Libertarian Party Convention Recap (Sunday)

Two email submissions today and a fresh batch of reports from Joe Magyer over at Third Party Watch. Let’s start with Joe, and the little things that show we’re all big-tent (part one, two, three, four, five):

Wow, remember StarChild? The head of the Nevada delegation, Jim Duensling, stood up and asked that the Chair bring forth a motion to reconsider the acceptance of StarChild as a delegate. I do not recall the exact text of his motion, but I believe it was along the lines of “In a vote that was at best petty and at worst bigoted, one our delegates was rejected yesterday. The Nevada delegation demands that our delegate receive further consideration.” This time, Dixon asked for a standing vote of all delegates who was opposed to StarChild’s acceptance as a delegate. A single gentleman from Florida stood up.

Dixon’s official acknowledgement of StarChild’s acceptance into the delegation drew what might have been the largest applause of the weekend thus far. Again, I think the small minority that said no last night was simply being pissy.

I can’t tell if it’s a stripper or a transsexual, because I can’t visualize a Vegas hippy. Suffice to say: where the photos people? We want StarChild!

Full emails from Trevor Southerland and George Phillies on winners of some close races for at-large and Vice Chair after the jump.

Trevor sez:

News from Joe Magyer in Portland.

Treasurer’s Race:
Geoff Neale 68%
Mark Nelson 28%
NOTA 4%

At-Large:
Admiral Colley
Angela Keaton
Pat Dixon
Jeremy Kiel
Dan Karlan

Vice Chair: Chuck Moulton beats M Carling in a run off. Tony Ryan out in first round of votes.

Four planks were not defeated were The War on Drugs, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Communication.

George sez:

Elections

Chair
Redpath 182
Hancock 66
Phillies 26

Vice Chair
Round 1
Moulton 117
Calring 96
Ryan 71
NOTA 3

Round 2
Moulton 169
Carling 105

Secretary Sullentrup unopposed

Treasurer
Neale 191
Nelson 77
NOTA 12

AT LARGE
Admiral Michael Colley 251
Angela Keaton 231
Patrick Dixon 212
Jeremy Keil 175
Dan Karlan 149
Above were elected
Also ran: Deryl Martin, Morey Strauss, M Carling

On the second vote, almost all platform planks that had been removed stayed removed. The Drug War and Firearms planks were restored.

Content of the following old planks was retained, though sometimes moved: (I transcribed a list being read aloud)

1.2
1.3
1.12
Space
1.17
1.18
1.20
3.5
1.22
2.5
2.6 (now with parts from 2.7, 2.9, 3.13)
1.16
1.4
1.11
1.10

I believe there is a revised immigration plank.

posted by vforvandyke
  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Congrats to Chuck Moulton on his victory.

    I guess my Freedom Of Communication made it after all, at least I assume it’s mine.

    And Mr. Squyres for heading the platform effort. There’s no way the new platform will be worse han the old one. Jesus, it has to be maybe half the size or less? Thats excellent.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    All I wanna know is did this chestnut be retained or not?

    d.) support the repeal of all taxation;

    if thats still in there, then all they did was make it easier for opponents to find.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans Brian Holtz

    Tim, the entire taxation plank is gone. For details see my blog at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans.

  • http://ncway.blogspot.com/ Sean Haugh

    For those keeping score at home, I looked up the retained planks and added them to George’s email on my blog http://ncway.blogspot.com/ . But I have no idea if these are amended planks except where noted nor how they were amended, if so.

    Tim, you’ll be happy to know Taxation is not one of them. And I know it’s a different thread, but Tom Knapp, keep yer pants on my friend. We have two years to write a new platform which should express a truly Libertarian big tent in time for the 2008 elections. In the meantime I’m sure our candidates and other party representatives are perfectly capable of letting people know where we stand on the issues. ;-)

  • http://ncway.blogspot.com/ Sean Haugh

    Thanks Brian! I didn’t know about your blog before. Good work.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Thanks Brian, that is extremely good news.

  • Stephen VanDyke

    I think the wording is the biggest area of contention with all the planks. Perhaps all that’s needed with a well-worded principled platform is a one paragraph, large-font preamble, to explain that while these may represent idealistic results, we realize that with politics the way it is, we’re willing to take the two steps forward with one step back approach, so long as we’re always moving towards our ideals in some way.

    And I don’t advocate that we abandon our principles either… just that we need to take a more realist approach to woo voters who dig what we’re saying but think we’re gonna try and do it overnight if we’re elected.

  • paulie

    Congratulations on gutting the LP. I don’t suppose you’ll have the decency to rename it something more accurate, such as Republitarian, or perhaps American Know-Nothing party?

  • paulie

    And I don’t advocate that we abandon our principles either”¦

    Too late.

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall

    I do have have Starchild pics . . perhaps in the morning.

    Just in from the final dinner. I hovered around the ad-hoc LRC meeting and I still don’t get it. Basically abolishing the platform and howling about the pledge has nothing to do with real electoral strategy or resonance. The avg. person just doesn’t care.

    Strong candidates like Barry Hess from Arizona are uncompromising when it comes to principle. I hope he does well. What difference is a pledge or platform in Congressional races, if 60% of voters don’t have an LP choice anyway ?

  • paulie

    I still don’t get it. Basically abolishing the platform and howling about the pledge has nothing to do with real electoral strategy or resonance.

    P) Searching for a silver lining. Well, there’s at least some positive value to it.

    A) It removes the false hope that real liberty can be achieved through a political party.

    B) By making the LP into, basically, a redundant, retarded, inbred cousing of the NSGOP, it helps to split the Republikkkan vote.

    So, my best wishes to the LRC, the RLC, and all other rearangements of those three letters.

  • paulie

    *cousin.

    BTW, why not just call it the Reform Party?

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    the pledge remains unchanged.

    and unless you have access to sources I dont have, aint a one of you seen the new platform yet. How about reading it first?

  • paulie

    the pledge remains unchanged.

    However, it is belied by the new “platform”, and by the votes of the delegates against resolutions to stop the war, impeach King George, and have a real investigation into 9-11. It’s OK to be for Clinton impeachment, but not Dubai-ya?

    The party now apparently also believes that the whole country is the property of the government (thus, the regime has a right to control “its” borders).

    Reputedly, the biggest applause line of the con-vention was “I’m not an anarchist”.

    Clearly, most people taking the pledge either don’t understand it or don’t mean it. Why would someone who is FOR force and fraud be expected not to USE fraud in joining a political body?

    There are no consequences for lying when taking the pledge, so you may as well get it over and done with and repeal it.

    Congratulations, guys, you win. It’s your party now; “libertarian” is now another term that used to mean freedom, just as “liberal” once did.

  • paulie

    This now on page 4, so I’ll answer here.

    (Tim W) Paulie,

    since you dont believe in anything the LP has to participate in to be a political party, why do you care what the fuck it does?

    Old answer: sort of in the same way a blade of grass on a football field cares about the game. Or, just because I wish the government didn’t exist does not mean they’ll ignore me.

    New answer: It’s kind of like watching a stuck up bitch I used to go out with (or tried to) degenerate into a toothless crack whore.

    If you want Reform, vote Reform!

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    of course, you know as well as I do that the delegates who go to convention tend to be much harder core than the average party supporter.

    and knowing that —> 50% of the delegates voted to get rid of the anarchist language in the pledge anyway…. I personally would have gone with a pledge for candidates and officers, just not one based on the force principle.

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth » The First Portland Post-Mortem()

  • paulie

    Of course. Perhaps they could pledge allegiance to the state.

    Q: Why did the LP cross the road?

    A: To be on the other side.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    I’m really not so sure why you’re convinced that the LP has been gravely compromised, paulie. It doesn’t look to me as if it had. Nothing can destroy principled people.

  • Graham

    pledge allegiance to a state or pledge allegiance to a debating society, what’s the difference. I don;t want to pledge allegiance to anything. IMO, if anything “the pledge” IS a pledge of allegiance to the state.

  • paulie

    I’m really not so sure why you’re convinced that the LP has been gravely compromised, paulie.

    Let’s see.

    The LP no longer feels it’s necessary or proper to impeach criminal white house residents (even if they happen to be far worse than their predecessor by any libertarian measure) because it might alienate potential recruits from the national socialist GOP party (as if even more of those were what the party needs). Note that the LP passed a resolution to impeach Clinton in 1998.

    The LP can’t pass a resolution against the war (or even consider a a real one), and believes the official conspiracy theory about 9-11 must note be questioned.

    The LP believes the whole country is the property of the state, thuse “we” must protect “our” borders.

    The LP takes no stand whatsoever on most issues.

    The LP which saves its loudest appaluse for “I am not an anarchist”.

    No, I guess there’s no problem at all here.

  • paulie

    IMO, if anything “the pledge” IS a pledge of allegiance to the state.

    Right, because being against something is the same thing as being for it.

  • paulie

    pledge allegiance to a state or pledge allegiance to a debating society, what’s the difference.

    Well, for starters, debating societies don’t kill millions of people, as the US state has (including about two million Iraqis in the last 16 years, and going all the way back to millions of indigenous inhabitants at the very start of this state).

    Debating societies don’t steal or extort two or three trillion FRN a year.

    Debating societies don’t put two million people into captivity, the vast majority having not done anything wrong.

    Debating societies don’t torture, rape, poison…

    But the state does.

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    The LP no longer feels it’s necessary or proper to impeach criminal white house residents (even if they happen to be far worse than their predecessor by any libertarian measure) because it might alienate potential recruits from the national socialist GOP party (as if even more of those were what the party needs). Note that the LP passed a resolution to impeach Clinton in 1998.

    I voted for the resolution, but I talked with Mark Rutherford from Indiana afterward and he gave some very good reasons for voting against it. To wit, we don’t have the resources or organization to do much with the resolution if we passed it. At the same time, people will use it to criticize the party, and we won’t have the resources or organization to effectively respond to those criticisms (at least not without drawing energy from our other efforts), so the net result of passing it would have been negative.

    I can see the merits of that argument and the strategic thinking behind it.

  • http://www.ballot-access.org Richard Winger

    The vote on the impeachment resolution was by voice vote, and it needed two-thirds to pass. To my ear, there was a slight majority for the impeachment resolution. But no one asked for “division” since it needed two-thirds and clearly didn’t have that.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    Hmm…Geoff Neale as Treasurer. Interesting choice. Maybe we can finally find out what happened to all the money for the LP Branding study that was supposed to occur under his regime. People must have really short memories.

    As for the impeachment resolution, we should have kept that. While we may not have the resources it lets people know that we are willing to take a stand against criminal politicians. Using that one issue against us is a non starter, it is the least of issues that are used against us on a regular basis.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    I am truly amazed that the LP platform has been gutted to the extent reported above. This is not merely rewording a few planks in the platform or tweaking around the edges. I truly believe that the LRC has acted in a destructive manner to the LP which may result in a LP that will have few libertarians in it.

    I also believe it will result in the loss of an energetic libertarian base of activists who do much of the outreach.

    Perhaps this will attract a few small government conservatives and wishy washy middle-of-the-road types. But it has been my experience that these folks generally do not pull the lever for libertarians once they enter the voting booth.

    I hope I am wrong, but I think we will soon see “libertarians” who think cutting the rate of increase in the size of government is a victory for liberty. This is the history of moderates and conservatives. This is a big victory for the fifth columnists in the LP and all those who hate libertarian principles.

    It is a sad day.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    You’re quite likely right, Tom. As Tom Knapp said in the other thread the LRC managed a great deal of destruction but no contruction. And they did it in an election year.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    I now officially can say that I am not voting in the future. If the LP does not support ending this war – it has no principle as far as I’m concerned.

  • Wes P

    Elle, I’m disappointed too.

    But remember that the “LP” that didn’t vote to end the war is a clumsy collection of parliamentary procedure, which can never be expected to fully represent its constituents, just as the “representative” legislature can’t. And each convention only has a few days to decide a multitude of issues. If they had more time, they could have come up with another wording that would have passed.

    Look at the positions of the candidates in any case, not just the platform or convention.

    Does the candidate support or oppose the war, or remain silent?

  • Wes P

    Remember it’s never the end. It’s another part of a bigger process. The LP didn’t cease to exist in 1984, when it lost the “Koch machine”‘s funding.

  • http://morey.wordpress.com morey

    Would y’all mind correcting the spelling of my name please?

    Morey “Also Ran” Straus

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall
  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    It is one thing that there was no resolution to end the war, but it is quite another thing to remove the nonintervention plank.

    The gutting of the platform is outrageous. It would have been better to entirely eliminate the platform. I hope all the so-called pragmatists are happy now and I hope they are getting ready to man all the empty tables.

    Personally, I don’t think I can do outreach where, when asked what does the LP stand for, I have to say: anything you want it to stand for – just join and sign this pledge, but don’t read it. And be sure not to confuse what the LP stands for with any libertarian writings published over the last couple of centuries.

    Oh, so you voted for Bush – we’re just like him only better.

    You voted for Kerry, huh? Well, the LP is just like him only we try harder.

    Party of principle? I don’t recall that ever being associated with the LP. You must be thinking of the Anarchy Party or something crazy like that. Just sign here and give us some money

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpplatform-discuss/ infojunkie

    The platform structure as it now stands, after the second retention vote:

    * I.1 Freedom and Responsibility
    I.2 Crime >- I.3
    +I.4 The War on Drugs
    +I. 10 Fredeom of Communication
    +I. 11 Freedom of Religion
    * I.12 Property Rights >- III.9, IV.D.3, IV.C.3
    * I.13 The Right to Privacy
    +* I.16 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    I.17 Conscription
    I.18 Immigration
    I.20 Reproductive Rights >- III.5
    I.22 Sexuality and Gender
    II.5 Government Debt
    II.6 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies and Subsidies >- II.7
    II.9 Public Services >- III.13

    * indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the first vote
    >- indicates consolidation
    + indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention on the second vote

    Full text should be available soon.

    Join us here to plan out the next steps:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpplatform-discuss/

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    “Debating societies don’t…”
    “Debating societies don’t…”
    “Debating societies don’t…”

    No… and debating societies don’t stop the people in charge from doing any of that, either.

    “Personally, I don’t think I can do outreach where, when asked what does the LP stand for…”

    Less government, lower taxes, and more freedom for all people. Very simple principle, and a lot easier to explain to a layman than “non-initiation of force.”

    “I also believe it will result in the loss of an energetic libertarian base of activists who do much of the outreach.”

    For every purist activist you see walking away, I see a former party member who those activists drove away for not being pure enough walking back… plus another who stayed away from us in the past because we were too extreme and too lunatic to ever achieve anything. I don’t think the party is weaker; I think the party is sobering up.

    Starchild: As an attendee, good. As a delegate… dear God…

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Starchild: As an attendee, good. As a delegate”¦ dear God”¦

    Kris, I have to ask, have you had an opportunity to meet Starchild and talk to him? It’s a little depressing when libertarians judge others by their appearances, rather than the content of their character.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Kris writes: Less government, lower taxes, and more freedom for all people. Very simple principle, and a lot easier to explain to a layman than “non-initiation of force.”

    Very simple indeed. Perfect answer for simpletons. You could also add that you are for education and against crime. It seems I’ve heard this little mantra before – from the GOP.

    Maybe that works in Texas (it seemed to work for Bush), but here in Virginia, people are a tad bit more sophisticated. I’ve never explained non-initiation of force, but many times have explained the benefits of eliminating certain government programs and the benefits of free markets.

    A day at the fair:

    I told you people – less government, lower taxes, and more freedom! What more do you laymen need to know? Now, take this balloon and move on – there’s nothing to see here. Oh yeah, give me some money.

  • paulie

    No”¦ and debating societies don’t stop the people in charge from doing any of that, either.

    Neither does a sellout LP. In fact it is no longer even trying to.

    Less government, lower taxes, and more freedom for all people.

    Less metastasizing cancer in your body….

  • paulie

    For every purist activist you see walking away, I see a former party member who those activists drove away for not being pure enough walking back”¦ plus another who stayed away from us in the past because we were too extreme and too lunatic to ever achieve anything. I don’t think the party is weaker; I think the party is sobering up.

    Of course it’s weaker, and what you see is a mirage. Even if you are right, and are amazingly successful with a new sellout LP (which you won’t be), your achievements will not be anything good.

  • http://www.liberatedspace.com Angela Keaton

    Calm down, Boys:

    I am here and the fight is not over yet.

    Angela Keaton

  • paulie

    Well, the idea of getting rescued by a hot superherione does sound kind of appealing….

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Nicholas: No, obviously I haven’t met him. However, it does say something about his character that he attends a political party convention as a delegate and goes on the floor to vote and debate dressed like that.

    In 1996 I watched the LP National Convention on C-SPAN. I saw people with clown wigs, in costumes, with battery-powered propeller beanies on. I was on the outside then, and I laughed.

    Today I’m on the inside, I see those people, and I groan.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Tom: Okay, let me reverse it. A purist-LP day at the fair:

    “Support us! We want the government to leave you alone! Of course, if you support us, you also have to support everyone’s right to own their own nuke, the right of Wal-Mart to stop employing gays and quit selling to non-Christians, kicking your grandmother out of the nursing home Medicaid pays for, making the street outside your driveway a private toll road… hey! Where are you going? We’re only defending your FREEDOM! It’s a matter of PRINCIPLE!”

    “How many people stopped by today, Glenn?”

    “Couple hundred.”

    “How many new members?”

    “We had fifteen requests for info and one donation of $10.”

    “Wow! Even better than last year! If this keeps up, we might break 1.5% in the polls!”

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Kris:

    Once again, a “reformer” must rely on distortions, hyperbole and strawman arguments instead of rational and truthful debate.

    The LP platform does not advocate that people own nukes and no LP candidate that I know of has ever advocated this.

    The LP platform does not advocate private toll roads and no LP candidate for any national office that I know of has advocated that.

    While libertarians have always advocated free market health care (which would be better for people for reasons you probably can’t comprehend), LP candidates have always recognized the need for govt to honor existing commitments.

    Whatever bigoted actions Walmart wants to take is done at their own peril. As you probably don’t know, most states have no protection for gay employees now. If Walmart wants to sell only to Christians, who really cares, but you?

    Your smug diatribes reveal a depth of ignorance that is embarrasing. It is also telling that you use the lies of opponents to smear libertarians

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    It is no wonder that many LP candidates do so poorly.

    A prime example is Mr. Overstreet. His campaign website looks like some kid’s homepage. It hasn’t been updated in three months (although he has plenty of time to spew nonsense here).

    No event has been scheduled in five months. Yet, he proudly informs us he is unemployed. Oh yeah, and he loves smut. What a cool guy. And what great pictures, especially the one where he is wearing a Confederate uniform holding a gun in front of the stars and bars – of course, he isn’t like that any more. His judgment is right on spot now.

    He explains that earning $1,000 a year in college ruined his grades. Great excuse. He informs us that he came home in 1998 to care for his ailing dad, to his credit, and adds he has been essentially unemployed ever since.

    To his credit, Kris does have a platform page that discusses the local issues he is interested in. I have visited some websites of LP candidates that fail to address any issues.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    If it sounds like I’m being rough on Kris, maybe it is because he apparently has nobody honestly advising him on how his opponent will exploit such a website.

    It might be too late for Kris to clean this mess up. But maybe future candidates will learn that putting out this type of eccentric weirdness can damage their campaign.

    If I were his opponent, I would immediately add a web page on my site picturing Kris in the Confederate uniform along with quotes about porn and chronic unemployment (taken out of all context).

    All this while Kris groans about people acting foolish at a political convention. Apparently he has never seen a GOP or Democrat convention.

    Real candidates have advisors that point out fatal campaign errors and rehearse talking points and debating points. They point out flaws in the rhetoric and might even suggest to the candidate ways to communicate more effectively.

    But honestly, if Kris is the best the “reformers” have to offer, the LP is truly doomed.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Tom: I put up my skeletons for two reasons:

    (1) They’re nothing that can’t be found with a simple Google search; and

    (2) Better -I- make them plain now than my opponent reveal them just before the election.

    I decided when I first entered the race that all that stuff WOULD come out if and when I became competitive, and that there would be no concealing it- so better to lay it on the table.

    Ideally, I wouldn’t be a candidate at all- but I’m the only person in the entire district who stood up to the incumbent.

    Yes, being brutally honest about my flaws hurts me with some people. It’s also helped me with others- a number of people appreciate that level of honesty. What proportion goes in which direction will be determined in November- and you could, if you wanted to unseat a vulnerable big-government Republican facing no Democrat opposition, donate some money to help adjust the numbers.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Now, back to the platform.

    The 2004 platform advocated total deregulation of all nuclear technology- including weapons- and supported the right of individuals to own any weapon whatever- including nuclear weapons.

    The 2004 platform called for the complete liquidation of all publicly owned or controlled property- including every public road in the nation- to the highest bidder. That means the street where you live would become a private road- run for profit- and thus a toll road.

    The 2004 platform called for an immediate end to all taxation and an immediate end to all government entitlements. It also called for default on all government debts and commitments. Libertarian candidates- including Badnarik- have advocated the end of Social Security and Medicare since before I’ve been a member.

    As for discrimination, the “right to be a bigot” is an extremely unpopular one- except among bigots. Did you wonder why so many white supremacists try to join this party?

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    You are really spinning it hard, Kris. Spinning it far worse than any opponent has in any serious forum.

    I’ll waste more time refuting this nonsense in reverse order. In Virginia, I am not aware of any white supremists in the LP. That may be something peculiar to Texas.

    Many libertarians have called for an end to entitlements, however, as I stated before, candidates have acknowledged the need for govt to honor commitments. The platform does not call for an immediate end to all taxation and it does not advocate default: “default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt”.

    “c.) support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes; d.) support the repeal of all taxation”

    This is hardly a call for the “immediate” end of taxation as it would take some to repeal a constitutional amendment.

    It is obvious you have a problem with truth or reading comprehension.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Kris, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when you claim the platform calls for complete liquidation of all publicly owned property and I challenge you to cite which plank this is in. The platform does call for parks and water projects to be transfered into private ownership.

    The platform specifically mentions firearms, not nukes, except for where it says:

    “We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.”

    I suppose you can really stretch it and claim this calls for people to own nukes – I suppose it might mean that people can own secret death lasers and space-based death rays too. However, the platform says:

    We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security.

    Hardly a pro-nuke agenda there.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    By the way, the platform called for denationalization of the nuclear power industry – not deregulation of the nuclear weapons.

    I can’t guess whether you can’t read, can’t comprehend, have bought into the rantings of Carl Milstead, are stupid, are lying, are assuming everyone else is ignorant and can’t read, have some hidden agenda, or are just plain crazy.

    What is it with you “reformers” that you have to rely on lies, spin, hyperbole, hysteria and/or disinformation to sell your agenda?

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Tom B: Quoting from the 2004 platform- let’s see you deny -this.-

    The platform does not call for an immediate end to all taxation and it does not advocate default: “default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt”.

    The two halves of your sentence are contradictory. The sentence, “Default is preferable…” damn well DOES advocate default. As for the platform itself, the “transition” includes only two items- the call for default on government debt and the total repeal of any ability for government to enforce taxation. There’s nothing that says, “We’ll cut taxes and eventually eliminate them.” “We demand the repeal of all taxes.” It’s that simple, that blunt, and that unrealistic.

    As for nukes: “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished.” as transition. That is, the law enforcement body that controls nuclear power AND nuclear weapons should be abolished. No regulations, no law enforcement, come get your plutonium. (more)

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    Oh, backtracking- the language appeared again under Government Debt: “Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes.”

    The old plank, “Resource Use,” called for the liquidation to the highest bidder of all government-controlled public lands and property. This would obviously include roadways.

    “We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe.”

    I suppose you can really stretch it and claim this calls for people to own nukes – I suppose it might mean that people can own secret death lasers and space-based death rays too.

    That’s exactly what I’m saying. The platform currently advocates unlimited ownership of any and all weapons whatever, in my view. (And, unfortunately, this plank hasn’t been changed yet; it needs to be both refined to limit it to weapons of self-defense and expanded to challenge laws against knives, swords, etc.)
    (more)

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    “We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security. “

    Where did it say that? I certainly don’t remember it- and since we call for the repeal of all regulations on nukes and the abolition of the people employed to enforce those regulations, and for a free market in nuclear energy and materials, who on Earth would trust us to enforce our half of any such agreement?

    Thankfully, most of this is now moot- except for the RKBA plank, all of these have gone by the wayside. What we have now isn’t perfect, and it still has a few corn-flake bits in it like the aforementioned “absolutely no weapons laws ever” stance, but it’s a vast improvement over the old- and much easier for us to refine and rework in 2008.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    “As for nukes: “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished.” as transition. That is, the law enforcement body that controls nuclear power AND nuclear weapons should be abolished.”

    The NRC regulates civilian reactor facilities. Nuclear weapons testing and research is handled by the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the weapons themselves are admistered by the United States Strategic Command.

  • Roberta X

    It’s certainly no surprise to see that freak-bashing is alive and well in the LP. As a tall, bookish and mildly butch gal, that’s the sort of thing that keeps me from joing the LP. Vote for the fine collection of wrench-in-the-works amateurs the LP runs for office, you bet. I wanna see ‘em win and gum up our out of control government but good! But the sneering boys who make the the rank and file, on the other hand, are 33% of why I own and carry firearms. Y’all are not safe to be around. The knife-in-the-back blackball, the slashed tire and the fist in the face are ever options for many supposed LPers.

    Never said you have to *like* Starchild — he gives me the creepy-crawlies! — but if he fulfilled the requirements to be a delegate, that should be that and no need to press the issue. For shame.

    As for the LP imploding, that’s been coming ever since they started dissing the ZAP. Lose it and the rest was sure to follow.

    Orwell predicted our future. Enjoy!

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Kris, I would suggest that there is no secret or underlying meaning to the words: “default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt”

    This is plain english. It states a preference. It means (we) prefer defaulting on the national debt rather than increasing taxes or continuing to let the debt pile up.

    It does not “call for” or “advocate” (your words) default on the debt. If that was what the plank was intended to say, it would say: “we call for defaulting on the debt”.

    You insist on attributing meaning to plain words that simply does not exist. I just don’t get it – the words are in front of your face and you can’t seem to grasp the meaning of them.

    If you are searching for some underlying meaning to the phrase, it is saying: pay off the debt without raising taxes. That implies to cut spending. That results in reduced government. Reduced government is what the LP stands for (or used to stand for).

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Kris, since you don’t seem to remeber much of the platform, I’ll make it easy for you.

    First, click here: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

    Then go to Military Policy at IV(B)(1) for the plank on nuclear disarmament

    Then to refresh your memory, check Resource Use at III (9)

    You will not find anything there that backs up your spurious claim made above:

    “The old plank, “Resource Use,” called for the liquidation to the highest bidder of all government-controlled public lands and property. This would obviously include roadways.”

    This plank says exactly what I said it did at #50 above.

    I suppose it is possible that in a plank that repeatedly refers to firearms and ammunition, but uses the word “weapons” once, some paranoid conspiracy crank could interpret “weapons” to mean nuclear bombs. I’ll give you that. I suppose it could also mean biological or chemical weapons also. It could also mean knives and swords. It could even mean missiles.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    “Where did it say that? I certainly don’t remember it”

    I would suggest that Kris re-read the platform.

    Some of the language in the (old) platform was dated and confusing. That’s reason enough to change it. There is no reason to lie about what it says.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    “and since we call for the repeal of all regulations on nukes and the the people employed to enforce those regulations”

    The platform does not advocate the repeal of all regulations on nuclear weapons.

    The NNSA is only tasked with maintaining, designing, testing, and producing nuclear weapons for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. It has no enforcement power. It is part of the Department of Energy, which the platform calls for elimination. But the platform also calls for building no more bombs anyway.

    The United States Strategic Command controls US nuclear weapons. It is (obviously) part of the United States Defense Department. The platform does not call for elimination of this department.

    If you managed to aquire a nuclear weapon, it would not be the NRC, NNSA, or the USSTRATCOM that would show up at your door. It would most likely be the FBI, which the platform does not advocate abolishing.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Though, as far as I can tell, there is no specific US law prohibiting an individual from owning a nuclear weapon. Of course, the act of aquiring one would probably require violating quite a few international and US laws.

    Now I’ll agree with Tom. The following could be misinterpreted: “We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons.” (the only two sentences in the plank that refer to “weapons”)

    If you really want to get picky, this means the platform says that it is ok to ban individual ownership of nuclear weapons so long as they are not being banned because they are unsafe or risky. And if they are banned for some other reason, then the ban cannot be applied to those who conceal their nuclear weapons, especially if they carry them in their pocket.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Mr. Moore, you should become an attorney.

    I will admit to secretly calling for the legalization of concealed pocket nukes by next Wednesday, unless they are unsafe or risky. Americans have suffered too long under the tyranny of those who seek to deprive us all of the safe pocket nukes that the founders clearly intended us to conceal pursuant to the Second Amendment.