COPYRIGHT © 2002-
Thanks for showing off our guy, Mike. If anyone out there would like to learn more about Jack and his campaign, please visit his official campaign website, which Mike referenced, at http://www.VoteCashin.com, or Jack’s MySpace page, http://www.MySpace.com/VoteCashin.
Aww, crap. Typo on my part. Jack’s MySpace page is at: http://www.MySpace.com/VoteCashin
Jack is a good candidate. He has a pro-immigrant video too. One of the few legitimate libertarians running for office. He should be praised for running.
Did he say “bullshit”? He will surely burn in hell! :)
UA, you’re just as bad as Republicans who don’t consider certain Republicans to be real Republicans because of one issue (in their case, abortion.) I’d be fine with you and Dondero having a cage match as long as neither of y’all can ever type again.
Well, it’s true – some LP candidates are IMO less libertarian than candidates such as John Murphy and Kevin Zeese, who are merely cross-endorsed by Libertarians.
When they oppose the smaller government view on issues such as the war and immigration which are the top issues right now, it’s worse than opposing us on, say, health care.
Sorry to offend, Mr. Watt. I’ve always enjoyed your posts. I’m sorry the feelings are not mutual. I have been excused of being “unintentionally funny,” but my intentions are to express my honest opinions, turned up about 100 notches, intentionally over the top. Still, I agree with Paulie. My litmus test for libertarianism isn’t very extensive. Since so few libertarians differ on the bulk of issues, there’s no point in even questioning someone’s position on gun rights. But the right-wing, wrong-headedness of the war and anti-immigration Know-Nothingism has become so prevalent within our party that I feel it needs to be exposed and attacked.
This thread is supposed to be about Jack Cashin, to whom I once again want to express my gratitude for running as a principled, authentic libertarian. Sorry your thread got diverted and sullied, as is so often the case.
Yes, it’s good that there are still some real libertarians running as Libertarians.
The funny thing is, I agree with you completely, UA, on your immigration stance. I don’t understand, however, why it’s your litmus test.
It’s a big issue these days.
So? The wedge issues invented by Republicrats are not necessarily what we should be focusing on.
Like it or not, it’s a big part of the debate. Also, see the quote from Lopez I posted in another thread: if we agree that the government has part ownership of the whole country, then all its other “ownership” rights follow.
Any time the Demopublicans whip the country up into a frenzy about an alleged threat for the government to solve, it will be on the cutting edge of taking away our liberties in the name of fighting this “threat”.
See, I look at issues like immigration like I do the “Fair Tax”: if I agree with almost everything else that candidate proposes, I can let one issue slide.
I think the Fair Tax is idiocy and want to open our borders, but sometimes you have to go for the best you can. Phil Maymin, for example, is a strong candidate who is anti illegal immigration. The fact that he’s a strong Libertarian candidate (who, by the way, smokes Republicrat ass at the debates) outweighs the fact that I disagree with him on immigration. Remember, all a Libertarian in Congress can do now is show the world Libertarian views. Any left- or right- wing views that they have will be ignored, because it’s where they differ that people will focus on.
Nigel: Phil also supports the Fair Tax. FYI. He discussed it in the debate linked in the recent Hess post.
I know, and that’s unfortunate. Still doesn’t change my position on him, though.
Remember, all a Libertarian in Congress can do now is show the world Libertarian views.
And if those views include the FraudTax and closed borders, that would be showing the world a skewed picture which would badly hurt us where we need the most help.