington’s corpse rose from the grave and ran for President, then he would be labeled a radical, much like Ron Paul, and he would stand as much chance of winning as Ron Paul.
My “immediate” response was that you should be free to be as bat-shit-crazy as you are; however, it is every citizens responsibility to be prepared to defend themselves from you.
Now let’s see what Smith actually said:
Let’s look closely at the words “I would not protest.” You see, Bob, these words have a dramatically different meaning then what you ascribed to them.
I’m sorry there wasn’t more of an outpouring of sympathy for you, Bob. However, no one here seems to like you, so why would you expect anyone to come to your defense? If you had your way you would confiscate our wealth to fund your grand cryogenics and racist eugenics programs. With that in mind, why should a Libertarian shed a tear, much less protest your institutionalization?
Well I’m comforted by the thought that if I get involuntarily institutionalized for basically political reasons you all aren’t far behind.
“I would not protest…” Right. You mean like a green would?
Bob, why don’t you tell us how you are going to get those matching funds you mentioned above.
Chris, well, it could be done except for the 5% regulation.
So that leaves the usual type fundraising but with double the potential donor pool-by cooperating with the greens you pique the interest of all leftists. & some of them have $ & are celebs.
“…protest…” like maybe the leftist ACLU?
Digressing from the campaign of potential front-runner Milnes and back to the long-shot candidacy of Ron Paul, I thought I’d offer the following link from Wikipedia on the political positions of Ron Paul. This is the best and most comprehensive article on this subject I have read and by far the most accurate. Having read all of Dr. Paul’s weekly columns for many years, I am very familiar with his often quirky votes and with his positions on many issues. Whoever wrote the wiki article seems to be equally acquainted with Ron Paul’s positions, as well as libertarianism, and contrasts some differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Tom Blanton, yes, very interesting situation. The right libertarian candidate with the strategy of seeking the RP nomination is a long-shot & getting a lot of support. The left libertarian with the hypothetically winning strategy is getting little support. What is wrong with this picture?
The previous losertarian tickets did not get 5%. However if we try the progressive alliance strategy we might could get 5% & qualify for matching funds next time.
I am a clear & present danger to my community by walking the streets? I’m in Camden, NJ, man! I’ve been mugged & vandalized & cheated out of my house. I don’t walk the streets anymore. More like my community is a danger to ME!
Quoth Robert Milnes:
“The right libertarian candidate with the strategy of seeking the RP nomination is a long-shot & getting a lot of support. The left libertarian with the hypothetically winning strategy is getting little support. What is wrong with this picture?”
The right libertarian [sic] candidate with the strategy of seeking the RP nomination is a ten-term US congressman with a record of raising money and winning elections. He has a sound mailing and fundraising list built over the course of more than 30 years, a proven campaign organization, and went into the presidential campaign with near 100% name recognition, and more importantly near 100% positive name recognition among those who self-identify as libertarians, similar name recognition and positivity among those who self-identify as constitutionalists, and reasonably good name recognition and positivity among those who self-identify as conservatives. He’s running in a race that is the subject of constant media attention, and was well-positioned to get some of that attention early by virtue of being the lone dissenter on an important issue in a large field.
The left libertarian [sic] candidate with the hypothetically winning strategy has a highly hypothetically winning strategy[1], no prior record in public office, no prior record of raising money, and no prior record of winning elections, no proven mailing/fundraising list, no campaign organization, miniscule and largely negative name recognition in the movements/parties he’s seeking the support of, and is running in a race in which none of the candidates could count on significant mainstream media coverage if they stripped, set themselves on fire and threw themselves from the top of the Statue of Liberty[2].
Additionally, while some of the right libertarian [sic] candidate’s positions are problematic for some libertarians, nearly all of the left libertarian [sic] candidate’s positions are repugnant to most libertarians.
Any questions?
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Notes:
[1] The left libertarian [sic] candidate’s “hypothetical winning strategy” is based on the fact that X% of polled voters identify with libertarian policy positions. There are two problems with that: First of all, just because an individual identifies with libertarian policy positions, it does not follow that that individual will personally self-identify as a libertarian, or automatically vote for a candidate bearing that label. Secondly, the left libertarian [sic] candidate’s positions don’t match up with the voter preferences which were used in the polling to designate those voters as libertarians. It takes a leap of extreme faith to assume that the voters in question would suddenly self-identify as libertarians, go looking for candidates who carry that label, and from among the field of those candidates choose the one who doesn’t stand for what attracted them to that label in the first place.
[2] No, I’m not saying that no Libertarian candidates get mainstream media coverage. I’m saying that it is extraordinarily difficult for Libertarian candidates to get significant mainstream media coverage. In the past, reporters have told me that the level of coverage for Libertarian candidates comports with how well those candidates do at the polls. I’ve done a couple of informal surveys of coverage of specific races, however, and have anecdotally found that on a pro rata basis, Libertarian candidates seem to get about 1/10th as much coverage as their electoral performance would merit on that standard, i.e. a Libertarian candidate who got 2% of the vote probably got significant coverage (i.e. beyond “also appearing on the ballot is …”) in about one fifth of one percent of the stories on the race in question in newspapers. I suspect the ratio is even worse on TV and radio.
Tom, Tom, Tom, YES. I have a LOT of questions. Your reasoning, whether correct or not, leaves us with our faces hanging out. i.e. nowhere i.e. just about exactly where we were. Ron Paul is going to sponge up most of the remaining libertarian support & TIME & then LOSE. Leaving us with the remaining LP candidates, losertarians, with a donation fatigued & political burnout base of supporters. Except MAYBE W.A.R., who might get some $ support, even some media & win the nomination as Eric Dondero fears & possibly get enough votes to help Billary win. Is THIS what YOU ALL want? BUT, on the other hand, IN THE LEAST, an alliance with the greens could possibly get 5% & set up the next cycle for matching funds. Oh, except there is the libertarian self-defeating ideological argument against matching funds. Well then you need to find a multi-millionaire or billionaire libertarian and/or celebrity candidate, because nothing else has any chance of getting out of the low polling single digit barrier. I can virtually guarantee that a press conference of Green & LP officials announcing their cooperation in order to coordinate their vote with intention of WINNING will get MSM attention. Further I can virtually guarantee that a presidential candidate benefiting from such a press conference could hold a press conference & announce that the progressive government will phase out fossil fuels & phase in hydrogen & solar/wind & the price of oil will drop. etc. You see, this is why long ago I called for Green & LP cooperation re: coordinating their vote. But nooooooooooooo.
Tuesday’s ballot here in NJ in my district had no=0 libertarians. It had a few greens & several issues. MSM reported the one concerning stem cell research lost. In this instance the alliance voter had an academic ballot choice. What we need is next year 2008 to have EITHER a green OR a libertarian on ALL ballots. First come first served. Can we manage that?
Yes, under your leadership, everything is possible!
Bob,
You write:
“Tom, Tom, Tom, YES. I have a LOT of questions. Your reasoning, whether correct or not, leaves us with our faces hanging out. i.e. nowhere i.e. just about exactly where we were. Ron Paul is going to sponge up most of the remaining libertarian support & TIME & then LOSE. Leaving us with the remaining LP candidates, losertarians, with a donation fatigued & political burnout base of supporters.”
So far I don’t see a question in there, but I’ll answer the implicit ones.
On the basis of Tuesday’s election results, Libertarian candidates outside of the presidential contest already seem to be doing better than usual in this cycle. Although there may be other factors involved (general discontent with the Rs and Ds, etc.), it’s not unreasonable to argue that Paul’s campaign is doing the exact opposite of fatiguing and burning out libertarians. I’d want to see more evidence before reaching a conclusion, and it’s definitely true that what applies today might not apply a year from now, but nonetheless he appears to be having either a positive effect or at least no discernible negative effect at the moment.
“Except MAYBE W.A.R., who might get some $ support, even some media & win the nomination as Eric Dondero fears & possibly get enough votes to help Billary win.”
Highly unlikely.
“Is THIS what YOU ALL want? BUT, on the other hand, IN THE LEAST, an alliance with the greens could possibly get 5% & set up the next cycle for matching funds.”
Alliances are based on common ground and shared interests. There actually ARE some of those between the Greens and LP … but your “progressive alliance” campaign platform doesn’t draw on them. Libertarians and Greens oppose the war on Iraq; you offer an interventionist partition plan. Libertarians and Greens support more immigration freedom; you offer a “virtual fence.” Neither Libertarians nor Greens are interested in government-subsidized eugenics to turn Indians into caucuasians, or in government compensation to get African-Americans to move “back” to Africa. And no third party candidate running on your platform would get 5% of the vote even if he had $10 million in the bank to start with in any case.
Rather than asking Libertarians and Greens to unite on the basis of things they both agree with, you’re asking them to unite behind you … with the price of doing something they’re already suspicious of being that they would have to stand for things they DON’T agree with … and you’re surprised that they’re not interested?
“Oh, except there is the libertarian self-defeating ideological argument against matching funds. Well then you need to find a multi-millionaire or billionaire libertarian and/or celebrity candidate, because nothing else has any chance of getting out of the low polling single digit barrier.”
The last two presidential elections were won by a candidate who did not accept “matching funds” — and the at least two third party candidates (Buchanan and Nader) which have accepted matching funds didn’t do particularly well.
“I can virtually guarantee that a press conference of Green & LP officials announcing their cooperation in order to coordinate their vote with intention of WINNING will get MSM attention.”
Yes — and part of that attention would include the fact that Green and LP “officials” have no POWER to “coordinate their vote.” Both parties nominate presidential candidates in representative conventions. Both parties run candidates at the state level according to a patchwork of laws most of which don’t allow the party organization, IF it has ballot access, to hold its ballot line off the market in favor of another party. So what you’re proposing is that Green and LP “officials” hold a press conference in which they announce to the world that they’re fucking morons who don’t know how their own organizations work. Yeah, that might get some attention, but I don’t think that particular attention will then manifest itself very well at the ballot box.
“Further I can virtually guarantee that a presidential candidate benefiting from such a press conference could hold a press conference & announce that the progressive government will phase out fossil fuels & phase in hydrogen & solar/wind & the price of oil will drop. etc. You see, this is why long ago I called for Green & LP cooperation re: coordinating their vote. But nooooooooooooo.”
So you also want a presidential candidate to announce that he can do things he can’t do, and that the Libertarian half of the alliance wouldn’t consider a proper government function even if it was possible? Why not have him walk on water and feed the press corps with two loaves and five fishes as well?
It’s probably too late for you to compete for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination in any case. You’ve had a year and some to produce, and so far you haven’t. Additionally, you’ve probably boned yourself for the foreseeable future with your proposal that the Libertarians and Greens drop everything they believe in for the sole purpose of supporting your aspirations.
However, if you re-think your “progressive alliance” strategy and express it in terms that conform to reality, you might find some takers with someone other than yourself as the prospective carrier of the spear. I seem to recall that Mike Jingozian has been attending Green events and that he may be seeking their nomination as well as the LP’s. Steve Kubby is only seeking the LP’s nomination, but his platform is far more more fitting to any prospective “progressive alliance” strategy than yours is insofar as most libertarians agree with most of it and some greens agree with some of the most important parts of it.
Tom, you are misrepresenting Bob’s position. He proposes government-subsidized eugenics to make Native Americans more culturally pure. And by that he means to make them darker skinned and more homogenous as a people. You know, because genetic racial characteristics define a culture.
Tom, are you saying Libertarians have a problem with classifying entire groups of people by the “purity” of their race and culture? The Nazi’s believed in purifying the Arian race via positive eugenics, but I thought those ideas were bad simply because they killed a bunch of Jews in the process. I don’t think Bob is proposing killing anyone, just purifying a race is all. Nothing wrong with that, right?
While we are on the far more entertaining subject of Milnes, here’s a question for the candidate: What is this 5% regulation of which you speak?
Do you have any clue what matching funds are?
Are you aware that Harry Browne qualified for matching funds without even coming close to 5% in any poll or previous election? Badnarik may have as well, though I’m not sure.
You could qualify for matching funds; however, it is necessary to first raise funds. Otherwise, there is nothing to match.
Now back to the subject of the post: Ron Paul IS eligible to receive several million dollars in matching funds. However, accepting these funds would severely limit his ability to spend the millions he has raised in the early states. Accepting the funds would actually hurt and limit his campaign more than it would help.
As an African-American myself I’d be damned to support some loser who advocates sending blacks to Africa when most Blacks in this country were born HERE! Mister Milnes,who do you think you are: the White version of Marcus Garvey and his movement was VOLUNTARY! You couldn’t give me enough money to live in Africa. If GOD wanted me to make Africa better I would have been born there but GOD allowed me to be born here to make America better. Are you sure you aren’t in some ways institutionalized? Or is David Duke writing your script for you?
Is there anything in the Milnes platform about sending white guys to Jamaica?
I might also be interested in a government program to send Tom Tancredo to Mexico.
Tom & Chris, if only Tom’s misrepresentation of my proposal for Native Americans & Chris’s sarcasm resulted in correct representation. Chris, I’m no expert on matching funds. I’m going a lot by information some of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds & then go to politics then next paragraph External links to Explaination on BBC website. Evidently a third party also must in addition to $100,000, $5,000 in 20 states have received 5% of the vote the previous election. Hence Buchanan got matching funds in 2000 thanks to Perot the previous election. On this basis I don’t think Harry Browne actually qualified unless this requirement started in 2000. Chris Bennett, before you have palpitations, read what I actually wrote about emigration subsidy on my website. You are reacting to what Myopic physicist Chris wrote about it which is unreliably sarcastic. Also, what’s God got to do with it?
Chris, right, Ron Paul qualifies for matching funds, because he’s a —————–republican.
Tom, I understand -libertarians are expecting the oil companies & the free market to phase out their lucrative profits & govt. subsidies & lead us to energy independence & away from greenhouse gasses. (after they rape the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge).
correction: rape & plunder the NAWR. rape=stick in the pipes. plunder =suck it out.
Tom Blanton, interesting you mention Jamaica. My understanding is that there are no longer any indiginous “full-blooded” Jamaicans anymore.
Tom wrote about your “emigration subsidy” proposal, not me. I merely corrected Tom about how he was mis-characterizing your positive eugenics proposal.
Did I misrepresent your eugenics program? Can you point to one statement that I made that is not factual?
Milnes – You’re no expert on matching funds — or anything else, except for sexually assaulting newscasters. You are the least libertarian candidate from any party announced. I would vote for a Huckabee/Hunter ticket over Milnes/Christ.
If forced into the voting booth at gun point without the option of the write in, I would vote for any of the Republican or Democratic candidates over Milnes. Even Edwards and Giulliani, and I hate those guys.
Chris, You’ve paraphrased my writings before also & incorrectly. really the only way to communicate reliably what someone else said or wrote is a direct quote. I never said,”…genetic racial characteristics define a culture.” Or the rest of that paragraph. I did write about gene pool theory. Or “…purifying a race…”. I did say if one is going to rehabilitate a population, it make sense to use the best available indiginous genetic material. By the way, did you figure out the 5% requirement?
GES, why don’t you explain the 5% requirement to us?
Chris, Gaius Giuliani is Eric Dondero’s guy.
The 5% requirement = candidates from parties that received 5% or more of the popular vote in the most recent presidential election get matching funds, pro-rated on the basis of their votes.
In other words, the Libertarian Party candidate will not receive matching funds, even if he were willing to accept them, which would make him not a libertarian anyway.
Maybe it’s starting to sink into your perverted head how much people really don’t like you. Your mother should have practiced positive eugenics.
Tom, For everyone’s info we are talking about The Libertarian Vote poll/study by the Cato Institute. ok, I concede the possibility that RP/RP is “energizing” some & getting new donors. But it has a limit. The MAX lib. vote is 13%. Open primary/election 20%-Gallup Governance Survey. How long & how far can the RP “revolution” go?- 20% & Feb 5. 20% MAX. is simply not enough to win. There will be a saturation point that no matter how much you spend-waste-on advertising, diminishing returns>0. besides RP/RP is a one man show. He has no LIBERTARIAN coattails. He would get only republican coattails & they would not support his positions & override ALL vetoes.
GES, how did Harry Browne qualify?
You have now entered…the milnes zone.
doo doo, doo doo….
You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but out of his mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of a fevered imagination. That’s a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Milnes Zone!
You unlock this door with the key of schizophrenia. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of a diseased mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of unspeakable things and bad ideas. You’ve just crossed over into… the Milnes Zone.
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as the space in robertmilnes’ head and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between reality and hallucination, and it lies between the pit of one man’s fears and the summit of his delusions. This is the dimension of bad imagination. It is an area which we call “The Milnes Zone”.
Doo doo, doo doo, doo doo…
There is nothing wrong with your medication. Do not attempt to adjust the dosage. We are now controlling your elections. If we wish to make louder the voices in Milnes brain, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will use the spot on the top of Milnes head. We will control the pills. We will control the IV. We can roll the gurney, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Outer Limits
of sanity, and beyond…
into the Milnes zone!
Doo doo, doo doo, doo doo, doo doo…
LOL @ paulie!
pauliecannoli, are you stuck in time? July 19? Or maybe just do not have anything new to say?
pauliecannoli, just out of curiousity, why are you not commenting on TPW anymore?
Robertmilnes,
Plenty new to say. I’ve said some of it here. Not enough time to say it.
Unlike you I have something called a job that takes up a lot of my time. You might want to look into that some time. Might require actually taking your meds to make it practically feasible, though.
I don’t comment at TPW anymore due to privacy issues. I prefer not to elaborate, as that could worsen the situation.
Chris(myopic physicist, no answer from GES. Perhaps you can answer the question. How did Harry Browne qualify for matching funds when the previous election the lib did not get 5%?
Reading is fundamental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds
In American politics the term matching funds refers to the money a presidential candidate is given by federal government to match the money they have raised personally. Candidates can expect up to $250 extra from public funds for each contribution from an individual they receive.
This usually only applies to the two main parties; as for third party candidates gaining the benefits of matching funds they must additionally have received 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. Hence the anomaly of Ross Perot standing as Reform Party candidate in 1992 and receiving 18% of the vote, yet receiving no matching funds due to the fact that the Reform Party did not receive 5% of the vote in 1988; whilst Pat Buchanan, running as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, did receive matching funds despite winning only 0.4% of the vote.
The 5% requirement is for general election matching funds. Harry Browne qualified for matching funds during the primary season before he was the nominee.
Not when the person’s writing being quoted is practically incomprehensible, and/or they do not understand the implications of there own words.
I never claimed those statements to be direct quotes. You see, when you say stuff like this:
then you are implicitly stating that “genetic racial characteristics define a culture”. The entire concept of “rehabilitating a population” rests on the premise that there is a defined population that is in need of rehabilitation. You define that population as Native American and propose a means towards rehabilitation via planned procreation. You are therefore stating that to preserve Native American culture, you need to preserve Native American racial traits. Which is why I summarized the premise of your plan as I did.
More crudely: you want to hand-out subsidies to racially pure Native Americans that fuck other racially pure Native Americans in order to ensure that their offspring are racially pure. This is your plan to preserve Native American culture.
I’m not surprised that you cannot recognize this as a disgusting form of racist collectivism.
Chris Moore, how come you keep getting this eugenics stuff wrong? Genetic racial characteristics define a culture RACIALLY-gene pool theory. Culture is much more than just race. & it can be multi or mixed racial depending on history. “More crudely….” Sure this would be the most direct & obvious method. But eugenics is not so limited. There is IVF & surrogate motherhood etc. “…preserve Native American culture.” Yes, what’s left of it. If YOU call that “collectivist” that’s your problem. Where did you say you got your advanced degrees?
Culture is a crime against the individual.
GES, that’s a fairly strong statement. What do you mean?
Tom, so if I “rethink” the progressive alliance strategy I ” might find some takers”? Interesting. & you go on to suggest Jingo & Kubby. I have offered to step aside in favor of someone more electable. -on condition that I be taken on as special advisor. & if it isn’t done as I suggest, blame for its failure should not go to me. However I’m not sure exactly how this would occur. Do I make some calls/emails? Or wait until someone shows enough wherewithall to call/email me?
Hilarious. You’re willing to step aside for someone more electable (i.e. literally any other living person on the planet earth today), but only if you’re taken on as a “special” advisor. Why? Why would anyone care if you stepped aside? You have exactly zero supporters other than yourself. You are not a threat to anyone, at least not politically. No one is ever going to call your or email you. You are less important than every single other person who has ever posted a message on LFV. The more you continue to show your inability to comprehend this, the more obvious your mental illness becomes.
I didn’t say. But if you want to compare your formal education and scientific achievements with mine, then feel free. Mine are but a click away.
Actually, my point is that race does not define a culture. To suggest otherwise is, well, racist. Culturally, I have a lot more in common with Chris Bennett than I would with your typical Norwegian white person.
Which is exactly what I’ve said. However, you are the one that believes eugenics is a proper means for preservation of a culture, which requires holding the premise that the culture you wish to “save” is defined by genetics.
Chris, I’m going on the concept that culture & people go together. Native Americans have been decimated in both. I submit that the U.S. government is responsible. It can help restore the population-positive eugenics-but the culture part should be mostly or all accomplished by themselves.
GES, you still haven’t explained your statement.
About culture? It’s fairly obvious what I’m saying, isn’t it?
Regarded by whom? By the collective, obviously. I reject the collective. I assess quality for myself. Anyone who defers to the collective is an animal.
i.e. collectivism
i.e. tradition. Tradition for tradition’s sake is insanity. It is the root of “conservatism,” which I despise. It rejects man’s individuality and reduces him to the genetic matter of his ancestors, i.e. an animal.
Why am I wasting my time with you, Milnes? Someone like you has to believe in culture and collectivism because you have no worth as an individual. Therefore, you seek to steal the achievements of others from within your self-defined collective. You are a loser, and collectivism is the creed of losers. You seek the unearned and the undeserved. Luckily, no one is willing to claim you.
Chris, “Where did you say you got your advanced degrees?” That’s sarcasm, Chris. Can dish it out but can’t take it? If Edward Teller can get advanced degrees, i guess you can.
GES, actually I might could agree with you on this.
You agree that you are a loser? Awesome. Maybe you’re not totally crazy.
GES, GOTCHA!
Bob,
You write:
“Tom, so if I ‘rethink’ the progressive alliance strategy I ‘might find some takers?’”
I guess I should have phrased it in the negative: If you don’t re-think your version of the “progressive alliance” strategy, you won’t find any takers, for two simple reasons:
1) The mechanical elements of the strategy as you have proposed it are incompatible with feasible scenarios under existing election law.
For example, not only does the national LP not have the power to prevail upon one of its state affiliates to refrain from running candidates and endorse the Green slate, but the party’s bylaws explicitly forbid any state affiliate from doing any such thing. Until and unless that provision is changed, any national party official who endorsed such a proposal would be de facto derelict in his or her duty to the organization (national party officials are not authorized to alter the bylaws, and are charged with enforcing them).
For a second example, in many states it’s not possible for a ballot-qualified party to decline to run candidates. There’s a state-sponsored primary, any citizen who meets the qualifications of state law can run in that primary, and the winner of that primary is the party’s nominee whether the party organization wanted to run a candidate or not.
A combined presidential ticket might just be possible, given the right candidate — but your whole lower-level cross-endorsement scheme flies in the face of parties’ bylaws, state election laws, and institutional cultures. It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
2) Once again, your presidential campaign platform is written as if to specifically alienate as many Greens and as many Libertarians as possible. Alliances are formed on areas of mutual agreement. You propose that the parties abandon the things they agree on in order to pursue things neither of them stands for. Pardon my French, but that’s just fucking silly.
As far as “special advisorship” goes, right now any campaign would be insane to retain you as such given your public advocacy of some pretty repugnant policies. I know that I would not want my candidate to have to answer the question “why have you retained as an advisor someone who advocates facially racist eugenics and immigration schemes?” The candidates have plenty to do answering for their own positions without inviting association to positions they don’t hold.
Sorry about leaving the above Milnes quote stranded in the middle of my own comment. Not sure how that happened.
Tom, thank you for your comments/replies. I’d rather have criticism than apathy. I guess that explains my comments which gets often the usual cast of commenters. Who knows how many people are out there with opinions that go unpublicized. You have said these criticisms more or less before. I got it the first time. I disagree. Can you say that a meeting of gp & lp officials specifically assigned to try to make this feasible would fail? Because the numbers are there. It would be a lack of will or inability to untangle the complications. For example perhaps it could be national’s general suggested policy rather than an unauthorized edict. & not necessary to endorse the other’s slate but suggested fill in the ballots without theirs with the other. & you KNOW there are MANY ballots that go either EMPTY (no gp or lp) or only have one or the other as things usually go on the ballot. So in a large part it is ALREADY in effect. What’s wrong with making it a little more specific. For example in the last ballot as I described in my district, there was no gp or lp for the highest office on it-state senator. So one had to vote for the d or r. There was NO lp candidates on any ballot. What is the OFFICIAL lp policy in that case-don’t vote? Or only vote for the ballot issues? Same with the gp, only having one ballot with 2-vote for 2. One ballot had 1-vote for 2. Which party gets the gp or lp vote on that one? If you were called on by the lp to participate in such a meeting, would you go? Would you go with your mind made up it is not feasible? Or possible? I do not think my proposals are incompatible with a proposed alliance in keeping with a spirit of cooperation, compromise & practicality. For example, military concensus is that immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq is not practical. It would require a phased, coordinated plan taking anywhere from 8-16 months. This would be contrary to Kubby’s position & Smith’s. Smith’s immediate withdrawal would presumably leave behind a lot of equipment that SOMEBODY would get that should get returned to national guard units home base. Yet their position is the most “popular” even consistent libertarian position. It’s just not practical. I deny that any of my proposals are fascist or racist etc. upon impartial examination. You can’t claim impartiality as you are supporting an oppononent’s candidacy. Hence you say “racist, incompatible” & I say of my opponents “impractical, ill advised”. & before rejecting my proposals for Native Americans I would wait until they weigh in which I have not heard anything.
Tom,
I can’t tell what you did either. Fixed it.
I appreciate that you put me in the same league as Edward Teller, though my accomplishments do not warrant such. Yes, he had some pretty crazy ideas later in his life, but the man was a great scientist for reasons you will never understand, since you prefer to read internet websites rather than peer-reviewed science.
Examples: Jahn-Teller and Renner-Teller effects, Gamow-Teller transitions in beta decay, and early contributions to Density Functional Theory, which has, quite simply, revolutionized the study of damn near everything.
The man was certainly an asshole, though. Reminds me of Tesla — zero interpersonal skills, a lot of genius, and came up with some crazy bullshit in his later years.
Sounds like the profile of many libertarians.
pauliecannoli, agreed.
Robertmilnes, that plus $3.99 and sales tax will get me a coffee-type drink at Starbucks.
This didn’t work correctly and i don’t know if this will get on anybody’s radar for LFV since I don’t see a submit section, but check out today’s, Sun. NYTimes piece on Ron Paul.
MHW
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 10 — From posting video on YouTube to enlisting friends through Facebook, all of the presidential candidates are looking for ways to harness the Internet. In the case of Ron Paul, the Internet has harnessed him.
Bob,
You write:
“You have said these criticisms more or less before. I got it the first time. I disagree. Can you say that a meeting of gp & lp officials specifically assigned to try to make this feasible would fail?”
Absolutely. Meetings of GP and LP officials are irrelevant, since LP officials, at least, do not have the authority to modify the bylaws under which they operate, and since neither LP nor GP officials have the authority to modify the election laws under which they operate. It’s about as realistic as asserting that the LP chair and the GP chair could get together and repeal the law of gravity.
The election laws have to be either modified by the state legislatures, or challenged in court. Both have been actively pursued for years with some progress, but the chance that all 50 states are going to modify their election laws to accomodate multi-party coalition agreements between now and next May is nil.
The LP’s party bylaws are modified at the party’s national conventions, and take effect at the close of those conventions. Even if the LP’s next national convention modified the bylaws to allow state parties to cross-endorse with the Greens and hold their own candidates off the ballot in some states — not likely at all — that modification would not only be irrelevant in states where the parties don’t control the nomination process, but would also come too late for those states (probably a majority of them) in which primary filing closed long before the convention even took place.
As far as your side comment on the feasibility of short-term withdrawal from Iraq, I’ve never seen any military authority or expert on military affairs assert that a ~90-day withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is in any way problematic with respect to military feasibility itself (whether or not such a withdrawal would well or ill serve any particular political goal is not a military question).
The US armed forces have historically moved much larger numbers of personnel in much shorter periods of time and under conditions as or more dangerous. The Chosin Reservoir campaign in Korea included four large battles against superior numbers of enemy forces and movement largely on foot and by truck in sub-zero temperatures. It culminated in the evacuation of more than 100,000 soldiers, nearly 100,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles and 350,000 tons of materiel from North Korea … and including the major battles, it transpired over the course of about ONE MONTH. To assert that it’s “not feasible” to move 150,000 US forces which are much better equipped, in a much more hospitable climate, with much less quantitative and qualitative combative opposition, and with vastly better transport capabilities, out of Iraq over a period three times as long is absurd.
pauliecannoli, yes, your flippant replies are so constructive. So a lot of libs armed with computers & wherewithall & we can’t win an election. Best we can do is back a dinosaur loser & piss away all our efforts on him. That’s funny.
Tom, can you take off your tunnel vision visors for a minute? It might not be necessary to change bylaws & election laws & the laws of gravity. For example, a separate independent entity composed of 50/50 libs & greens to coordinate the vote. Whatever. I don’t have all the answers but 40% (granted MAX) of the vote is there to be had somehow. & I heard the 8-16 month figure on msm somewhere, probably some disgruntled general venting on cnn. Who cares? It locks in a figure that is useful. Sure in the case of a pitched battle you can move things fast. When casualties are immaterial & leaving infrastructure intact is not a priority.
MHW, dateline Philadelphia. So what? RP/RP is polling at 2.7-3.8. That + his 10 mil or so & he can take us all to Starbucks.
Milnes much of the point of the article had to do with people initiating efforts to support Paul on their own and little to do with his position in the polls. In the future may I suggest you read the article.
MHW
Milnes, I’d say the possibility of your alliance happening are zilch, not because of such obstacles as election law and party bylaws but for the sole reason in that you have no support from anyone but yourself. And, since all of this is your idea, your statement that you don’t have all the answers just solidifies that you are unlikely to gain any support any time soon. If you want an alliance you can’t just have the idea and hope it will materialize. You need to plan it, organize support, and then lead the action in bringing it to fruition. Spending your time arguing with people who have already stated they do not support your idea is not helpful. I doubt anyone here will all of a sudden say, “you know what, Milnes is right, and I take it upon myself to formulate the process for which his LP/GP alliance will come about, being sure to find an LP candidate willing to participate, and drumming up support in libertarian circles where there currently is none.”
Sounds like a great way to spend one’s free time.
Nick, thanks for your comment. Evidently you can take losertarians to the election but you can’t make them win.
Just by using the term losertarians, you are unlikely to EVER get any support in libertarian circles. You are the worst politician in history.
Nick, I’ll take that as a compliment, thank you.