Phil Maymin to appear on MSNBC

I didnt know Carlson was a libertarian. Too bad no one watches MSNBC.

… So he’s just an even more profoundly confused Republican than average.

a duoist – when the media in general is not listenting to your message or even giving it a chance, flippancy if done decently and not to the level of being asinine(like the statue of libery guy), can actually help get your message out there, we’ve seen it with Loretta and now with Maymin. I personally think Maymin’s spot is adorable, and is a great ad for someone that is almost assured not to win, but just needs to get his message out there for the future.

Tucker is more of a “Goldwater Conservative” than a Libertarian.

He is a very good, fun journalist, though. There’s nothing wrong with a journalist having an opinion, so long as they make it known, don’t feign “fair and balanced,” and can actually be objective.

I have a feeling that Tucker will be 100% pro-Maymin, since Maymin himself is more of a paleocon than a libertarian (i.e. border nazism, ovarian marxism, etc.)

UA, sometimes your points are overshadowed by the dramatic language you use. Border Nazism? Ovarian Marxism?

Furthermore, I suggest that you will have better luck in influencing people by using positive language. In other words, point out the things which you like about various candidates, instead of the things which you don’t like. Ex: “Guthrie really is doing a great job of appealing to the left” instead of “Maymin is such a totalitarian.”

Leaders lift up the people around them. Check out “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. The title may sound cheesy, but it’s really not. It’s all about making the most of every interaction with other people.

And yes, I agree with you on #8. Maymin is running one of the best campaigns I have seen.

What has struck me the most is that he knows and understands the issues which are of concern to voters. Whenever one comes up in a debate, he rattles off facts, figures, names, dates, and policy proposals.

More LP candidates should be prepared like that. Too many are caught on the spot, and only offer a default “government is too big, the market will solve all” response, with no real details on how a libertarian solution is right for a specific situation.

Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.

I’m hereby adding him to my List of Famous Libertarians over at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com.

And incidentally, for the guy who said “he’s not a libertarian, he’s more of a Goldwater Repubilcans…”

Hey, NEWSFLASH!!! Goldwater Republicans IS LIBERTARIAN!!!

Sheesh!!!

If he wins I hope he does something about this. Your tax dollars at work from “The No Nookie for You Department”

Abstinence message goes beyond teens

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

The federal government’s “no sex without marriage” message isn’t just for kids anymore.
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

That’s a testament to the (slight)buzz surrounding the LP right now.

I think it’s more of a testament to the buzz surrounding Maymin right now. From a story in the Stamford Advocate:

[...] one candidate who also is targeting those voters, and who could be a spoiler for the incumbent, is Libertarian candidate Phil Maymin. Maymin, who petitioned his way onto the ballot in July, participated in more than half of the 11 congressional debates, surprising observers with his knowledge of the issues and personality.

Maymin is focusing on issues which the voters care about, such as Iraq, the general state of the economy, and immigration. He is reading up on those issues and offering intelligent (albeit somewhat radical) policy proposals. That’s a much better political strategy than ranting about the gold standard or 16th amendment.

Bill, I never claimed Tucker was a libertarian.

“Tucker is most certainly a libertarian. I have watched him call himself that numerous times.”

Just because somebody calls themselves a libertarian it doesn’t necessarily make them one. Bill Maher has called himself a libertarian and I don’t consider him to be one.

“UA, sometimes your points are overshadowed by the dramatic language you use. Border Nazism? Ovarian Marxism?”

One could refer to undercover_anarachist as a border socialist and a baby killer. Not to mention that he’s pro-eminent domain, pro-Federal Reserve (he thinks that the big bankers are pro-free market), pro-tax, and pro-Affirmative Action (he’s a racial Marxist).

No, Andy is the border socialist who believes the border is the collective property of “Americans” and that the state has the authority to create imaginary lines that human beings must respect. I have often used the term “border socialist” instead of “border Nazi” – they are interchangable.

Andy also has Nicolae CeauÅŸescu’s position on abortion. He thinks that women are property of the state and that they have the obligation to breed for the state’s prosperity. He wants more children, more people – so long as they aren’t brown ones who cross his precious imaginary line.

If I’m “pro-eminant domain” then so were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Andy lives in the upside down world of INGSOC where freedom = tyranny and the framers of the constitution were unconstitutional.

I never said I was pro “affirmative action” whatever that means. I support the right of private institutions to foster diversity as they see fit. Strangely, the same people who oppose the Civil Rights Act oppose…

that I’m a commie, then I stand convicted. Just be sure to round up every productive wealth creating citizen in the nation while you’re at it, so you anacrhonistic idiots can worship your precious shiny metal while destroying prosperity, reinstating racism, and subjugating women to the will of the state, all in the name of “freedom.”

Fuck you very much.

Well, they’re not necessary if you want to live like Somalians, the perfect “anarchist state.”

I’ll make it clear: I am against racial preference in government contracting. More than that, I’m against government contracting. Why doesn’t the LP make THAT the issue? Answer: Becuase they’re racist.

I do not worship the framers nor the Constitution – which I have often referred to as a document written behid closed doors by a cabal of slave rapists. But I respect the pre-Kelo interpretation of eminant domain as written into the Constitution. If that makes me a commie, then so was every single founding father. That’s all I’m saying.

Carlson writing in Cato’s Letter:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n2.pdf

FWIW

Nevermind. He is on Wednesday, not Tuesday.

I do not worship the framers nor the Constitution – which I have often referred to as a document written behid closed doors by a cabal of slave rapists. But I respect the pre-Kelo interpretation of eminant domain as written into the Constitution. If that makes me a commie, then so was every single founding father. That’s all I’m saying.

On this particular issue they were. That doesn’t make you, or them, a “commie” on every issue. But as you pointed out they had their problems. This happens to be an anti-freedom stand, which Kelo made even worse.

people to it through mass immigration is insane. I’m NOT opposed to all immigrants. Some immigrants are fine, however, reality is that there are a hell of a lot of poor immigrants who come here and who have children (who are counted as “Americans”) and who are a drain on the tax payers. According to undercover_anarchist it is “racist” to deny benifits to illegal aliens. I’d call that socialist.

I’d also say that it’s socialist for you guys to ASSUME that if all land in this country that is currently under the control of our government were back into the hands of individual Americans that everyone would want mass immigration on their land. Some would want this but there are also a hell of a lot of people who wouldn’t want this.

“Pro tax? Absurd. I do however live in a wonderful place called reality where taxes are a necessary ‘evil.’”

I seem to recall you supporting tax payer funded political campaigns on another thread. I don’t consider that to be a good idea.

I wouldn’t say that taxes are a necessary evil. I doubt that we could get rid of taxes in one fell swoop, but this does not mean that taxes are necessary.

Also, according to what Walter Burien says ( http://www.CAFR1.com ) our government has enough money in slush funds (which can be found in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for local, state, and federal agencies) that the proceeds from these government investment funds could be used to fund government and that we could do away with all taxes. I’ve investigated his claims and from what I’ve found it looks like he’s right. For more information on CAFR’s also check out http://www.cafrman.com.

As I indicated above, getting rid of all taxes at once is probably not going to happen,

“And as for the Fed. Again, reality, you might want to try visiting. America’s prosperity is the product of its legal and financial system. You Boston T. Party type “libertarian” (white supremacist) neanderthals want to rape your sisters in Amish yirts in the name of ‘freedom.’”

So opposing the Federal Reserve is “racist.” Yeah, this makes a lot of sense…not. America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

Not for me. I dont believe in anarchism. But I’d like to see a federal government reduced in size to around 15%~20% of present size. Taxation is not theft if the taxation is consented to. The great majority of poeple consent to the concept of taxation. They dont grab their guns and they dont refuse to pay. Some do. but the number of those that do is so small as to be irreleveant as concerns public policy.

I think these people that dont consent are already in the underground economy. They dont care – they are already not paying taxes.

I’m pretty sure that many a ballot sig taker might fit into this category. :D

This from a guy – Andy – who believes that to call oneself a “libertarian” you have to let Muslims invade your country, take over the government, veil all your women and cover them from head to toe in ugly black burkas and force all the men to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, or get their heads cut off.

According to this Andy fellow, Libertarianism = Support for Islamo-Fascism. That’s the only definition that matters.

UA: A simple question: Do you believe affirmative action by government to be right or wrong?

Another: Is everyone who disagrees with you a racist?

Reality is that this place we call the United States Of America has built up a very large welfare system. Adding more people to it through mass immigration is insane.

I like Loretta’s position on this in

http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/2006/10/nall-answers-debate-questions.html

No additional state laws or enforcement tools will be used under my administration for immigration. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 10 million jobs will be unfilled in 2010, when the first wave of boomers retire.
Immigrant labor contributes to the economy. Many industries would struggle and some would even close were it not for immigrant labor.

Building a wall is a stupid idea as the vast majority of illegal immigrants come across the border by automobile. It is a ‘feel good’ piece of legislation that does nothing to address the issue and truthfully I am more afraid of being walled in than walling Hispanics out.

cont….

Andy:

According to undercover_anarchist it is “racist” to deny benifits to illegal aliens. I’d call that socialist.

Here’s the problem with this argument: Yes, I would like to eventually replace government welfare with private charity; however, that doesn’t mean it would be OK in the meantime to say, for example, that only blonde haired white people can get government welfare. I’m not saying that is what you actually advocate. I’m saying that it would be equally wrong.

Yes, welfare should be taken out of government hands, but it should be done in a non-discriminatory way. One wrong does not justify another!

Why not say that we can’t allow private ownership of guns until drugs are legal? Or that we can’t legalize drugs until we have completely private health care, housing and schooling? Or that we can’t have those until we end limited liability for corporations?

How about “ALL our freedoms ALL the time”?

America would be far more prosperous if the Federal Reserve System had never exsisted.

True.

getting rid of all taxes at once is probably not going to happen,

You have a crystal ball? Kewl!

however, since taxation is theft and since a voluntary society is the end goal for libertarians I’d say that getting rid of all taxation is a part of that end goal.

That depends on how you define libertarian. If we define it in the traditional way, you are correct. However, there’s another definition, which is “top quadrant of the Nolan chart,” most of whom don’t share our end goal.

Yet another even broader definition is “less government than at present”. Since government under clinton was smaller than under Bush, I guess Clinton was right after all when he said he was a libertarian! And since under the next Clinton it is likely to be larger yet, Eric is right when he calls Bush a mainstream libertarian!

I think these people that dont consent are already in the underground economy. They dont care – they are already not paying taxes.

I’m pretty sure that many a ballot sig taker might fit into this category. :D

Au contraire – we do pay sales taxes, whether we like it or not. We pay through the sales and income taxes adding to the cost of goods at every stage of their production, transport and retail. We also pay transient taxes on lodging, which local governments love because we don’t stay long enough to vote them out of office.

They go to great lengths to impose these taxes on people who live in motels. In many areas, families have to move from one motel to another after 28 days. In LA I had to be locked out of one room for a day, with my stuff still there, so they could continue to claim I am not a permanent resident. What a rip off!

This from a guy – Andy – who believes that to call oneself a “libertarian” you have to let Muslims invade your country, take over the government, veil all your women and cover them from head to toe in ugly black burkas and force all the men to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, or get their heads cut off.

We believe no such thing. If this were a real threat, and not a phony one used to scare Americans into giving Bush’s fascist gang dictatorial powers, we’d be fighting off the invasion as I’m sure would you – literally, not on a keyboard.

The fact is that Muslim extremists don’t possess the means
to enslave America or even come close. But neocon-theocon
“Christian” fascists are a REAL threat. Giving the real fascists unlimited power to fight a phony threat is the height of stupidity.

Immigrants pay taxes too. And in the case of Social Security, they pay taxes for a benefit they’ll never receive.

And this too is true.

NIGEL: I thought I made it clear. I’m against government-based “affirmative action.” The problem is that most people who AGREE with me are racists; not the other way around.

RECLAIM THE THREAD, WAS MAYMIN ON THE SHOW? DID ANYONE SEE IT?

Thanks

Yeah, I was knocking western/country folks for no reason so I guess I’m not cool. I would prefer to knock Texans and other southerners but there are too many of them here.

Phil Maymin did great on the Tucker show. He made his points, was direct, kept smiling and communicated very well. I wish him the best and am glad I contributed to his campaign!

Hey, if it gets the job done, that’s what matters. Some bullshit on a TV program isn’t a big deal.

UA, why are you throwing around the term “racist” when you want to cast aspersions on whole groups of people (ie, Texans like myself) unapologetically, but don’t have the balls to do it?

Speaking of Lieberman, is it true that Eric is planning to start Libertarians for Avigdor Lieberman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman

Three cheers for Maymin! This guy is the best candidate from _any_ party I’ve ever seen. Hopefully people other than HoT readers watched the show.

But I’d like to see a federal government reduced in size to around 15%~20% of present size.

All the way back to its Nixon administration size?

thats a realistic assesment of the best I think possible. If we would manage to get there, I’d then like to take it down more.

My ideal size of the federal government would be roughly pre – 16th amendment sized. Think Hoover.

it would be a bit bigger in some areas and a bit smaller in others. I’d really like to dismantle the military industrial complex and kill it’s chances of ever coming back.

“Oh, and anticipating your next move, Andy, before you bring my grandparents into it, they were LEGAL immigrants.”

Actually, I was not going to bring that up. But since you did my repsonse is that legal immigrants – especially those who never worked a day in their lives here – should not be able to collect any benifits either.

I think that not giving tax benifits to immigrants would make them resent the government – as well as all of the lazy ass Americans who feed out of the public trough – and thus make them more libertarian.

My ideal size of the federal government would be roughly pre – 16th amendment sized. Think Hoover.

If I recall history correctly, Hoover was president about 15-20 years after the 16th.

I’d really like to dismantle the military industrial complex and kill it’s chances of ever coming back.

My #1 priority as well.

Tim,

All I have to say is”¦ thank god you left the Libertarian Party.

Turns out he didn’t.

He left the letter in the truck for his wife to mail, she never did, and after a week he changed his mind and decided to hang in there.

I’ve had times when I almost quit as well, such as 1998 when the Alabama LP exec comm voted to lower the price of the petition from 1.00 to 60 cents in the “great 3/5 compromise” illegal email vote afetr we had already hired people locally.

Now I can’t, as a life member I’m stuck, kinda.

I think that not giving tax benifits to immigrants would make them resent the government – as well as all of the lazy ass Americans who feed out of the public trough – and thus make them more libertarian.

I don’t think it really would.

I guess if this works though, we can single out groups – blacks this week, women who weigh over 200 pounds the next, etc – and take away government benefits.

Pretty soon we’ll have a nation of libertarians this way.

Or not.

no, anyone can renounce the oath at any time. Gets you right out.

Hoover was president about 15-20 years after the 16th.

Could be – to clarify, I want a federal government REALLY REALLY A LOT SMALLER than it is now, and I want to remove it’s power to tax my income, among other things.

I almost quit when the LNC had the “secret vote” to raise the dues payments. I did quit after the Perry Willis stuff, but never sent in the oath disavowment. It’s not real unless you do that. You only go into a inactive status.

Of course, I think the oath is a bunch of shit anyways, and I dont agree with it or the premises surrounding it. Maybe Nelson can get me kicked out.

Switch out the Guinness for some young Chianti, and I’m in with Paulie.

“I don’t think it really would.

I guess if this works though, we can single out groups – blacks this week, women who weigh over 200 pounds the next, etc – and take away government benefits.

Pretty soon we’ll have a nation of libertarians this way.

Or not.”

Why not? First off it would discourage non-productive people from coming here in the first place. Secondly, the immigrants here would be really resentful of all of the lazy welfare parasites and they would become more anti-tax and anti-government.

“It would create pleny of pissed off people, but that does not make them libertarian.

It would be more likely to make them communist than libertarian, if they were to get into politics at all, which few of them would.”

I think that giving them tax payer funded benifits is more likely to make them socialist. If you give people hand outs it gives them less incentive to live productive and responsible lives.

If immigrants can’t get the tax payer funded “freebies” it would make them resentful of the lazy ass Americans recieving them and the government that taxes them to fund the welfare state.

One of the things that helped mold me into a libertarian was when I worked at this place where there were several people who took advantage of the welfare system. I’d look at my pay check stud and see all of these taxes taken out and realized that some of the money I was paying in taxes was

There’s a state role in the short term, so it should be non-discriminatory.

Prejudice is wrong, because it treats people as members of groups rather than as individuals.

I would eventually like to replace state welfare with private charity.

But in the meantime, it would be wrong to pass a law that only blonde white people can get state welfare.

Just as it would be equally wrong to pass a law that blonde white people can not get state welfare.

Why is there a contradiction?

Welfare should be privatized in a non-discriminatory way.

Advocating that ONLY immigrants should be taken off state welfare, thus using the state to favor native born citizens, just paints us as racists. Bad move.

Advocating that ONLY “illegal” immigrants should be taken off state welfare bolsters the argument that the state collectively “owns the country” thus legitimizing the preemise behind all state actions, including state welfare. After all, it would be perfectly OK to provide ….

I don’t quite agree with you, Paulie. I’m 100% pro-immigrant and certainly more sympathetic to the concept of welfare than probably anyone else here, but I don’t think barring non-citizens from recieving welfare is discriminatory. In most areas, people without SS#s cannot receive welfare, medicaid, etc.