From her would-be running mate, Michelle Shinghal:
I’d like to officially announce the Keaton/Shinghal 2012 ticket. We already have some support on our Facebook page and we have BIG fundraising plans. The unofficial plan is called ‘Stripping across Texas’ but we’re not like most strippers; we know we’ll have neither diploma nor presidency in the end and we don’t plan to sell it that way. With that plan in place alone, we guarandamntee that we can out raise Barr/Root by at least $100k.
Now, I know that y’all might be worried about qualifications. Well, I haven’t any except the abilities to balance a checkbook, drink like a fish and well, never mind. Let’s just say that of all the men in my past I only count on 3 not voting for me. Keaton has a Masters in Poli-Sci and a law degree. (That’s why she’s the top of the ticket- that and Knapp came to our room in Denver and found her awake before I.) As far as media goes I think that perhaps reason might do us a solid and cover us in a non-judgmental way. Angela does have some rather racy pics on the web and , I have the support of many from the cult of Ron Paul. (Disclosure crap makes me admit that I’m part of that cult…)
There are 3 things about Keaton/Shinghal 2012 that set us apart from many others who might seek your delegate vote. They are: 3) We’re both married to reputable men who are fastidious about their standings in the eyes of their peers and government. In other words, there will be nothing of substance to block our run in the eyes of the state. 2) We’ve no small children- retarded or otherwise- to occupy our thoughts on the campaign trail. 1) We’re fucking Libertarians and we can make the most hostile people friendly in a face to face because we follow the guiding light of our political philosophy and all religions and that’s the Golden Rule.
Hire with what money? And why would wearing suits and creating even more confusion with the “tea party” be a good thing? The tea party has been thoroughly infiltrated by people who hold to all the bad views of the Republicans and don’t want to see the Republican vote split.
BTW, all the BTP needed to do to be vastly more successful is to hire some people who can wear suits and ties and communicate anti-government ideas well, and then drop the “B” in their name. This confirms my suspicion that so-called “libertarians” are mostly people who couldn’t give water to a dying man in the Sahara.
edit: …and [urges him to] accept the corruption of the LP…
I think the Libertarian Party would see more results if they engaged in the process of feedback a little bit more. They need the same kind of “checks and balances” that they criticize the state collectivists for circumventing. (This indicates a lack of system knowledge.)
From his posts here, it sounds like the only one who knows anything useful about the actual operation of the LP is “Andy.” I like how Jim Davidson simultaneously poo-poohs Andy’s earnest attempts to foster a better LP, and to accept the corruption of the LP, and to accept being defrauded by the LP, and then urges him to come over to the Boston Tea Party, which appears to be an even smaller version of the Libertarian Party.
Just what the world needs: A smaller version of the Libertarian Party.
Correct. It actually started while the convention was still happening: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/lnc-elections-thread/
“Jill Pyeatt // Mar 26, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Joey Dauben commented on this thread? LOL
He won’t be doing that for many years, unless they allow computers in prison.”
Hopefully Joey has learned that it is not nice to rape underage boys.
I meant 2011, not 2013
Me and Robert Milnes gave this site a lot of character between 2008 and 2013. With the unjust banning of Robert Milnes and my movement toward other projects, everything is different now. At least Paulie, Andy, NF and Jill are still here, and haven’t changed that much. Everybody have a blessed Holy Week; please pray for the Pope and please pray for Barack Obama, amen. BTW I think the longest thread was right after the 2012 LP convention’s LNC elections, at over 1000 comments.
“458 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Angela is a very special person.”
Only if by “special,” you mean a person with mental problems.
“The LP is much worse off for it.”
Talk about image over reality. The LP is better off without that crazy b*+@#.
Yeah, 2008 was a great year for IPR. I believe that this time period right after the 2008 election was also the period of this shorter, but still legendary thread. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/wayne-allyn-root-headlines-bill-of-rights-day-event-in-indianapolis/
Joey Dauben commented on this thread? LOL
He won’t be doing that for many years, unless they allow computers in prison.
@456… yes you do need a life! 😉
Angela is a very special person. It’s a shame she was chased off. The LP is much worse off for it.
She’s currently off FB, too. I hear she’ll show up again soon. I’m very pleased to have her as my buddy.
When you are done that and all the oregon threads and realize the emperor has no clothes…. give me a call.
I just read this whole goddamn thing. I don’t know what motivated me to do it, but I do know that I pissed off a significant amount of my second day of spring break in doing so.
Looks like I don’t have a fucking life. I’ve now commenced digesting this behemoth:
Remember, Jim Duensing was shot just before the elections last year.
Members & activists, it is up to you to find out what if anything is going on. Threats, extortion? Blackmail? Bribery? Covert operations?
Right now I’d say that there is probably a LOT of pressure on Green & Libertarian party officials & candidates to NOT try PLAS in 2010.
See above where I call for a review of the corrupt and mistaken practices of the LP in ballot access work.
I’ve said it about 100 times in this thread. Including to your buddy Gary before he called me a statist for advocating less government than him.
“447 G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Andy – The accusations were B.S. and everyone knows it.”
Thank you for acknowledging this, GE!
“Trying to get Sean Haugh out of the LP is like trying to get the Nazi Party to throw out some dude for being a racist: The LP is a CORRUPT organization TO ITS CORE. You canâ€™t ‘uncorrupt’ it anymore than you can make the Nazi Party into an antiracist party. Your efforts and your inability to realize this are getting to be pathetic.
Itâ€™s okay for Mary Ruwart. And itâ€™s okay for you and Gary. Anyone who attacked you for having this view has stopped paying attention a LONG time ago.
When youâ€™re through fixing the LP, how about you move on to the mafia, and get them back to their origins as an ethnic social club. Then you can reform the Bloods and Crips and turn them into an urban version of the Boy Scouts. After all, youâ€™ll have your hard work behind you.”
Damn, and I thought that I was cynical.
“JimDavidson // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@444 (Wow, 444) Mary Ruwart has her own halo and impenetrable radical shield. There is something odd about you speaking of a double standard applying to Keaton/Haugh with regard to the attacks on Ruwart, and then using Ruwartâ€™s vote to have Keaton apologise as evidence of a double standard. It is a twisted knot to me, now.”
Yes, it is a twisted knot indeed, but this is the reality of the situation.
“No one is answering the ‘Why is Angela Keaton defending Sean Haugh’ question because only Angela can answer, and sheâ€™s smart enough to stay away from this wicked googly.”
I think that nobody is touching it because they are AFRAID to touch it. They don’t want to admitt that Angela Keaton is defending a guy who took part in a smear against radical Libertarian icon Mary Ruwart.
“@429 If someone is needed on a ballot, I would rely on neither Keaton nor Fincher, but Paulie. I believe Tom Knapp has made this point, as well.”
And Paulie himself would be likely to rely on Fincher as Paulie does not have a car or a current drivers license, and Paulie also knows that Fincher is one of the best petitioners out there.
@447 GE, welcome to the Boston Tea Party. Let’s kick some tyrants in the pants.
Stop the wars.
Andy – The accusations were B.S. and everyone knows it. Trying to get Sean Haugh out of the LP is like trying to get the Nazi Party to throw out some dude for being a racist: The LP is a CORRUPT organization TO ITS CORE. You can’t “uncorrupt” it anymore than you can make the Nazi Party into an antiracist party. Your efforts and your inability to realize this are getting to be pathetic.
It’s okay for Mary Ruwart. And it’s okay for you and Gary. Anyone who attacked you for having this view has stopped paying attention a LONG time ago.
When you’re through fixing the LP, how about you move on to the mafia, and get them back to their origins as an ethnic social club. Then you can reform the Bloods and Crips and turn them into an urban version of the Boy Scouts. After all, you’ll have your hard work behind you.
@445 Stop the wars.
@444 (Wow, 444) Mary Ruwart has her own halo and impenetrable radical shield. There is something odd about you speaking of a double standard applying to Keaton/Haugh with regard to the attacks on Ruwart, and then using Ruwart’s vote to have Keaton apologise as evidence of a double standard. It is a twisted knot to me, now.
No one is answering the “Why is Angela Keaton defending Sean Haugh” question because only Angela can answer, and she’s smart enough to stay away from this wicked googly.
@429 If someone is needed on a ballot, I would rely on neither Keaton nor Fincher, but Paulie. I believe Tom Knapp has made this point, as well.
“Youâ€™re only exposing yourself as the Don Quixote of Libertarian Party internecine politics. No one is paying attention to you accept people who are trying to tell you to give up and move on with your life.”
So it is OK to pay attention when the accusers are making accusations, but when the accused tries to clear their name by giving the real story they should just shut up. Talk about a double standard.
And speaking of double standards, why is it OK for Mary Ruwart to say that Angela Keaton should not be on the LNC, but if Gary or I say that Angela Keaton should not be on the LNC we get attacked?
You’re only exposing yourself as the Don Quixote of Libertarian Party internecine politics. No one is paying attention to you accept people who are trying to tell you to give up and move on with your life.
“The reason this was brought up here was because Sean Haugh was a co-author of this press release, which was opposed strongly by many of the same people who support are likely to support Angela. The point was that Angela is defending Sean Haugh. It is also a matter of record that Mary Ruwart voted for a resolution asking Angela to resign from the LNC. ”
HOW COME NOBODY HAS ANWSERED THE QUESTION OF WHY IS ANGELA KEATON DEFENDING SEAN HAUGH WHEN SEAN HAUGH WAS THE CO-AUTHOR OF THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS MEANT AS A CHEAP SHOT AT MARY RUWART?
ALSO, NOTE THAT MARY RUWART IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS I AM WHEN IT COMES TO ANGELA KEATON AS SHE ALSO WANTS HER OFF OF THE LNC.
Incidentily, Gary and I both voted for Mary Ruwart to be the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President at the National Convention, and unlike our votes for Angela Keaton which we both regret, we do not regret voting for Mary Ruwart.
Can I get actual text of the release?
AFAIK, it just quoted Ruwart directlyâ€¦
No, it did not quote or even mention Mary Ruwart. What it did do was call for increased federal involvement in tracking down and prosecuting child pornography. Many libertarians objected to this because of a belief that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area, even if they believe that there should be a crackdown on child pornography (some do, some don’t).
Others felt it is not the job of the Libertarian Party to call for increasing any aspect of government, since there already so many forces doing that, and so few working to make it smaller across the board. Still others felt it was an inappropriate policy making move by LPHQ, since it did not conform to the platform or any LNC resolution.
Others yet objected to it as an apparent attack against one of the leading candidates for the party’s presidential nomination, and thus a violation of LPHQ ethics to interfere with and tilt the nomination process. Since Mary Ruwart was not named in the release, there was plausible deniability on this point, but the timing was suspicious, and subsequent leaks have confirmed that it was in fact a direct response to the Ruwart controversy.
To correct one thing: Shane was not forced to resign. In fact, as I understand it, Bill Redpath begged him to stay on, but Shane was offended that people were questioning his judgment, giving him heat, asking for him to be fired or to resign over this, so he quit.
The reason this was brought up here was because Sean Haugh was a co-author of this press release, which was opposed strongly by many of the same people who support are likely to support Angela. The point was that Angela is defending Sean Haugh. It is also a matter of record that Mary Ruwart voted for a resolution asking Angela to resign from the LNC.
The point here was not to argue once yet again the merits of the release in question itself, which was a dead horse a long, long time ago. If you still want to read it, I am sure you are as capable of doing internet searches as I am. I would be surprised if the text of it was not somewhere on third party watch.
This thread was already too gross, and now itâ€™s even grosser.
Yeah, but that’s still not as gross as it is going to get.
â€œNEWSFLASH: What youâ€™re doing isnâ€™t ever going to change that. Give up.â€
Iâ€™m not going to roll over and give up.
You are both correct.
@435 I think it is really important to expose and criticise the incompetence of the LP, especially at the national level, especially where their incompetent implementation of a poorly conceived top down structure fails at critical functions, like 50 state (plus territories and DC) ballot access. I would love to see this thread, or another new one, dedicated to discussing the actual critical path to ballot access success. I think the weaknesses in strategy, tactics, implementation, operations, and personal actions should be examined. If for no other reason, because Iâ€™d like the Boston Tea Party to benefit from the lessons learned.
Go ahead and put it up at Next Free Voice. We have more subject latitude there.
Chris, NOTHING has really been said here that was not said by Gary and myself months ago.
Thatâ€™s the damn problem!!!
I was going to say that. But then I thought better of it because I was trying to let this thread die in peace. But nooooo…
@433 a few things, Peter.
Possibly most significant was the execution of hated tyrant Qifu Mumo. Tree of liberty, blood of tyrants, etc.
Stop the wars.
Oops, forgot at 436: Stop the wars.
@ 427 “Iâ€™d say that I am more qualified to comment on it than you are.”
Yep. You are highly informed, and it is all hearsay. You are an expert witness about the nature and source of the hearsay, and it is all hearsay. The impediments to the acceptability of hearsay as evidence are so high that it just doesn’t matter that you are, in fact, an extraordinarily qualified witness to the nature and source of the hearsay.
You can’t prove anything by building a bigger pile of bull crap. The longer this thread gets, the deeper the manure. But, as has been noted, it is all the same stuff, over and over again. It isn’t new ground if you put the same crap on the same ground we’ve already covered.
@435 I think it is really important to expose and criticise the incompetence of the LP, especially at the national level, especially where their incompetent implementation of a poorly conceived top down structure fails at critical functions, like 50 state (plus territories and DC) ballot access. I would love to see this thread, or another new one, dedicated to discussing the actual critical path to ballot access success. I think the weaknesses in strategy, tactics, implementation, operations, and personal actions should be examined. If for no other reason, because I’d like the Boston Tea Party to benefit from the lessons learned.
And, because, you know, I don’t expect LP national to learn anything. See the thread on abuse of executive session on George Donnelly’s site for an example of how the LP so-called leaders refuse to learn.
I think it is very important, Andy, to expose corruption in LP national. I’ve thought so since before the Perry Willis scandal broke. I continue to think so. If that’s important to you, I think you might like L. Neil Smith. He runs ncc-1776.org and has some other stuff going on. He’s a life member of the LP, and very dedicated to its success. He also was instrumental in exposing previous episodes of corruption. (He was a presidential candidate on the LP ticket in Arizona, and won a few votes in 2000, as I recall.)
“G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 5:18 am
‘A BIGGER problem is that the most of the sources of these problems are STILL in office, and there has been NO ATTEMPT by others who are currently in office to remedy the situation and there has been NO RETRACTION or apology for the false accusations that were made.’
“NEWSFLASH: What youâ€™re doing isnâ€™t ever going to change that. Give up.”
I’m not going to roll over and give up. I will continue to expose the incompetence and corruption that is present in LP National.
NEWSFLASH: What you’re doing isn’t ever going to change that. Give up.
“431 G.E. // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:01 am
‘Chris, NOTHING has really been said here that was not said by Gary and myself months ago.’
“Thatâ€™s the damn problem!!!”
A BIGGER problem is that the most of the sources of these problems are STILL in office, and there has been NO ATTEMPT by others who are currently in office to remedy the situation and there has been NO RETRACTION or apology for the false accusations that were made.
Hey, I’m sick of this stuff too, as is Gary (trust me, NOBODY is more sick of it than we are), but the issue is still “alive” as long as the people who caused the problems remain in office and as long as the false accusations are flying around.
That’s the damn problem!!!
Jim Davidson has posted about a woman named Angela O’Dell who worked as a petitioner for LP ballot access in West Virginia and who was not paid by the Bob Barr campaign (note that West Virginia was the only petition drive that was run directly by the Barr campaign). Going by Angela Keaton “logic” Anne O’Dell is trying to “extort” money out of the Bob Barr campaign.
Angela Keaton only came out with the “extortion” accusation AFTER the petition burning scandal broke.
That LNC meeting in Pittsburg (where her bogus accusation stems from) happened in July of 2007, the petition buring scandal happened in late June of 2008. Angela said NOTHING about this to me at the LNC meeting, she said NOTHING about it to Paul whom she was in regular contact with for months after this, and she said NOTHING about it at the National Convention at Denver (and note that Gary and I spoke to her briefly and she did not indicate having any problem with us and we in fact both voted for her to be on the LNC!).
Angela Keaton brought this accusation up AFTER Gary and I were actively trying to get Sean Hauh fired as Political Director. She did this as a way of PROTECTING Sean Haugh by attacking the messengers.
Why does Angela Keaton want Sean Haugh to stay on as Political Director, and why does she want him to stay on as Political Director so badly that she was willing to make up and spread lies about two people that she barely knows and then stab another person that she pretended to be a friend of (Paul) in the back?
“@388 Gary more valuable than Angela Keaton? Iâ€™m not buying it.”
If somebody needs to get on the ballot, who would you suggest relying on, Gary or Angela Keaton?
There are only a tiny handful of actual Libertarian petitioners (there are only 6 who are currently active). Gary is a hardcore Libertarian activist AND a damn good petitioner, this is a RARE combination.
In 2004, Bill Redpath said, “The Libertarian Party should get down on its hands and knees and thank Gary Fincher.”
Now some people here may not care for Bill Redpath for other reasons, but this has got NOTHING to do with ballot access.
Gary used to do lot of volunteer activism as well. I say “used to do” because he doesn’t do as much of this as he used to because he’s been screwed over by (some) people in the party on several occassions. I can’t say as I blame him for cutting down on his volunteer activism (though he still does a little).
Treating one of your top petitioners/activists like dirt is NOT good for the party/movement.
It would be much easier to replace Angela Keaton on the LNC than it would be to replace Gary as a Libertarian petitioner/activist. There are plenty of people who could be on the LNC and do a better job at representing radical Libertarians than Angela Keaton does. For instance, I think that Paul or GE could do a better job, and I’d be willing to bet that there are plenty of others who could as well.
Finding good petitioners is not easy, and finding good petitioners who are also Libertarians and who are willing to travel around the country is even more difficult. I’ve tried hiring petitioners before and I can tell you that it was difficult to find people who were willing to do the job at all.
JimDavidson // Nov 15, 2008 at 11:22
“@386, â€œWe have to get Heidi groomed!â€ I would just walk away. No, I wouldnâ€™t. I would lie down on the ground, laugh until my sides burst, then get up and walk away. That is so f#cking funny.”
Yes, it is pretty funny, however, just because it sounds humorous to an outsider in retrospect (for that matter, I laughed about this and even Gary laughed about this), it is not that funny if you are the one who is trying to work while the two people you are stuck with want to waste time and not work. It is also not funny in that the LP was actually at risk to not make it on the ballot in Maine in 2004 and really needed the signatures that day since it was the last day of the drive. Fortunately, the LP did make it on the ballot in Maine that year, but Roger and the woman in question put the drive at risk unneccessarily by insisting on wasting their time and Gary’s time getting a dog groomed when they should have been working.
“I have no idea whether you have the time line correct. I will say that your comments, and even your questions, amount to hearsay.”
Well, considering that I actually know all of the parties in question, and considering that I actually looked into all of the accusations a while back, and considering that I am involved in LP ballot access, I’d say that I am more qualified to comment on it than you are.
“No mystery. Roger didnâ€™t say anything bad about his friend while friends. After he wasnâ€™t motivated, he said things.”
Uh, don’t you think that a violent assult against a woman is a pretty major charge that would bear mentioning?
“Whether he said true things earlier or later, I dunno. Given how much you and Gary have gone out of your way to alienate me, quite confident I donâ€™t care.”
“I donâ€™t know Roger. It isnâ€™t obvious.”
Yes, and it is pretty obvious that you didn’t know what you were talking about when you brought the charges up, and it is also pretty obvious that Angela Keaton did not know what she was talking about either (although in the case of the alleged “extrotion” she is either intentionally lying or just plain crazy).
“If Angela only repeated Rogerâ€™s accusation, then she isnâ€™t initiating fraud. Sheâ€™s believing it, perhaps, if it is fraud. Given your outrageous statements about her, I doubt if she would care enough to look any further. I certainly donâ€™t.”
Angela did not merely repeat Roger’s (false) accusation about violence against women, she said it as if it was a fact and then declared “End of discussion.”
Also, the accusation about extorting money out of the LNC (for Libertarian Party ballot access signatures that they were planning to pay for before the 2008 election anyway) is a charge that she INVENTED on her own.
@388 Gary more valuable than Angela Keaton? Iâ€™m not buying it.
“@391 I believe it is established that Angela has written her views on Gary. I think these include allegations of criminal violence against women. Anyway Roger Pope has made this accusation. And nobody has paid for Garyâ€™s criminal record, so I canâ€™t really dispute it either way. Roger has also indicated his belief that Gary killed Rogerâ€™s dog, by torture. Roger has also indicated that Gary has in the past told Roger that Gary likes to torture small animals. These are allegations and are all hearsay to me. So, yes, in fact, no one HERE is saying these things. Roger Pope isnâ€™t here. I donâ€™t think Angela is saying much more than that she agrees with Roger. All this sturm und drang seems to be misdirected. Roger should be asked to prove his allegations, or shut up.”
Yes, Roger should indeed be asked to prove his accusations or SHUT UP. So should Angela Keaton.
“@392 Given your intemperate behavior here, Andy, yes, I can believe that you said something, whether you meant to or not, that was frank extortion as you worded it. Making you aware of it was probably a courtesy on Angelaâ€™s part rather than a threat of criminal prosecution. She is most unlikely to call the cops on you for saying something stupidly.”
Oh bullshit. The LNC meeting minutes from that meeting are posted on-line. There were plenty of people in the room. If you believe this accusation then you are pretty damn stupid.
Ask Paul, he was there.
The ONLY person who twisted this event into being an “extortion” was Angela Keaton. She is either intentionally lying or she is batshit crazy.
“@395 Gary has said that he knowingly put information on voter registrations that was false. He describes it in different terms, but he says so. This point seems to have been corroborated by individuals in New Mexico, who have voiced a number of other objections.”
Yes, INFORMATION IN A BOX THAT WAS OPTIONAL, SO IT DID NOT MATTER, and he only did this AFTER Joe Knight CHANGED the terms of his working agreement (which meant that Joe Knight renegged on a contract) and said that he was not going to pay him for any registrations where this OPTIONAL box did not have a number. This was NOT a crime.
“12. Andy & Gary: Rothbard did not say what he clearly says in that article. Anyone who thinks he said what he said is irrational.”
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between slander and making false accusations of crimes. Slander does not land the person on the recieving in jail and/or being hassled by the police, false accusations of crimes can.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO FUCKING LAW SUIT. WHY IN THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP ACTING AS THOUGH THERE IS A LAW SUIT WHEN THERE IS NOT? NOBODY HAS FILED A FUCKING LAW SUIT.
Can I get actual text of the release?
AFAIK, it just quoted Ruwart directly…and didn’t she affirm those quotes not too long after the release of the memo?
You know, it is rather funny that supposedly “radical” Libertarians think of Angela Keaton as a “radical” Libertarian heroine, yet the motivation behind Angela Keaton attacking Gary and myself (and Paul too for that matter) was so that Sean Haugh can keep his job as Political Director.
Perhaps you people need a memory refresher, so I will remind you that Sean Haugh co-authored the “kiddie porn” press release that was meant as a cheap shot at Mary Ruwart. Sean Haugh actually defended this action afterwards. Radical Libertarians were calling for Shane Cory to be removed as Executive Director of the LP because of his role in this, and Shane did in fact get pressured into resigning, however, his partner in this scandal, Sean Haugh, is STILL in office, and Angela Keaton SUPPORTS him being in office.
Now even if you don’t care about Sean Haugh trying to burn up 2,000 high validity petitition signatures, even if you don’t care about Sean Haugh screwing over petititoners, even if you don’t care about that Sean Haugh played a major role in causing the LP to FAIL to make the ballot in 5 places where they COULD HAVE made it this year, and even if you don’t care that Sean Haugh caused the party to waste thousands upon thousands of dollars, surely, as a radical Libertarian, the smearing of Mary Ruwart by people employeed by LP National must piss you off.
ANWSER THIS QUESTION: WHY DOES ANGELA KEATON SUPPORT SEAN HAUGH WHEN SEAN HAUGH PARTICIPATED AND DEFENDED THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS MEANT TO SMEAR MARY RUWART?
Just in case some of you people forgot, here’s a link to the story…
cbennett // Nov 16, 2008 at 2:59 pm
You know I stuck my neck out on a limb to defend all those great petitioners the LP screwed over this election cycle. Now itâ€™s to the point I wish I hadnâ€™t because of this thread. I thought I was defending adults not crybabies. Look, you guys got screwed over, as so did many others, BUT this ongoing tirades you make is not going to make you look good if for some odd reason the jackasses on the LNC and the National office get removed and replace by REAL libertarians. Itâ€™s threads like these that want me to NEVER come back to the LP because some of you canâ€™t let bygones be bygones. Get real or better yet get a FUCKING life people. This isnâ€™t about Angela Keaton itâ€™s about your own little insecurities in life. Maybe you should invest some time in getting a shrink or a bottle of Jack. ”
How can I let “by gones be by gones” when the people who caused the problems are STILL in office and when there has been NO RETRACTION of false statements that were made and NO ATTEMPT by those in office to fix the problems?
I am not one to sit by and allow people to walk over me and not fight back.
Chris, NOTHING has really been said here that was not said by Gary and myself months ago. The only reason that it was brought up on this thread (note that the last couple of times this stuff was brought up here it was brought up by Jim Davidson) was because the thread is about Agnela Keaton seeking the LP’s Presidential nomination. Perhaps when you and some other people see the name Angela Keaton, you think something like, “Oh, she’s that nice, sweet, radical Libertarian girl.” but when I see the name Angela Keaton, I think something like, “She’s that person in the Libertarian Party who acted nice to my face and pretended to be a friend to Paul, but then stabbed both of us in the back and posted a bunch of lies about Gary and myself on-line.”
“Maybe in the long run the LP will be better without you since it really hasnâ€™t that great with you in it.”
I have not left the LP. I renewed my membership dues back in May before the National Convention.
I do not really want to be involved with the National LP right now, but I am still willing to actively support state or local LP affiliates or individual LP candidates.
As I said above, I did work LP ballot access in Alabama (and this was AFTER the Sean Haugh controversies) but I mainly did this because there were two other groups that wanted my services in Alabma at the same time (Nader and the Constitution Party) and also as a way to say “FUCK YOU!” to those who tried to screw me over.
By screwing me over, and trying to screw me over more, and also by screwing Gary over, and then by screwing over Jake and some others, the Libertarian Party FAILED to get on the ballot in some states this year where it SHOULD have made it. Yes, that is right, if LP National hadn’t jerked around the actual Libertarian petitioners during this election cycle, the Libertarian Party COULD HAVE been on the ballot in 49 states plus DC instead of just 45 states.
Actually, the LP would be in worse shape right now since I recruited people into the LP and also registered many people to vote as Libertarians (almost all of which was as an unpaid volunteer). So without me, the party would be smaller than it is right now. In addition to this, I have also handed out thousands upon thousands of Libertarian Party pamplets & flyers (a lot of which was done at my own expense), made copies of Libertarian VHS tapes and handed them out (at my own expense), called in to talk radio shows and mentioned the Libertarian Party, and I’ve even promoted the Libertarian Party on local TV news segements.
As if all of the above were not enough, I’ve also been one of the top petitioners that the Libertarian Party has had for the last 8 years and am one of the tiny minority that is actually a Libertarian (there are only about a half dozen actual Libertarian petitioners who are active, almost all of the others are mercenaries who don’t give a damn and tend to do lousy work). There are several occassions where I turned down higher paying jobs so that I could work for the Libertarian Party.
I think that it is blatantly obvious that the Libertarian Party would in fact be worse off without me.
“You u found us out, Andy! We were behind 9/11, too!
Gary is right as far as what I perceived to be â€œsniping.â€ Since I was â€œlyingâ€ about the sniping, does this mean youâ€™re going to hire lawyers to liberate me of my property, too?”
First of all, there is NO LAWSUIT. You got that? You are acting like there is a lawsuit going on when there is not.
Second of all, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE in saying that there is “sniping” going on or calling somebody a name or stating an opinion and accusing somebody of a crime.
For instance, there is a difference between saying somebody has a lousy sense of fashion and saying that somebody shoplifted clothing from a store.
Saying that somebody is a lousy dresser is an OPINION. This opinion may or may not be true and would be up to each individual weighing in on the subject. Calling somebody a lousy dresser may hurt their feelings, but getting labeled a lousy dresser will not land a person in jail.
Saying that a person shoplifted clothing from a story is accusing them of a crime. If the accusation is acted upon it could very well land a person in jail.
If GE, Tom Knapp, and Jim Davidson think that it is OK to falsely accuse people of crimes, then let’s examine a more extreme sitaution.
Let’s say that Angela Keaton decided to accuse one of you guys, say GE, of raping her at the National Convention. As the police are dragging GE away in handcuffs suppose somebody said, “GE, Angela was just excercising her free speech rights.” I imagine that this would be of little comfort to GE while he is sitting in handcuffs in the back of a police car riding off to jail.
Now somebody may say that nobody has gone to jail because of Angela’s (false) accusations, but this is not the point, as the fact has been established that Angela has NO PROBLEM with falsely accusing people of crimes.
When you accuse people of crimes, the person on the recieving end of the accusation DOES bear the risk of going to jail, or at least being hassled by the police and/or courts.
I’ll go smoke the remains…
Michael, it was resting in piece for well over two days until you dug it up.
Aw, c’mon guys, only 14 more comments until this thread is triply-gross!
The horse isn’t dead. The whole species has been made extinct.
Chris – Clearly you’re an “irrational” person who thinks Angela Keaton “can do no wrong.” Don’t you know that Gary is innocent!!!?!?! Also, the wheel was invented and Lincoln got shot.
You know I stuck my neck out on a limb to defend all those great petitioners the LP screwed over this election cycle. Now it’s to the point I wish I hadn’t because of this thread. I thought I was defending adults not crybabies. Look, you guys got screwed over, as so did many others, BUT this ongoing tirades you make is not going to make you look good if for some odd reason the jackasses on the LNC and the National office get removed and replace by REAL libertarians. It’s threads like these that want me to NEVER come back to the LP because some of you can’t let bygones be bygones. Get real or better yet get a FUCKING life people. This isn’t about Angela Keaton it’s about your own little insecurities in life. Maybe you should invest some time in getting a shrink or a bottle of Jack. Maybe in the long run the LP will be better without you since it really hasn’t that great with you in it.
Damn it. I was hoping we were finally done with this thing. Oh well, onwards to 500. Since it won’t die, I still have a question….
Here is the thread that caused Angela to stop talking to me. Can anyone point out where I was “being ugly to her” as Michelle claims?
By the way, Seagraves is not a mythical community. It exists. In Texas. I visited there in 2003 and was treated like a returning Messiah.
I wasn’t aware that Angela Keaton was a cop, nor a judge. The point at which the false accusations were made in a criminal context, i.e. charges filed, would be the point at which they are no longer “free speech,” but fraud. At that point, the words are being used with implicit violence behind them. In a free society, only an injured party could file charges against an alleged wrongdoer, so Keaton’s allegations against you, as a third party, would be toothless. I think they are even in this bogus society. The cops aren’t going to come knock down your door and take you into custody based on her words — where is the woman you allegedly beat up or the owner of the dogs you allegedly killed? They’re not bringing charges against you because they are lying and they know they have no leg to stand on. Angela repeating what I believe is a myth is not criminally actionable, at least not by libertarian standards; the standards of Rothbard and Block.
You act as if there’s no bright red line between “making false accusations” in the context that Angela did (and I’m sure she believes they’re true) and filing a police report. There’s pretty big fucking line — it’s going to the police and pressing charges. At that point, violence will be imposed on you (i.e. you’ll be forced to show up to court) and thus, you’ll be justified in retaliating.
I’ll go ahead and make the post, Andy. I think he needs to be exposed….
Andy, G.E. doesn’t make any sense. Here’s why:
Suppose “Jason” (Hey, I can use anyone but Angela in a hypothetical, right?) lives in a certain community, which we’ll call ‘Seagraves’. In that community, some cops get together at a restaurant,where they are all sitting around, and a judge is at the table too, and decide that Jason is an asshole and deicide to make something up about him. They put together a police report, and, using their “free speech”, paint Jason out to be a serial child molester. The judge agrees to engage in this “speech” also, and prints up another document, which he calls an “Information” that outlines many false incidents where Jason molested kids.
This gets leaked to the public. Now, so far, Jason doesn’t have any recourse (according to G.E. jurisprudence), except to fire back and accuse a bunch of cops and the judge of molesting, or something else bad. Whether Jason does this retaliation or not, the citizenry of Seagraves is now up and arms and wondering why Jason isn’t in jail. The cops and judge reminds the citzenry that these accusations usually result in those accused going to jail. Since the cops and judge don’t have any responsibility (under G.E. jurisprudence) to recant, retract or take back the false accusations, and with the public demanding formal charges being brought forth, a trial obviously must ensue. To not have a trial might cause the citizenry to mob the courthouse and burn it down, after all.
Keep in mind that, so far, in G.E. jurisprudence, NO ONE has committed an infraction. Yet, a trial is proceeding against an innocent person, our Jason.
A jury is assembled, and multiple cops are allowed to engage in “free speech” on the witness stand. Of course, Jason is too, so his testimony, although the only accurate one, is one of say thirteen testimonials. The cops are friends with some parents and kids too, who think it’s “fun” to spread rumors about Jason from this “cool” witness chair! The jury, upon hearing everyone’s “free speech”, decide to engage in “free speech” of their own and twelve of them decide to use it to say “guilty”.
So far, still no infraction.
Under G.E. jurisprudence, the only infraction that would occur would be if this is taken to its logical conclusion and Jason is placed in handcuffs due to the verdict of the jury. However, what are the implications of stopping short at this point and not sentencing Jason to any punishment (or restitution, which also would be an infraction, given the innocence)?
Does NO ONE whom the jury says “guilty” about get to receive any kind of sentence? If so, what would society be like if those guilty of heinous crimes are allowed to run free just because you wish to let people “free speech” accuse anyone of anything, false or not? Or is G.E. somehow “monitoring” the whole system so that he can intervene AT THE LAST MINUTE when an innocent “Jason” stands in a courtroom between a jury who has exercised their free speech rights to say “guilty”, and a bailiff ready to take him away? Is G.E. saying that he can know the difference and can always know what is happening? Is he saying that the bailiff who physically takes Jason to jail (but not the judge, the cops or the jury, who have only engaged in “speech”) can be charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment because he violated the rights of an innocent person, and he shouldn’t have listened to the jury? The bailiff has a right to jail a guilty person, but not an innocent person. Never mind that Jason would never be on trial or be called “guilty” in the first place had the cops and judge not lied about him and falsely accused. But they were within their speech rights – right?
Given the problematic questions that I figure G.E. can’t adequately field, along with the absurdity reached when following the right-to-make-false-accusations out to its logical conclusion, G.E.’s theory is now been blown full of shotgun holes.
Until G.E. can answer as to why and how he would know to intervene at just the right point between the suupsed RIGHT to utter accusations and the word “guilty” and the bailiff violating a defendant’s right to his freedom, then he has ZERO credibility with me. Zip.
I agree that G.E. isn’t doing ANYONE any favors by his incessant droning, on and on and on and on and on.
I think he’s goofy at best, completely delusional at worst. If he would just stop this craziness, we could all go on and pursue all-around justice.
I know that Gary is very eloquent and well-read, etc. But he’s behaving like a moron on this thread. Will the “imbecile” slur earn me a call from Johnny Cochran, or whoever Gary has on retainer?
We’re up over 400 posts now, but here’s how this thread has gone RE: me.
1. Me: Gary is innocent of all wrongdoing. But I think his threats of filing slander suits are unlibertarian.
2. Andy: G.E. is a statist because he showed up for court when he was being sued in the most laughably frivoulous case in global history.
3. Gary: G.E. is a statist because he advocates less government than I do. Murray Rothbard isn’t a libertarian, either.
4. Me: You guys are raving lunatics and everyone who believes your innocent, even, thinks so.
5. Gary: My mom says I’m telling the truth and everyone else is a moron!
6. Me: Wow, my mom thinks I’m handsome.
7. Gary: You’re saying I’m ugly??
8. Andy: Gary is innocent!
9. Me: No shit. Who said he wasn’t?
10. Andy & Gary: You’re a hypocrite for using the court system!
11. Me: You can use the court system to recover legit damages, but damages from “slander” are not legit — see Rothbard.
12. Andy & Gary: Rothbard did not say what he clearly says in that article. Anyone who thinks he said what he said is irrational.
13. Me: Your reputation is not property. Spirits have no rights.
14. Andy: G.E. and Paulie are plotting to destroy us.
15. Gary: I’ll get my lawyer, Johnny Cockring on the phone right away!
Oh, you mean like you mischaracterizing me as a statist (on what grounds, I have no idea), and mischaracterizing slander as a legitimate crime in a free society? Oh, your “lawyer” says it is. Well he’s a statist prick.
You found us out, Andy! We were behind 9/11, too!
Gary is right as far as what I perceived to be “sniping.” Since I was “lying” about the sniping, does this mean you’re going to hire lawyers to liberate me of my property, too?
Andy: “I donâ€™t think that that was the â€œsnipingâ€ to which he was refering. My guess is that he must have talked to Paul and Paul had relayed something to him which got blown out of proportion.”
LOL. How am I supposed to be privy to private conversations between G.E. and Paulie? I can only go by what’s publicly posted – unless I talk to the individuals in question on the phone too.
Andy, check your email. There’s something you might want to read and consider posting.
“The consequence of â€œbelieving itâ€, to the accused can be and often is, jail time. And jail time for someone who hasnâ€™t initiated force IS an initation of force/aggression, a violation of rights.”
Even if the false criminal accusation does not lead to jail time, it can also lead to being hassled by the police and/or tied up in court fighting off a false charge, neither of which are pleasant expierences.
@384: as a proud statist, I can testify that G.E. is not a statist. 🙂
“I have in no way, shape or form â€œsnipedâ€ at Andy. The CLOSEST thing to that (and not very close at all) was when I casually mentioined, in passing, on a comment, that I donâ€™t see eye to eye with him on the â€œfree speech spiritsâ€ issue. ”
Gary, didn’t you read my CLARIFICATION on what I meant by SPIRIT of free speech? GE COMPLETELY missed my point the first time so I came back later in the thread and clarified it. I assume that you would agree with my clarification.
I don’t think that that was the “sniping” to which he was refering. My guess is that he must have talked to Paul and Paul had relayed something to him which got blown out of proportion.
I may disagree or “snipe” with Gary or Paul or other people I know from time to time, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I don’t burn bridges over petty stuff.
Oh…before I left here as a reader, didn’t I see some jerk post something about Andy & I sniping at each other?
Where the heck is THIS embellished from? Sounds like false accounting isn’t just SYMPATHIZED with on here by you guys, but actually ADVOCATED and PRACTICED.
I have in no way, shape or form “sniped” at Andy. The CLOSEST thing to that (and not very close at all) was when I casually mentioined, in passing, on a comment, that I don’t see eye to eye with him on the “free speech spirits” issue. That’s not sniping, folks. Stop mischaracterizing things!
Cameo appearance: Andy doesn’t want to be the only sane voice of reason in a storm of irrationality and hypocrisy, so he encouraged me to come back and make posts. Since he just did me a huge financial favor, I cannot say no to him. So I will make a post. However, I still refuse to read the garbage, so I’m posting only, not reading.
Murray Rothbard’s own words: “Nowadays, if a man is charged with some flaw or misdeed, the general reaction is to believe it, since if the charge were false, “Why doesn’t he sue for libel?”
The consequence of “believing it”, to the accused can be and often is, jail time. And jail time for someone who hasn’t initiated force IS an initation of force/aggression, a violation of rights. A violation of rights should be remedied by actions that can INCLUDE jail time, on the part of the false accuser who’s guilty of helping to intiating force. Another consequence of “believing it” is contract interference, which can be civilly pursued, even in libertarian courts.
Call me an asshole, call me a dork, call me ugly. But you don’t have a right to make a public declaration that I have committed an act of aggression and lobby for my being kidnapped (being sent to jail). The THREAT of force is just as prohibited as force itself, vis a vis libertarianism.
Rothbard is right: as long as you have libel laws, one cannot afford to not sue for libel.
I got to around #300, and then gave up.
@384, I cannot run for office. I have ethics.
@386, “We have to get Heidi groomed!” I would just walk away. No, I wouldn’t. I would lie down on the ground, laugh until my sides burst, then get up and walk away. That is so f#cking funny.
I have no idea whether you have the time line correct. I will say that your comments, and even your questions, amount to hearsay.
No mystery. Roger didn’t say anything bad about his friend while friends. After he wasn’t motivated, he said things. Whether he said true things earlier or later, I dunno. Given how much you and Gary have gone out of your way to alienate me, quite confident I don’t care.
I don’t know Roger. It isn’t obvious.
If Angela only repeated Roger’s accusation, then she isn’t initiating fraud. She’s believing it, perhaps, if it is fraud. Given your outrageous statements about her, I doubt if she would care enough to look any further. I certainly don’t.
@388 Gary more valuable than Angela Keaton? I’m not buying it.
@391 I believe it is established that Angela has written her views on Gary. I think these include allegations of criminal violence against women. Anyway Roger Pope has made this accusation. And nobody has paid for Gary’s criminal record, so I can’t really dispute it either way. Roger has also indicated his belief that Gary killed Roger’s dog, by torture. Roger has also indicated that Gary has in the past told Roger that Gary likes to torture small animals. These are allegations and are all hearsay to me. So, yes, in fact, no one HERE is saying these things. Roger Pope isn’t here. I don’t think Angela is saying much more than that she agrees with Roger. All this sturm und drang seems to be misdirected. Roger should be asked to prove his allegations, or shut up.
@392 Given your intemperate behavior here, Andy, yes, I can believe that you said something, whether you meant to or not, that was frank extortion as you worded it. Making you aware of it was probably a courtesy on Angela’s part rather than a threat of criminal prosecution. She is most unlikely to call the cops on you for saying something stupidly.
@395 Gary has said that he knowingly put information on voter registrations that was false. He describes it in different terms, but he says so. This point seems to have been corroborated by individuals in New Mexico, who have voiced a number of other objections.
@398 Doing my part, Paulie.
I cannot believe this is still going on.
Not only is it still going on, we are about to ht 400 comments. I can smell 500. The race for the Angela/Michelle 500 is about to enter the home stretch!
“Gary NEVER falsified any voter registrations”
Geez, would you make up your mind? Either he did or he didn’t. He says he did, and only a few comments ago you went on a lengthy harangue about WHY he did. Which is it going to be? Did he or did he not fill in false Social Security numbers on voter registrations in New Mexico?
Before you go back to the old “SSNs aren’t REQUIRED” spiel, I never said they WERE required. I just said Gary falsified them. He did — at least according to him and to you.
You don’t understand the difference between someone being a jerk and someone deserving to be thrown in an animal cage and/or have their property liberated from them.
You people do not seem to understand the difference between a person stating an opinion, and accusing somebody of being a criminal.
Gary NEVER falsified any voter registrations which is a crime. Gary NEVER committed violent assult against a woman which is a crime. Gary and I did NOT extort money out of the LNC in regard to the Nebraska pay situation, as extortion is a crime.
Do you people not understand the difference between merely stating an opinion and accusing people of crimes?
In the Soviet Union. Not in a free country.
I don’t agree with some of the things she’s done. In fact, I disagree with them. But I don’t know the whole story — despite the 27,000 volumes of Tolstoy you and Gary have shit all over this site. I’ve said many times that from the evidence I’ve seen, NOTHING indicates Gary is guilty of anything but being a prick on this site. But he’s also called me a statist for holding a Rothbardian position AND he’s attacked me for attacking Bill Redpath (!!!). SO fuck him.
“G.E. // Nov 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Andy – Are you divorced from reality, too? You arenâ€™t reading what Iâ€™m writing, nor what Paul is writing, apparently.
391 G.E. // Nov 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No one here is saying that Gary is a dog or woman beater or that heâ€™s not a great petitioner. You donâ€™t even know WTF youâ€™re talking about, Andy.”
I AM ALSO RESPONDING TO TOM KNAPP AND JIM DAVIDSON.
The stuff that is being said is not even just slander, it is ACCUSING SOMEBODY OF A CRIME. Roger and Angela Keaton have accused Gary of committing violent crime. This is a SERIOUS offense. This is not just name calling or voicing an opinion, people get arrested and go to prison for stuff like this.
For that matter, Angela Keaton accused me of committing extortion when I showed up at that LNC meeting to address the issue of Scott Kohlhaas ripping us off on that LP ballot access drive in Nebraska. Extortion is a crime, so Angela Keaton also accused me of being a criminal. Angela’s account of this incident is so twisted that she is either intentionally lying or she is looney tunes crazy.
“Heâ€™s a douchebag, and that youâ€™re friends with him makes me think less of you.”
Do you now also think less of Paul since he is friends with Gary as well?
If you still support Angela Keaton after this shit that she has pulled then my opinion of you has dropped as well.
No one here is saying that Gary is a dog or woman beater or that he’s not a great petitioner. You don’t even know WTF you’re talking about, Andy.
Andy – Are you divorced from reality, too? You aren’t reading what I’m writing, nor what Paul is writing, apparently.
I cannot believe this is still going on.
“Where do Paulie and I fit in there, Andy?”
Paul supports Gary, unless of course Paul is telling Gary and I one thing and then telling you something else.
As far as I know, Paul knows that the charges are bullshit and knows that Gary is one of the best petitioners that there is and is also a hardcore libertarian, and in addition to this, a guy who is of good character. For instance, Paul loaned Gary $4,500 (this was after Gary suffered damages from having his pay delayed in Nebraska and later being hospitalized) and Gary PAID HIM BACK IN FULL.
As for you, if you buy into any of this bullshit that is being spread then that does not speak well of you.
The REALTIY is that Gary is more valuable to the Libertarian Party and Movement than his detrators are.
“Who the fuck said it was? Thatâ€™s not at issue at all.”
The subject of the arguement which Roger later TWISTED into being a “violent assult and battery” was about how Roger and the woman in question thought that getting Roger’s dog groomed on the last day of the Libertarian Party petition drive was more important than actually going out and getting signatures.
Incidentily, Roger and the woman did end up doing things their way and got the dog groomed instead of gathering signatures, and they dragged Gary along with them (since the 3 were sharing a ride). They WASTED 4 HOURS getting Roger’s dog groomed when they should have been gathering petition signatures instead.
Funny how this story has now been twisted around to make Gary look like a bad guy for wanting to go out and work instead of wasting time.
“The outlawing of defamation (libel and slander) has always been a glaring anomaly in tort law. Words and opinions are not physical invasions. Analogous to the loss of property value from a better product or a shift in consumer demand, no one has a property right in his “reputation.” Reputation is strictly a function of the subjective opinions of other minds, and they have the absolute right to their own opinions whatever they may be. Hence, outlawing defamation is itself a gross invasion of the defamer’s right of freedom of speech, which is a subset of his property right in his own person.” — Murray Rothbard.
Your buddy Gary is too fucking dumb to distinguish the difference between viewing slander as a non-crime, as Rothbard and I do, and thinking that you don’t have a right to use the courts in pursuit of the recovery of REAL damages. He has called me a statist and said that he’s more libertarian than Rothbard. He’s a douchebag, and that you’re friends with him makes me think less of you.
“JimDavidson // Nov 15, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Voicing an objection? Nothing wrong there. Red herring. The question on offer is whether the woman was beaten by Gary, not yelled at.”
It was the woman in question who started the yelling. She was screaming, “GARY, WE HAVE TO GET HEIDI (Roger’s dog) GROOMED!” like a maniac. As I said above, I met the woman in question (during the petition drive for LP ballot access in Illinois) and I’d say that she was unbalanced. I know Roger and I’d say that he’s got a penchant for exagerrating and distorting reality.
Roger now claims that Gary shoved the woman down and kicked her in the chest and stomach until she passed out and that Roger had to pull him off of her and then Gary ran away before the cops got there. This story is completely ABSURD when you scrutinize it.
The fact of the matter is that Roger, Gary, and the woman in question did end up working together later that day! They also continued to work together in Connecticut and New Hampshire after this, plus the three of them were together part of the time that they were in North Dakota.
If Gary had really beaten, or even threatened to beat, the woman in question, then why did Roger and the woman continue to work with Gary AFTER this, not only in Maine, but also in 3 other states?
This stuff happened during the summer of 2004. I met Roger in 2004 and I was in contact with him up until July of 2006 which was the last time I spoke to him. Roger and Gary’s 13 year friendship ended in November of 2005 (OVER A YEAR AFTER the alleged parking lot beating incident). During the time that I knew Roger (and I even worked with him on some campaigns) he NEVER said anything about Gary assulting this woman in a parking lot, including during the time that I was still in contact with Roger after his friendship with Gary had ended. Isn’t this mysterious?
“Though, some yelling does rise to the level of assault”
Gary never made any threats, and if he had, then why would Roger and the woman have continued working together for weeks after this? Also, Roger did not say that Gary just yelled, or that Gary made threats, Roger said that Gary shoved her on the ground and kicked her in the stomach and chest until she passed out. ISN’T IN BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS THAT ROGER IS LYING?
“- threats of violence are advocating initiatory force a nd thus not libertarian.”
Initiating fraud is NOT libertarian either, but that is what is being done by the likes of Roger and Angela Keaton (who just repeated the accusation as if it was a fact without bothering to check to see if it w as true or not).
“Itâ€™s okay for Gary Fincher to lie if doing so might make him money. Anyone who disagrees with this is an irrational moron and probably a criminal.”
Knapp, you are either a liar or you are FUCKING DENSE. Once again, the Social Security box on the voter registration form was OPTIONAL. It was not mandatory to have it filled in, Joe Knight was being an ASSHOLE by saying that all of Gary’s voter registrations had to have Social Security numbers on them or Gary would not get paid. This CHANGED the terms that Gary was working under AFTER he was already there working for two weeks. Joe Knight only put this demand on Gary, Joe Knight NEVER put this demand on Scott Kohlhaas who was working on the same freakin’ voter registration drive. The majority of the voter registrations that Gary collected did in fact have the correct Social Security numbers in the OPTIONAL Social Security box, however, since Joe Knight was attempting to DEFRAUD Gary out of money, his quick reaction was to fill in random numbers on the minority of registration cards where the OPTIONAL Social Security box was left blank. Joe Knight pushed Gary into this situation unnecessrily. The boxes COULD HAVE been left blank and it would not had made a GOD DAMN difference, as it did not with some of the registrations collected by Kohlhaas where the Social Security boxes were left blank.
Your claim that Gary lied so that he could get money is like making critical comments of the people who were hiding Anne Franke in their attict not telling the German police that Anne Franke was there, or people who hid runaway slaves before chattel slavery was abolished in this country.
Gary reacted in self defense after his work agreement had been violated and his pay had been threatened all because of an OPTIONAL box.
ANWSER THIS QUESTION KNAPP, if it was really so freakin’ important to have the OPTIONAL Social Security Number boxes filled in on all registrations, then why did Joe Knight NEVER put this demand on Scott Kohlhaas and why did Scott Kohlhaas get paid in full and on time when some of the registrations that he collected had some of the Social Security Number boxes left blank?
“Itâ€™s not okay for anyone to say anything that might result in Gary Fincher making less money than his inner voice tells him heâ€™s entitled to make. Anyone who does that is either a criminal or a tortfeasor. Anyone who disagrees with this is either an irrational moron or a criminal co-conspirator, or both.”
If what is being said is a LIE, then no, it is not OK.
As I said in a post above, due to LIES posted on-line, Gary got fired from a campaign (this was NOT a Libertarian Party campaign) because somebody on the campaign staff did a search for his name on-line and found bogus charges against him posted on some board.
Gary went through the time and the expense to travel to the state that this campaign was in and then his work time was cut short due to somebody freaking out after reading some false accusations.
Tell us Knapp, have you ever travelled to a different state to work only to have your work time cut short because somebody read some false charges posted against you on a website?
Gary lost at least $2,000 because of this. If you say that this would not bother you or that this is no big deal then you are either LYING or you are completely DIVORCED FROM REALITY.
I know that this happened because Gary called me up after the campaign told him to stop working for some strange reason. After he called me and told me what happened I offered to call the campaign to get to the bottom of it. I told this person that the charges were false and this person told me that they would send that information up the chain-of-command on the campaign, but since it was the last week of the petition drive, there wasn’t enough time left to do anything about it so Gary was shit out of luck.
Gary was worried that the campaign was not going to pay him, or perhaps pay him, but not pay him everything that he was owed for the time that he did get to work, so he contacted the campaign and asked to get copies of the petiton signatures that he collected so that he could take them to the election office himself to prove that his work was good. The campaign refused to give him copies of his work so he could do this, however, they did end up paying him everything that he was owed for the 2 or 3 days that he did get to work, but this still does not erase the fact that he lost the opportunity cost of not being able to work for the remainder of that petition drive, plus the insult of being prevented from working because of bullshit accusations that somebody had posted on-line.
Paulie is feeding the trolls because he wants a long comments thread. This seems like a rather pathetic ambition.
I like to find silver linings in unpleasant situations I have no way to prevent. This thread has grown to be such a monstrosity that breaking TPW’s comment record is only possible remaining upside. However, you’ll notice that while it was not already being thrust onto the front page through new comments, I left it alone. I’ve done this more than once in the vain hope that it would die. Yet, it lives. May as well go for the record since we’ve come this far!
Why not start a discussion of executing the entire political class?
Next Free Voice is a place where such a thread would be appropriate. You can post it, if you are so inclined. I don’t see it as being especially germane to IPR. It could be, though: declare yourself a write-in presidential candidate, or something, and your pronouncements will become campaign news.
GE is feeding the trolls out of what he claims is a lack of self control. Not sure why he canâ€™t stop himself.
Voicing an objection? Nothing wrong there. Red herring. The question on offer is whether the woman was beaten by Gary, not yelled at. Though, some yelling does rise to the level of assault – threats of violence are advocating initiatory force and thus not libertarian.
Paulie is feeding the trolls because he wants a long comments thread. This seems like a rather pathetic ambition. Why not start a discussion of executing the entire political class? That ought to bring out the best in everyone. (“I’m doing my part!” – Starship Troopers)
GE is feeding the trolls out of what he claims is a lack of self control. Not sure why he can’t stop himself.
Here are the words, GE. Say them with me now: Gary, Andy, go f#ck yourselves.
Where do Paulie and I fit in there, Andy?
Who the fuck said it was? That’s not at issue at all.
The thread that won’t die rides again! 400 comments in easy striking distance!
“G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I wish I had the willpower to ignore Fincher. But whatever part Iâ€™m playing in seeing his imbecile dig a deeper hole for himself, I guess thatâ€™s good.”
So now you are calling Gary an imbecile. That remark is WAY OFF BASE. Gary is not a dumb guy.
“Even he and Andy are sniping at each other now.”
Nope, I still back him 100%. He is a damn good petitioner, and he is one of the few that is also a hardcore libertarian activist. He has done NOTHING wrong and his name is being dragged through the mud by people who are corrupt and/or irrational.
“This man has a RARE talent of turning everyone against him.”
The only people who are against him are those that are either a part of the corruption, or they are so enamoured with Angela Keaton that they will “amen” anything that she says even though it is blatantly obvious that she is in the wrong.
“I bet the woman in question beat the shit out of herself in front of Burger King out of frustration with his fucking annoyance.”
I met the woman in question and she was far more annoying than Gary has ever been.
The woman in question and Roger actually wanted to waste time on the last day of an LP petition drive in Maine getting Roger’s dog groomed. To make the situation even more frustrating they actually had permission to petition at a busy Wal-Mart in Maine (which is a very rare opportunity), but instead of taking advantage of this rare opportunity, the woman in question in Roger thought that getting Roger’s dog groomed was more important than gathering more signatures to ensure that the Libertarian Party secured ballot access in Maine.
Was it really out of line for Gary to voice an objection to wasting time getting a dog groomed when they should have been working for LP ballot access?
Okay … is it Fincher who is sending all those Restore the Republic emails that keep clutttering my inbox (three at a time; he must have all my emails somehow) … Oops, no that would be Franchi … never mind, except that now I have your attention, can someone explain why he refuses to contract an editor (I’ve offered my services several times) to clean up the semi-literate typos, spellos and basic illiteracy of his screeds?
as I said, wrong Gary, but thanks for listening
God damn it. We finally had this fucking thing off the front page, and here it is yet again.
At this point, the only plus side is we might have a shot at beating TPW’s comment per post record, which stands at 492 comments on a single post.
Who’s with me? Let’s go for the gold!
For those who didn’t want to wade through this whole thread and just skipped to the end, a summary:
– It’s okay for Gary Fincher to lie if doing so might make him money. Anyone who disagrees with this is an irrational moron and probably a criminal.
– It’s not okay for anyone to say anything that might result in Gary Fincher making less money than his inner voice tells him he’s entitled to make. Anyone who does that is either a criminal or a tortfeasor. Anyone who disagrees with this is either an irrational moron or a criminal co-conspirator, or both.
– Gary Fincher is always right. Anyone who disagrees with this is an irrational moron (and hell, maybe a criminal too), but that’s okay, because Gary Fincher will be pleased as punch to cure their irrationality, elevate their IQ and straighten out their morals with a book-length disquisition detailing the always-rightness of Gary Fincher and the criminal irrationality and immorality of everyone else.
This is the end of the line for me and I’m not reading this thread anymore. Any future barbs directed at me will not be read by me and will be a waste.
Anyone has anything IMPORTANT to say to me can email me or call me.
Otherwise, I’m through with you juveniles (you know who you are).
G.E.: “ANGELA KEATON DID NOT VIOLATE A CONTRACT WITH YOU to not â€œspread liesâ€ about you, and it is her right to do so, period. You donâ€™t own her speech nor other peopleâ€™s perceptions of her speechâ€™s accuracy.”
You’re not “getting” it. I have consulted with my attorney, who indeed disagrees with you.
The problem is that you’re not steeped in libertarian philosophy enough to understand purist libertarian thought like I do.
End of Discussion.
G.E.: “I didnâ€™t — USE the courts you fucking idiot. I was being sued and I showed up and won. I wasnâ€™t trying to STEAL PROPERTY like you are, using the governmentâ€™s guns.”
Man, you’re psycho.
“You do NOT have â€œreal damagesâ€ from Angela Keaton. You can think you do, and in so thinking, you are a statist (on that one issue).”
I think you are the statist. I’m not statist on ANY issue. I already told you I’d prefer to use market courts.
G.E.: I wish I had the willpower to ignore Fincher. But whatever part Iâ€™m playing in seeing his imbecile dig a deeper hole for himself, I guess thatâ€™s good. Even he and Andy are sniping at each other now. This man has a RARE talent of turning everyone against him. I bet the woman in question beat the shit out of herself in front of Burger King out of frustration with his fucking annoyance.
I would say that you’re the one that’s annoying. I’m only speaking the truth. If the truth annoys you, so be it. I don’t care. Just makes me think less of you.
Davidson: “Andy, Gary, go f#ck yourselves.”
Well, I’m certainly glad I took that “wrong turn at
Albuquerque”, to quote Bugs, and ended up on the kindergarten playground. Certainly not among mature adults.
The fact that I won’t pay for your criminal records search, or anything else you guys want, does not in any way indicate an opinion about burden of proof. If you think the burden of proof is on Angela Keaton, then tell her.
The burden of proof isn’t on my. I have no obligation to spend any of my money on you jerks. Nothing you have said here indicates any reason for me to do so. A great many things you have said here make me want to do even less for you than I have.
I answered your questions. You demanded answers. So, I gave my answers. But, that’s not good enough. I’m not allowed to disagree with you two divas. But, I disagree with you anyway.
Tom Knapp is correct. I was correct in my previous instinct on this matter. GE, please say it along with me.
Andy, Gary, go f#ck yourselves.
I wish I had the willpower to ignore Fincher. But whatever part I’m playing in seeing his imbecile dig a deeper hole for himself, I guess that’s good. Even he and Andy are sniping at each other now. This man has a RARE talent of turning everyone against him. I bet the woman in question beat the shit out of herself in front of Burger King out of frustration with his fucking annoyance.
It’s to the point now that, even though I think you’re innocent, I hope you are locked away in one of the government’s animal cages with no internet access just so you’ll STFU.
I didn’t — USE the courts you fucking idiot. I was being sued and I showed up and won. I wasn’t trying to STEAL PROPERTY like you are, using the government’s guns.
You do NOT have “real damages” from Angela Keaton. You can think you do, and in so thinking, you are a statist (on that one issue).
And I NEVER SAID that it was illegitimate to use monopolist courts in the pursuit of recovering REAL damages, which you are owed by the LP for failure to pay. They violated a contract. ANGELA KEATON DID NOT VIOLATE A CONTRACT WITH YOU to not “spread lies” about you, and it is her right to do so, period. You don’t own her speech nor other people’s perceptions of her speech’s accuracy.
Paul, take the comment down where you took it out of context.
The other one, that’s part of a list of hypotheticals, is no big deal. It’s already been said, people either “got it” or they didn’t. So I’m indifferent as to whether it be taken down or not.
If you wish to take it down, be my guest. I don’t care that much.
G.E.: “Gary/Andy and I have a disagreement on whether or not slander/defamation/etc. constitutes aggression. I say it does not, and therefore, attempts to use the state to address this non-violation is in fact aggressive, not retalitory. This is a point of disagreement.
But as far as them being unpaid for services rendered, YES they may legitimately use the monopolist courts.”
I would use free market courts if I could. On both damage cases. Why would you now say you can legitimately use monopolistic courts? Because you did it?
I had real damages in both my cases.
And BTW, you’re just showing your childishness by your other comments. I’d stop if I were you.
Anyway, it only makes sense as a ridiculous assertion in the CONTEXT it was in, sitting side-by-side against G.E.’s other ridiculous hypotetical “scenarios”.
It was lampooning G.E.’s “scenarios”, which all were ridiculous. Ergo, my addition of another ridiculous one. It was INTENDED to be ridiculous.
I don’t know. But mine do.
In the context it was in, it was MEANT to be stupid. That’s the WHOLE POINT of it. Duh.
Andy only saw the “out of context” words.
Paulie, you took the words out of context. That’s not cool.
paulie – Donâ€™t you understand that you, and I, and everyone else in the world except for Gary and Andy just donâ€™t understand. Itâ€™s the entire rest of the world thatâ€™s crazy and only they that are sane.
Take two. Andy just called me and he agrees with me that the comment by Gary was out of line and stupid. He is not on the computer but he saw it before he went out. He even asked me to remove the comment, but I would not do that without Gary’s permission.
So my student loans make me a hypocrite, then?
haha! CivilTree.com stole my article and posted it. Here it is for all those interested:
They should be if they use them in a way that would be illegitimate in a free society. Using a monopoly service because you have no choice is acceptable. Initiating force with the guns of the state IS NOT.
Gary/Andy and I have a disagreement on whether or not slander/defamation/etc. constitutes aggression. I say it does not, and therefore, attempts to use the state to address this non-violation is in fact aggressive, not retalitory. This is a point of disagreement.
But as far as them being unpaid for services rendered, YES they may legitimately use the monopolist courts.
Andy’s question of me was completely off-base, since it was me being sued (for something completely frivolous — which is why I won the case). I guess some argument could be made for not showing up to court as a means of deligitimizing its monopoly status (and/or the claims against me), but that’s quite a stretch. My former landlord had a claim (a bogus one) against me that would be heard in an anarchist court — and just like in the real one, he would have lost there too. We had a contract that he openly violated, and he thought the U.S. was already fascist enough that his status as my “superior” (I earn way more money than that bum anyway) would give him an automatic win despite him ADMITTEDLY violating the contract. The judge was dumbstruck with my landlord’s stupidity and held him after court to explain to him that when he literally signs a document saying A, he can’t sue me for fulfilling A!
paulie – Donâ€™t you understand that you, and I, and everyone else in the world except for Gary and Andy just donâ€™t understand. Itâ€™s the entire rest of the world thatâ€™s crazy and only they that are sane.
Welcome to my world.
paulie – Don’t you understand that you, and I, and everyone else in the world except for Gary and Andy just don’t understand. It’s the entire rest of the world that’s crazy and only they that are sane.
Gary, about the least smart thing to do when you have been accused of having a criminal history of violence against women is to joke around that you are going to engage in criminal violence against women. Talk about things that should not have to be explained. But like I said, keep digging.
I don’t see why it HAD to be explained. Should have been self-evident. Geez.
Paulie: “Because threats of violence are not funny and not OK. ”
No. If you had been listening carefully, you’d see that it’s actually a CRITICISM, a PARODY, moking/making fun of threats of violence. It was expressing, in a tongue-in-cheek way, my DISDAIN for threats of violence. It was registering MY DISAPPROVAL of threats of violence.
So no, it was not itself a threat of violence. Pay attention.
ah, morality is subjective now.
Regardless of your political dispositions, the only service-provider for contract enforcement in town is the government. Even bomb-throwing anarchists should not be accused of hypocrisy for utilizing things for which their tax-dollars pay.
I did not know that we all had to be anarchists to be morally pure-as-the-driven-snow.
Who said anything about you? GE is an anarchist, so it was a valid question for him.
Because threats of violence are not funny and not OK.
She can say anything she wants, without a tone of joking, very serious stuff, in nature, about me, yet I canâ€™t mock her for it?
As you might happen to know, I didn’t think it was OK for her to say what she did about you, and she and I are no longer friends as a result.
Mock her all you want. Threatening violence, even as a joke, crosses the line.
That she crossed a line with you does not excuse it.
That this should have to be explained does not say much for you. If you want people to think the worst of you, great move.
And I’m over it. I said what I had to say. Now, you can get back to digging your hole some more.
Queston: Was this a government court?
If so, it sounds to me like you used the guns of the state to your benifit
I did not know that we all had to be anarchists to be morally pure-as-the-driven-snow.
Trent Hill: “That is a really fucking stupid thing to say or even joke about.â€
Agreed. Now,whatever it is Gary Fincher did or did not doâ€”Im with Angela on this one.”
Trent, it was added as one of the hypotheticals. Remember, one of G.E.’s was that I used “guns” to “steal” from Angela. I was just sarcastically expanding upon what G.E. said in his hypothetical. Why the double standard and only criticize ME? Sounds fishy. Also, Angela didn’t chime in on the hypotheticals (actually, I don’t want her to chime in on ANYTHING, since enough trouble results from her doing so) so you can’t “be with Angela” when she hasn’t even come down on a position. Can you say “duh”?
Paulie: “That is a really fucking stupid thing to say or even joke about.”
Why? She can say anything she wants, without a tone of joking, very serious stuff, in nature, about me, yet I can’t mock her for it?
That’s absurd. It was a hypothetical anyway. Stop whining. Get over it.
G.E.: “2. It is legitimate to use government courts to recover real damages. Where you were not paid, you have a legitimate case. But I do not consider â€œslanderâ€ to be a real crime because a reputation is not property.”
No one is saying “slander”. It is “defamation” and if you don’t believe that it’s actionable, feel free to consult with my attorney. Well, actually, I don’t trust people on here to divulge the identity of my attorney, so I amend that to consult with any Massachusetts attorney, probably any attorney at all. And yes, I HAVE suffered real damages.
Because you’re a fucking hot head. 🙂
I will respond to your posts later. I have a stock-market recap due at 4:45.
1. I was being sued. I was not using the government’s guns — they were trying to be used against me. He didn’t pay a settlement, he just lost the case and thus couldn’t collect from me — even after I offered him a settlement to dismiss the case. In other words, this issue is completely irrelevant.
2. It is legitimate to use government courts to recover real damages. Where you were not paid, you have a legitimate case. But I do not consider “slander” to be a real crime because a reputation is not property.
3. I prefer for my name not to appear in search results, but if someone chooses to use it, I am powerless to stop them. And I certainly wouldn’t threaten violence against them.
1. We were never friends. I don’t even know you. You are a friend of a friend.
2. Hypocritical? People like reading my comments. They don’t like reading yours.
3. I have plenty of friends, buddy. Don’t worry about me. As for those I alienate by telling the truth about the same criminals who defrauded you, I DO NOT CARE.
“G.E. // Nov 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm
‘So now you are indicating that we are no longer friends. Wow, you obviously donâ€™t take friendship very seriously if you are this petty.’
“No. I was indicating that you might not want to be my friend. I was trying to not be presumptuous.”
Why would I not want that? The only thing here that would cause something like that would be if you joined forces with the likes of Sean Haugh and started spreading slanderous lies like Angela Keaton did.
I responded to several of your points above so I’d appreciate a response.
Here’s one more question.
You made a critical remark about Gary and I WANTING employment with the LP National. This is not really true as neither of us really want to have much of anything to do with the current National Party, however, we are willing to work with state or local LP’s or individual LP candidates.
Now contrast this with Angela Keaton who obviously DOES want something to do with LP National as she is on the LNC and has announced a run for the national LP ticket in 2012.
Why did you make a critical comment about us “wanting” to work with LP National (when it is not even really accurate with the current regime), but not about Angela Keaton being a part of LP National and seeking a spot on the LP National ticket?
This sounds like a double standard, and not even an accurate double standard since Gary and I don’t really care to work with the National Party until certain people are gone.
I wish that LP National had not been so involved in ballot access this time. In 2004 there was more involvement from the state parties and it was much better (and they got on the ballot in more states in 2004 than this year).
“GF: No, Angela, I donâ€™t have a criminal history of woman-beating. However, Iâ€™m fixinâ€™ to start one. What is your address?
That is a really fucking stupid thing to say or even joke about.”
Agreed. Now,whatever it is Gary Fincher did or did not do—Im with Angela on this one.
I dont think anything will beat this,lol. Its Rediculous(TM)
GF: No, Angela, I donâ€™t have a criminal history of woman-beating. However, Iâ€™m fixinâ€™ to start one. What is your address? 🙂
That is a really fucking stupid thing to say or even joke about.
I hereby nominate this thread as “the most awesomely bad circle jerk/circular firing squad ever!” on IPR, TPW, LFV and related sites. Are there any other nominations?
No. I was indicating that you might not want to be my friend. I was trying to not be presumptuous.
GE, Knapp, and Davidson made several statements which we refuted which I believe need to be ironed out.
Chris Bennett said: “Advice for the complainers: Go get a new skill and remember that the LP his an irrelevant organization that will amount to very little with the jackasses that are currently running it.”
Yes, Angela Keaton should quit the LNC and drop this ridiculous run for Present. She is one of the people who is contributing to the party being run into the ground. Angela Keaton should also stop complaining about people she doesn’t really know and things about which she does not know which she is speaking.
Knapp: “The more appropriate analogy would be if you called someone you thought was a hitman,”
ROFLMAO. What – is their an official government registry of hitmen?
Knapp, you are a really, really stupid fuck who can’t get ANYTHING right. I’m not going to address you anymore, no matter how silly/stupid the contentions you bring forth are.
Now get the hell out of my face. You’re a troublemaker and I don’t like troublemakers.
G.E.’s Hypothetical Scenarios
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: Angela Keaton molests children and is actually pro-war, she should be fired from Antiwar.com.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: Not true. My reputation stands by itself. People should not listen to Angela Keaton.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: What? Iâ€™m going to call Big Brother to come to your house with his guns and steal your property. That will show you.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: No, Angela, I don’t have a criminal history of woman-beating. However, I’m fixin’ to start one. What is your address? 🙂
Oh the horror of actually skimming through all these posts and actually relieved that I no longer am a part of just a disillusioned bunch of people who claim they are LP activists. We all have been stabbed in the back and my back has many wounds over these last 17 years. Now that I have separated myself from this mess, my back is healing fine (thanks for asking), all I can do at laugh at each and every one of you for re-hashing this bullshit. Advice for the complainers: Go get a new skill and remember that the LP his an irrelevant organization that will amount to very little with the jackasses that are currently running it. On a final note—-
SO LONG SUCKERS!!!!!!!!
Jim Davidson says:
“Criminal record searches and public record searches cost money. Why havenâ€™t you or Gary paid for one and posted it?”
So in other words, Jim Davidson believes that the burden of proof should be put on the accused rather than the accuser. No innocent until proven guilty, with Jim Davidson it is guilty until you prove that you are innocent.
If Angela Keaton can’t back up her claims then she should retract them and apologize.
“So I say to my (former?) friend Andy and his pal Gary: Find a new line of work. Try being professional writers. You certainly can hammer out the copy.”
So now you are indicating that we are no longer friends. Wow, you obviously don’t take friendship very seriously if you are this petty.
There is no reason for the hostility towards Gary as well. You talked to Gary at the National Convention and did not have any problems with him. Did Gary really seem like such a bad guy? Hasn’t he been through enough bullshit? If Haugh wouldn’t have tried to burn his signatures and defraud him out of money, and if Angela Keaton had not come out of nowhere with an unproked lie-filled personal attack, this would not even be an issue right now. Gary did not start this, nor did I.
You seem to act like Gary and I worked on Libertarian Party stuff all of the time and now we are blackballed and are trying to get back in. This is completely false. Both of us (as well as Paul) only work on Libertarian Party stuff once in a while.
Frankly, I do NOT even really want to have anything to do with the National Party right now, in fact, I wanted NOTHING to do with the National Party at all this year. I only worked Pennsylvania because I had originally thought that I’d just deal with the State LP, I didn’t know that National was going to be directly involved with it until I was already into it.
I only went to Alabama and worked the LP there for 2 reasons, one was because the Nader campaign and the Constitution Party wanted my services there, and the other was because I knew that it would piss Sean Haugh off if I was there and there wasn’t anything he could do about it (which there wasn’t).
Just because I’d prefer to not have anything to do with LP National right now, it does not mean that I’m opposed to working with a state or local LP chapter, or that I’m opposed to working directly for a particular LP candidate.
Why should Gary or I have to find another line of work just because a small handful of irrational fools in some pissant organization (and in the grand scheme of things, the Libertarian Party is not at the level where it is really any more than that) are talking shit?
First of all, if I decide that I want to quit this business then it should be of my own accord. Second of all, the LP is not the only game in town in this business. There is plenty of work with initiatives, referenda, recalls, other minor parties and independent candidates, etc….
A bigger question here is that why should Gary and I have to be the ones to quit, shouldn’t somebody who is actually causing problems like Sean Haugh be the one to quit (or get fired)?
It would actually be a big loss to the industry, and in particular, to the Libertarian Party, if Gary and I just quit and walked away.
Quoth Gary Fincher:
“I can GUARANTEE you that if I, in Ohio right now, ordered a hitman to kill Knapp, in Missouri, and failed, Knapp would be the FIRST one ‘whining’ and calling for me to be arrested.”
The more appropriate analogy would be if you called someone you thought was a hitman, told him you had no money and no upward connections of authority in his crime organization’s chain of command, but that you were ordering him to come to Missouri and kill me anyway, and were told to go fuck yourself, you guarantee I would, etc.
In that case, it’s unlikely that I would ever know that you had done that thing, because unlike the LPMA, hit men probably don’t go around publicly talking about incidents in which idiots try to get con them into killing for free.
If you actually hired a hit man, and actually arrived at a deal with that hit man, and actually paid that hit man to come kill me, then not only would the situation be materially different, but if the hit failed, I’d be much more likely to kill your hit man — and then you — than to call the police. When I want a job done right, I don’t ask the state to do it for me.
“If Iâ€™m not allowed to make blog comments due to lack of ownership issues, so be it. I donâ€™t claim to have a â€œrightâ€ to it.”
As I said above, I NEVER indicated that I had a “right” to make blog comments here either as this site is owned by GE, Austin Cassidy, etc…
My point – which was completely misinterpeted by GE – was that this group OUGHT to have a free speech policy (which is seems to have), I NEVER meant that the group HAD to have a free speech policy.
GE, I remember you posted a story on your old blog about how you were in a court case against an old landlord, I think that you said his name was James Crook or something like that. You said that you won a settlement against him and he had to pay you money. You celebrated this vitory and posted about it on-line.
Queston: Was this a government court?
If so, it sounds to me like you used the guns of the state to your benifit.
“In scenario 1, AK is lying about GF and GF is lying about AK. Neither is committing â€œfraud,â€ which indicates a property-rights violation. GF does not have the â€œrightâ€ to work for the LP and AK does not have the â€œrightâ€ to work for anti-war.com. If their empoyers believe the accusations against them, then thatâ€™s a problem for the employer and the employee. Your reputation exists in the minds of other people and is NOT your property.
In scenario #2, GF smartly downplays the allegations and rests on his stellar reputation. If such a reputation exists, then it will weather the attack a gainst it, no problem. If it doesnâ€™t, then thatâ€™s your problem.”
This is far easier said than done. Here’s how it works in the real world, and this is NOT just about employment (actually contracting since Gary has never worked in politics as an employee).
Gary posts his profile on a dating site. Women check out his profile and consider contacting him. Before they do they decide to google his name. They do a google search and up pops Angela Keaton’s post about how Gary has a criminal history of violent assults against women. Gary doesn’t get a date.
Repuations are important in any business, and the petition business is no different, however, given the nature of the petition business, campaigns and organizations and candidates and coordinators come and go.
Often times new people pop up to do a petition drives and are just in it as a one time thing. These newcommers may not know anything about any petitioners, but then somebody mentions this Gary Fincher guy, so they do a google search and find Angela Keaton’s posts about Gary and then Gary doesn’t get the call to work on the campaign, which in this case Gary could be losing money because he did not get called for a campaign that he did not know about.
Another possibility is that Gary calls to work on a campaign for a group or person that is new to petitioning. They want to check him out so they do a search for his name on-line and up pops Angela Keaton’s posts about Gary. They either don’t call him back or they tell him that they don’t need anybody else.
A scenario like this ALREADY happened to Gary several months back. Gary had just started working on a campaign with a group that was new and had never been involved with a petition drive before. Two or three days into Gary’s time on the project somebody on the campaign staff decided to do a search for Gary’s name on-line. Up pops some old accusations from Joe Knight from 1999. Gary, who had done absolutely nothing wrong, gets fired from the campaign because they told him that they don’t want to hire anybody who was “banned” from petitioning for the Libertarian Party, nevermind the fact that Gary was NOT banned from petitioning for the Libertarian Party and had in fact worked on a bunch of LP ballot access drives after the New Mexico controversy of 1999. Gary calls up Richard Winger and asks him to get in touch with this campaign to set the record straight. Richard did get in touch with somebody from the campaign to try to set the record straight, however, by the time this happened it was too little too late as the campaign was over and Gary had already missed this money making opportunity. This could have easily cost him over $2,000 in lost income.
You see, campaign work is a bunch of projects all over the country. Some groups have been around for a while and some are new. While some people know some people there is no way that everyone can know everyone. Some projects are short term. Such as with the project above, somebody hears a false accusation and then a person gets cut out of working on a short term project. In such case there would be NO TIME to do what you suggested (as in Gary provide his side of the story and his references to counteract the false smears). Many campaigns, especially those that do things at the last minute (which many of them do) do NOT have time to investigate anything, in fact, they are not likely to even care to hear the other side of a story, they will just say something like “So and so is bad because I heard it from so and so or read it on line so we are not going to call that (in this case) Gary guy.” and therefore, Gary gets cut out of work and loses money in opportunity costs.
As I should have indicated above, there is a seen and unseen at work here. Since Gary is a national petitioner – as in he travels all of the country to work – it is possible that some campaign that he has never heard of could contact him at anytime. Such a thing recently happened with him where he got contacted by this minor party called the Black & White Party. Gary worked on some short term stuff for them. It is a good thing that they didn’t see the smears from Angela Keaton on-line or Gary may not have gotten the call to work for them and he would NOT EVEN KNOW THAT he didn’t get the call and would therefore lose opportunity costs that he would not even know that he had a chance to recieve!
GE, I recall you saying that you post on-line under the screen name GE and not your real name (even though regular posters already know it) because you don’t want your name to come up in searches with employers/business clients. Since you have this concern about your name, then why don’t you think Gary should have a similiar concern about having negative false stories posted about him on-line? The political work that Gary does is not with one organization, so it is not like once he gets a “job” the vetting process is over. Gary can go through this process multiple times per year with multiple organizations. Can you imagine each time having to go to an organization and try to fight off a bunch of bogus charges from people like of Angela Keaton?
In scenario #3, AK is STILL not initiating force or committing fraud, but GF is advocating state violence and theft. GF is in the wrong, period, end of story, I GIVE UP”
Falsely accusing somebody of a crime IS the initiation of fraud.
Andy: “Banning somebody just because they spoke some truths that some found uncomfortable, and just because they may not have done it in the most polite manner would be a shitty thing to do, and would NOT be in the spirit of free speech, but as the OWNERS of the groups you all have a RIGHT to do it.”
Andy, I think we both started out as polite and gentlemanly. But there does come a point to which, if goaded and provoked far enough, patience starts to wear thin and the benefit of politeness understandably gets shed. It happened in this case. I think these people are conveniently overlooking our initial politeness, acting as if it never existed, downplayed or denied their own culpability in goading us and then pointed to our indignant later posts with an “Aha!” finger-pointing to show how we are “being uncouth”. It’s a lot of audacity, actually.
“Iâ€™ve met Angela. Iâ€™ve spoken with her for hours and hours on many occasions since 2005. She is a wonderful person. She is part of the solution. She is extremely intelligent, sincere, educated, erudite, well read, activist, enthusiastic, and hard working. She rocks. You suck.”
Paul met Angela on several occassions. Paul spoke to Angela on the phone for many, many, hours. Paul exchanged numerous e-mails with Angela. Paul considered Angela to be a wonderful person and a great friend, that is UNTIL Angela stabbed him in the back for no legitimate reason.
I used to think that Scott Kohlhaas was a good guy until he ripped me off.
Jim Davidson reminds me of one of those delusional George W. Bush or Barrack Obama supporters that think that “their” President can do no wrong.
Paulie: “Fuck it. Listen to the bad paulie and keep it going. This has gone so far beyond bad, itâ€™s good again, in a sick sort of way.
Itâ€™s either that, or way too much caffeine. Probably the latter.”
Paulie: “I count GE as my friend.”
I thought he was ‘friend’, too; that is, until he started in with his childish and hypocritical bashing of me simply for making blog comments.
If I’m not allowed to make blog comments due to lack of ownership issues, so be it. I don’t claim to have a “right” to it.
However, if I do have a right to make blog comments, then by what logic should I be curtailed? Why am I asked to let negative and untrue comments about me stand pat? This whole character assassination on me was absurd from the get-go and it’s still absurd (and childish).
If I’ve reached or exceeded my legally-entitled parceled allotment of speech on this site, someone is welcome to demonstrate that to me with supporting data and I’ll apologize and cease and desist. Otherwise, stop whining cuz you don’t like WHAT I’m saying and let me defend myself any way I choose, with as many words as I choose.
(everybody, please read this twice or three times if that’s what it takes)
“paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 4:47 am
We looked into that on the Nebraska thing. Basically, the attorney said that as independent contractors, we were pretty much fucked. If it had been a standard employment deal, it would have been a slam dunk for triple damages and attorney fees.”
No, the attorney said that we would probably win something, it just wouldn’t have been as good of a case as if we were employees because then we would have been all but gaurenteed our principle, plus triple damages and legal fees.
I didn’t press for a law suit because at the time I did not feel like hassling with it any longer than we already had, plus Gary ended up with a medical problem and was hard up for cash.
Yeah, G.E., Knapp, Angela, Davidsonâ€¦why donâ€™t you listen to the good Paulie and JUST STOP IT?
Fuck it. Listen to the bad paulie and keep it going. This has gone so far beyond bad, it’s good again, in a sick sort of way.
It’s either that, or way too much caffeine. Probably the latter.
“paulie cannoli // Nov 14, 2008 at 5:12 am
Austin Cassidy (to my knowledge) owns Independent Political Report.
Peter Orvetti 10.78%
Ross Levin 4.81%
Fred Church 3.41%
Trent Hill 2.74%
Gregg Jocoy 2.37%
Tom Knapp 0.22%
Thatâ€™s not very exact, because some of it is based on how many posts we have each made, and that keeps changing. But itâ€™s pretty close. ”
So this committe could vote to ban somebody, and GE should get 41.83% of the vote.
Banning somebody just because they spoke some truths that some found uncomfortable, and just because they may not have done it in the most polite manner would be a shitty thing to do, and would NOT be in the spirit of free speech, but as the OWNERS of the groups you all have a RIGHT to do it.
Do you get my point now, GE?
Iâ€™m holding out that there are at least a couple of logical people who â€œgetâ€ what Iâ€™ve been saying. I think I know of three already.
Who are they?
G.E.: “Who, me? Iâ€™m trying to make one last-ditch effort to make these guys see reality. But youâ€™re right, I am wasting my time trying to convince these oblivious individuals that THEY are wasting their time. Go ahead and keep wasting it, guys.”
How come, then, I keep seeing posts on here by YOU? Duh.
“They are also not mentally sound if they think they can use the tactics theyâ€™re using in order to regain employment with the LP.â€
I have NOT fucking lost “employment” with the LP. I just worked on Libertarian Party ballot access for this election in Alabama in July and August.
I’ve already got a deal right freakin’ now for signatures for a state Libertarian Party affiliate and I’m working on another deal with another state Libertarian Party affiliate right now.
My goal in this is NOT to gain employment with the LP. Frankly, the LP needs me more than I need them. My goal is to expose the corruption and incompetence to to run some people out of offices where they should not be.
Paulie: â€œAre you so blind to not understand youâ€™re NOT doing yourself ANY GOOD by keeping this up?â€
“Yes, I do. I’m engaging in irrational behavior. Oops, I did it again.”
G.E., your style here on these blogs are alienating everyone and Iâ€™d be surprised if you have any friends left.
I count GE as my friend.
Paulie: “Are you so blind to not understand youâ€™re NOT doing yourself ANY GOOD by keeping this up?”
Yeah, G.E., Knapp, Angela, Davidson…why don’t you listen to the good Paulie and JUST STOP IT?
Austin Cassidy (to my knowledge) owns Independent Political Report.
Peter Orvetti 10.78%
Ross Levin 4.81%
Fred Church 3.41%
Trent Hill 2.74%
Gregg Jocoy 2.37%
Tom Knapp 0.22%
That’s not very exact, because some of it is based on how many posts we have each made, and that keeps changing. But it’s pretty close.
The site is for sale.
G.E. Who-won’t-Shut up: “Damn it. Inspiration has struck: Why donâ€™t Gary and Andy buy IPR on eBay and turn it into an all-anti Keaton, anti-Haugh, etc. site? Iâ€™m sure that it would quickly dive from 4,000 visitors a day to 2. Maybe more if you count Garyâ€™s friends and family who (shockingly) think heâ€™s in the right, here.”
To the first part, somebody please buy G.E. a scroll function on his computer.
To the second, more evidence of his not taking the time to READ what he fires off about. I distinctively remember qualifying my statement by noting that these are people who NEVER give me a pass on anytthing I’m wrong about but STILL (I repeat STILL) think I’m right on the falsely-accused/petition-burning issue.
G.E.: “Youâ€™re right, Fincher. You understand libertarianism better than Rothbard and Block.”
The problem doesn’t lie with Rothbard and Block; the problem lies in your DISTORTION of them. You are focusing on “slander” and not on making actual false allegations. You can’t testify falsely that someone committed a crime if you don’t know or believe they did so. This is just very basic.
“Iâ€™m through defending you in any way.
Mark me down as one more person youâ€™ve alienated.”
Who gives a shit? Are you important? You’ve pissed me off by your continual hypocritical lambasting of me for doing essentially the same thing that you feel you should be completely free to do (post on blogs). I started out being polite; now I’ve lost my patience with such repugnant behavior.
“Again with the socialism.”
Huh? You haven’t heard any socialism coming from ME. That’s absurd.
“Trying to get you fired is NOT a violation of your rights. You have a right to life, not to a job as a fucking signature gatherer for the LP.”
I have a right not to be defrauded. Get your terms right, G.E.
“Iâ€™m giving up on you, too.”
You should have given up with this childish ranting against me LONG TIME AGO.
“Wow, Fincher. My mom tells me Iâ€™m the handsomest boy in town, too….You are truly divorced from reality.”
Wow, G.E., you just don’t read very closely, do you? I never said anything about compliments from family. NOTHING in my posts suggested even such remotely. Where do you GET this stuff??
“My final words (for real): Gary and Andy are two intelligent, educated, and articulate individuals who have been unfairly treated by the LP.
They are also not mentally sound if they think they can use the tactics theyâ€™re using in order to regain employment with the LP.”
That last statement is true EXCEPT…we know that YOU are not the LP and we are not using “tactics” and also are not trying to “regain employment” with the LP. It’s pretty amazing how one sentence can contain so many misconceptions in it! LOL
“And worse yet, the fact that they WANT to work for the LP is the biggest strike against their credibility as men.”
As soon as you pull up a quote where I said I WANTED to work for the LP, then you can start to “regain” your marriage to reality from your divorce. G.E., your style here on these blogs are alienating everyone and I’d be surprised if you have any friends left. Your penchant for saying inflammatory names (such as ‘Redpath get his tampon out of his ass’) isn’t winning you any admirers or respect. Sorry.
“So I say to my (former?) friend Andy and his pal Gary: Find a new line of work.”
See – this is what I mean by inflammatory, G.E. For one thing, why should we try to get another line of work, when we are TWO OF THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS? Also, why should we take the advice of someone who obviously can’t keep his cool. You’re what, 19 yrs old or something like that?
” Try being professional writers. You certainly can hammer out the copy.”
I might do that, but only when I’m damn good and ready.
“Not if you want to maintain your own credibility.”
I’ve got plenty of credibility, with the people who matter. Haven’t you seen my long list of references? That fact that I’m losing my patience with idiots on this blog is probably understandable among people who still trust me and would hire me in a heartbeat.
“Read Rothbard and Block. You are not more libertarian than them.”
Actually, I think I am, in fact. I don’t believe in violating the rights of immigrants and children.
“Yes, I, Rothbard, and Block are wrong, and you and Andy are right. You got me.”
You’ve just got a misconception you refuse to shake.
“The â€œconsequencesâ€ for making false accusations are a damage to your own credibility. Yes, you want to compound that by sicking the governmentâ€™s guns on your opponents, I know.”
I am not necessarily talking about government guns. I usually opt for free market courts. But you’re only speaking hypothetically; if you were violated, I’d imagine you’d include the use of government courts, probably faster than I.
“Here is where you have a legitimate beef. So take that to court”
And which court would THAT be?
” or STFU about it.”
I’ve been TRYING to get everyone on here to STFU, but it hasn’t been working so far. You keep flapping your jaws (figuratively – I don’t need another arguement involving fingers vs mouth online).
” Are you so blind to not understand youâ€™re NOT doing yourself ANY GOOD by keeping this up?”
You can’t speak for everyone on these blogs. I’m holding out that there are at least a couple of logical people who “get” what I’ve been saying. I think I know of three already. So, for every person that can’t grasp my concepts the first time, there is probably another who can. So I’m undaunted.
Opps, I forgot to post the link.
People who buy into the official government story are welcome to join. So come on in and argue if you desire.
“While I donâ€™t see eye to eye with Andy on the â€œspiritsâ€ issue, he is indeed correct on the notion that you just canâ€™t go around falsely accusing people”
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!! Both of you COMPLETELY MISSED my point!
By the spirit of free speech, I meant VOLUNTARY, as in I believe that Austin Cassidy (to my knowledge) owns Independent Political Report. So Austin Cassidy has a RIGHT to ban anyone here for any reason. Since there is no rule list here I think that it would be a bullshit thing to do, but as the owner of the site, he’s got a right to ban anyone for any reason. However, in the SPIRIT of free speech, I think that he should make the voluntary choice to not do this and to respect the posters here enough so everyone here can speak their mind.
I started a group called Libertarians for 911 Truth. The only rule that I have in my group is that the posts remain relatively on topic (as in a post about domestic spying is OK, but an advertisement for a penis pump or a dating site or a porn site or talk about football scores is too far off topic). Other than this, people can cuss, argue, post comments where I disagree, etc… I do not ban people who make unpolular statements. The SPIRIT of free speech lives at Libertarians for 911 Truth.
Go ahead and keep wasting it, guys.
You can beat a dead horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
X on cracker. 300, not 3000.
But that means we are now in an elite club with TPW and HoT. LFV, much less NFV, has not yet even sniffed 300 comments on a single post.
paul – It worked as directed to me, too.
Who, me? I’m trying to make one last-ditch effort to make these guys see reality. But you’re right, I am wasting my time trying to convince these oblivious individuals that THEY are wasting their time. Go ahead and keep wasting it, guys.
OOps – last sentence in 3000 was GE’s, not mine…
Are you so blind to not understand youâ€™re NOT doing yourself ANY GOOD by keeping this up?
“You seem to have some very liberal ideas about â€œrights.â€ You think â€œspiritsâ€ and â€œreputationsâ€ â€” things that exist only in peopleâ€™s minds â€” are somehow right-possessing entitties and/or property that cannot be violated.”
You COMPLETELY missed the boat on the point that I was making about speech. I actually wrote a post clarifying my point but it got deleted. I haven’t had the chance to re-write the post but I will get back to it later.
“AND you think that you have some sort of ‘right’ to work for the criminally corrupt LP. The fact that you want to work for this bullshit organization makes me lose respect for you, Andy.”
I don’t work for any organization. I am an independent contractor. I only contract with the Libertarian Party on occassion.
The Libertarian Party is a membership organization which I happen to be a dues paying member of and have been for 12 years (although my dues slipped a few times, they are up-to-date now). So when you say Libertarian Party, I AM a part of it. The Libertarian Party is NOT a person. Sean Haugh is NOT the Libertarian Party. The LNC is NOT the Libertarian Party. Bill Redpath is NOT the Libertarian. The people that I mentioned are all just members of the group, just as I am and just as you are (and for that matter, the group can also include anyone who is registered as a Libertarian or has ever signed the pledge). I AM the Libertarian Party, just as much as Sean Haugh is, just as much as Bill Redpath is, just as much as Angela Keaton is, just as much as Tom Knapp is, etc…
I joined the Libertarian Party back in 1996. I did not work as a petitioner until 2000. Since 2000 I have worked on numerous campaigns besides the Libertarian Party, mostly ballot initiatives & referenda. I’ve also done a little bit of work on Constitution Party and Green Party ballot access as well as Ralph Nader for President and Ron Paul for President. Oh, and I should mention that I am largely responsible for getting the Boston Tea Party on the ballot in Tennessee and Florida in this past election. The Libertarian Party is just one small piece of the pie. In fact, when you look at the entire petition world, the Libertarian Party is really small potatos.
For instance, going back one year ago to this time in November until current, I worked in Massachusetts on Carla Howell’s End the State Income Tax and also on a Reduce Penalties on Marijuana Pocession initiative, the Ron Paul campaign in Illinois, the Ron Paul campaign in Pennsylvania, Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania, ballot initiatives in Colorado, Libertarian Party/Ralph Nader/Constitution Party in Alabama, Socialist Party/Boston Tea Party in Tennessee, and Boston Tea Party in Florida.
2 Libertarian Party petitions over the course of a year is not much. In 2007 the only Libertarian Party petition I worked on was in Ohio and I only worked on that for a couple of weeks (I would have been out of there sooner if not for car problems).
I worked all of 2002 and 2003 without doing any Libertarian Party stuff. I was BEGGED by the Libertarian Party to come back in 2004. I worked on LP ballot access in 2004 in Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, and Kentucky, however, in addition to this I also worked on ballot initiatives in California, Washington DC, and Nevada, and I also worked on a Ralph Nader drive in Virginia.
(I’ll work on most of the non-libertarian minor parties because they are less toxic than most of the Democrats and Republicans and they stand little chance of winning.)
On several occassions, I actually lost money working on Libertarian Party stuff (as in I could have made more money working on something else). If I was a total mercenary who would work on anything I could make more money (I turn down initiatves & referenda with which I disagree). Occassionally I’ll accept a project just for the “adventure” of it (such as the Boston Tea Party stuff in Tennessee and Florida), but as long as I agree with or am nuetral on the campaign it then comes down to the money and working conditions.
After my work for Ron Paul ended in Pennsylvania I did not “have” to stay in Pennsylvania to work on the Libertarian Party petition as I had offers to work on ballot initiatives in Colorado (where I ended up going later), California, Missouri, Nevada, and some other places. I staid in Pennsylvania partially because I got sucked up in the Ron Paul hype and I was thinking that the Libertarian Party could parlay the coattails of that into a big year. I got the LP ahead on ballot access there and my “thanks” for this was that Sean Haugh tried to screw around with my pay (as in rip me off – again). When I started working in PA I did not realize that Haugh was going to be so involved with it as I had worked PA twice before and only dealt with the state party and had no problems. If I had known that Haugh was going to get so involved in it I probably would have left the state right after the Ron Paul stuff ended, and incidentily, if I had done this it would have taken the LP longer to wrap up PA which could have caused them to fail in yet ANOTHER state this year. I stopped working in PA in May and it was precisely because of Sean Haugh’s bullshit (my quitting the PA drive slowed it down and contributed to the LP failing in other states, because if I had staid there longer it would have been knocked out sooner which would have freed up more petitioners to go to other states sooner).
So it is not as though I “need” the Libertarian Party.
I learned my lesson a few years ago (after Sean Haugh stabbed me in the back and screwed me over in North Carolina back in 2001) to NOT chose to work on a project just because it is the Libertarian Party. I like to work on campaigns that I agree with or am at least nuetral on, but after that it comes down to money (as well as working conditions).
I have been working to build the Libertarian for the past 12 years with the hopes that it would have a big breakthrough at some point. Thus far it has not happened, and I place a lot of the blame for this on people in the party who are in positions where they should not be. However, having said this, I still believe that most of the people in the party are good people.
Unfortunately there are a few bad apples in the mix that are holding back progress.
Damn it. Inspiration has struck: Why don’t Gary and Andy buy IPR on eBay and turn it into an all-anti Keaton, anti-Haugh, etc. site? I’m sure that it would quickly dive from 4,000 visitors a day to 2. Maybe more if you count Gary’s friends and family who (shockingly) think he’s in the right, here.
Davidson: “She is a wonderful person. She is part of the solution. She is extremely intelligent, sincere, educated, erudite, well read, activist, enthusiastic, and hard working.”
Okay, and THOSE were my final words, for real.
Same w/ 290
Yes, I, Rothbard, and Block are wrong, and you and Andy are right. You got me.
The “consequences” for making false accusations are a damage to your own credibility. Yes, you want to compound that by sicking the government’s guns on your opponents, I know.
Here is where you have a legitimate beef. So take that to court or STFU about it. Are you so blind to not understand you’re NOT doing yourself ANY GOOD by keeping this up?
Knapp didn’t post that.
Mistyped, 292. Meant to say “Davidson”
Knapp: “No one has established whether Angela has done any research. If she has corroborated Popeâ€™s story with another source, she hasnâ€™t told me. But she has no obligation to tell me, thee, nor anyone else.”
Yes, she does, if she’s going to make accusations, she needs to back it up. I’m getting tired of your stupidity, Knapp.
Not if you want to maintain your own credibility.
Read Rothbard and Block. You are not more libertarian than them.
Knapp: “Criminal record searches and public record searches cost money. Why havenâ€™t you or Gary paid for one and posted it?”
Because the burden is not on the accused, you moron.
G.E.: “You seem to have some very liberal ideas about â€œrights.â€ You think â€œspiritsâ€ and â€œreputationsâ€ â€” things that exist only in peopleâ€™s minds â€” are somehow right-possessing entitties and/or property that cannot be violated. AND you think that you have some sort of â€œrightâ€ to work for the criminally corrupt LP. The fact that you want to work for this bullshit organization makes me lose respect for you, Andy.”
While I don’t see eye to eye with Andy on the “spirits” issue, he is indeed correct on the notion that you just can’t go around falsely accusing people. It’s malicious intent and is aggressive. Sure, you can call someone an “asshole” or a “stupid fuck” or something like that, but when it comes to falsely accusing someone of a violent crime (or any real crime) it’s a different ballgame. Just admit that you’re wrong, G.E., and admit that you can’t make false criminal allegations without taking responsibility for consequences.
Also, Andy is NOT expressing a “right” to work for the LP, or even a desire to do so. You haven’t been listening closely, if you think that. He is simply saying that if we do the work, we have a right to get paid for that work.
This thread has just gotten two gross.
My final words (for real): Gary and Andy are two intelligent, educated, and articulate individuals who have been unfairly treated by the LP.
They are also not mentally sound if they think they can use the tactics they’re using in order to regain employment with the LP.
And worse yet, the fact that they WANT to work for the LP is the biggest strike against their credibility as men.
So I say to my (former?) friend Andy and his pal Gary: Find a new line of work. Try being professional writers. You certainly can hammer out the copy.
Wow, Fincher. My mom tells me I’m the handsomest boy in town, too.
You are truly divorced from reality.
Again with the socialism.
Trying to get you fired is NOT a violation of your rights. You have a right to life, not to a job as a fucking signature gatherer for the LP.
I’m giving up on you, too.
You’re right, Fincher. You understand libertarianism better than Rothbard and Block.
I’m through defending you in any way.
Mark me down as one more person you’ve alienated.
G.E.: “In scenario 1, AK is lying about GF and GF is lying about AK. Neither is committing â€œfraud,â€ which indicates a property-rights violation.”
You don’t have as good a grasp on libertarian principles as I do, G.E. I’ve been a libertarian scholar since the 1980s and I know my stuff.
What you’re saying is not true. The scope of fraud does involve “false advertising”, and making false accusations. The irony in what you say is that false accusations can and do lead to Big Brother government coming and taking the accused’s property. It’s very naive of you to think that that it can’t lead to it (and that’s probably Angela’s intentions too!) and it’s also naive of you to think that the person FIRST being accused is going to have the same kind of credibility by RESPONDING in a retaliatory accusing manner.
Rothbard also said that immigrants don’t have the right to travel across imaginary borders and that emancipated children don’t have rights.
Falsely accusing someone, with intent to injure, is NOT libertarian.
Now I get to say END OF STORY.
At 186, Andy asks, “Tell me, are you OK with the fact that LP National squandered THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS and failed to make the ballot in 5 places where they SHOULD have made it had competent, decent people been running things?”
Yes, I am. I expect the LP to do just that sort of thing. I am okay with them being what they are: boobs. A careful, George Phillies style reading of the Barr campaign FEC reports indicates they have wasted tens of thousands of dollars, without paying petitioner Angela O’Dell.
“So tell me GE, did she say it?”
I think I saw that written.
“If she did say it, tell me whether it is true or not?”
I have no information either way. I have hearsay reports in each direction, which I don’t regard as information.
“If these charges are true then why hasnâ€™t anyone been able to post a criminal record that verifies this.”
Criminal record searches and public record searches cost money. Why haven’t you or Gary paid for one and posted it?
“Now tell me GE, if there is no proof to back this up, then why hasnâ€™t Angela posted a retraction and an apology?”
No one has established whether Angela has done any research. If she has corroborated Pope’s story with another source, she hasn’t told me. But she has no obligation to tell me, thee, nor anyone else.
“Do you believe that making accusations like this are damaging, or do you think that it is no big deal?”
I think it is fairly typical libertarian blog behavior. I’d like to see more substantiation and less hearsay. Why don’t you get it started by paying for Gary’s criminal record and publishing it?
“If you think that it is no big deal, then how about if I said that GE has a history of molesting little kids, and he in fact molests his own daughter, â€œEnd of discussion.â€?”
Sounds kinda mean, petty, vindictive, and stupid. Doing so would prove nothing. It would tend to characterise you as a jackass.
“Would you be happy about this or would you be angry?”
I would be ecstatic Andy if you were chair of the LP or held any of its offices. Nothing could speed its demise faster. LP delenda est.
“Would you be happy about this, or would you be angry?”
Sounds like a lawsuit. Say, maybe you and Gary should take Angela to court. That would be fun to watch.
“Angela Keaton is NOT the wonderful person that she is cracked up to be and is in fact a part of the problem.”
I’ve met Angela. I’ve spoken with her for hours and hours on many occasions since 2005. She is a wonderful person. She is part of the solution. She is extremely intelligent, sincere, educated, erudite, well read, activist, enthusiastic, and hard working. She rocks. You suck.
“So which do you prefer, â€œshooting the messengersâ€, or finding out what the truth is and then fixing the problems?”
When faced with the choice, I’d take both.
“What in the hell do you care, Trent?”
Trent is a very sincere person who wants things to go better. He would like to live in a better world.
Humble Travis: “Regarding post #255, it was not the Budweiser frogs who said â€œI canâ€™t work in this environmentâ€. This was actually a related character named Louie the Lizard.”
Thanks Humble. I stand corrected. I’d forgotten it was the lizard. I was wrong and I retract my statement. (Now, if only people would take note of the fact that I do freely admit when I’m wrong…)
G.E.: “And if they did, they wouldnâ€™t hear bogus cases about â€œdamageâ€ to â€œreputationsâ€ which are not individuals nor property and thus cannot be â€œviolatedâ€ in a meaningful sense.”
It is not my “reputation” per se (although colloquially, I could say that) that got damaged; it was ME that got damaged. Making false accusations against someone can result in their getting arrested and more, so yes it is even a violation in libertarian terms.
“The proper response to â€œslanderâ€ is to refute it in a manner that convinces people of your innocence and turns them against your accusers. You and Gary have failed in a truly, incredibly, No, youâ€™ve been so incompetent with your own defense that youâ€™ve turned people who believe in your innocence against you. ”
It’s called “defamation of character” and it only applies when it’s false. If it’s true, then it’s not fraudulent. So I certainly have acted proper. My attorney advises me that I have the makings of a case.
And I don’t believe I have failed in any sense whatsoever, as you are claiming. The sampling (a bunch of whiners on blogs who whine incessantly on other threads too is hardly a fair demographic to test) is just too small and skewed to make any kind of assessment at all in this regard.
A far better forum to determine if I have succeeded or failed would be some kind of formal hearing on the matter, which brings everyone into either a courtroom or arbitration venue, including Redpath, Haugh, Keaton, my character witnesses and some impartial observers (maybe a jury). I doubt that after such a hearing were over, you could say that I “failed”.
Another even better test is the fact that I have (using my own words, such as I’ve done on here!) related the case/story/issue to lots of various family/friends and guess what? Not a single one of them have said that I was remotely in the wrong. Every single one of them (and they seemed to understand it first time too!) agreed that I have grounds for action, that I’ve been done wrong and that my work ethic doesn’t appear to be lacking. And keep in mind, these are people not accustomed to just “giving me a pass”; they’ve often been VERY critical of me when they have thought I’ve been wrong on other, unrelated things.
Given the above, I’m not taking any of this “failure talk” seriously, sorry.
No, not even close.
” Not just give it a rest.”
I’ve tried to give it a rest on THIS thread, but you don’t appear to be letting me. Can you say “mea culpa”? LOL
However, the issue, by definition, is not “at a rest”, so I’ll have to keep at it relentlessly until Keaton, Knapp, Haugh, Kohlhaas and Cory have faced accountability for their errant actions. I WILL see justice prevail. Take it to the bank.
” The LP…youâ€™re never going to work for them again.”
Well, yes, that’s what I said after Nebraska – that I’m never going to work for them again. I do reserve the right to change my mind, however. (I just so far haven’t done so.) I’ll keep you posted of that status, though. I thought the same thing after 1999-2000 and I ended up doing more work for them (national).
“GE. // Nov 14, 2008 at 3:39 am
You are initiating force by threatening state violence against people whose speech you do not like.”
So if a somebody called up a hit man to have you killed, and the hit man failed to carry out the hit, you would think that it was OK that somebody attempted to have a hit carried out on you and that they were merely excercising their free speech rights?
Your efforts are futile. When will you see that?
You seem to have some very liberal ideas about “rights.” You think “spirits” and “reputations” — things that exist only in people’s minds — are somehow right-possessing entitties and/or property that cannot be violated. AND you think that you have some sort of “right” to work for the criminally corrupt LP. The fact that you want to work for this bullshit organization makes me lose respect for you, Andy.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: Angela Keaton molests children and is actually pro-war, she should be fired from Antiwar.com.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: Not true. My reputation stands by itself. People should not listen to Angela Keaton.
AK: Gary Fincher is a woman beater and he should be blackballed from all LP business.
GF: What? I’m going to call Big Brother to come to your house with his guns and steal your property. That will show you.
Okay, now I need to say that I do NOT know for a fact that Angela Keaton is wrong in this case. The evidence that I’ve seen seems to side with Gary, and let’s just stick with that for now.
In scenario 1, AK is lying about GF and GF is lying about AK. Neither is committing “fraud,” which indicates a property-rights violation. GF does not have the “right” to work for the LP and AK does not have the “right” to work for anti-war.com. If their empoyers believe the accusations against them, then that’s a problem for the employer and the employee. Your reputation exists in the minds of other people and is NOT your property.
In scenario #2, GF smartly downplays the allegations and rests on his stellar reputation. If such a reputation exists, then it will weather the attack against it, no problem. If it doesn’t, then that’s your problem.
In scenario #3, AK is STILL not initiating force or committing fraud, but GF is advocating state violence and theft. GF is in the wrong, period, end of story, I GIVE UP.
“Read Rothbard and Block on the subject.”
“The proper response to â€œslanderâ€ is to refute it in a manner that convinces people of your innocence and turns them against your accusers. You and Gary have failed in a truly, incredibly, and even somewhat awe-inspiring capacity in your attempts to do this â€” if thatâ€™s what you call what youâ€™re doing. No, youâ€™ve been so incompetent with your own defense that youâ€™ve turned people who believe in your innocence against you. EPIC FAIL. Not just give it a rest. The LP fucking sucks and youâ€™re never going to work for them again. Time to move on, and youâ€™ll be better off.”
Oh come on, we have thoroughly refuted every charge on multiple occassions and on multiple forums, and until pushed, did so in a polite manner. The problem is in NO WAY US. We would prefer to be left alone to work on petition drives without all of this drama, and to be paid everything we are owed – on time.
Some of the people who are causing these problems are current office holders within the Libertarian Party.
The REAL issue here is that Angela Keaton decided to stick her nose into this and spread a bunch of lies, so we have called her out and gone after her for it and now some people who are enamoured with Angela Keaton and can’t fathom the idea that she’s not really a decent individual, so rather than accept the fact that she is a proven liar and backstabber they would prefer to “shoot the messengers.”
Notice how NOBODY will go back and anwser the questions that I asked in post #186.
I challenge GE, Trent, Tom Knapp, Jim Davidson, and everyone else to scroll up to post #186 and anwser the questions that I posted there.
G.E.: “Where youâ€™ve gone wrong is with the volume of your verbiage. Let is rest, man. ”
ROFLMAO. Look who’s talking!! If people would only grasp what I’m saying the FIRST time I state it, there would have been only ONE post on all these threads by me. How hard is that to understand? It’s all the childish coming back and ARGUING with what I’ve stated that has been the PROBLEM.
So, follow the bouncing ball:
1. I get falsely attacked
2. I set the record straight (one post)
No arguing = no additional posts by me.
Grasp it = no additional posts by me.
Argue relentlessly and excessively = most posts to clarify (having to dumb some of them down).
No grasp = plethora of additional posts.
See how simple?
So, why are you little boys whining so much about some big, bad clarification words?
You are initiating force by threatening state violence against people whose speech you do not like.
“Slander” is a statist non-crime. It is not “fraud” in the sense that you are claiming it is.
That oath I signed is bogus because it actually is intended to mean the exact opposite of what you and I think it should mean. Fuck the LP to death.
G.E.: “Threatening to sic the governmentâ€™s guns on your opponents for exercising their free speech”
If you think that threats constitute free speech, then you aren’t a libertarian. Aggression is defined as “force or fraud, or the threat of force or fraud”. Check the oath you signed to become a party member.
Why are you guys still talking about this? I thought I told you to follow your own advice and shut up?
Geez, I can’t even leave my laptop for a few hours and do some household chores!
But, since you guys insist on not shutting up, I’ve got to address some of the crazier contentions.
Knapp: “Now, Iâ€™m no longer in the Marine Corps, Iâ€™m certainly not in a chain of command that entitles me to order 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines to do anything at all, and Iâ€™m in St. Louis, Missouri while they are somewhere else (whether theyâ€™re at home in San Mateo MCB Camp Pendleton, deployed in Iraq, or out somewhere else at the moment, I havenâ€™t the slightest idea)…..But, according to your logic, I just issued an unlawful order to a Marine battalion and am therefore liable for prosecution for a crime. And I say thatâ€™s a bullshit claim.”
That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. I can GUARANTEE you that if I, in Ohio right now, ordered a hitman to kill Knapp, in Missouri, and failed, Knapp would be the FIRST one “whining” and calling for me to be arrested. And I have no doubt whatsoever that I WOULD be arrested. Trent Hill seems to not even be CLOSE to understanding this principle, but it’s not my problem.
Why do all the legal experts disagree with you, Knapp? My attorney said that you can’t just go around making threats, issuing orders to commit crimes, whether they succeed or not. I’ve explained this to you over and over. Perhaps if you could grasp concepts the FIRST time, I wouldn’t have so many posts on here, eh?
Touche, I say.
If I ordered a hitman on you and failed, as in my above example, and I failed, you think it’s necessary for me to go ahead and keep trying, if I keep failing, until I succeed? You REALLY think courts would not intervene against such threats/orders?
Get your head out of your and get in the real world. YOU are the one causing me to type so much unnecessarily; STOP blaming that shit on me. Got it?
Regarding post #255, it was not the Budweiser frogs who said “I can’t work in this environment”. This was actually a related character named Louie the Lizard.
Read Rothbard and Block on the subject.
And if they did, they wouldn’t hear bogus cases about “damage” to “reputations” which are not individuals nor property and thus cannot be “violated” in a meaningful sense.
The proper response to “slander” is to refute it in a manner that convinces people of your innocence and turns them against your accusers. You and Gary have failed in a truly, incredibly, and even somewhat awe-inspiring capacity in your attempts to do this — if that’s what you call what you’re doing. No, you’ve been so incompetent with your own defense that you’ve turned people who believe in your innocence against you. EPIC FAIL. Not just give it a rest. The LP fucking sucks and you’re never going to work for them again. Time to move on, and you’ll be better off.
“Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 14, 2008 at 2:26 am
Just for the record, Iâ€™m not asking you (or Andy) to be silent. Iâ€™m just noting that youâ€™ve alienated actual and potential allies with your approach.
For the record:
Yes, Haugh was wrong to do what he did â€” and it wasnâ€™t the first time or the last time that he was wrong in a way that called for severe discipline or termination of his LPHQ employment.
I still donâ€™t see that it constitutes a crime to say something in one state, with no ability or authority to actuate it, which would be illegal in another state if it was actuated (which it wasnâ€™t).”
What a bunch of BS!
So going by your “logic,” if I called up a hit man in Missouri and tried to get him to kill Tom Knapp, it would only be a crime if the murder ended up taking place. Yeah, right…
Sean Haugh essentially called in a “hit” on signatures that Gary collected. Just because the “hit” did not end up getting carried out it does not mean that Sean Haugh did not committ a crime.
“Threatening to sic the governmentâ€™s guns on your opponents for exercising their free speech (i.e. the statist non-crime of â€œslanderâ€) really rubbed me the wrong way, especially the persistent and seemingly hollow nature of your threats.”
A real Libertarian is anti-initiation of force and fraud BEFORE they are anti-government. Certain individuals claiming to be “Libertarians” have spread some slanderous lies about Gary (and myself, but mostly about Gary) and there is real damage – including financial damage – being caused by these LIES. Gary and I are doing our best to refute them, but we can’t put out all of the fires. The fact of the matter is that the anarcho-capitalist courts do not exsist. So the only alternatives left are government courts or vigilante justice. Since vigilante justice is frowned upon and would only lead to more problems in today’s society, this leaves government courts.
You’d best believe that if the sitaution were reversed and that Gary tried to burn petition signatures in an act of revenge that LP officials would have no problem calling the police on Gary.
I put them in my spam filter when I stepped down as editor. Otherwise, I’d be killing myself right now. This is almost as bad as when Gary’s friend Joseph Knight hit us with his terrorist bomb of 10 GB newspaper scans showing what a not-horrible person Gary was.
Gary, FYI: Trent got him to stop by saying that for every additional message he sent, he (trent) was going to write you a check for $50 or something like that. We certainly aren’t anti-Gary (and in fact, fuck it, I think you’re innocent and your detractors are wrong — I’ll even call off my neutrality), but we’re anti-what it is that you’re doing now, which is what Joe Knight was doing earlier.
In Soviet Amerika, dead horse beats you.
Threatening to sic the government’s guns on your opponents for exercising their free speech (i.e. the statist non-crime of “slander”) really rubbed me the wrong way, especially the persistent and seemingly hollow nature of your threats.
But other than that: Nothing. You are, as best I can tell, someone who did nothing for which you should be crucified (filling in the bad SSNs was a lapse in judgment in my opinion, but only a minor one and not a big deal at all), and you’re having what appear to be untruths spread about you. You are understandably upset. I would be, too, and have been.
Where you’ve gone wrong is with the volume of your verbiage. Let is rest, man. EVERYONE (except Andy) — even Paulie — says you’re “beating a dead horse.” You have truly alienated a lot of potential allies, as Knapp says. In my eyes, Gary Fincher has gone from a guy who was probably falsely accused of heinous crimes and wrongly persecuted for a minor offense (a sympathetic character) to a guy of whom all that is true but is hugely annoying and oblivious to the futility of his mega-word-count postings on the same topic over and over and over and over (x 100000) again.
Check and Mate.
Just for the record, I’m not asking you (or Andy) to be silent. I’m just noting that you’ve alienated actual and potential allies with your approach.
For the record:
Yes, Haugh was wrong to do what he did — and it wasn’t the first time or the last time that he was wrong in a way that called for severe discipline or termination of his LPHQ employment.
I still don’t see that it constitutes a crime to say something in one state, with no ability or authority to actuate it, which would be illegal in another state if it was actuated (which it wasn’t).
Let me give you an example:
I hereby order 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines to assault Mosul.
Now, I’m no longer in the Marine Corps, I’m certainly not in a chain of command that entitles me to order 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines to do anything at all, and I’m in St. Louis, Missouri while they are somewhere else (whether they’re at home in San Mateo MCB Camp Pendleton, deployed in Iraq, or out somewhere else at the moment, I haven’t the slightest idea).
But, according to your logic, I just issued an unlawful order to a Marine battalion and am therefore liable for prosecution for a crime. And I say that’s a bullshit claim.
Haugh acted like an idiot, he hoped to accomplish something nasty, he failed, he got caught at it and he should have been disciplined by his employer. However, the elements of a crime, rather than a stump-stupid violation of work ethics, include not only intent and motive, but opportunity … which he most manifestly did not have.
“For that matter, how does shifting your focus from, say, Sean Haugh and Scott Kolhaas to, say, Angela Keaton, and doing so in a way that makes you come off as exactly the kind of guy you say sheâ€™s falsely accusing you of being, accomplish your goal?”
Haugh, Kohlhaas, and Keaton ALL need to be removed from LP National, along with some other people (not all for the same reasons).
Angela Keaton is NOT the “radical Libertarian heroine” that she is being made out to be and she is in fact a part of the problem.
Then, hereafter, I’d like to be able to look on the threads of IPR and see the absence of every one of your voices too. (I mean, just the ones of you who are calling for blog silence.)
If I see any more posts, you boys are gonna be in a HEAP o’ trouble!!
Knapp, Trent Hill has something to tell you:
Trent Hill // Nov 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm: Good. Then stop.
paulie: “And you wonder why people in the public have a hard time telling the difference between INITIATING force and using DEFENSIVE force!
Well, at the very least you can stop being confused now, as there definitely IS a difference.
Good. Then stop.
I think one of Knapp’s problems is that he’s having trouble distinguishing between my posts and those of Andy’s (as his headline quote seems to painfully illustrate).
To quote the Budweiser frogs from a few years back, “I CAN’T WORK IN THIS ENVIRMONMENT!” lol
And you wonder why people in the public have a hard time telling the difference between INITIATING force and using DEFENSIVE force!
Obviously, itâ€™s hopeless talking
That’s what people have been telling us.
paulie: “You need to take a closer look at just who is pushing.
Have I mentioned that, at the right angle, my internet monitor doubles as a mirror? Does yours do that too?”
And you wonder why people in the public have a hard time telling the difference between INITIATING force and using DEFENSIVE force!
Knapp: “and doing so in a way that makes you come off as exactly the kind of guy you say sheâ€™s falsely accusing you of being, accomplish your goal?”
Obviously, it’s hopeless talking any sense to you.
God damn it. We finally had this one off the front page for a little bit….
“The ‘horse’ will only be dead when certain people are removed from their positions with LP National.”
OK … precisely how does going out of your way to annoy people initially inclined to take your side of things, to the point that some of us would damn near rather gouge our own eyeballs out with shards of broken window glass than listen to another second of your perpetual bellyaching, accomplish that goal?
For that matter, how does shifting your focus from, say, Sean Haugh and Scott Kolhaas to, say, Angela Keaton, and doing so in a way that makes you come off as exactly the kind of guy you say she’s falsely accusing you of being, accomplish your goal?
Christ on a crutch — I’ve called for Sean Haugh’s head on a platter a number of times in the past. I should have been the easiest sell in the party on that one, and you managed to provoke me into defending him.
I liked Tribes 3 Paulie…
People stop goading me, Angela retracts and apologizes, I say nothing on these threads.
Do we have a deal?
I’m in a position to make a deal on behalf of someone who is not speaking to me?
You need to take a closer look at just who is pushing.
Have I mentioned that, at the right angle, my internet monitor doubles as a mirror? Does yours do that too?
Paulie: “Yet, that doesnâ€™t change the fact that continuing to push it is useless at best, or counterproductive. ”
You need to take a closer look at just who is pushing.
paulie: “Your logic is spot on the money. Your continued advocacy is pissing everyone off and convincing nobody. ”
The only reason I “continue” is that so many on here are “continuing” to goad me.
People stop goading me, Angela retracts and apologizes, I say nothing on these threads.
Do we have a deal?
It pertains directly to my well being too.
Yet, that doesn’t change the fact that continuing to push it is useless at best, or counterproductive.
Just like me telling you this, since it’s not going to convince you to stop.
Or will this thread have 50,000 comments by Christmas?
Iâ€™m really glad I talked GE into posting this instead of me. Otherwise I would have had to been the one to erase every comment in this thread from my email as they come in.”
I don’t get it. I see on IPR and LFV and TPW hundreds and hundreds of articles, resulting in thousands and thousands of posts.
Yet, when we get to a subject that is of REAL concern and affects an activist/activits in a very CONCRETE way, where it’s vitally important to address, it’s suddenly OVERKILL. I’m not going to lose my career over who gets more votes between Nader, Barr & Baldwin (which has been discussed ad nauseum) but Angela Keaton’s remarks could make me lose my career and social contacts.
Can’t you people get a grip and get your priorities straight?
If I should shut up about issues that pertain directly to my well-being, then why should anyone be free to discuss meaningless statistics or abstract issues?
Peter Orvetti: â€œMost folks in the LP seem sane and smart, but thereâ€™s a very vocal minority of crazy assholes.â€
Orvetti is an optimist. Every time I get to know an apparently sane, smart libertarian better, they turn out to be a crazy asshole. Maybe not every time, but it seems that way.
No one has showed me any specifics of where I went astray with my logic,
Your logic is spot on the money. Your continued advocacy is pissing everyone off and convincing nobody.
Peter Orvetti: “Most folks in the LP seem sane and smart, but thereâ€™s a very vocal minority of crazy assholes.”
A big huge amen to THAT!
Paulie: “Your presentation of your case sucks and needs to stop for your own good.
No, it doesn’t suck at all. I’ve just been speaking the truth.
No one has showed me any specifics of where I went astray with my logic, so in the absence of that, I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing.
You can beat your dead horse AND join it too:
“What I said about Haugh and Redpath are not pertinent to the fact that youâ€™re making people dislike you and assume the worst by carping nonstop. Iâ€™m trying to give you some advice here.”
Anyone who “doesn’t like” what we have to say is a person who doesn’t like having their sacred cows tipped over, as in people who can’t handle the truth so they attack the messenger.
“Whoâ€™s defending you other than Andy and paul?”
Most of the people who know that Gary does good work and is a good guy (like Paul Jacob, Carla Howell, Ron Bjronstad, etc…) have better things to do with their time than post on forums such as this.
Gary Fincher said:
“Also, itâ€™s easy for you to say â€œjust give upâ€, when whatever you do for a living is not in jeopardy by the maintenance of the status quo. Not so easy for me. I have no idea why, but Angela Keaton and Sean Haugh arenâ€™t going to stop until my livelihood is destroyed so letting things â€œstand patâ€ means not fixing the problem that causes me to lose work needlessly.”
Keep in mind that Sean Haugh actually contacted the Ralph Nader campaign and urged them to not hire Gary. Fortunately, the Ralph Nader campaign laughed this off (Gary did good work for them back in 2004), but the fact that the Political Director of the Libertarian Party – Sean Haugh – would stoop to the level of contacting another campaign and urging them to not hire somebody based on nothing that is legitimate and rational is truly DISGUSTING.
Keep in mind that the slanderous lies that are floating around could pop up at any time and cause financial damage.
How would you like it if somebody spread lies about you which caused you to lose jobs and/or clients? If somebody did this to you or anybody else here I’d be willing to bet that you would be very angry about it, especially if it cost you money.
Or will this thread have 50,000 comments by Christmas?
I’m really glad I talked GE into posting this instead of me. Otherwise I would have had to been the one to erase every comment in this thread from my email as they come in.
And what has all of our bitching done about it? NOTHING.
Time to give up.”
GE, I’m not one to just roll over and give up. If one rolls over and gives up then one has lost and nothing will ever change.
This year had the POTENTIAL to be the biggest and best year ever for the Libertarian Party. This potential to get ahead was flushed down the toilet. The reason that it was flushed down the toilet is because the party has too many corrupt and/or incompetent/irrational people in positions where they should not be.
We have all been bitching about the government for years. Are you suggesting that we just roll over and play dead and lose all of the freedom that we have left while the government destroys the economy?
Also, I’d appreciate it if you would go back and anwser all of the questions that I asked in post #186.
…And, I think we have the official new post comment record!
Paul, do you realize that youâ€™re doing the same thing that youâ€™re trying to highlight?
Yes. Ever meta dead horse and beat it?
Canâ€™t you see youâ€™re losing here? Whoâ€™s defending you other than Andy and paul? But if I laid out the facts as I know them, at least 50% (probably much higher) would say you have been wronged and done no wrong. Your presentation of your case sucks and needs to stop for your own good.
Paul, do you realize that you’re doing the same thing that you’re trying to highlight?
G.E., what, precisely, did I say that was out of line, in your opinion? What, exactly, isn’t logical? I need specifics.
G.E., for one thing I don’t appreciate the hypocrisy, i.e., you can say any obnoxious thing you want on the blogs, while I have to watch what I say and perhaps let mudslingers get free shots at me. That’s not cool.
Also, it’s easy for you to say “just give up”, when whatever you do for a living is not in jeopardy by the maintenance of the status quo. Not so easy for me. I have no idea why, but Angela Keaton and Sean Haugh aren’t going to stop until my livelihood is destroyed so letting things “stand pat” means not fixing the problem that causes me to lose work needlessly. I know it’s not an easy concept to grasp, but sometimes you just can’t afford to let the status quo remain in place, if you’re the one getting continually injured by it. I’ve tried in every way to spoon feed the concept to readers on here, but the more I do, the more I get it spit back out at me. Damn Gerber!
Or I could just stick pins in my scrotum. That would be less painful.
As for the “rational” part — I listened for long enough to see that there isn’t much of a case against you. You convinced me. That was MONTHS ago. Now I just wish you would STFU. No one cares. And you’re only digging yourself a deeper hole.
You wouldn’t have to scour very hard.
Hell yeah, that was a good one. And if the person who said THAT (me) is sick and tired of your comments, then what does that say about the average person? What I said about Haugh and Redpath are not pertinent to the fact that you’re making people dislike you and assume the worst by carping nonstop. I’m trying to give you some advice here.
Angela Keaton is the pure embodiment of feminine virtue and obviously unerring.
No. But you’ve drowned out her 200 or so words with about ten volumes of Encyclopedia Bitchtanica. Give it up already. You make me want to take Angela’s side. Can’t you see you’re losing here? Who’s defending you other than Andy and paul? But if I laid out the facts as I know them, at least 50% (probably much higher) would say you have been wronged and done no wrong. Your presentation of your case sucks and needs to stop for your own good.
Peter Orvetti: “So I can infer from this that this same subject will be discussed from now through May 2012? Iâ€™m not denying anyoneâ€™s right to state their case, but it seems the same case has been restated several times in this very thread. At what point does the prosecution rest?”
Hmmm. Seems like I saw, on TV, the SAME EXACT ATTACKS on (Obama/McCain, take your pick) running over and over and over (like I said, same exact words/phrases) for weeks and months.
Would you prefer it if we did a polished ad against Angela Keaton and ran it on all the media outlets, as well as IPR? Sure, you’d get sick of hearing about it just like I got sick of hearing McCain’s, but at least you’d respect us for being “professional”? Am I getting warm?
Peter Orvetti said:
“So I can infer from this that this same subject will be discussed from now through May 2012? Iâ€™m not denying anyoneâ€™s right to state their case, but it seems the same case has been restated several times in this very thread. At what point does the prosecution rest?”
When is Angela Keaton going to retract the slanderous lies that she posted about us?
And what has all of our bitching done about it? NOTHING.
Time to give up.
Trent Hill: “Garyâ€“your quarrel isnâ€™t with me. But you are doing a fairly good job at making yourself appear like an unreasonable, irrational, ass.”
No, what I am saying is the opposite – that people are coming at me with in unreasonable, irrational ways. The irony to what you say is that I am trying my best to inject some reason and rationality into the “discussion” (if you can call it a discussion).
You’ve got it just exactly the opposite, Trent.
The “horse” will only be dead when certain people are removed from their positions with LP National.
“Take it to a private email list or something. Im not saying you did anything wrong, or that Angela is innocent,or that Sean Haugh is a great guyâ€”just that our blog readers are sick of hearing about it.”
This site gets thousands of hits. Some people may want to read some posts and others may want to skip some posts. Nobody is forced to read anything here. If somebody does not want to read an article or post they can simply skip it.
“Peter Orvetti // Nov 13, 2008 at 4:30 pm
How about this: If you think Angela Keaton should be the Libertarian presidential nominee, campaign for her and/or vote for her. If you donâ€™t, campaign against her and/or work against her. Seems basic enough.”
That’s what we are doing!
“Furthermore, Angela seems to have abandoned this thread entirelyâ€”so youâ€™re not argueing with anyone but people who donâ€™t want to hear about it, ”
Yes, Angela ran away because she KNOWS that she is wrong and is not a decent enough person to admitt it and apologize.
Gary Fincher said:
“Thanks for that warning. But remember, there wouldnâ€™t BE a problem with Angela had SHE just followed yours and G.E.â€™s advice and not posted obnoxious crap on the blogs. How do you characterize HER demeanor (in unprovoked smearing)? Mineâ€™s purely defensive.”
Yeah, talk about a double standard. Angela Keaton posts slanderous lies about us in an unprovoked attack and that’s OK, then we defend ourselves and get attacked for defending ourselves. Yeah, sure, this sounds fair….NOT!
It is as if we are supposed to bend over and allow Angela to rape us in our asses with spiked dildos and then not complain about it.
“As for you Andy, I care because this is a blog iâ€™m apart of. You WANT me to care, obviously.”
I don’t care if you care or not, Trent. Since you are not a member of the Libertarian Party, and since you have never been a member of the Libertarian Party , your opinion on this doesn’t matter that much anyway.
There are various officials within the Libertarian Party who do not belong in their positions as they are actually damaging the party. I want to see the shit that is mentioned above cleaned up and flushed down the toilet, because it is ruining the Libertarian Party. This is the REAL reason that the Libertarian Party did not make it on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC this year. This is the REAL reason that the Libertarian Party did not really make any progress this year.
I visit this site on a regular basis, but I do not read every post and every article that is posted here. If something does not interest me I skip over it, I don’t whine about it like you do.
Jim Davidson said:
“Okay, cool. Iâ€™m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Joseph Knight either hasnâ€™t actually worked with you, or is only pretending to be unappreciative. Is there some other way to reconcile your words and his? lol”
LOL! Joe Knight means NOTHING in the world of ballot access petitioning and voter registration. Sean Haugh is a pissant who was put in a position because of butt kissing and cronyism, not because of ability. Neither of these people are major players in the world of petitioning/voter registration.
As for people who actually are important and/or are actually competent, they all love Gary’s services.
I’m talking about people like:
Paul Jacob (US Term Limits, Americans for Limited Government, Citizens in Charge)
Carla Howell (The Committee for Small Government, former 3 time Libertarian Party candidate)
Richard Winger (Ballot Access News, leading expert on ballot access)
Eileen Ray (California based petition coordinator)
Carl Towe (California based petition coordinator)
John Michael (petition coordinator, mostly based out of Maine)
Edee Baggett (petition coordiantor)
Allison Potter (Constitution Party ballot access coordinator)
Jason Kafoury (Ralph Nader campaign)
There are numerous state parties, candidates, ballot initiative petition coordiantors, and petitioners who can testify that Gary does outstanding work and is a good guy.
Incidentily, I recently spoke to Ron Bjornstad who is the current Vice Chair of the New Mexico LP – and UNLIKE Joe Knight, Ron Bjornstad LITERALLY was there in Alburquerque when Gary worked on that voter registration drive in ’99 as Ron Bjornstad is the one whom Gary turned his registration in to and Ron actually spied on Gary while he was working and later actually went out and worked with Gary, unlike Joe Knight who was in Farmington which is like 180 miles away – and Ron Bjornstad said that Gary got a “bum rap” and did not do anything wrong. The reason that you don’t hear as much about Ron Bjornstad’s side of the story – which is the more accurate side of the story – is because Ron Bjornstad has better things to do with his time than post on internet forums about things that happened 9 years ago as if they are current events.
Jim Davidson bringing up Joe Knight and Sean Haugh and saying that they don’t want to work with Gary is the equivalent of saying that a couple of minor league football coaches, one of whom is no longer even coaching (Joe Knight), and both of whom have or had (in the case of Knight) losing teams, don’t want Gary to play for their teams, but that Gary is wanted as a player for the Dallas Cowboys, the Tennessee Titians, the New England Patriots, the Pittsburg Steelers, the Minnestoa Vikings, the Denver Broncos, and every other team in the NFL.
If you had any idea of how absurd your statement is you’d be embarrassed.
I’m not sure if they are still posted.
“Angela does have some rather racy pics on the web…”
Time to do a web search…
“This may be the most classic comment Iâ€™ve ever seen on a Libertarian blog.
Thanks, Trent. LMFAO doesnâ€™t begin to cover it.”
Thank you. Im here all week. =)
“You should go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up both the words â€œsarcasmâ€ and â€œignorantâ€.”
Would I also find my picture beside those words? Ahh, Kindergarten insults, where hast thou gone?
Gary–your quarrel isn’t with me. But you are doing a fairly good job at making yourself appear like an unreasonable, irrational, ass. I’m not saying you ARE one, but that is certainly what these blog comments lend credence to.
Furthermore, Angela seems to have abandoned this thread entirely—so you’re not argueing with anyone but people who don’t want to hear about it, people who are more likely than not to agree with you–but are fed up with hearing about the story in obnoxious-online-thread-rant style.
Trent: “You obviously acknowledge that I can read just by addressing a written statement to me. What an incredibly ignorant question.”
It was SARCASM, as obviously, if you know how to read, you haven’t exercised it very well, if you think two completely different posts contain the exact same information. You should go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up both the words “sarcasm” and “ignorant”.
“Iâ€™ve also gotten calls late at night from obnoxious teenagers.
Then againâ€“you could tell THEM about your problem with Angela.”
This may be the most classic comment I’ve ever seen on a Libertarian blog.
Thanks, Trent. LMFAO doesn’t begin to cover it.
Trent: “Gary, vItâ€™s best not to post phone numbers or emails on internet blogs. Iâ€™ve gotten a swarm of emails from a bot before, Iâ€™ve also gotten calls late at night from obnoxious teenagers. Then againâ€“you could tell THEM about your problem with Angela.”
Thanks for that warning. But remember, there wouldn’t BE a problem with Angela had SHE just followed yours and G.E.’s advice and not posted obnoxious crap on the blogs. How do you characterize HER demeanor (in unprovoked smearing)? Mine’s purely defensive.
197 comments aint bad.
“Same information, Trent? Do you know how to READ?”
You obviously acknowledge that I can read just by addressing a written statement to me. What an incredibly ignorant question.
Hey, we’re closing in on a new comment record with this post.
Aren’t y’all proud? I’ve never been prouder in my life. I swear.
It’s best not to post phone numbers or emails on internet blogs. I’ve gotten a swarm of emails from a bot before, I’ve also gotten calls late at night from obnoxious teenagers.
Then again–you could tell THEM about your problem with Angela.
Trent Hill: “Go ahead Gary. At least it might keep you from posting the same information in another comment 3 minutes from now.”
Same information, Trent? Do you know how to READ?
“If you donâ€™t, campaign against her and/or work against her. Seems basic enough.”
I believe that’s what they’re doing Peter.
Are you going to CPAC Peter?
G.E. on August 24: “Too bad the eunuch Bill Redpath canâ€™t get the tampon out of his ass long enough to fire Haugh and then resign.”
Tip of the iceberg, G.E., but maybe you should go ahead and insert foot in mouth NOW before I continue any further?
Apologies can be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org, or to (207) 450 5117
How about this: If you think Angela Keaton should be the Libertarian presidential nominee, campaign for her and/or vote for her. If you donâ€™t, campaign against her and/or work against her.
I do believe that Gary and Andy are campaigning against her. Since their negative approach does not seem to be helping the cause with the intended audience, I’ll just campaign FOR a different candidate.
Go ahead Gary. At least it might keep you from posting the same information in another comment 3 minutes from now.
As for you Andy, I care because this is a blog i’m apart of. You WANT me to care, obviously. And you are generally ruining the good demeanor of our blog by casting about the same accusations over and over again on different threads–it’s obnoxious. Take it to a private email list or something. Im not saying you did anything wrong, or that Angela is innocent,or that Sean Haugh is a great guy—just that our blog readers are sick of hearing about it.
Ironic, G.E. and Trent – I’m one of the few people on here who DOESN’T smear others.
I think this is a case of “Me thinks you protest too much”. Want me to scour the posts and reprint obnoxious and inflammatory comments YOU’VE made? Can you stand the heat?
“183 G.E. // Nov 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Gary – Thereâ€™s a difference between â€œsaying nothing,â€ which no one would do, and how you and Andy choose to conduct yourselves. How do you not see that youâ€™ve turned virtually EVERYONE against you â€” irrespective of whether they think any of the allegations against you are true â€” based on your annoying demeanor? I have friends on both sides of this dispute, but from the evidence that Iâ€™ve seen, I would certainly not vote to convict you of any wrongdoing EXCEPT your behavior on these (and other) forums. If youâ€™re rying to â€œclear your name,â€ youâ€™re failing. Youâ€™re just making everyone NOT CARE about whether youâ€™re guilty or innocent.”
The fact of the matter is that the CRIMINALS – Sean Haugh and Scott Kohlhaas – are STILL in office. The fact of the matter is that Sean Haugh’s irrational actions CA– USED the Libertarian Party to FAIL to make the balllot in 5 states (if not for Haugh, the LP COULD HAVE had 49 states plus DC ballot access this year). The fact of the matter is that Haugh caused TENS OF THOUSANDS (and this could be a low estimate) of dollars in donors money to be squandered this year.
Tell me, are you OK with the fact that LP National squandered THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS and failed to make the ballot in 5 places where they SHOULD have made it had competent, decent people been running things?
The fact of the matter is that BLANTANT LIES have been told in an attempt to slander myself and Gary, and some of these lies were told by Angela Keaton.
This “shoot the messenger” attitude is typical of people who don’t want to fact the truth.
Let’s play a little game here. I’d appreciate it if you would anwser each question.
True or false, (just to focus in on one of the bogus accusations) Angela Keaton claimed that Gary has a criminal history of violent assults against women, and then she said “End of discussion.”?
Angela Keaton either said this or she did not say it.
So tell me GE, did she say it?
If she did say it, tell me whether it is true or not? Gary posted his full name and date of birth. If these charges are true then why hasn’t anyone been able to post a criminal record that verifies this. The source of this story is a former friend of Gary’s named Roger Pope (I knew Roger and hung out with Roger as well) who has got a penchant for engaging in gross exaggerations and distrotions of reality and is a bitter guy with not much to do (since he inherited a trust fund and doesn’t really need to work for a living).
Now tell me GE, if there is no proof to back this up, then why hasn’t Angela posted a retraction and an apology?
Do you believe that making accusations like this are damaging, or do you think that it is no big deal?
If you think that it is no big deal, then how about if I said that GE has a history of molesting little kids, and he in fact molests his own daughter, “End of discussion.”?
Let’s suppose that I posted this about you on internet forums and had people believing it, then let’s suppose that I launched a campaign for President or the LNC and people were taking me seriously as a candidate, or let’s say that I was hired on as Political Director for the Libertarian Party. Would you be happy about this or would you be angry?
Then let’s suppose that potential employers and/or business clients heard my smears against you and let’s say that some of them believed them and let’s say that this caused you to lose work/business and therefore lost you money. Would you be happy about this, or would you be angry?
As I said above, what is really going on here is that some people just do not want to hear the truth so they want to “shoot the messengers” because it is too painful for them to accept the fact that there are crooks and irrational fools at LP National and that their “heroine” Angela Keaton is NOT the wonderful person that she is cracked up to be and is in fact a part of the problem.
This is a classic defense mechanism as it is much easier to “shoot the messenger” than it is to face a problem, admitt that your preconcieved notions were wrong, and then go about fixing the problem.
So which do you prefer, “shooting the messengers”, or finding out what the truth is and then fixing the problems?
“GE is right.”
What in the hell do you care, Trent? You are not and never have been a part of the Libertarian Party.
If you don’t like and/or are not interested in a post then there is a simple solution, DON’T READ IT.
G.E.: “Gary – Thereâ€™s a difference between â€œsaying nothing,â€ which no one would do, and how you and Andy choose to conduct yourselves. How do you not see that youâ€™ve turned virtually EVERYONE against you â€” irrespective of whether they think any of the allegations against you are true â€” based on your annoying demeanor? I have friends on both sides of this dispute, but from the evidence that Iâ€™ve seen, I would certainly not vote to convict you of any wrongdoing EXCEPT your behavior on these (and other) forums. If youâ€™re trying to â€œclear your name,â€ youâ€™re failing. Youâ€™re just making everyone NOT CARE about whether youâ€™re guilty or innocent and just wish youâ€™d go away.”
Not to anyone who’s been rationally listening, no. In that sense, NO ONE is against me. Looks like you need to read my posts again, for clarification.
GE is right.
Gary – There’s a difference between “saying nothing,” which no one would do, and how you and Andy choose to conduct yourselves. How do you not see that you’ve turned virtually EVERYONE against you — irrespective of whether they think any of the allegations against you are true — based on your annoying demeanor? I have friends on both sides of this dispute, but from the evidence that I’ve seen, I would certainly not vote to convict you of any wrongdoing EXCEPT your behavior on these (and other) forums. If you’re trying to “clear your name,” you’re failing. You’re just making everyone NOT CARE about whether you’re guilty or innocent and just wish you’d go away.
Thomas Knapp: “until Gary Fincher decided to continuously, flagrantly and annoyingly make a public ass of himself over it.”
And just how did I do that, Knapp? By insisting that 2+2=4 when everyone kept popping up on here with 2+2=3?
I think the readership could make a determination on who’s the bigger ass – the one who stands up for truth, albeit who’s forced to repeat it over and over because the people just won’t stop with the falsehoods? Or someone who goes on and on calling people names and telling them to go f— themselves? Let’s take a survey, shall we, Knapp?
“I might have paid closer attention to Angela Keatonâ€™s opinion”
Angela didn’t express an “opinion”; she made an outright false statement that she either fabricated or forwarded because she didn’t bother to check any facts.
“I didnâ€™t care about it until Gary Fincher started wasting my bandwidth on it, post in and post out, for months on end.”
Who the HELL, after falsely getting accused, would sit by on their hands and not say anything. Are you so dim that you think that I would have been posting on here if I had NOT gotten falsely accused, or if the national political director had NOT tried to burn my signatures? Why don’t you ask George Phillies about my demeanor when I’m NOT being attacked? My m.o. is to quietly work and get the job done, not say much to anyone. Your ability to infer leaves quite a lot to be desired. Don’t take up quantum physics, Knapp. Why don’t you point out to the rest of everyone on here a single instance where I said a negative thing about someone who DIDN’T first level an attack against me? If you can’t do it, YOU need to shut up.
“And now that I do care about it, I guaran-damn-tee that I will never, ever, under any circumstances, hire Gary Fincher to do petition work or contract with others to do petition work unless those others agree to a â€œno Fincher clause.â€
Well this just demonstrates to me and to the sane petitioning world why you will NEVER be successful at anything you do! ‘Nuff said about that.
Quoth Gary Fincher:
“You donâ€™t get it. I have been thrust in a position of defending my reputation and honor (and by extension, my working livelihood, since I make my living by petitions & in politics).”
Well, yes, you are … but not quite in the way you seem to think.
Personally, I didn’t care much at all about “the Gary Fincher issue” — didn’t even really notice it — until Gary Fincher decided to continuously, flagrantly and annoyingly make a public ass of himself over it.
I might have paid closer attention to Angela Keaton’s opinion on it had I cared about it … but I didn’t care about it.
I might have bothered opening those megabytes of files that Joseph Knight sent to everyone earth had I cared about it … but I didn’t care about it.
I didn’t care about it until Gary Fincher started wasting my bandwidth on it, post in and post out, for months on end.
And now that I do care about it, I guaran-damn-tee that I will never, ever, under any circumstances, hire Gary Fincher to do petition work or contract with others to do petition work unless those others agree to a “no Fincher clause.” Not because of anything that Angela Keaton or Joseph Knight have said, but because of what Gary Fincher has said.
This year, I was only involved in drumming up one ballot access campaign, and I believe the money involved was, at most, about 2k. In the future, I expect to be involved with many other such campaigns, and my campaign checklist will include a prominent “make sure not one goddamn dime goes to Fincher” item.
Okay, cool. Iâ€™m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Joseph Knight either hasnâ€™t actually worked with you, or is only pretending to be unappreciative. Is there some other way to reconcile your words and his? lol
Yes. Gary is talking about people who have physically seen him ask for signatures. Knight was in a different part of New Mexico. Haugh has also, as far as we know, never seen Gary work.
I’ll hang out with you, Peter. I don’t know when I’ll be up that way, though. If any of the parties want to do Maryland, we can hang out. Last time I stayed in College Park, free shuttle bus to the Green line.
not fit to be a candidate for dog catcher
Is there an elected dog catcher position somewhere? How about dog catchee?
Look at this way, most of the time Libertarians talk about drugs, even purists, discuss it from the angle of the end user. How terrible the drug war isâ€¦or why a person should have the right to make their own choices, as long as they donâ€™t harm others.
Very rarely do they for a political stance from the view point of the drug dealer.
I can talk about it from multiple angles. I’ve been a dealer and an addict. I’ve had dopeheads try to stick me up for money. I can talk about it from the angle of the effect it has on the surrounding community. I’ve been harassed by cops multiple times – I can talk about it from the angle of systemic encouragement for police surveillance of citizens, brutality and corruption. I’ve been through the courts and the jails, and I can speak about how the police-prison-industrial complex is a corrupt and corrupting system fed by the drug war.
I’ve seen friends dying from terrible diseases that can’t be treated with any known legal medicine. I can talk about that. I’ve been to every nation in Central America and the Caribbean, and to Colombia. I can talk about how the drug war intersects with foreign policy, and how it effects producer and way station nations. There’s so much to talk about!
I can understand we are a prude society. I would tell independentpoliticalreport donâ€™t be afraid to post the occasional picture, even if it shows some skin, because you can be above our societies restrictive norms.
I’m for it.
But these characters, arenâ€™t about breaking down the walls, they are about profiteering from them.
Well, they are about both. They’ve both posted some risque pictures before, although maybe not on facebook (which has a very censorious attitude to pictures). But you need money in a campaign. Nothing wrong with raising money.
With respect to a few of the above:
The CEO of the national Libertarian Party is its Chair.
With respect to Mr. Haugh’s unsuccessful attack on the integrity of LPMass nominating paper handling process, I am prepared to testify under oath that Mr. Haugh, using a sentence structure in the imperative voice, uttered the command that the papers in question be burned. English grammar is quite clear. (operational verb) (noun), e.g., “Turn off that computer” is an imperative-voice structure, an order. He repeated himself, several times.
The order in question was not carried out.
To Paulie: I thought we were finished talking about bad feelings- whether in English or Russian or French. It was over, right? (Refer to your own earlier commentsâ€¦)
LOL. And I’ve stuck by it. What I said was basically “that’s why they are strippers, they don’t take it off for free.” And that makes sense, after all political campaigns need money and you are trying to raise some. Good for you.
Not so good that you can’t get over me being a drunken lout one night. If you know anyone who drinks, including you, who has never behaved badly while trashed, go ahead and throw stones. And anyone has yet to point out to me what I ever did bad to Angela. On the other hand, she shitted on me for no good reason. But like I said, whatever. I’m done being sad about it, so time to move on.
I’m only one vote out of hundreds, so you probably won’t need my vote anyway. Maybe I should skip the whole thing this time, it just seems to cost me money and friends, and nothing good came out of it. If I’m there, and if a better candidate doesn’t come along, I’m voting for Knapp.
Jim Davidson: “Angela, wrt 169, I would like to see the criminal history in question. Not enough to pay for a public records search. But some.”
I’ve gone through this before, but here goes, for those of you who have missed it…Gary Lynn Fincher, D.O.B. 11/30/1961. Knock yourselves out. Kind of makes me wonder if Angela has something to hide, though, as I’ve never seen HER provide her full name and date of birth. Hmmmm. Is she perhaps guilty of something she doesn’t want anyone to know about?
I don’t torture animals (who has time for that??).
Jim, yes, that’s correct. Sean Haugh has never seen me work.
Also, it seems that Sean Haugh doesn’t like ANYONE. He also makes things up about people (I’ve been a target of that) and he refuses to talk directly with someone if there’s (ostensibly) a problem. He refused to talk to me in Denver when I asked him a very direct question about what his problem with me is.
Gary at 166, does Sean Haugh count as someone who hasn’t worked with you?
Gary at 166: “everyone whoâ€™s actually worked with me likes and appreciates me.”
Okay, cool. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Joseph Knight either hasn’t actually worked with you, or is only pretending to be unappreciative. Is there some other way to reconcile your words and his? lol
I don’t know you, Gary. Life is long and troubles are many.
Michael at 167, bad hemorrhoid, now that’s fundamental! Brian is very lucky, and the world would be a better place if he learned to share. lol
Angela, wrt 168, you should just do what Tom and I do. Tell him to go f#ck himself.
Angela, wrt 169, I would like to see the criminal history in question. Not enough to pay for a public records search. But some. A sincerely worded complaint from Roger (?) Pope with a very weird .jpg of a postcard does not make a criminal history.
Gary, really, where are you on torturing small animals?
Michael Seebeck: “BTW, three chance meetings in passing do not a proper impression make….Several lunches, days off from everything, and strategy sessions and long phone conversations do. And the impression I have from those with Angela is that she is a highly intelligent, complex, strong, independent, fantastic and dynamic person there, faults and all. Brian Doherty is a lucky man.”
You are actually making my point when you speak about the three chance encounters, as my positive encounters with Angela “does not an impression make”.
But are you aware that Angela made the very serious smear, on this public thread, that I “have a criminal history of violence against women”? Since there is definitely no truth to that, I posted my full name and date of birth so that she – or anyone – could verify that the smear was false. However, rather than retracting it or apologizing to me for the false smear like any decent human being would do, Angela shows no remorse for the injury or potential injury this smear might cause me, and KEEPS ON DOING IT.
What kind of person can respect her after her engaging in such dirty tactics? Why wouldn’t I want to derail her candidacy given what I know firsthand about her character? Can you honestly tell me you would take it lying down? Are you a man?
“Michael Seebeck // Nov 13, 2008 at 3:33 am
Gary, I was referring to the fact that you and Andy brought it up on THIS thread. Iâ€™m well aware of your July complaints”
Anegla Keaton initiated fraud against Gary and myself by posting false accusations against us on line (in a completely unprovoked attack). Angela Keaton NEVER retracted those statements nor did she issue an apology.
This thread is about Angela Keaton seeking to be the Libertarin Party’s candidte for President in 2012.
I don’t take kindly to people spreading lies about me and about one of my friends and co-workers.
The fact that Angela Keaton would initiate fraud by bearing false witness against people who did nothing to her and never bother to retract and apologize for making those bogus sladerous statements tells me that Angela Keaton is not fit to be a candidate for dog catcher, much less President.
Gary, I was referring to the fact that you and Andy brought it up on THIS thread. I’m well aware of your July complaints. So is the rest of the blogosphere, as if anybody gave a damn. We all thought it was behind us like a bad hemorrhoid. Apparently we were wrong.
BTW, three chance meetings in passing do not a proper impression make.
Several lunches, days off from everything, and strategy sessions and long phone conversations do. And the impression I have from those with Angela is that she is a highly intelligent, complex, strong, independent, fantastic and dynamic person there, faults and all. Brian Doherty is a lucky man.
Jim, the point is that everyone who’s actually worked with me likes and appreciates me. I’ve gotten plenty of feedback that’s positive like.
You don’t know me, and have never worked with me. I think you’d be behaving differently toward me if you had.
Miche, I would pay to see his wife do DPs on film. At the going rate for videos on Youtube. lol
Miche, wrt Paulie, I think it would be fun to see you and Angela get 50 state ballot access. He’s a good guy, I think. There’s no question he does good work as a petitioner.
Gary – everyone has choices to take. Rationality is not the only value. But it is very amusing to imagine you giving me lessons in rationalism. Where are you on epistemology?
Jeez, are you guys still on this dribble?
Ang and I aren’t prudish but y’all are now attempting to attack the very nature of our ‘sexy time ways’ and that ain’t cool.
To Mr. R.Dupuy, my wife is an underpaid porn queen who bares all for nothing, get a fucking clue. Your wife probably refrains from doing DPs on film cuz it might hurt your $24k yearly job as email fixer.
To Paulie: I thought we were finished talking about bad feelings- whether in English or Russian or French. It was over, right? (Refer to your own earlier comments…)
Jim Davidson: “Thatâ€™s my opinion, Andy, you b!tch. It continues to be my opinion. I wouldnâ€™t hire Gary Fincher to clean dishes….I have a very low opinion of Gary.”
You have a right to hold a low opinion of me, and to not hire me. But you also need to know it’s not rational.
Michael Seebeck, if you’re reading, please tell me how 9 years ago is contemporary & petinent, yet July of this year is ancient past?
“Seems to me, Gary, from a simple scrolling up, that Andy started it back at #44 and you chimed in at #45. That means you two started it, and the record speaks here for itself.
Now, who attacked who here?”
Michael, this was started way back in July on a different thread, by Angela.
So you didn’t scroll up FAR enough.
Angela Keaton: “Arenâ€™t you afraid of jail at all, Angela?â€ Gary, defamation is a civil tort not a criminal charge, you idiot.
Who’s the idiot? Don’t you understand that you can go to jail even in civil cases? They call one of these waysb “contempt of court”. I’ve actually gone to jail over seat belt nonuse, which isn’t criminal.
And you want to be a presidential candidate?????
I think making a big deal out of it is sort of foolish.
So what does that make you?
You seem to want to ban people who have expressions of opinion with which you donâ€™t like.
No, sir. I said generally speaking, those who irritate and make the community generally noxious and less than what it was probably should be banned.
And I suppose, strictly speaking, you’re right, it would be censorship to moderate or ban someone, but that form of censorship is generally not the way libertarians think about it. It’s actually rather childish to hurl the epithet “CENSORSHIP!” when someone communicates to a person that that person’s style or constant irritation is not welcome.
Regardless, Mr. Davidson, I don’t know why you’re coming at me so strongly. I have not done anything to you and have made relatively benign statements…so what’s the deal?
ÐÐµÑ‚, Ñ Ð´ÑƒÐ¼Ð°ÑŽ Ñ‡Ñ‚Ð¾ Ñ‚Ð°Ðº ÐºÐ°Ðº Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ Ð›Ð¸Ð±ÐµÑ€Ñ‚Ð°Ñ€Ð¸Ð°Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸Ðµ, Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð¾ Ð±Ñ‹ Ð»ÑƒÑ‡ÑˆÐµ ÐµÑÐ»Ð¸ Ð±Ñ‹ Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ Ð±Ñ‹Ð»Ð¸- Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÑ€Ð¾Ð¼ ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ñ‹.
Look at this way, most of the time Libertarians talk about drugs, even purists, discuss it from the angle of the end user. How terrible the drug war is…or why a person should have the right to make their own choices, as long as they don’t harm others.
Very rarely do they for a political stance from the view point of the drug dealer.
I can understand we are a prude society. I would tell independentpoliticalreport don’t be afraid to post the occasional picture, even if it shows some skin, because you can be above our societies restrictive norms.
But these characters, aren’t about breaking down the walls, they are about profiteering from them.
I know Libertarians like profit, good for us, but a prudish campaign is somewhat less interesting to me, and certainly they aren’t getting my dollar.
but you claim to be a stripper and you post some pictures, wearing outfits you probably just wore to church.
Ya, thats a letdown, slap in the faceâ€¦type of thingâ€¦haha
Tak po etomu zhe oni stripery, sho bezplatno ne razdivayutsu…
p.s. I understand facebook is not the place to test the limits of societies boundaries, but c’mon. You can say fuck, but you claim to be a stripper and you post some pictures, wearing outfits you probably just wore to church.
Ya, thats a letdown, slap in the face…type of thing…haha
All people are unique in their own way. My claim to uniqueness? I speak Russian, fluently. My parents aren’t Russian, I’ve never even been to Russia…Its just a minor passion of mine.
And, one thing I notice reading Russian websites, is that even a mainstream website, will ocassionally post a photograph of a woman, bare chested.
I say that only because, I kind of get the idea, that running as a Stripper for president, is a statement of sorts, a statement about not being tied to cultural norms.
But, I don’t think these two really have escaped our cultures mores.
The fact is, you go to any beach, and men are free to be topless, and women are not. It’s a minor civil rights issue.
These two are such prudes, I mean, we are supposed to comment on their photos: “wow they are hot”…I get it, but, c’mon.
I mean really all these people not afraid to smoke weed, not afraid to evade their taxes, but the horror of showing some skin right?
It’s quite amazing to me. My wife would take off her top, and she isn’t running for president. Then again, she isn’t american, and doesn’t see any big deal about it.
To the subject at hand, I certainly won’t be supporting these two, regardless of whether they get priorities in order, or not. I don’t think it helps the Libertarian cause.
I cannot imagine what Angela sees in Sean
She’s admitted to being a bad judge of character before.
Mr. Druckenmiller at 151 lies. He did call for people to be banned, at 147. “I support the idea that the more obnoxious on any given board should be banned.” This call for others to be banned is a call for censorship. Yes, it is censorship when people are banned. I’m not saying that the private property owner has no right to free association – of course he does. I’m saying that banning people is censorship.
I’ve banned people who made repeated threats of physical violence. But, advocating initiatory force is not libertarian. You seem to want to ban people who have expressions of opinion with which you don’t like.
No, I don’t wish to come to your home. If I were inclined to spit, it would more likely be in your eye than on your carpet. I’m not inclined to spit.
No there is no libertarian requirement that anyone use the word “retarded” nor any other word, as you should know. I think making a big deal out of it is sort of foolish.
GE, I don’t think so. I think “retarded” is a descriptive term, like idiot, or moron, or fool. If you think it means something bad, that’s your problem. The term “mongoloid” for such persons was descriptive, but offensive to people from Mongolia, which is why it was dropped, I think.
I don’t really give a flying flip about “libertarian chic” nor any other kind of style, chic, fashion, etc. If looking good were important to me, I’d brush my hair before appearing in videos on the bostontea.us site. Really. Shallow, vain, cheap, imitation intellectuals can all go pound sand.
At 113, Tom Knapp and I both told you to go f#ck yourself, Andy. Did we stutter, either one of us?
The term “bear false witness” refers to courts of law. This isn’t one. We’re not under oath. However, I think you are using it as a way of saying, “said something false.”
What did I say about you or Gary that was false? I brought up the Joseph Knight stuff, because it had been brought to my attention (in June) and y’all were making an issue of it (in September or October). I concluded that it was mostly a mole hill. I also concluded that Gary had admitted to knowingly and deliberately placing false information on voter registration cards.
That’s my opinion, Andy, you b!tch. It continues to be my opinion. I wouldn’t hire Gary Fincher to clean dishes. Given your bizarre opinion of my expression of my opinion, I don’t have any plans to hire you. If BTP Kansas were ever to hire Paulie, and he wanted to hire subcontractors, I wouldn’t want to micro-manage him.
I have a very low opinion of you, Andy. I have a very low opinion of Gary. I have a very low opinion based on what I’ve heard of Sean Haugh and Scott Kohlhaas.
I have a very high opinion of Angela Keaton and Michelle Shinghal. I cannot imagine what Angela sees in Sean, but the fact that she sees something suggests to me that I’m probably missing something, or several things.
Angela is a very intelligent, independent, quick witted, and sincere person. I’ve spent several hours on several different occasions talking to her. Her credentials and her sincerity are beyond question. She’s probably not right about everything. But she’ll do.
“Retarded” is an offensive slur, Mr. Davidson. It isn’t “libertarian chic” to use hurtful language.
Iâ€™m curious whether it is a principle, or whether you are some sort of political correctness aficionado.
I did not know that libertarianism required calling people “retarded” when that term is demonstrably outdated.
Your idea of banning people who say things you donâ€™t like sounds like censorship.
So if pay for and host a site, and allow you to comment on it, you should just be able to say whatever you want about me? Anytime?
Sorry, guy, but you don’t get to come into my house and spit on my floor.
I would never ask to have him banned.
Neither did I. I just in that a free-for-all on private property is not “libertarian”.
Paulie at 89. Right on the money, right on the votes.
Oops, I see we already have.
Is there some principle involved in using the term “mentally handicapped” instead of “retarded”? I’m curious whether it is a principle, or whether you are some sort of political correctness aficionado. Your idea of banning people who say things you don’t like sounds like censorship.
The Original Andy says many things that I don’t care for, and others that I don’t care to respond to. My friend Tom Knapp told Andy to go f#ck himself. I concur. But I would never ask to have him banned.
On general principle, I support the idea that the more obnoxious on any given board should be banned, or at least moderated until they learn some manners.
I do not consider it any different than my house. If you get rude with me, you leave.
Although there is something to treating message boards as open fora and “regulating” speech as little as possible, because that is, indeed, in the spirit of what these things are for.
hogarth // Nov 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Roger Gary ended up on our floor, and got tired of blowing up the mattress, so he just slept on the floor!
Err. Why didnâ€™t you just leave it inflated?
Actually, it would have been kind of tough to bring on an airplane inflated! I thought it would be easier to pack the mattress in a compressed state!
SOME GROUNDS? Andy, you taught me a lot about libertarianism, but it seems that the student has become the master. YOU do not get to determine what “grounds” people have for regulating their own property, and again, in a libertarian society, there would be NO SUCH THING as “free speech.” Playing the “free speech” card is akin to advocating socialism. You are essentially lobbying for welfare benefits with your rant, which is all entirely pointless because IPR has no interest in disallowing ANY comments whatsoever. Not in the “spirit of (socialist) free speech,” but because doing so would be bad for our reputation, and our reputation is what gives the site value.
He violated nothing. “Spirits” are not entities with rights and thus cannot be “violated” — they don’t exist. But if they did, you’d be violating the “spirit” of free speech by criticizing how Trent used his “free speech” (jokingly saying he wished you were banned).
I am neutral in the conflict here, but I will say this: Fincher’s threats to use the government’s guns to silence legitimate “free speech” (i.e. speech NOT on his property) is a bunch of bullshit. Slander/defamation is a statist non-crime, and anyone who makes those threats is initiating aggression.
I join in Steven Druckenmillerâ€™s call to take it offline.
Or, if there is any interest from more than one side, I’ll put up at a post at Next Free Voice.
Sorry, that should read “would NOT be complaining”.
Seems to me, Gary, from a simple scrolling up, that Andy started it back at #44 and you chimed in at #45. That means you two started it, and the record speaks here for itself.
Now, who attacked who here?
See, I do get it. You failed to exercise some common sense and began this almost 100 comments ago. Angela didn’t. So don’t sit there and try to claim otherwise.
You two could have simply ignored the thread entirely, or simply not resorted to namecalling and attacking in the first place. But YOU two chose to start it. Not her. Not me, and not anyone else.
Had you and Andy simply not said a word, you would be complaining about having to defend your livelihood and honor, because you never would have brought the topic it up in the first place!
So don’t get on my case because you decided to be tactless and join Andy in acting poorly and claiming an attack that wasn’t there. So take the lesson learned and think before reacting. You blew it here.
I join in Steven Druckenmiller’s call to take it offline.
Letâ€™s see, basically this is saying â€˜aww, mom, donâ€™t spoil our â€˜funâ€™!â€
Nope, that’s not it at all.
Personal problems should be settled over e-mail or over the phoneâ€¦not on public message boards.
Pretty hard to do when the people involved don’t want to talk to me by phone or email.
Anyway…I don’t care anymore. I’m over it.
If you donâ€™t care, use the scroll bar, or whatever the equivalent on your computer is.
Let’s see, basically this is saying ‘aww, mom, don’t spoil our ‘fun’!”
It is not that I particularly care one or the other. I am letting you know that this is a political party, not high school. I do not see what is wrong with the reminder, since so many of you seem to be forgetting it.
Personal problems should be settled over e-mail or over the phone…not on public message boards.
“Arenâ€™t you afraid of jail at all, Angela?”
Gary, defamation is a civil tort not a criminal charge, you idiot.
This is better then “Days Of Our Lives”.
Michael Seebeck: ”
Gary, Iâ€™m not attacking you, so get off my back. Nor am I defending Haugh or anyone else. I have no dog in that fight, but I, like many, am sick of hearing about it from all sides. If tone were evident in posts, youâ€™d be seen as unbalanced and borderline hysterical.
In any case, calm down.
It canâ€™t be changed, so thereâ€™s no sense in dwelling on it. Let it go, for everybodyâ€™s sake.”
You don’t get it. I have been thrust in a position of defending my reputation and honor (and by extension, my working livelihood, since I make my living by petitions & in politics). I was not the one who asked for this to become an issue, let alone a soap opera. How you think defending myself on these posts makes me “unbalanced” is beyond me.
Yes, I am righteously indignant, when Angela attacks me out of the blue when I have done nothing to her. But isn’t that a little bit like a little kid, poking a bee’s nest with a stick and snickering about it, and your telling the bees to “calm down”?
Sir, your disgust is directed at the wrong source. I assure you of that. These others are the ones “dwelling” on it. I figure if it had been YOU getting attacked, over and over in these posts, you’d be a little indignant too.
Unbalanced? I don’t hardly think so.
Gary, I’m not attacking you, so get off my back. Nor am I defending Haugh or anyone else. I have no dog in that fight, but I, like many, am sick of hearing about it from all sides. If tone were evident in posts, you’d be seen as unbalanced and borderline hysterical.
In any case, calm down.
It can’t be changed, so there’s no sense in dwelling on it. Let it go, for everybody’s sake.
Angela Keaton: “Tell it to the judge, Mr. Fincher. Tell it to the judge.”
What judge are you referring to, Angela? Have you made up a judge now too? Or, are you referring to the judge in your defamation case in which you are the defendant?
Aren’t you afraid of jail at all, Angela? I wouldn’t be so glib if I were on the slippery slope that you’re on right now. I’d be a little more humble.
Michael Seebeck: “Andy, Gary, the past is the past, and you canâ€™t change it. Either move on or get counseling. Most of us here get it and donâ€™t care.”
Oh yeah? Well, if the past is the past, then why am I being attacked for something that happened NINE YEARS AGO?? Aren’t you talking to the wrong people about that? Shouldn’t you be talking to Sean Haugh about that? Hell, Haugh is bringing up stuff from TWELVE YEARS AGO as his rationalization to burn my petitioins! Shouldn’t you be telling Davidson or Knapp? Keaton is bringing up IMAGINARY things, ostensibly in “the past”.
Why are you preaching to the choir, Michael?
How I WISH people on this thread would keep the past the past!
I wish Haugh, Knapp, K
If you don’t care, use the scroll bar, or whatever the equivalent on your computer is.
George Phillies: “The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts has yet to hear from the Libertarian National Committee that they do not still support the call of their political director to burn those petitions. Mind you, when Bill Redpath showed up in New Hampshire for their state convention, and got asked about those petitions, his statement clearly stated that Mr Haugh had been spoken to by his CEO and would not be making such a requestâ€¦again.”
If this is true, then I was correct in deciding not to take Redpath’s call the other day when he rang my cell. Also, what is meant by “his CEO”? Is he referring to [acting Executive Director] Robert Kraus? If so, that’s laughable (except,not so funny). Kraus was one of the two (the other being Scott Kohlhaas) who was cc’d in on Haugh’s email where he announced his intentions to attempt to commit conspiracy to defraud, either me or LPMA – didn’t matter to him which, apparently – out of thousands of dollars. Kraus is the one who, as of mid-summer, was telling callers to the national office, in a matter-of-fact manner, that the mess is all my (Gary Fincher’s) fault, that I “always turn in bad work”. Kraus is an obvious liar, as George Phillies and a very long list of others can easily attest. If Redpath meant himself (as LNC chair), it is equally unacceptable, as he is admitting to being derilect.
It seems to me that Redpath is somehow protecting Haugh, for reasons that I have no idea and cannot fathom. When Andy spoke with Bill shortly after the burning attempt, Bill seemed to make flippant comments in regards to it, demonstrating that he is not seeing the seriousness of the matter. Bill’s nonchalant attitude is what first gave me pause that a conversation with him would be productive. But when he went through the entire summer and most of the fall without contacting me – that is, UNTIL he received a letter from the attorney I’ve retained in the matter – it showed that protecting Haugh at all costs was the agenda, rather than the best interest of the party.
I’m afraid that those same sentiments will be echoed if I speak with Bill Redpath, and the last thing I want is a phone conversation that leaves me frustrated, at an impasse and with vain attempts to impress upon Bill how serious the infractions Haugh is guilty of.
That leaves me in a position to file civil suit on the entire national party. If I saw Haugh fired, it would at least show me that Bill takes serious infractions seriously, and that he respects me. It still would not be enough, since I have been injured. But it would be a start. Yet, this has not happened.
And I can only hope that Mr. Redpath is reading this.
Hm, I see the issue. We can either harp about in-dramas no one cares about or we can set to work figuring out how to get the message out.
Frankly, I am an LP “outsider” and I feel like a parent to bickering siblings: I do not have the time, drive or energy to sift through who slept on whose floor or who blazed interstate commerce with whose ballots.
Don’t know, Don’t care. Leave it at the door…this is a political party, not high school.
Tell it to the judge, Mr. Fincher. Tell it to the judge.
Thomas Knapp: “Andy, Sean Haugh never â€œorderedâ€ petitions to be destroyed, any more than he â€œorderedâ€ NORAD to launch its ballistic missiles on Moscow â€¦ because he didnâ€™t have the authority to â€œorderâ€ either one of those things.”
Oh COME ON! What an absurd thing to say. Any reasonable person would conclude that a national political director has sufficient clout when it comes to his relationship with counterparts in state party afiliates. You’re just splitting hairs and you goddamn know it, Knapp.
“Haugh said something he had no power to make stick. He got told to pound sand.”
That’s like saying that Congress, when they pass an unconstitutional Act, such as the Patriot Act, should be let off the hook because they don’t have the technical authority to pass the Act in the first place. (Even though it’s tantamount to ordering the Executive Branch to act.) Actually, I could make a case that it’s a WORSE offense, when you don’t have proper authority, but are nonetheless doing it from an authority position. Misuse of power isn’t a virtue, as you might have us believe.
“You didnâ€™t like that he said it â€¦ and I agree with you â€¦ but the rest of it is all typical Andy and (apparently) Gary drama.”
LOL. That is nuts. EVERYTHING I’ve said on these posts have been attempted in the direction of QUELLING uninvited, unprovoked drama aimed at me. Haugh started this drama; there is no way in HELL that I can be said to have started it.
” Nothingâ€™s ever allowed to just be â€œAndy didnâ€™t like that.â€ If Andy doesnâ€™t like it,”
That’s because Andy isn’t simply announcing his “preference”. Andy is being a whistleblower, when it comes to Haugh’s actions, which are damaging to the freedom movement. Andy doesn’t like my character being smeared unjustly, but that’s because he has a deep-seated hatred of injustice, not because of a simple preference.
” it has to be a â€œcrimeâ€ or a â€œconspiracy.â€
Duh. It IS a crime and a conspiracy. There ARE such things. ATTEMPTS to commit crimes and conspiracies, like what Haugh did, are prosecuted just the same as successful COMMISSIONS of those same crimes and conspiracies.
“If Andy doesnâ€™t like it, not only is the person who said or did it a criminal,”
He’s only calling one a criminal if in fact he witnessed them committing a criminal act. Haugh is guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud; Keaton is guilty of illegal defamation. Both are actionable under the law.
” anyone who disagrees is a moron.”
Sometimes, that’s actually the case. Literally.
Paulie crashed on the floor in my room in Denver one night
Yep. I’m pretty sure it was that night. I don’t know how I ever found it in that maze of a hotel. And thank you!
Yes, Paulie, this is the issue.
OK, I apologize. Again. But I’m not just going to waste your time endlessly.
Do you forgive me, or should I stop trying?
(As for Angela, as far as I know, I did nothing).
Roger Gary ended up on our floor, and got tired of blowing up the mattress, so he just slept on the floor!
Err. Why didn’t you just leave it inflated?
Our room at the height of the fun had four middle-aged-ish women and one young (and very tolerant) male. It was around the second night when I remembered why I chose never to live in dormitories in school.
The last night I was to sleep blissfully (albeit expensively) alone, but having made a rash promise as a backup crash-pad, had the company of a young’un who went right to sleep like a good boy.
Paulie crashed on the floor in my room in Denver one night, and was welcome to do so every night. I even brought an air mattress for anyone interested to sleep on it to blow it up. Tom Knapp was also welcomed to crash with us, but obviously found a better place than our floor.
Roger Gary ended up on our floor, and got tired of blowing up the mattress, so he just slept on the floor!
Yes, Paulie, this is the issue. And you’re right; we’ve talked since then but certainly not as frequently.
Paulie and Miche, bury the past, do a virtual handshake, and move on as well. I think youâ€™re trying to do that anyway.
Yeah, I’m trying, but I’m not getting anywhere.
I apologize completely for being a dickhead that night.
I did not bring up the smoking thing to guilt anyone. It was my own stupidity to remain in an atmosphere where I was uncomfortable.
But, yes, it did make me irritable. And that was my own fault.
I did not suggest that you should have had to step out to smoke in your room. What I said was that when I realized you would not, I should have left. The only one who should have done something differently there was me.
And I only mentioned the wall to explain to everyone who might be imagining what the situation was. It doesn’t mean you had any less right to kick me out.
We talked about it the next morning, and you said I was forgiven.
We kept talking for months after that. Now, it seems I am not forgiven, never was and never can be.
Is this really the real issue between us? And what did I ever do to Angela?
Alrighty, I’ll try to tuck this away as neatly as possible. Here’s the situation as I see it (at least where Paulie and I disagree):
1) Paulie assumed (wrongly) that he could just crash on the couch in Denver.
2) I told Paulie no and he became angry because he didn’t see what the big deal was over.
3) Rather than apologize and be done with it, he continued with trying to explain that there was a wall etc. (For an example of what an apology is, see comment #103.) It matters not a whit the reasoning behind our (Angela’s and mine) decision- we should have never been asked to explain it or be made to feel guilty that Paulie didn’t have a place to sleep in the first place. Paulie is a nice guy but my husband doesn’t work his dick off to support people other than our family and I won’t do something that I know he’d view as disrespectful.
4) Even in this comment thread, Paulie blames the smoke in my room as an irritant that made him moody. He explicitly states that he should have left when it was apparent that the room’s registered tenants wouldn’t step out to smoke. Well, why would we? It was our room and he was there at our hospitality. Hospitality, I might add, that included beer and champagne bought on our room service bill.
It seems to me sort of assholish to make any excuse for the wrong assumption and the subsequent protestations. I’ve not treated Paulie rudely throughout any of this (he still blogs at my place from time to time) but I have, like Angela, pulled back from the relationship. The issues over the petitioning are beyond my scope of knowledge but I can assure all that the boundary issue is why Angela pulled back.
Since I don’t wish to discuss a topic I know nothing about (petitions) and don’t feel the need to explain myself further on the current topic, I’ll say goodbye for now. The doc is making a badass West African chicken soup and my time will be better spent helping him with the prep work and sharing a bottle of wine.
Andy, Gary, the past is the past, and you can’t change it. Either move on or get counseling. Most of us here get it and don’t care.
Paulie and Miche, bury the past, do a virtual handshake, and move on as well. I think you’re trying to do that anyway.
As for the ticket itself, I think it’s great. Built-in fundraising gimmick and one definitely attentive audience, one G-string-ed dollar at a time, and any grandmother that looks like Miche is obviously doing something very right!
(And yes, I have seen TWO of the bumper sticker pics!)
However, I don;t think they’ll apply for any NEA grants. More likely antiwar.com would to piggyback on the campaign to raise their own funds (“Strippers for Peace?”). But I jest.
This could put some fun back into things, which after Denver and the subsequent meltdown would be a good thing.
TheOriginalAndy: “Sean Haugh had a clear criminal intent to defraud Mr. Fincher and/or Libertarian Party donors out of money, not to mention the fact that Sean Haughâ€™s actions were also an attempt to defraud the candidates on the petition as well as the voters of Massachusetts.”
This pretty much is the crux of the issue when it comes to why jail was recommended for Sean.
Miche: “the problem is that Paul doesnâ€™t respect boundaries. ”
This can be interpreted in many different ways and while yes, I’ve had some differences with Paul, I’ve never witnessed him doing anything that approaches what Angela Keaton or Sean Haugh have done. Angela Keaton DEFINITELY doesn’t respect boundaries; I know THAT ONE first hand!
“So I comply with the spirit of free speech. You obviously do not because you want to have people banned who make comments that you donâ€™t like. ”
You “comply” with the spirit of free speech? Sounds like pretty ethereal stuff here Andy. Whatever, not going to argue non-existent “spirits” with you.
But for the record, I did not say I wanted you banned. I jokingly said if we had a policy of banning one person per decade,it’d be you. Two comments later, I admitted I wouldnt ban anyone.
And Paulie, my comment about the bill was a response to your passive aggressive quip about the smoke in the room.
FWIW, as someone who not only has no dog in the fight but who heartily disapproves of dogfighting in general, I didn’t see Paul’s comment as a ‘passive aggressive quip’.
“Well, hell â€” Sean Haugh says something that you and Gary Fincher donâ€™t like, and you claim he should go to jail, not just be banned from some blog.”
This shows Knapp to be EXTREMELY sophomoric in his understanding of American jurisprudence (and well, maybe everyday life and decency too).
You don’t get to go around threatening people, especially with a potentially deadly weapon (fire). If those threats involve something that would be considered criminal (in this case, attempt to conspire to defraud me out of $3,000) in a libertarian society as well as an impure society then, yes, jail can be a remedy. It’s not about “not liking”; every legal mind in the country would never take Knapp seriously after that comment.
On the other hand, speaking out on a blog post about improper actions of others (Keaton)?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the similarities. Does anyone else here see any?
“There is no ‘spirit of free speech’ on private property.”
Yes there IS a spirit of free speech, including on private property. I have a message board which I started called Libertarians for 911 Truth. The only “rule” is keeping relatively on topic. I do NOT censor posts if somebody simply makes a comment that I don’t like. So I comply with the spirit of free speech. You obviously do not because you want to have people banned who make comments that you don’t like.
Also, I challenge you to go through my posts and show me what I said that was not true or was not on topic.
“Angela has credentials, a quick wit, a radical message, and the makings of a great campaign staff on deck. I hope sheâ€™s serious about running!”
No one who spreads vicious lies about other activists – very seriious allegations, no less – and then doesn’t bother to apologize or retract (in other words, is unrepentant, pathological) deserves to be the standard bearer of a “party of principle”. It’s just too ludicrous to even consider, much less roll with.
Paulie Cannoli said:
“Oh, lord. You know, I apologized for that and you said you accepted my apology. ”
“But, in case you forgot, I once again apologize for making some drunken protests before vacating your couch.”
So Paul does something wrong/makes a mistake and he APOLOGIZES for it.
This puts him ahead of Angela Keaton who never apologized for bearing false witness against myself and Gary. Ditto for Tom Knapp and Jim Davidson. And even bigger dittos for the many wrongdoings of Sean Haugh and Scott Kohlhaas.
“GE, while it is true that a (truly) private organization has some grounds for not allowing free speech, there is STILL the SPIRIT of free speech, and Trent Hill calling for me to be â€œbannedâ€ because I pointed out some facts that indicate that Angela Keaton is not the wonderful person that some people think she is does not comply with the SPIRIT of FREE SPEECH.”
There is no “spirit of free speech” on private property. That’s like saying that when you come into my house you can say whatever you damned well please. No, you’re in my house. IPR, similarly, is private property. And I did not say I would ban you for your comments about Angela Keaton. I dont know the lady. I just know that you bring up this same topic in every other thread and are utterly annoying about it. I have nothing to do with your conflict and neither know, nor care, who hurt or insulted who.
“Translation: Trent Hill does not want to be confused with any facts. Heâ€™d rather sit on his high horse and pontificate without knowing about which he is speaking.
NOTE TO TRENT: Donâ€™t you think that there is a REASON that I donâ€™t like Angela Keaton? Donâ€™t you think that there are REASONS that I think that Angela Keaton would be a disaster as a candidate?”
I. DO. NOT. CARE. about your internal squabbles. My statement had nothing to do with it, im only commenting on the fact that you are incredibly obnoxious.
“So I am still wondering what it is that I should be apologizing to Sean and Robert about. ”
LOL! If anything they should apologize to every LP member for unnecessarily FAILING on 5 ballot access drives this year (I’d say 6, but I’m giving them a “pass” on Oklahoma; the other failures were avoidable).
And Paulie, my comment about the bill was a response to your passive aggressive quip about the smoke in the room.
It was not meant to be passive aggressive. I completely acknowledge that it was your room, not mine. I acknowledge it was your right to smoke, and that I should have left. I acknowledge that I should have left much earlier, before I was really tired. I certainly acknowledge I should not have been arguing when you told me to leave.
Yes, I put myself in the situation of being around the cigarette smoke. That was my fault. I should not have done that. But, I did do it, and the irritation from cigarette smoke combined with being drunk and tired made me irritable, so I was a jerk. I already said it, I did not deny it at all.
If you can’t forgive, as you said you would the next day, there really is nothing else for me to say. What’s done is done.
If you are going to list any other offenses of mine to other people, please let me know what they are, and if someone can point out anything in the thread I linked above that was legitimate cause for Angela to flip on me, please let me know what that was.
Shit, Susan, youâ€™re absolutely right.
If only more people could see it that way 😉
I did say it that way and thatâ€™s not what I meant. I apologize to you and anybody else that I offended with that careless wording.
Thereâ€™s no such thing as â€œfree speechâ€ on private property, and IPR is private property. The whole world should be private property and then there would really be no such thing as â€œfree speech.â€ â€œFree speechâ€ is a bogus concept. IPR does not engage in the censorship that is ITS right (unlike your non-right to â€œfree speechâ€ on private property) in its own best interest: we start censoring comments and we lose credibility, page views, and ad revenue. But we donâ€™t keep speech â€œfreeâ€ in the name of socialist â€œfree speech.â€”
GE, while it is true that a (truly) private organization has some grounds for not allowing free speech, there is STILL the SPIRIT of free speech, and Trent Hill calling for me to be “banned” because I pointed out some facts that indicate that Angela Keaton is not the wonderful person that some people think she is does not comply with the SPIRIT of FREE SPEECH.
Also, to my knowledge, there is no list of rules for this site. Anyone can come on here and post. My comments were certainly not off topic and nothing that I did not say anything that was not true.
“Trent Hill // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm
As for Andyâ€™s commentsâ€”I didnt read them. Iâ€™m not interested in your squabbles. I actually mostly like you, but ever since this Gary Fincher/Scott Kolhaas thing, youâ€™ve been flooding blog comments with the same stories over and over again. It is annoying and I dont care about it.”
Translation: Trent Hill does not want to be confused with any facts. He’d rather sit on his high horse and pontificate without knowing about which he is speaking.
NOTE TO TRENT: Don’t you think that there is a REASON that I don’t like Angela Keaton? Don’t you think that there are REASONS that I think that Angela Keaton would be a disaster as a candidate? I give everyone the benifit of the doubt. As I said above, at one point in time I too had a positive view of Angela Keaton, but this was BEFORE I found out that she’s a liar and a backstabber.
“As for the free speech thing, refer to GEâ€™s comments.”
As I said above, you still violated the SPIRIT of free speech.
My comments were completely on topic and nothing I said was not true.
As for Andy’s comments—I didnt read them. I’m not interested in your squabbles. I actually mostly like you, but ever since this Gary Fincher/Scott Kolhaas thing, you’ve been flooding blog comments with the same stories over and over again. It is annoying and I dont care about it.
As for the free speech thing, refer to GE’s comments.
Ya’ll ought to start a soap opera called “Liberty in our Lifetimes”
Jesus you guys are dramatic.
It worked for Barr/Root. ;o)
Shit, Susan, you’re absolutely right. I did say it that way and that’s not what I meant. I apologize to you and anybody else that I offended with that careless wording.
And Paulie, my comment about the bill was a response to your passive aggressive quip about the smoke in the room.
I welcome the Keaton/Shinghal alliance for the LP presidential/vice presidential nomination.
Obviously, by LP rules, if Angela Keaton won the presidential nomination, there is no guarantee of Michelle Shinghal getting the VP nod. It could be said, that Angela could ask for votes for prez, on the condition that Michelle be voted for as VP candidate. Again, no guarantee of the result however.
If nothing else, the “stripping across America” offering could be an excellent experiment for strategy to get the libertarian message across.
Though it would inevitably be scorned by many religious right types, so has presence at marijuana rallies gotten the scorn of many religious right types. So has presence at gun shows gotten scorn by various lefties.
Heck, the experiment of nominating two ex-Republicans in 2008, whose explicitly were courting conservatives was tried this year (though not my idea of a “good experiment”), an “experiment” which would attempt to court more tolerant people who would be anything but scornful MAY VERY WELL be a decent strategy.
I am an acquaintance of both Angela (Angela and I serve on the LNC) and Michelle (I helped as much as I could, in getting her elected to the LP Judicial Committee, though that was unsuccessful) and hold both in high regard as libertarians. I find both of them to be principled, thoughtful, and decent people. Both are very easy on the eyes as well!
On the downside, since Mary Ruwart was the target of a smear because of her statements (wrongly characterized, I might add) about child pornography, there WILL be a lot 0f opposition to this proposed LP ticket, and many smears. I can only assume that Michelle has a thick enough skin (I KNOW Angela does!) to withstand the tearing down efforts that would be inevitable.
I am not going to comment on the alienation that Paulie and Angela have with each other, other than to say that I don’t like to see friends of mine feud. “Can’t we all just get along?”
As for my own association with Angela, her friend Brian Miller and I have a serious misunderstanding regarding the GLBT issues and promotion in politics. Mr. Miller (I think) believes that I am a homophobe. Brian, I am not. However, I am not one to put GLBT issues front and center, as I think that such issues are more peripheral issues as they don’t affect EVERYONE. Mind you, I have NEVER stated, nor believed that GLBT issues should be hidden away either, but ought to be addressed within the framework of individual liberty, and maybe civil liberty more specifically.
I bring this up, as it is possible that Angela has caught wind of Mr. Miller’s opinions of me, and may form one similarly without inquiring further than what has been asserted by Brian Miller. I sincerely hope that she has not.
My irritability from the smoke, and being drunk, made me act like a jackass. Thatâ€™s my fault. Not anyone elseâ€™s.
Absolutely. I wasn’t particularly standing up for you; only questioning Michelle’s implication that *my behavior* (in letting males ‘sleep over’ in my room) was somehow questionable because I did something that I ‘should’ (according to Michelle) understand is a Bad Idea.
My marriage has thus far been pretty successful and Iâ€™d like to keep it that way. I know what my husbandâ€™s expectations are and he knows mine. What your marriage/relationship might sustain isnâ€™t my business and I certainly never acted â€œMs. Mannersâ€ here or anywhere else.
I haven’t much enthusiasm for a femme-fight (as amusing as many folks here might find that), and certainly not with an ally, but please do allow me to remind you that you said “single guys donâ€™t crash in the room of married women unaccompanied by their spouses”, and you did not specify that “Single guys don’t crash in MY room when I am unaccompanied by my spouse”, which would have gone a long way to making it clear that this was how you viewed your marriage as it relates to sharing rooms with friends and not marriage-and-sharing-rooms in general.
I’m glad to have that clarified. Perhaps you could reflect that Paul’s lack of understanding wasn’t willful (‘wouldn’t’) or somehow that he was incapable of understanding (‘couldn’t’), but purely due to the fact that, in fact, it’s not axiomatic that a married woman would require her husband to be present before offering a male a couch to crash on.
Again – I’m not particularly defending Paul, who seems to indicate that he agrees he was acting inappropriately (and he should know!), but just making a general point.
Absolutely correct. Unless of course I missed the moment you stood at the front desk with me offering half the bill.
OK, I guess it was an unforgivable offense on my part. Oh well. Since my apology is apparently not good enough, there’s nothing else I can do here.
The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts has yet to hear from the Libertarian National Committee that they do not still support the call of their political director to burn those petitions. Mind you, when Bill Redpath showed up in New Hampshire for their state convention, and got asked about those petitions, his statement clearly stated that Mr Haugh had been spoken to by his CEO and would not be making such a request…again. But we’ve never heard from the LNC about this.
On the other hand, we … neither then-State-Chair Phillies nor than-State-Political-Facilitator McMahon…did not hear from the LNC before they signed their petitioning contract in MA, which was for way too many signatures given what the state party was doing, costing Libertarians around the country somewhere above 10 grand in money down the drain for extra nominating papers. The MA state party had to shove those papers around the state and get them to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, at significant expense to us, for all that they did not do anything. Some of our petitioners employed this way were available for Connecticut in a timely way, but they were paid up here instead.
My marriage has thus far been pretty successful and I’d like to keep it that way. I know what my husband’s expectations are and he knows mine. What your marriage/relationship might sustain isn’t my business and I certainly never acted “Ms. Manners” here or anywhere else.
Absolutely correct. Unless of course I missed the moment you stood at the front desk with me offering half the bill.
Here is the thread that caused Angela to stop talking to me. Can anyone point out where I was being ugly to her?
Of course, you can also point out where I was ugly to her before or after that, too. But this was what caused her to cut me off (see comments):
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in someone proposing a â€˜Stripping across Texasâ€™ campaign being overly fastidious about inviting a male friend to crash on her couch while she is â€˜unaccompanied by her spouseâ€™?
I readily agree that itâ€™s not an ideal situation, but itâ€™s often better than turning a friend away.
It doesn’t matter. The fault was mine for assuming, rather than asking ahead of time.
The fault was also mine for remaining in the room around a bunch of cigarette smoke, against medical advice, and letting it make me irritable. I should have left immediately when it became clear that folks were not going to step out to smoke. My irritability from the smoke, and being drunk, made me act like a jackass. That’s my fault. Not anyone else’s.
There’s no such thing as “free speech” on private property, and IPR is private property. The whole world should be private property and then there would really be no such thing as “free speech.” “Free speech” is a bogus concept. IPR does not engage in the censorship that is ITS right (unlike your non-right to “free speech” on private property) in its own best interest: we start censoring comments and we lose credibility, page views, and ad revenue. But we don’t keep speech “free” in the name of socialist “free speech.”
Why are the so-called â€œprudesâ€ excluded from libertarianism? Libertarianism =/= libertinism. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy that attempts to answer the question â€œWhat should be the govenrmentâ€™s relationship be to the citizenry?â€.
Yes, you are correct. Personally prudish people who can overlook bawdy yet concensual behavior and vote for the person based on their ideas (despite disapproving of some aspects of their lifestyle) are A-OK in my book. And I would be happy to vote for one of them if they make me believe they have no interest in using government to impose their social morals (and have).
If you want to go around and campaign at church picnics, go for it. I might even slap on my suit (now that my fat ass has unfortunately grown back into it) and go with you. If my candidate wants to campaign in strip clubs and pot rallies, more power to them as well.
It is just as valid to use libertarianism as a solution to the prudeâ€™s offense to an NEA-induced â€œPiss Christâ€ as it is to use it as a solution to an atheistâ€™s offense at the â€œOffice of Faith-Based Initiativesâ€.
Well, NEA induced is the key phrase there. If Mrs. Shinghal and Mrs. Doherty apply for an NEA performance art grant for their stripping campaign, I’ll oppose their application and call them out for hypocrisy. Fortunately, they have done no such thing. And as for the office of faith based initiatives, my problem is not with faith based initiatives – it’s with the government office.
Mr. Cannoli, you have a terribly outdated idea of how the LP should operate.
Mr. Druckenmiller, I must disagree with you, and furthermore propose that you seem to lack an understanding of what my idea on that subject is. And BTW, I ain’t no Mr. Cannoli. Paulie Cannoli is a nickname, the cannoli part chosen because it rhymes with paulie.
This â€œshock the squaresâ€ stuff should have been chucked with tie-dye and love beads.
I kind of like boots and braces, or fades, platinum chains, four finger rings and platinum grills better.
Why are the so-called “prudes” excluded from libertarianism? Libertarianism =/= libertinism. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy that attempts to answer the question “What should be the govenrment’s relationship be to the citizenry?”.
It is just as valid to use libertarianism as a solution to the prude’s offense to an NEA-induced “Piss Christ” as it is to use it as a solution to an atheist’s offense at the “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives”.
Mr. Cannoli, you have a terribly outdated idea of how the LP should operate. This “shock the squares” stuff should have been chucked with tie-dye and love beads.
You wouldnâ€™t (couldnâ€™t) understand that single guys donâ€™t crash in the room of married women unaccompanied by their spouses.
Damn. I *knew* I should have consulted Ms. Manners before going to Denver. I guess I have the same ‘understanding problem’ that Paul does.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in someone proposing a â€˜Stripping across Texasâ€™ campaign being overly fastidious about inviting a male friend to crash on her couch while she is ‘unaccompanied by her spouse’?
I readily agree that it’s not an ideal situation, but it’s often better than turning a friend away.
Quoth Thomas Sipos:
“I never heard of Michelle Shinghal. But I see that sheâ€™s wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt. A good sign.”
If you like that picture, you should see the one of her wearing a Ron Paul … bumper sticker.
Sean Haugh never “ordered” petitions to be destroyed, any more than he “ordered” NORAD to launch its ballistic missiles on Moscow … because he didn’t have the authority to “order” either one of those things.
Haugh said something he had no power to make stick. He got told to pound sand.
You didn’t like that he said it … and I agree with you … but the rest of it is all typical Andy and (apparently) Gary drama. Nothing’s ever allowed to just be “Andy didn’t like that.” If Andy doesn’t like it, it has to be a “crime” or a “conspiracy.” If Andy doesn’t like it, not only is the person who said or did it a criminal, anyone who disagrees is a moron. If a bucket of plastic soldiers gets spilled on the floor, you won’t be happy unless everyone agrees that World War IV just broke out.
I drink and appreciate strippers appropriatelyâ€¦but America is still personally conservative enough to think it is not appropriate for a presidential candidate to brag about either.
Niche marketing. The prudes are not our target audience. The LP will not get a whole lot done until it stops trying to appease them, and do something to catch the attention of the voters who might actually consider such a radical alternative – and voting for an alternative party is a radical step just in itself.
I know, Steven. Ainâ€™t it grand?
(is it weird that when I read your name I read it as Drunk on Miller?)
No problem. It happens so routinely that I have become accustomed to it.
For what it’s worth, you always entertain with your comments on Hit + Run and I do not have any personal feelings about your ticket for the LP. But I do think one thing we got right about Barr/Root was “presentability to the public” is a value in and of itself.
I drink and appreciate strippers appropriately…but America is still personally conservative enough to think it is not appropriate for a presidential candidate to brag about either.
(is it weird that when I read your name I read it as Drunk on Miller?)
LOL Great minds think alike…
I said that I could write a book length comment on the respect of boundaries issue.
MS] On the Paul/Angela issue (and Iâ€™m only assuming weâ€™re talking about the same Paul), the problem is that Paul doesnâ€™t respect boundaries. Iâ€™m happy to qualify that comment with details but I donâ€™t want to clog the thread with a book length comment. Shoot me an email if you want the skinnyâ€¦
p] My apologies, I thought you said that you had a book full of details about me not respecting boundaries. You brought up one incident, which I apologized for, and you accepted my apology and said it was not going to be a big deal between us, and kept talking to me on the phone for at least a couple of months after that.
So, are there other things I am guilty of? If so, please let me know what they are.
This isnâ€™t a Paul v Michelle fight and I donâ€™t want it to devolve into such a thing.
Neither do I. But I hate having unresolved issues, so if I did something I shouldn’t have, I would like to be aware of it, so I can apologize.
Also, since you have offered to email it to other people, I’d love to know what all I stand accused of besides the Denver incident, if anything.
Hell, you probably donâ€™t even need to have a fight with Keaton but the way sheâ€™s been trashed (yes, youâ€™ve been ugly toward her)
Wow. That’s an interesting take on things. When and where was I ugly to her?
Let me recap what happened.
There was a thread here several months ago about Sean Haugh ordering that Gary’s petitions be burned. In the course of that thread, at Andy’s insistence, I confirmed that I have never seen Gary do bad work, and that I have seen him do plenty of good work.
At that time I was still talking to Angela, and she offered to investigate the situation in her capacity as an LNC member, and also to look into other problems which several of us have had with working for LPHQ this year. At the same time she said she did not really have time for it, and I was very careful to tell her several times not to get involved if it would overextend her time commitments.
Nevertheless she did choose to get involved. She talked to Sean Haugh on the phone and he referred her to one or more people that had some bad things to say about Gary, and she followed up on those. However, Gary provided a long list of positive references, and she admittedly did not follow up on any of them.
One of the things she said in that thread was that Gary has a history of criminal violence against women. Since that is a very serious charge, I asked for proof – and I was very careful to say that if Angela was too busy, someone else please clue me in to what she is talking about.
Months later, Tom Knapp clued me in that what was being discussed was Roger Pope’s allegations against Gary. I know Roger, and I know that he is far from being a reliable source. I also know that Gary has denied those charges.
He provided his middle name and date of birth so anyone could check it out themselves.
I know that Tom told me at least a month ago, maybe several, that he would get a police report to substantiate the charges, and I asked him to share it with me as soon as he got it. So far, nothing.
Note that I did not say that Gary did not do what he was accused of. I want to be very careful not to claim to know facts that I do not know. I said that I would like to see some proof. That is all. I have yet to see any proof.
There is also the NM issue from ten years ago, which has been discussed to death here, at LFV, and on libertarian email and internet boards for years and years. I testified as to what I knew – again, not much, because I was not there. I also said that even if all the charges against Gary were true, that would not excuse ordering that his signatures be burned.
Angela’s reaction to that was to cut off ties with me. She asked me to not call her or email her. I asked if she would be willing to talk about it first, and she said no.
Then, maybe a month later she did email me, to say I need to apologize to Sean Haugh and Robert Kraus when ENM posts the files about Gary. At that time I had no idea what files she was talking about, but it turned out it was the same stuff that Joe Knight has been saying for years, of which I am well aware. Gary has addressed those allegations many times in readily available places.
So I am still wondering what it is that I should be apologizing to Sean and Robert about. If the allegations against Gary are all true, does that justify ordering that perfectly good petitions which Phillies paid for out of his own pocket be burned ten years later in a different state? Does it justify firing me because I know Gary, and because I truthfully gave my take on the situation? Does it justify at one point firing Mark, on a mere (incorrect) guess that he had brought Gary into Massachusetts?
I’d still love to know what I did that Angela lashed out at me. I’d love to know where I’ve allegedly been ugly to her, when I’ve been very restrained and careful, and the most negative thing I said is that her behavior towards me as described above makes me doubt that she was right and the rest of the LNC was wrong.
I donâ€™t see a mended fence anytime soon.
Well, that we can agree on. I can’t have a friend who will flip on me so quickly and thoroughly, without taking the time to talk to me.
I know, Steven. Ain’t it grand?
(is it weird that when I read your name I read it as Drunk on Miller?)
Mmmm, personal in-drama and LP catfights.
High School Musical IV: The Liberty Years.
Um, we never talked about you moving to Texas to work for me. We did talk about my new business and I encouraged you to seek out the course in your area. I did say that there seemed to be huge opportunities in that field of work and that if I ever got to the point of having enough projects I could see farming some out.
I now encourage you to re-read my comment carefully because I never said there was a book length comment about you. I said that I could write a book length comment on the respect of boundaries issue.
This isn’t a Paul v Michelle fight and I don’t want it to devolve into such a thing. Your fight isn’t with me. Hell, you probably don’t even need to have a fight with Keaton but the way she’s been trashed (yes, you’ve been ugly toward her) I don’t see a mended fence anytime soon.
The way you got pissed at us when we didnâ€™t allow you to crash in our room in Denver said everything needed about your respect level for our personal boundaries.
Oh, lord. You know, I apologized for that and you said you accepted my apology.
So to recap, I was drunk and half way to passing out, and the couch was separated by a wall from your bedroom.
Angela had no problem with me crashing on the floor in her and another married woman’s room. That may have been the night before, or a couple of days earlier. And there was no wall in THAT room.
There are other things I could say here, which I won’t, because I actually *do* respect boundaries.
But, in case you forgot, I once again apologize for making some drunken protests before vacating your couch.
Strangely enough we kept talking after that, and even talked about me moving out to Texas and working for you. It wasn’t until much later that you stopped returning my calls.
The difference between Angela and myself is that youâ€™ve not bashed me in blog threads yet
Where did I bash Angela? I’ve been very careful NOT to do that, despite being severely tempted.
But you said that you had a book length comment about me, and that couldn’t have been it. What else am I guilty of?
The way you got pissed at us when we didn’t allow you to crash in our room in Denver said everything needed about your respect level for our personal boundaries.
You wouldn’t (couldn’t) understand that single guys don’t crash in the room of married women unaccompanied by their spouses.
It’s a respect thing and it indeed changed the temperature of our relationship. The difference between Angela and myself is that you’ve not bashed me in blog threads yet. Of course, there aren’t any business issues that can come between us and therefore no real ammo for you or I to use against each other.
My awareness of the Paulie/Angela problem has less to do with the very public petitioning issue and more to do with a personal one. As a party to a relationship defining moment (Denver), I understand why Angela has extricated herself from the relationship.
I wouldnâ€™t talk shit about you Paulie.
Well, you say that you have a lot to say about me. I’d like to know what it is.
I wouldn’t talk shit about you Paulie.
*Actually, no, Michelle never asked me for my side of the story.
On the Paul/Angela issue (and Iâ€™m only assuming weâ€™re talking about the same Paul), the problem is that Paul doesnâ€™t respect boundaries. Iâ€™m happy to qualify that comment with details but I donâ€™t want to clog the thread with a book length comment. Shoot me an email if you want the skinnyâ€¦
Well, if you’re going to talk shit about me, I’d rather you do it in public. We have plenty of space, and you wouldn’t be the first one to put a book length comment up here. Anyone who is not interested can scroll past it.
I’m really glad you took the time to get my side of the story* before deciding what the whole “paul/Angela problem” is.
Please do email me your book length comment (I would very much prefer you post it here, though) .
BTW, Shinghal isnâ€™t Elf Ninoâ€™s Mom, is she?
I’ve only physically met one of them, but no, not if they are to be believed.
No, I’m Libertarian Lady but I think ENM is awesome.
BTW, Shinghal isn’t Elf Nino’s Mom, is she?
I like Angela. I hope she’s serious about running.
I never heard of Michelle Shinghal. But I see that she’s wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt. A good sign.
I gave a write-in vote to Ron Paul in the general election.
I can be happy with a Keaton/Shinghal ticket in 2012.
I’ve gotten such a kick out of these comments and I don’t quite know where to start but I’ll attempt to quell a few worries starting with this one:
I haven’t stripped in many years but after my last national media exposure,, I learned that stripping for politics makes good news. And even though my husband keeps me quite well cared for, I’ve no problem swinging around a brass pole again for a good cause.
On the Paul/Angela issue (and I’m only assuming we’re talking about the same Paul), the problem is that Paul doesn’t respect boundaries. I’m happy to qualify that comment with details but I don’t want to clog the thread with a book length comment. Shoot me an email if you want the skinny…
Retarded isn’t a bad word but even if it were, libertarians can’t be shy about saying it. Jeez, you’d think some people here took being PC a leetle beet too seriously.
If you think this candidacy is a joke then I invite you to review the efforts and results of Barr/Root 2008.
Please visit my site for updates on Keaton/Shinghal 2012 positions and talking points.
“Well, hell â€” Sean Haugh says something that you and Gary Fincher donâ€™t like, and you claim he should go to jail, not just be banned from some blog.”
Wow, Tom just illustrated his lack of intelligence and shows why nobody should take him seriously as a candidate for anything.
Sean Haugh – as Political Director of the Libertarian Party – ORDERED 2,000 high validity ballot access petition signatures to be BURNED (QUITE LITERALLY). This is not merely making a statement, this is the ordering of a CRIME.
This is like if a gangster orders a hit (ie-murder), or a government official gives an order that violates the Constitution.
The destruction of ballot access petition signatures is in fact a crime. In Massachusetts it actually says that it is a crime on the petitions, as it says that anyone who alters, defaces, mutilates, destroys, or supresses a petition is guilty of a crime with fines of up to $1,000 and up to one year in prison.
Sean Haugh ordered a CRIME to be committed. This is something that is a crime from a libertarian perspective as it is the destruction of property and fraud.
Sean Haugh had a clear criminal intent to defraud Mr. Fincher and/or Libertarian Party donors out of money, not to mention the fact that Sean Haugh’s actions were also an attempt to defraud the candidates on the petition as well as the voters of Massachusetts.
Attempting to committ and/or ordering a crime to be committed is in fact a crime.
The fact of the matter is that Sean Haugh abused his position within the LP and ordered a crime to be committed, and in addition to this, he squandered thousands of dollars of donors money and contributed to the Libertarian Party failing to make the ballot in several states this year.
I have not ordered any crimes to be committed nor have I said anything that was not true.
“Somebody says something that you donâ€™t like and then ban them!”
Well, hell — Sean Haugh says something that you and Gary Fincher don’t like, and you claim he should go to jail, not just be banned from some blog.
“Trent Hill // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:50 am
Sure. Just being obnoxious. And Iâ€™d never actually ban any of them. But if I had to ban just one. Itâ€™d definetly be Andy.”
That’s the way to stand up for free speech, Trent!
Somebody says something that you don’t like and then ban them!
It is really easy for you to sit back on your high horse when you arent’t the one who got ripped off, lied to, stabbed in the back, and slandered.
Tell us Trent, have you ever had thousands of dollars that you were owed withheld from you for months and months?
Did you ever have a person that you barely knew but would have considered to be a friendly acquaintance come out of the woodwork and post a bunch of lies about you on-line (like what Ms. Keaton did to Gary and I)?
Did you ever have a person you thought to be a friend stab you in the back (like what Ms. Keaton did to Paul)?
Are you a person that has to be bit by a snake yourself in order to know that snakes can be dangerous?
Trent, if you were the one that got stabbed in the back I’d bet that you’d be singing a different tune.
“chuckmoulton // Nov 12, 2008 at 3:29 am
Angela has credentials, a quick wit, a radical message, and the makings of a great campaign staff on deck. I hope sheâ€™s serious about running!”
Then you must want to see the Libertarian Party get flushed down the toilet.
“Trent Hill // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 am
Times like these make me wish GE had a â€œban one person per decadeâ€ policy. Iâ€™d skip Libertarian Joseph, Robert Milnes, and Catholic Trotskyite just to give â€œTheOriginalAndyâ€ the boot. Heâ€™s obnoxious.”
Trent, I am merely exposing the TRUTH about Angela Keaton. At one time I too ASSUMED that Angela Keaton was a decent person, but this was BEFORE she showed me her TRUE character.
I spoke to Angela Keaton 3 times.
The first time was on the phone in early July of 2007. Paul was talking to her and she put me on the phone with Angela and I spoke to her for about 10-15 minutes. She SEEMED like good person to me (but remember, appearances can be decieving).
The 2nd time that I spoke to her was about 2 weeks later at the LNC meeting in Pittsburg. She was sitting at a bar in the hotel lobby speaking to Aaron Starr and Paul. I had a brief, cordial conversation with her. Once again, she SEEMED like a decent person.
The third time that I spoke to her was at the LP National Convention in Denver. This was a very brief but cordial conversation. And once again, she SEEMED like decent person. In fact, I actually VOTED FOR HER to be on the LNC (which turned out to be a BIG MISTAKE and a vote I wish that I could take back).
So these were my interactions with Angela Keaton. I didn’t know her very well, but from what I knew of her I had a positive opinion of her at the time.
Gary interacted with Angela Keaton even less than I did. In fact, I think that his only interaction with her was a very brief but friendly conversation at the National Convention in Denver (a conversation which probably lasted under a minute). Gary had also ASSUMED that Anegla Keaton was a decent person and he also voted for her to be on the LNC (a vote which he also regrets).
This all changed after the Sean Haugh petition buring scandal broke. For those of you who don’t know, Sean Haugh is a major league asshole and a phony as well as an incompetent goofball who has been leeching off of the Libertarian Party for years.
Sean Haugh, acting on a petty grudge (which he created) as well as acting as a cover-up man for the rip off artist Scott Kohlhaas, attempted to burn 2,000 Libertarian Party ballot access petition signatures which were gathered by vetran Libertarian Party petitioner/activist Gary Fincher. Mr. Fincher had been invited to petition in Massachusetts by the State Chair of the Massachusetts LP George Phillies (note that Mr. Fincher had petitioned in Massachusetts 15 times before this and had gathered the signatures to put George Phillies on the ballot when he ran for office sevearl years ago, and also note that Mr. Fincher had been in Massachusetts as recently as the fall of 2007 when he gathered a large number of signatures for Carla Howell’s End the Massachusetts State Income Tax initiative as well as another initiative to Reduce Penalties on Marijuana Pocession). Note that the destruction of ballot access petition signatures is a crime and that in Massachusetts it actually says that it is a crime on the petition forms. Sean Haugh said to “burn (quite literally)” the signatures “whether they had been paid for or not” which showed a CLEAR intent to defraud Mr. Fincher and/or Libertarian Party donors out of money (note that if the signatures had been destroyed, LP donors would have had to have paid a mercenary signature gathering outfit to replace the 2,000 signatures at a higher pay rate than what Mr. Fincher was getting). Sean Haugh said this in an e-mail and he actually called up Carol McMahon of the Massachusetts LP and ORDERED her to do this. Fortunately Carolyn McMahon is not twsited like Sean Haugh is and did not carry out this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL order. Incidentily, the signatures were found to have been of high validity after they were checked, and also note that Mr. Fincher was the top petitioner while he was on that petition drive.
Sean Haugh has a track record of engaging in other nefarious and irrational acts which have damaged the party, and he is largely responsible for 5 of the LP’s ballot access FAILURES this year.
When this scandal was fresh in the news Angela Keaton came out of nowhere and spread a bunch of lies about myself and Mr. Fincher in a pathetic attempt to sheild Sean Haugh so he can keep leeching off of Libertarian Party donors as he has been doing for the past decade plus. The statements that she made were so twisted that if any of you people knew the actual facts then you would lose all respect for Angela Keaton (as I did).
For instance, Angela Keaton claimed that I showed up at the LNC meeting in Pittsburg and “extorted” money out of the LNC. This is a COMPLETE DISTORION of reality. What REALLY happened was that I worked on a Libertarian Party ballot access petition drive in Nebraska in the fall of 2006. Gary was also there as was Paul and another guy named Mark (note that prior to Nebraska, Gary, Mark, and I had successfully put the LP back on the ballot in North Dakota). Scott Kohlhaas was the fundraiser for this petition drive. He had a deal with the Nebraska LP where he was to recieve a 40% per week fundraising commission and the remaining 60% was to be used to pay the petitioners. Mr. Kohlhaas had assured us that we would be paid as we went while we were in Nebraska. What ended up happening is that Mr. Kohlhaas renegged on his agreement, as he paid himself his PROJECTED commission before he had finished raising enough money to complete the project, and then he left the petitioners unpaid for months and months with false promises that “the money is about to come.” So Slick Scotty took most of the money for himself and left us hanging. Paul and Mark were hard up for cash so I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO PAY THEM $6,000 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO GET PAID (and note that Kohlhaas had told me that I was going to get paid within two weeks so at the time I had assumed that I was going to be reimubrsed quickly). I was also owed another $4,000, so I left Nebraska (and note that Paul, Mark, and I went to Maryland after this and saved ballot access for the Maryland LP) being owed a WHOPPING SUM OF $10,000. Yes, you read that right, $10,000. Gary was owed $4,000. We were assured that the money was “coming soon” on several occassions, but we did not recieve the bulk of it until 10-11 MONTHS AFTER THE WORK WAS DONE.
I ask everyone out there to think about this, how would you feel if you did work (and Nebraska was a SHITTY place to work, especially during that time period) and told that you were going to be paid, but then had $10,000 or $4,000 withheld from you for months and months, and what if you did not recieve the majority of it until 10-11 months later? I bet that you’d be pissed.
Now what if the fundraiser Scott Kohlhaas claimed that he was going to pay you a .50 cent per signature bonus/penalty fee for the pay being late and then you NEVER recieved it? I bet that you’d be even more pissed.
What if the fundraiser Scott Kohlhaas had made continual promises to pay you, but then didn’t deliver, and then what if the Chairman of the Party Bill Redpath ordered him to pay you, but he still didn’t? I bet that you’d be even more pissed.
Then what if the Chairman of the Party Bill Redpath said that he would pay you “credit card style interest” due to the payment being late, and then you NEVER recieved it? I bet that you’d be even more pissed.
What if Scott Kohlhaas stopped returning your phone calls after a March 10 conference call where he promised to pay you, and during which he ADMITTED that he had already been paid and that he “kept the fundraiser (himself) happy” while you didn’t get paid (note that this conference call is recorded and put it in mp3 format)? I bet that you’d being pretty fucking furious.
Then, what if Scott Kohlhaas (acting upon pressure from Bill Redpath), claimed that he was going to raise the rest of the money to pay you, but then told Bill Redpath an amount that screwed you out of the expense money for motels and travel which you were promised? I bet that you’d be fuming.
Then what if Shane Cory got involved, and he turned out to be a difficult person with which to deal and who didn’t care if you didn’t recieved the expenses and pentalty/interest that you were promised? Man, I bet that you’d really be pissed now!
So what if you just happened to be working in Ohio (where your work is instramental in getting the LP on the ballot in Ohio for 2008) when you heard that there was an LNC meeting in Pittsburg so you decided to show up to get some anwsers, and then what if you showed up in the back of the room and you overheard Admiral Colley says, “Let’s just not pay these guys…” (Hey, who cares if we are a part of a party that defrauds petitioners out of money and employees sleezeballs to work as fundraisers and Political Directors? Who cares if we are on the ballot or not?) to which Bill Redpath responds, “For those of you who don’t know, t? he petitioners in question are in the back of the room right now.” which causes Admiral Colley gets an “Oh shit!” look of embarrassment on his face? Wow, talk about a slap in the face!
What if the LNC wants to cover-up the fact that the fundraiser that they hire is a rip off artist and a lying sleezeball (check the FEC reports over the past couple of years and look at all of the payments that whent to Scott Kohlhaas of Alaska. Note that he was recieving $5,000 per month checks from the LNC during a time in which they KNEW that he owed us money, and note that this does NOT include money that he makes off of other projects such as deals with state parties and off of Alaska ballot initiatives), so they agree to pay you the money that you are owed for your work to put the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in Nebraska for the 2008 election (which actually saved the party time and money since you did most of the work to give the party a headstart on ballot access for 2008), but they limit the fundraising to the handful of individuals who were sitting in the room (Note that Admiral Colley, Angela Keaton, and Shane Cory contributed NOTHING, not that they were obligated to contribute, but the fact that they did not illustrates what kind of people they are, given that Colley and Cory helped hold up your pay, and given that Angela Keaton would go on to lie about you about a year later), so an agreement is finally made to pay you, but it does NOT include the interest/penalty bonus as promised by Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas, and then the PAY IS HELD UP FOR ANOTHER 6 WEEKS BY SHANE CORY (and note that Shane wanted to charge us for a wire transfer fee to recieve our pay after he delayed us getting it for another 6 freakin’ weeks!)?
Then what if Shane Cory acts like the National LP has absolutely no interest in whether or not the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in Nebraska or not, but then in a fundraising letter that he send out in September of 2007 one of the thing that he asks for a donation for is to finish the LP of Nebraska petition drive (note that we finished 80% of it but then got called away to rescue the LP of Maryland)? WAIT A FREAKIN’ MINUTE HERE, I THOUGHT THAT SHANE SAID THAT THE LNC HAD NO INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEBRAKSA WAS ON THE BALLOT OR NOT! Note that several months after this the LNC paid some woman to finish the LP of Nebraska petition drive (it is on the FED reports that they paid her).
So let’s get this straight. I am owed $4,000, I bail out the petition drive by paying two petitioners – Mark and Paul – $6,000 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET (HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS? WOULD TRENT HILL OR ANGELA KEATON HAVE PAID $6,000 OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY OWED $4,000, WHICH MEANT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OWED $10,000?), so I am owed $10,000. Gary is owed $4,000. We were told that we’d be paid all of the money while were were in Nebraska. We did NOT recieve it. We were told we’d get it within 2 weeks. This did not happen. Then we were told that we’d get it by the end of December. It did not come. Then we were told we’d recieve it by the end of January. It did not come. Then we were told that we’d recieve it all by the end of February and it did not come. We were told that we’d recieve all of the money by the end of March and it did not come. Some payments did trickle in between February and late March but by early April the payments dried up. We did not recieve the rest of the money until September 1st, 10-11 months after the work was done (a long delay like this was NEVER part of the agreement).
During this time period Gary went through some personal tragedy as he had a major car problem and later ended up in the hospital for a few weeks from a foot infection (he came close to having to get his foot amputated). LP National KNEW that Gary was in the hospital and really needed the money but they still dragged their feet (pun intended) about paying him.
For Angela Keaton to later twist these events into “They showed up at an LNC meeting and extorted money out of the LNC.” is completely insane and is a demented version of reality.
If anyone had money extorted from them it was Gary and I (Paul and Mark as well but they were shielded from most of this since I paid them out of my own pocket) as FRAUD was initiated against us and we essentially thousands of dollars held hostage from us in the form of an interest free loan.
This is just one example of the VILE SLANDER that came from Angela Keaton in her attempt to protect the job of Sean Haugh. Other LIES from Ms. Keaton have already been debunked on other threads. Did Angela Keaton stick around after making her bogus claims? Did she ever post a retraction or an apology? No, she spread lies and then ran away!
As if this wasn’t bad enough, Angela Keaton then went on to stab Paul in the back. Paul had bought into Angela con-job and considered Angela to be a friend. The two even spoke of working on various projects together. Paul knows Gary and I quite well and had intimate knowledge of many of the events that were being discussed in regaurds to the petition buring scandal, the Nebraska fundraising scandal, etc…, so Paul posted some factual information that backed up Gary and myself. After doing this, his “friend” Angela Keaton called up Paul and started screaming and cursing at him like a MANIAC and said that she was never going to speak to him again and that she was going to try to prevent him from working and then she hung up the phone on him (this childish tantrum from Ms. Keaton was very Sean Haugh like, so it is not suprising that these to “birds” flock together). Once again, Paul had done NOTHING more than post some facts that he KNEW to be true in relation to the sitaution with Gary and I, and for this his “friend” Angela Keaton STABBED HIM IN THE BACK. Paul was hurt by Angela Keaton turning on him for no legitimate reason, and Angela Keaton NEVER apologized for this.
This tells you what kind of person Angela Keaton really is, and what it says is NOT good as she is a liar and a backstabber and is mentally unstable.
I did not see the words “mentally handicapped” in there. What I did see was “retarded”, which is just about as outdated as “mongoloid”.
If you act like a joke, treat is as a joke and willingly acknowledge that you are voting for the ticket for precisely that reason, just do not be surprised when people think “Libertarian = joke”.
If you want a ticket that is “for the lulz”, we can just call it the Clown Party and be done with it.
I also think that several million votes could be pulled by attractive female libertarians who amuse the voters. It would make an excellent protest vote.
Steven, if this campaign manages not to take itself too seriously, it could be a lot of fun. It is going to raise a lot of money. There is nothing wrong with having fun.
And what’s wrong with making a topical reference to the mentally handicapped?
I do not think a sense of humor is mutually exclusive to being a candidate either.
On the other hand, the entire post about the candidacy sounds like a glib joke, so forgive me if that is how I am taking it.
I don’t think running for an office and telling jokes / having fun are mutually exclusive. A candidate that can disarm, entertain, and educate with humor is refreshing.
Angela is networked into many people in the policy / think tank scene and has a gifted writer for a husband. That leads me to believe she could tap some of them for policy papers and/or speechwriting help.
And she’s networked into the radical caucus which can help her with early support, conventioneering, etc. I bet she could easily recruit a decent campaign treasurer from that mix.
That may all seem trivial, but in 2008 several candidates for the LP nomination started knowing practically no one and floundering about for campaign infrastructure.
Steven, not really. I supported Stephen Colbert in early 2008, and I was pretty darn sure he wasn’t serious.
Does she sound serious to you? The fact that you have to wonder if this is serious should make you reevaluate your support.
What campaign staff?
Angela has credentials, a quick wit, a radical message, and the makings of a great campaign staff on deck. I hope she’s serious about running!
Oh goody…so a ticket that glibly refers to “retarded children” and stripping for fundraising is the kind of thing we get to look forward to for the next four years.
Yippee. This has train wreck written all over it.
I get that “Cargo Cult Seriousness” point Mr. Knapp made earlier…but really? Can’t we try just a little?
G.E. is no longer in charge at any level, Trent.
But I’d never ban Andy, who is an awesome guy.
I remain neutral in the feud between him and Ms. Keaton, because I’m not the type of guy who likes to stir shit up, yaknow?
He’s definitely very persistent.
Sure. Just being obnoxious. And I’d never actually ban any of them. But if I had to ban just one. It’d definetly be Andy.
I’m against banning any of them. None of them have really crossed the line (such as serious threats, revealing personal information without consent, knowingly making malicious false claims and the like).
Times like these make me wish GE had a “ban one person per decade” policy. I’d skip Libertarian Joseph, Robert Milnes, and Catholic Trotskyite just to give “TheOriginalAndy” the boot. He’s obnoxious.
When you put it that way, it’s bound to convince everybody.
“Keaton is far better established, with far more support, than you, Robert.”
Keaton should be a candidate to join Milnes in a mental institution.
Robert Milnes: “Keaton and ENM are presently my top 2 for vp on my Progressive Libertarian Alliance Independent ticket.”
Keaton is far better established, with far more support, than you, Robert.
This being so, how can you offer her the vp slot?
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for you to beg her to run as her vp?
Since you have no support Robert, wouldn’t it be more realistic for you to go around begging the real candidates to let you run as their vp?
I certainly don’t have anything against Michelle; I’ve met her and like her.
Angela, however, is a different story. She seems to have ZERO integrity and ZERO grams of common courtesy. She doesn’t have enough people skills to be ANY kind of candidate, let alone president.
Sorry, this is a non-starter.
“Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm
-Anarchist Radical, check.”
Angela Keaton is a fraud. She’s a mentally unstable whackjob who initiates force and fraud and can’t debate her way out of paper bag.
“-Credentials, checkâ€“works with AntiWar.com and is on the LNC”
So what if she works at Anti-War.com, this doesn’t mean that she’d be a good candidate.
So what if she’s on the LNC, lots of people who have been elected to the LNC who don’t deserve to be there.
“-Crossover appeal, checkâ€“her husband works with CATO/Reason.”
Oh wow, the Stato Institute and tReason, her husband works for sell out groups. Whoop-dee-freakin’-do.
Ifr anyone takes the campaign of this stupid, phony, lying, backstabbing, crazy, fucked up bitch seriously then this party is truly fucked.
Those of you who think that Angela Keaton is a wonderful person don’t know the other side of her.
The only radical candidate is the one that doesnâ€™t run.
Yeah, I read that “we’re fucking Libertarians” in the same way as ” we’re fucking Matt Damon” and I thought that was the vote getting strategy.
The only radical candidate is the one that doesn’t run.
The thing that Michelle wrote, â€œweâ€™re fucking Libertariansâ€ is the highest recommendation conceivable.
I thought it meant something else at first.
You’re right, Jim. I’m ancap.
I bet I’m still more libertarian than you.
The thing that Michelle wrote, “we’re fucking Libertarians” is the highest recommendation conceivable. And the other stuff is good, too. They have 150 supporters on their Facebook group.
Libertarian Joseph isn’t a libertarian.
Tom Knapp just announced, see knapp2012.com.
Raimondo’s book (Reclaiming the American Right) overlaps significantly with Rothbard’s and I’d recommend it as well.
Robert – why not try to run for a more local office?
I guess so. His take on the 14th amendment and the Heller decision is VERY non-anarchist, non-paleo, and non-libertarian, though, and right in line with the cretins at tReason/Stato.
Not entirely, but there is a lot of overlap (between Betrayal of the American Right and Radicals for Capitalism), and while Doherty’s book is very very good, Rothbard’s is better (and a lot shorter).
Copy and paste URL.
The “Keaton/Shinghal 2012” campaign already sounds at least four times better than the “Houston 500.” 😉
Keaton and ENM are presently my top 2 for vp on my Progressive Libertarian Alliance Independent ticket. I’ll be seeking as many ballots as possible including LP & BTP, partly to avoid splitting the vote.
Ah I see. So the BTP is like a lobbying firm to the LP.
I’m too busy for 2012. Although I’m not sure about 2016 or any of the following years. I might use them to build up my support.
We in the Boston Tea Party are already planning for the 2012 presidential election. If the LP does not nominate an ethical candidate we will most certainly nominate one of our own. We will have had a lot of time to plan, unlike in the most recent election. We will at a very MINIMUM place a candidate on 25 state ballots, and will try to be on all 50. It would be wise for the LP to nominate an ethical candidate and for Angela to seek our endorsement.
Why not just run for 2012? You won’t win, so you won’ have to worry about fulfilling the age requirement.
I am announcing my 2036 bid for the presidency. I will be running as an independent, so I will need all of the head start on fundraising that I can get.
Go to http://www.poop.com for more details.
Very cool? Very ineffective.
This ticket is Awesome! It would be possible for them to get both the Libertarian Party and Boston Tea Party nomination, which would be very cool.
So, is she a stripper first and a libertarian activist second or what?
I don’t think it will generate a damn thing.
Let me rephrase that.
I wouldn’t compromise just for the sake of good looks; the platform (brains) has to be there, too, but honestly, this is a good ticket.
I bought WAR2012.com. Hmm. Hope that generates some buzz.
We will go from the most media-savvy ticket to the most attractive, and guys, if ya haven’t seen Shingal at least, then wow. Just put her in front of the cameras. That’s all there is to it.
Keaton, don’t know her, but she’s pretty dang attractive as well.
I’d stomach a hot radical ticket. So I’m a sell-out to the reformer crowd. Oh well. I’m driven more by marketing a product than actually trying it out (just give me the glitter and pretty pictures and flashy images…yay)
Ha, I gotta stop drinking so much coffee on newspaper deadline day.
Yea,not really on the same topic.
Betrayal of the American Right is far better, though not entirely on the same topic.
Speaking of which, the post-election slump does seem like a good time to go re-read Radicals for Capitalism. I know a good bit more now from closely observing/following a broad swath of libertarian people and organizations over the past year than I did when I first read the book.
And despite floating around with the CATO/Reason crowd, Doherty is an anarcho-capitalist.
Im fairly certain it isnt the ONLY history. But it is certainly the best. I just recenty re-read it.
Her husband, Brian Doherty, is a writer/journalist that floats around the CATO/reason crowd. He wrote “Radicals for Capitalism”, an excellent (only?) history of modern libertarianism.
I’m not old enough to run :p
Wayne Allyn Root’s 2012 campaign started in 2006.
Because he generally operates as a glutton for punishment, I have to suspect that George Phillies’s 2012 campaign also started in 2006.
Bob Barr’s 2012 campaign, if he intends to run again, started months ago.
Too early? Humbug!
I hope Gravel learns alot and runs again in 2012.
Other than that, these girls have no business being nominated in 2012. They’re obviously not serious.
Not too early to start, but way too early for me to be paying attention.
I don’t know who her husband is, but apparently he’s some kind of social butterfly.
What I can say for certain is that itâ€™s at least three years too early to be starting this shit.
I disagree. The bigger the head start, the better.
Smaller parties and independents suffer far more than the big parties from campaigns put together hastily at the last minute without much opportunity to gather steam.
I’m a big fan of her husband, but I don’t really know enough about Angela to comment yet.
What I can say for certain is that it’s at least three years too early to be starting this shit.
So far, I’m for Knapp.
I am now terrified, my good friends.
With hyperlinks here
They really should strip for campaign cash. Let the toothless FEC come after them. Anything done in mockery of the state is for the advancement of liberty.
-Anarchist Radical, check.
-Credentials, check–works with AntiWar.com and is on the LNC
-Crossover appeal, check–her husband works with CATO/Reason.
Comments are closed.