Mini-money bomb for promising LP candidates

Earlier, we reported that Steve Newton posed the idea of a mini-money bomb for four promising Libertarian candidates: Michael Munger, Allen Buckley, Scotty Boman, and Jason Gatties. The idea was that Libertarians should all donate $10 to each of the four on July 4.

Scotty Boman is the only candidate of the four to have a donation tracker on his Web site. Although it is not updated in real time, thus far, it has only budged by $10 today.

22 thoughts on “Mini-money bomb for promising LP candidates

  1. Jeff Wartman

    Barrett has secured enough signatures to be on the ballot and will be handing them in on July 8.

    I find it humorous that some will complain about Barr’s positions but stay quiet on Barrett, who is probably one of the most anti-libertarian LP candidates in the country.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Who’s staying quiet?

    “One” of the most?

    He’s clearly THE most anti-libertarian Libertarian that I know of.

    Maybe there are worse ones out there, but I kind of doubt it. He makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard.

  3. Jeff Wartman

    Who’s staying quiet?

    “One” of the most?

    He’s clearly THE most anti-libertarian Libertarian that I know of.

    Maybe there are worse ones out there, but I kind of doubt it. He makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard.

    Glad to hear you’re one of the ones who “gets it”

    The problem is that we have too many troofers who want to call themselves libertarians. Without understanding that to believe government is competent enough to pull off something like 9/11, you couldn’t possibly be a libertarian.

  4. G.E. Post author

    The government is unquestionably incompetent. Which is why it’s easy to believe that a rouge element within the government would be able to perpetrate 9/11 without the rest of the incompetents knowing. Just as easy to believe that as it is the alternative.

    What galls me is the hypocrisy of someone who believes that the same government that he believes perpetrated 9/11 should be in charge of my retirement! That Social Security — instituted by the mass murderer, Pearl Harbor enabler, and racist interner FDR — is a “great program.”

    We cover Barrett’s campaign here fairly, and I think those who represent him would have to agree. But if he were up for nomination in my home state, I would throw a huge fit and do everything I could to prevent a died-in-the-wool socialist from being nominated as a Libertarian.

  5. TheOriginalAndy

    “Jeff Wartman // Jul 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Barrett has secured enough signatures to be on the ballot and will be handing them in on July 8.

    I find it humorous that some will complain about Barr’s positions but stay quiet on Barrett, who is probably one of the most anti-libertarian LP candidates in the country.”

    “5 G.E. // Jul 4, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Who’s staying quiet?

    ‘One’ of the most?

    He’s clearly THE most anti-libertarian Libertarian that I know of.

    Maybe there are worse ones out there, but I kind of doubt it. He makes Bob Barr look like Murray Rothbard.”

    I’ve said this before in some other posts, and now I’ll say it again, and that is that I like what Kevin Barrett is doing in regards to spreading 9/11 Truth, opposing the wars, and standing up for most civil liberties.

    Having said this, I DISAGREE with him on some other issues such as Social Security and healthcare. Kevin Barrett came to the Libertarian Party from the left and just has not been able to give up some of his anti-libertarian leftist positions. I like the guy, but I just can’t get behind him like I would if not for this.

    Having said this, I’m really not so sure if he’s less libertarian than Bob Barr. For instance, Barrett is vehemtly opposed to the drug war while Barr still waffles on it. Barrett favors abolishing the CIA, I’m not sure where Bob Barr stands on this as I don’t think that he’s ever spoken about it, but since Barr is a former CIA employee I wouldn’t be suprised if he does not favor abolishing it.

    Also, it should be pointed out that Barrett is not the nominee yet, as there is going to be a primary election and Barrett has to go up against another Libertarian Party challenger.

    Mike Gravel came from the left and did not give up all of his leftist views and he ran for the LP’s Presidential nomination. Gravel is not anymore libertarian than Barrett, he’s possibly even less libertarian.

    At this time it would probably be better if Barrett were running for Congress as an independent.

    What I’d like to see from Barrett is for him to stick around the party for a few years, get involved in his local branch, and study some economics. When the day comes that he figures out that Social Security and government healthcare are bad ideas he should consider running for office again.

  6. TheOriginalAndy

    “Jeff Wartman // Jul 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm
    The problem is that we have too many troofers who want to call themselves libertarians. Without understanding that to believe government is competent enough to pull off something like 9/11, you couldn’t possibly be a libertarian.”

    Not everyone in government is stupid. This is a myth in which too many libertarians believe. Yes, there are some stupid people in government, but they are mostly at the lower levels. The people are at the top of the food chain in government are mostly intelligent, and they are also ruthless and evil.

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
    Glad to hear I can’t possibly be a libertarian.”

    As Paulie pointed out, there are a lot of hardcore libertarians who have examined the evidence and believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

    “G.E. // Jul 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    The government is unquestionably incompetent. Which is why it’s easy to believe that a rouge element within the government would be able to perpetrate 9/11 without the rest of the incompetents knowing. Just as easy to believe that as it is the alternative.”

    GE just hit the nail on the head with his comment about rogue elements within the government being capable of carrying out 9/11, while other parts of government are either too stupid to figure it out or don’t care.

  7. TheOriginalAndy

    “What galls me is the hypocrisy of someone who believes that the same government that he believes perpetrated 9/11 should be in charge of my retirement! That Social Security — instituted by the mass murderer, Pearl Harbor enabler, and racist interner FDR — is a ‘great program.'”

    GE just hit the nail on the head again!

    I actually think that this is a good way to convert 9/11 Truthers who come from the left into libertarians. I mean, “Do you want the same government who was capable of carrying out the 9/11 attack to be in charge of your retirement and healthcare?”

  8. Jeff Wartman

    What galls me is the hypocrisy of someone who believes that the same government that he believes perpetrated 9/11 should be in charge of my retirement! That Social Security — instituted by the mass murderer, Pearl Harbor enabler, and racist interner FDR — is a “great program.”

    Cheers to that 🙂

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, the “government is too incompetent to carry out the 9/11 attacks” is weak, as GE and Andy point out.

    The main problem with the “US government was complicit in the attacks” hypothesis is that the evidence which has so far emerged to support it comes to a grand total of none, nada, zip, zilch, zero, bupkus.

  10. pdsa

    It isn’t just the incompetence of the government that forecloses 911 conspiracy. It fails at the git just as most conspiracy theories fail, because it posits a level of competence from the product of group thought which has a probability of existing in reality at a percentage greater than zero, which can still be statistically stated correctly as nil.

    Often what seems like a momentary break in the haze to expose unseen hands is actually a poorly dispersed smokescreen of wafting mendacity spewed out the business end of persons attempting to obfuscate their own culpability.

    Case in point: WTC7. It is often used as evidence of a conspiracy:

    …a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

    essay maker go site essay book in hindi for upsc viagra price mrp india how to know my ip address in phone edit my essay homework he viagra beograd doxycycline uti prophylaxis generic viagra cialis and levitra follow link click here most reliable generic viagra websites how do i add an additional email account to my iphone source domyessayforme net dissertation binding service hull how to write introduction in thesisВ honolulu viagra levitra information writing the best college essay go here viagra online best price https://www.nypre.com/programs/buy-critical-thinking-essay/37/ scientific thesis proposal watch follow link hire writers affordable viagra online example of a conclusion for a compare and contrast essay cheapest article writing service social anthropology essay sample Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, Popular Mechanics, WTC7

    Yeah, diesel fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel, but it didn’t have to. A five hour burn would have been enough to warp and contort an already damaged building. the reason that everyone tiptoed around this though, was because this was Rudy’s command center, built against the recommendations of the NYC Fire Marshalls, and Rudy was being such a solid sport and all, which itself was a load of crap. It you had been mayor of NYC when 911 hit, would you have run away?

    Blowing smoke out their butts.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Fred – Scotty raised $85 on the 4th, which was less than he raised the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. $30 of that $35 of that $85 was a check that probably wasn’t related to the money bomb, thus leaving the money-bomb-related tally at $50. Steve Newton had a good idea, lots of people cheered it on, but few put their money where their mouths were.

  12. G.E. Post author

    Knapp – There is plenty of circumstantial evidence — an extreme amount to the extent that Bush/Cheney might very well lose a civil suit. There is, without question, a cover-up. Therefore, until there is a real investigation, no free-thinking person can reasonably rule anything out.

  13. inDglass

    Physicist Dr. Steven Jones’ studies show that it was much more than planes that knocked down those three WTC buildings on 9/11.

    I agree that, while this government is largely incompetent, there are many rogue elements capable of carrying out such an attack. Look at how many successful coups have been carried out abroad by the CIA.

    Also, consider the fact that corruption can not happen without conspiracy. This government is loaded with corruption and therefore loaded with conspiracy. A “conspiracy theory” about anything that happens in this government is worth considering.

    At the very least, further investigation is needed into the attacks. There was too much incompetence and too much coverup. There were detailed intelligence reports given to several agencies and the White House from many reliable sources before the attacks. This combines with evidence of insider trading, which Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said warrants investigation.

    I applaud any candidate who is willing to call for this necessary investigation, risking that the media and his opponents will portray him as anti-American, a terrorist supporter, and a “conspiracy theorist.”

  14. G.E. Post author

    inDglass: When the CIA stages a coup, however, they do NOT do it efficiently. They make a mess of it. This is government’s nature.

    Similarly, whoever did 9/11 made a mess of it too. WTC-7 comes to mind. There are a lot of “inefficiencies” — horrible ones that IF NOT FOR THE BLIND OBEDIENCE OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, would raise lots of questions. We live in a nation in which people never stop to question the monetary system that’s been defrauding them for 95 years — they’re sure as hell not going to question 9/11. They don’t own up to the CIA’s coup in Iran in ’53, nor our support of Hussein and bin Laden, nor FDR’s allowing Pearl Harbor to take place.

    If the lie is big enough, the people are bound to believe it.

    I say this as a skeptic of 9/11 skepticism, by the way.

  15. kiddleddee

    Let’s see if I can get this straight. The government is too incompetent to prevent 9/11; it is also too incompetent to do 9/11. But the government is competent enough to have “solved” the crime of the century and announced the names of the perpetrators – even to the point of posting their pictures – within hours of the crime. Hmmmmm…

  16. G.E. Post author

    The government is too incompetent to reliably do anything. Sure, it can prevent terrorist attacks from time to time. Sure, it could (and does) perpetrate them. If you’re talking to me, I’m not saying that “the government” is too incompetent to prevent nor too incompetent to engage. Nor do I think the crime is solved. That’s why I support Libertarians for Justice in their demands for an actual investigation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *