After a good deal of controversy, the Boston Tea Party’s national committee finally voted to restart it’s poll in the election for the national committee’s Secretary.
In the running was Todd Andrew Barnett, and “None of the above”.
The controversy was started when the poll stayed open past the seven day deadline that the party’s bylaws called for. After people favoring both sides of the elections came forward to say their prefference had more votes then the other option at the time allotted, Douglass Gaking the chair of the national committee moved that the poll be restarted so that the party could follow it’s bylaws.
Former Boston Tea Party chair Jim Davidson accused members of the party of being “Stalinists” for not wanting votes to count beyond the deadline called for in the bylaws.
More controversy from the previous poll came from the fact that Mr. Barnett had given a withdrawal from the race that was later deleted from the website. The withdrawal statement was as follows:
This is the link that originally went to the official withdrawal.
http://bostontea.us/node/593
Dear Fellow Boston Tea’ers:
Due to the fact that I’m losing my bid for the BTPNC Secretary spot
and that it is clear that more people in the Party do not wish to have
me as a secretary representing the interests of the party member base,
I am officially dropping out of the race as of 4:33 A.M. EST, Saturday
morning.
Considering the membership decided not to nominate other candidates
(after all, what else am I suppose to believe at this point?), this
race has become a laughing stock in itself. If the membership wants
NOTA to win, that’s fine, but the voting turn out suggests that those
who voted do not want me in that seat due to their personal axes they
have to grind with me and their own political agendas (whatever they
may be). Fair enough, I suppose. It is what it is, and I accept it. (I
hate to sound paranoid about all of this, but what other choice do I
have at this present point in time?)
I wish to thank Jim and Darryl for nominating me and seconding me.
Perhaps I should have turned down the nomination, but at the time it
seemed like the right thing to do, and no one else was stepping up to
the plate.
I wasn’t really — and realistically — expecting to win this anyway.
It is pretty clear to me that I won’t be on the NatComm again. Oh well.
The seat is now unfilled. It will remain unfilled until the next
convention, which is sad because it is a clear-cut sign that the BTP
is falling apart at the seams.
I will return to doing what I best — occasionally blog and enjoy
life. That’s what I seem to be best at anyhow.
To those who did vote for me, thank you for your support. To those who
voted against me, you’re getting what you want: a vacant seat on the
NatComm.
I hope it was well worth it to you.
And now we all return to our regularly-scheduled programming.
Submitted by Todd Andrew Barnett on Sat, 02/14/2009 – 03:40
Todd Barnett later wrote a retraction of his withdrawal, the text of which is as follows and ca be found here: http://bostontea.us/node/594
“Dear Boston Tea’ers:
After having a private discussion with former Party Chairman Jim Davidson, I’m retracting my withdrawal from the race.
I’m not confident I’m going to win this race. But I’m staying in for Jim. I’m doing it for him. Not for myself, but for him only.
The chances of me getting this spot are looking pretty damn nil. But who knows? Maybe the poll can be extended and a number of other people can surprise me.
That’s all I’m gonna say.”
The polls for this election are once again open, and at the time this article is being written the election is so far in favor of Todd Barnett, 5 to 4. It will be interesting to see how well Todd Barnett fairs against “None of the above” in this election.
I confess, I added to the rubbernecking by Googling for my soon-to-be-ex husband (Matt), Neil, and Neil’s wife. I ended up here. It’s interesting to see one’s personal life used to help and hinder complete strangers in the political process. Thank God I don’t know most of you, and the rest I’ll never have to interact with again lol
Happily, Todd is secretary of the Boston Tea Party. Unsurprisingly, Neil Stephenson didn’t even bother to show up for the balloting on the most recent resolution of the national committee. Oh, sure, Neil is busy doing important things, like whining about how Todd won the election.
As Neil knows, but won’t say because he’s a coward, I don’t decide whether or not to have an election for secretary. The national committee, on which Neil sits, decided. They also decided to have a second round of polling, entirely because Neil complained about the first round of polling.
As Neil knows, and is too much of a coward to mention, I don’t vote. I didn’t vote in either poll. Yet, Todd won both polls.
Neil is a worthless and tiresome wretch who wants to empty all the offices of the Boston Tea Party. He wants to urinate on the party at every possible opportunity. And he doesn’t bother to vote on resolutions of the national committee, because he doesn’t really care about Boston Tea Party business.
I’m not surprised that his most recent vitriolic editorial didn’t pass muster here at IPR as an article. Maybe Neil should start his own blog where nobody would pay attention to him. lol
Several others along similar lines in this thread
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/angela-keaton-to-seek-libertarian-presidential-nomination-in-2012/
<3 the pic Paulie – ROFLMAO
Jim said:
“So, for the second time in two weeks, Todd has won the position of secretary. This time the chair has agreed to let the results of the poll stand. Congratulations, Todd.”
You keep repeating this like a mantra, hoping that enough people will read it and believe you. Everyone knows that Todd already admitted to losing the first election. You are declaring victory based on the fact that you were able to skew the results after the time the bylaws provided.
Then you closed the second poll before the time the bylaws provided.
He in effect did not win a single legitamate election.
You know, this is kinda funny when it isn’t your own party.
OTOH, it does serve as kind of an object lesson on who all the infighting is so damn ludicrous.
(munch, munch)
(passes Gene a belated bag of popcorn)
@223
Hi Tom.
I am fully aware that Todd dropping out would have no effect upon the poll, but it would have (at least in my opinion) allowed the situation to de-escalate and allow your organization time to re-group and calm down. These negative emotions and bitch fighting really have served no purpose but to put the BTP in an even worse light.
Oh yes: thank you for being a gentleman in your postings here. It is appreciated.
@222
Jim, one you shut the fuck up about the LP, I will shut the fuck up about the BTP.
Otherwise, your post is hysterically funny.
Yes.
Bdee, bdee, bdee, that’s all folks.
So, for the second time in two weeks, Todd has won the position of secretary. This time the chair has agreed to let the results of the poll stand. Congratulations, Todd.
And I even took a picture of the results when I did so. My computer clock showed the same time as the poll opening time.
Tom Knapp thinks that Drupal has my clock set to a different time zone.
Anyway, not one more vote in the time the poll was re-opened by Tom. Couldn’t you quick like a bunny make up a new account, Neil?
Nobody even visited the page for the poll during the time it was mistakenly closed. So, where is the harm done?
And now Jim Davidson has taken it upon himself to close the poll in this election an hour early.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/1258
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/883
No, the only reason I’m asking is so that the members of the party can know what you are deliberating about. That’s the policy of the party. You don’t have to like it, and I rather prefer that you resent it.
With regard to your bizarre request, I think your position is silly. I’ve responded on the btpnc-talk list (since you made such a snit about my posting recently to btpnc) that I did not in fact say anything about how Paulie voted. All I said was that there was time to reconsider his vote, which is just as true if he did not vote, or if he voted for either of the alternatives.
Of course, now, there is not time to reconsider. The voting is all done, and Todd won. Thirty votes to 24. I guess your campaign to deny the party a secretary ran out of steam.
It seems your last effort to add to the publicity the party is getting here on IPR did not meet Trent’s approval. He’s deleted the article. He invites you to rewrite it somehow, if there’s any reason to suppose that there’s a story in there.
For my own part, I am enjoying immensely the fact that you get to be on the national committee with Todd. Won’t that be fun?
Of course, you don’t have to stay. Just as I don’t have to answer your questions.
I have also asked Tom Knapp to remove your administrative powers from the Boston Tea Party’s website again. As you have made it clear you will continue to do with our information as you please, including revealing how we voted.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/1256
Mr. Davidson, I know you do not respect the rights to privacy of our membership. But I do.
If we do need to deliberate on this matter I will discuss who it was.
However the only reason you are asking now is so that you can have another target for the internet slander campaigns you are famous for.
I don’t believe in this mysterious person who asked you to look into the outcome of the poll, Neil. But, I will say that if you, acting as a member of the national committee, considered in your deliberations the comments of someone in the party, you have a moral obligation to disclose the information you used in your deliberations, including the source.
The members of the Boston Tea Party are supposed to be in charge of the Boston Tea Party. I understand that you are uncomfortable with this design objective. Nevertheless, the reason the deliberations of the national committee are meant to be open and transparent to the members is so that the members can decide for themselves whether you’ve been doing your job properly.
Tom Knapp makes the point that he brought to the national committee’s attention that the poll hadn’t closed automatically. And Tom didn’t close the poll. And I didn’t close the poll. I think finally Douglass deleted it, which I think was a poor choice since it deleted the record of who had cast their votes, and I’m pretty sure some people who did so were not contacted to get them to express their views again.
But, we’re having another poll because you want it this way. And we’re discussing it here on IPR because you’ve created these articles for us to discuss. You are promoting the hell out of the party with this controversy, and it seems to be bringing in lots of new members.
Gene,
You write:
“Todd has the power to put and end to this by just dropping out.”
I’m not sure why you think that. The nomination and acceptance or refusal phase of the election has long since ended.
If Todd said right now that he was dropping out of the race, it would have no effect whatsoever on when the poll ends or whether the votes are counted, any more than Barack Obama announcing at 5 pm on the first Tuesday in November would have caused the polling places to close down and John McCain to be declared the winner.
If Todd wins the seat and declines to take it, that’s his call to make, but “dropouts” in the middle of the poll do not end the poll.
Regards,
Tom
No, Gene, it isn’t constructive. It serves your despicable purposes in having an office in our party stand empty until 2010 while there’s presently an activist who wants to serve in that office. Your purpose is to try to trick Todd into quitting the race, or to try to brow beat him, yes, into dropping out.
But your purpose is vile. You should shut up about the race for secretary in the Boston Tea Party. How is it any of your concern?
The way to be the better man about this matter, Todd, is to run for the office, contact your friends and family, get your friends to contact their friends, campaign hard, and win. The way to be the better man is to be victorious.
@217
Brow beating? Hardly.
Todd has the power to put and end to this by just dropping out. If you noticed, I told him to be the better person in this. That’s not brow beating, that’s offering a constructive and peaceful suggestion.
Jim,
“So, you lied when you said you didn’t care about the outcome of the election. It is your lie about this point that I have objected to.”
When this all started, I had just cast my one vote in the poll, and did not worry about the outcome one way or the other.
A concerned party member who witnessed Todd losing the race within the time allowed for in the bylaws asked me to look into it, so I did.
And I found your dirty laundry.
So the fact that your current candidate KNEW he lost, and that your admin KNEW Todd had lost and neither of them said anything is not important to you?
The poll physically closing is not the releveant point here. What is important is that Jim Davidson knew that Todd Barnett had lost the election and campaigned that he should be allowed to have votes that clearly came after the time allotted. And viciously smeared anyone who said otherwise?
Oscar here. Having a great time. Won’t last, though. -grin-
@214 I wish you would stop brow beating my friend Todd. He’s determined (finally) to stay in the Boston Tea Party and fight. Why don’t you leave him alone?
For that matter, why don’t you work on your party?
Neil,
One minute you’re complaining that the web site’s volunteer admins didn’t proactively decide, on their own hook, to close a poll opened by the chair.
Next minute you’re demanding that the web site’s volunteer admins operate under the direct micromanagement of the national committee.
Um … which one is it going to be?
When I saw that the poll appeared to have been open longer than it was supposed to be, I immediately brought the matter to the national committee’s attention. In other words, I treated the matter as something for the chair or committee to address rather than something to just do what I wanted about.
Why didn’t I just close the poll? Because the chair had opened it, because the chair hadn’t asked me to see to its closing, and because I didn’t know the reason it hadn’t been closed. For all I knew, the timestamp on it was incorrect for some reason and the chair had matters well in hand.
As it turned out, the problem was just a tech issue (the automatic poll closing feature doesn’t work because my web host apparently doesn’t like/implement the cron jobs I submit to make things happen automatically on the site) which the chair was unaware of. But what if that hadn’t been the case?
So far as I know, Mr. Barnett is no more omniscient than I am. The fact that he looked at the numbers at a particular time and thought this meant that he had lost isn’t especially relevant to anything. The fact that he knows in hindsight (if he does) that had the poll been closed at the proper time he would have lost isn’t either. He had no control over the length of the poll.
Mr. Barnett didn’t ask for a re-poll, you did — and I recall that I supported your motion to that effect. It seemed like the best way to get through the matter.
I have to confess that your imagery of Jim Davidson in “the LP’s toilet” evoked mental video for me of Oscar the Grouch coming up out of the trash can to chew people out. I always liked Oscar the Grouch. Now I’m going to be tempted to call Mr. Davidson “Oscar.” Until he bites my head off for it, anyway.
And, to be clear, once again, I don’t object to you recruiting people to the party. I have repeatedly asked you to do more for the party, and recruiting people to join the party is a positive thing.
What I have pointed up, repeatedly, is that you said you didn’t care either way how the election for secretary turns out. This statement by you was evidently a foul and deliberate lie, because you do care.
You didn’t care enough to nominate someone to run against Todd, but you evidently care enough to recruit people to vote to keep the seat empty until May 2010.
So, you lied when you said you didn’t care about the outcome of the election. It is your lie about this point that I have objected to.
I think it is great that the only way you seem to be able to express your outrage over the present situation is to recruit people to vote against Todd, to insult and threaten Tom Knapp for not obeying your every whim, and to continue to rant and rave. At least the recruiting is a positive.
@201
Emptying the LNC seats? I know of many people who would find that a refreshing change.
@199
Todd, if you would just step aside and let this whole thing go and do something more productive with you time other than engaging in this entire debacle (you’re better than all this, I assume), I think you would come out looking better than if you continue. Be the better person.
Do you spend a lot of time in toilets, Neil? It sounds like you are very comfortable eating shit.
What I did in the previous poll was contact my friends in the party to vote for Todd. So, he gained more votes in that poll before it was closed (or deleted) by the chair.
I don’t understand why you think this point at all significant? You voted to have another poll. Here we are, doing what you demanded we do.
“As an individual member of the party, I do have the power to recruit people to vote for the guy I nominated.”
Yes, and so do I.
What I find ironic is that you did this to skew the previous poll. Then tried to call foul because you felt I did the same thing later.
Jim Davidson, you are exposed. Go crawl back into the LP’s toilet where you belong.
Yes, only because there was not enough conclusive evidence other then the word of various people who posted.
Now you have the word of the candidate himself that he KNEW he lost the race. And said nothing.
Good job Jim. I hope this finally ends the question as to your integrity. And your hypocrisy.
To be clear, I, as an admin of the site, received no request from anyone to close the poll. I chose not to close a poll that the chair of the party left open. How was I to know why he did so?
I, as an admin of the site, have no power over whether the chair starts a poll for the election of secretary. As an individual member of the party, I do have the power to recruit people to vote for the guy I nominated.
I’m curious why you (a) chose to make a stink over the last poll being held open by the chair for extra days (b) voted to restart the poll so we have the current controversy (c) think it is a debacle to recruit many members to the party (d) didn’t bother to nominate anyone for secretary?
My view is that you are a pigheaded jerk who wants to destroy the party. Prove me worng.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/surveys?id=2827605
YOU, Neil, WANTED IT THIS WAY. You voted to have this poll re-started.
From Todd:
“The first poll was a disaster. It went on longer than it should have, and technically I lost that election at the time when the poll should have closed but didn’t.”
So Todd Barnett ADMITS that the votes were not in his favor when the last poll should of closed.
I find it highly unlikely that Jim Davidson didn’t also know this. And that would explain why he launched his campaign to smear anyone who didn’t want the votes that were cast past the time allotted in the Boston Tea Party’s bylaws by calling them “Stalinists” for just wanting the poll to be conducted according to the rules.
Jim Davidson, you as an admin knowingly and willingly allowed this poll to be compromised because you didn’t like the results. All the while saying that it was me who didn’t like the results.
What a fucking joke.
“it was obvious to Tom Knapp, Jim Davidson, and me that the poll was compromised.”
No, it was not obvious to me that the poll was compromised.
When Vincent Endres resigned his membership, I accordingly erased his membership account on the web site. That had the automatic effect, due to the way the site’s underlying system works, of deleting his vote from the poll.
I don’t know or care how he had voted while a member, but so long as he remained a member, I don’t see why his vote shouldn’t have counted.
There are two rules applicable to membership in the BTP through its web site:
1) One membership account per person; and
2) Certification of support for the platform (which is given in registering for one’s membership account).
The first guideline is at least partially technically verifiable (admins can look for things like multiple account accessing the site from a single IP and then investigate such anomalies).
The second guideline takes care of itself. The bylaws don’t say “Tom Knapp or Todd Barnett or Jim Davidson or someone else gets to decide whether or not the certifier is honest.” They only say that the certification has to be made. In Vincent Endres’s case it was, and until he resigned from the party, he had exactly as much right to vote in the election as anyone else.
The poll was inadvertently left open for longer than the bylaws provided. There were several actions the national committee could have taken with respect to that situation:
– They could have asked the admins to attempt to determine which votes were cast during the time the poll was SUPPOSED to be open, and counted only those votes.
– They could have accepted the result of the poll as it was when it was finally closed.
– They could have (and did) decide to “re-run” the poll.
There were up sides and down sides to all of those alternatives. A reasonable argument could be made for any one of them. The national committee chose one of them; so far as I can tell, that choice has not been appealed by the membership.
The best thing, of course, would have been for the poll to run its appointed length of time, but that didn’t happen. So, we move on.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I don’t know how to contact your chairman. You can reach me through the e-mail addresses on various sites. At bostontea.us look for me on the contact page for the Kansas affiliate.
One of the things you might consider is changing the wording on modernwhig.org/issues.html with respect to gay rights. The header uses the term gay, which is regarded as preferable by people in that community to homosexual. The body of the text uses the term homosexual which is not regarded as the word these people like to be called. Homosexual is probably meant to cover gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons. It would be better to use a term like GLBT, instead.
One area where I see we agree is the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think the members of the Boston Tea Party would agree with any regulation of, nor any infringement of, the right to keep and bear arms.
We agree somewhat on decriminalising marijuana. I think our members would not favor taxing and regulating it heavily, because, after all, we want a smaller government.
I think government should be color-blind. So, I agree that affirmative action quotas and subsidies are wrong. In any event, they’ve been around for forty years, and that seems like plenty of time for them.
These seem like areas where we might work together. Bless you for being open minded.
Mr. Davidson,
I can assure you that Endres acts upon his own volition. In fact, we asked him purely as a favor to add a disclaimer on his blog to clear up any confusion. He did comply out of respect to us, as he put it. Certainly, he is free to exercise his free speech rights however he best sees fit. I think he honestly means well in blogging about our party, but I can’t speak toward any extra-curricular motives he may have.
Apart from http://www.modernwhig.org, we have a handful of state sites, and a handful of forum sites designed for such items as public discussion and Modern Whig community projects. A few more sites are in the works as we strive for complete transparency. As for blogs, we have a handful of bloggers who focus for the most part on the Modern Whig philosophy. The one I regard as closest to us (in that it is run by party leaders in our Texas Chapter, but still unoffocial), is whigblog.com.
Finally, we can always find common ground and I think it could be productive for some of us to correspond. Of course we will not agree on everything, but I do think that apart from a few items, the Whigs do hold some very credible libertarian leanings. that also is debatable, so let’s please leave that discussion for a more appropriate thread 🙂
If you’re serious about working together, I recommend you contact our chairman.
If I were a member of the BTP, I’d vote against Todd. But then, I’m a statist, so isn’t that kind of like a backhand endorsement?
Todd, I don’t particularly agree that the first poll was compromised. I think Tom removed the Endres vote from the poll when Endres withdrew his membership.
I also don’t think it was necessary or appropriate for the chair to (as I gather) delete the first poll rather than close it and ask the national committee to validate its results. Sure, it ran long, but the members who voted in the party were longstanding members of the party after the Endres vote was removed.
Clearly, given the opportunity to vote, many members chose to express their suffrage by voting for you. Through no fault of their own, they were able to record their votes after the poll closed. I tend to think their voting was in earnest, and should have been counted. Stalinists like Stephenson seem to think that those who count the vote decide everything.
So, here we are.
HS, for my own part, I can adopt a much more pleasant attitude toward the whigs if they are standing apart from Vincent Endres. He gives the impression that he’s the entirety of the “modern whig” movement in Virginia.
Do you folks have another web site? I would be interested in working together for common cause. I researched some modern whig sites, and while we clearly don’t agree on all issues, there may be areas where we can agree.
I don’t know, Gene. Why don’t you empty all the seats on the Libertarian nationalist committee and see how that goes?
It seems to me that an activist wants to help the Boston Tea Party by participating as an officer. In the past the officers have come in for a lot of name calling, insults, abuse, hard work, and essentially no thanks from anyone. I think it probably speaks to some deep streak of masochism that Todd is stepping forward this way. Nevertheless, I appreciate his efforts to campaign for the job.
Then again, I appreciated his efforts as vice chair when I needed a lot of help last Summer. I tend to react very strongly when I find one of my friends being attacked.
Mr. Barnett,
Can we please leave the Whigs out of this. Yes, we apparently have a wayward blogger named Endres who has engaged in some “interesting” activities, but his actions are in no way associated or sanctioned by the movement that we are trying to build. I think it’s safe to say that all political outfits have their characters.
We understand how hard it is to build a party without having to deal with random people attempting to throw wrenches into things. We have this type of behavior coming at us as well.
Thanks.
@196 and @197
Gene, I understand your position in all of this. But I’m going to take issue with your characterization of me “lusting for leadership” in the BTP. Let’s get a few facts straight by laying those cards on the table, ok?
The fact of the matter is that the Secretary seat is vacant. If I do lose, there won’t be another election, and the seat remains vacant until next year. That’s an established given. No amount of sugar coating that point is going to change that item, one way or another.
Obviously, the seat is THAT important to the membership and to the chairman who opened nominations for that seat. Keep in mind that it was Jim Davidson who nominated me, followed by a second from At-Large Member Darryl W. Perry. Even though I didn’t initially seek the position, I was talked into it because Jim wanted to regain control of the Party, considering the fact that almost all of Neil’s motions were useless and not for the benefit of the Party. It was obvious to me and to Jim that Stephenson himself had an ulterior motive under his sleeve, even if Tom Knapp, the chair, and a few other people refused to even notice it.
The first poll was a disaster. It went on longer than it should have, and technically I lost that election at the time when the poll should have closed but didn’t. Plus, the fact that Vince Endres’ vote in the poll suggested that his vote against me was purely motivated as a sabotage by the Whig Party for whatever possible motives he may have had. Considering he voted, then had left the Party, and was subsequently kicked out of the members’ talk list, it was obvious to Tom Knapp, Jim Davidson, and me that the poll was compromised.
The reason the first poll didn’t end on its seventh day was that the DruPal software’s feature of automatic poll closing didn’t close the poll as it was scheduled to do so. That’s why the first poll violated the BTP bylaws, which set the stage to restart it again.
The second poll was set up so that it would expire today around 4:45 p.m. if I’m not mistaken. (If I’m wrong about the time, someone is free to correct me here.) Right now it’s a tie, and I’m working my damned hardest to break that so that the results will be in my favor.
Neil, Jim, and I are heavily to blame for this all-out war going on further than it should. I have my hand in this too. I’m no more innocent than Neil, but at least I’m man enough to confess my sins. The question is — is Neil? I highly doubt it, but then what do I know, right?
I did drop out of the race about a day before the first poll was supposed to end because I felt that my loss in the race was inevitable and I didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning, but I rescinded my withdrawal after Jim talked me out of it. And I’m glad he knocked some sense in me, because I shouldn’t have withdrawn from the race, but I did.
You call it a “clusterfuck.” I call it a quagmire. But that’s politics for you. You should know that it brings out the evil and worst in people.
But then again, since when is that supposed to matter in the great scheme of things?
Cluster, rather.
*sheesh*
@190
Clisterfuck is the appropriate word to describe this whole mess. Like Seebeck, I’m going to eat popcorn and continue watching for the morbid entertainment value.
@185
I’d have to respectfully disagree with you Jim about “lust for leadership”. I mean really: is the position Todd is seeking really THAT important in the grand scheme of things that he wouldn’t simply drop out of the race in order to put an end to this farce? It’s just a Secretary position fer chrissakes.
And Neil could put and end to this as well.
Everyone wants to be right and no one wants to be wrong, thus this utterly moronic drama-fest worthy of a low-rent Jerry Springer imitator.
@193 Or a few dozen times, so that it seems like a million. lol
@194 The Boston Tea Party doesn’t charge membership fees. If Neil manages to persuade Tom to kick the bostontea.us site off Tom’s server hosting arrangement, it’ll be interesting to see where the money comes from to pay for hosting.
Based on his past behavior, perhaps Neil will solicit some stimulus money from the government. If feeding his family is important enough that he’ll make other working adults pay for it through taxes, why not destroy the Boston Tea Party by having it go on the dole?
See my notes on the “stimulus without happy ending,” act recently signed into law at the BTP site while it is still around. Where’s a good Thai brothel when you need one?
If the BTP solicited funds, they should really charge admission to this sideshow.
if theres a lesson to be learned here folks its that no matter if you email, I.M , group-post or phone , someone will save or drag up a copy of said statement and throw it back at you a million times.
You know Michelle, I have already indicated my regret about that action. You can harp on it all you want, though. I guess nagging people is just the way you like to behave.
I didn’t realise that I had said anything about which way you voted, Paulie. You can obviously reconsider your vote whether you voted one way or the other. You can even reconsider your vote if you opted not to vote.
The software counts the votes. The web site administrators review the votes to see if someone is voting four times from one IP address.
Thank you for disclosing that you voted.
With regard to lobbying people, I have been lobbying people very openly since the first poll on this election. I’m going to continue to lobby people, without regard to whether they are members, whether they have voted, or whether they have refused to vote.
I don’t believe I ever consented to give up lobbying voters in the party. If you can find some sort of fucking contract for volunteers to participate as website admins, please point it out. Then I can sue for not getting minimum wage. lol
In the event of a tie, I believe the human candidate loses. You can look it up in the bylaws if you care. I believe to win the candidate has to gain a majority of votes.
Paulie”
“I thought I was voting in a secret election. I don’t think someone should be counting the votes and lobbying people to change those votes – unless it is stated up front that is an open election”
I think it’s fairly obvious that the results in this election are far from secret-Jim Davidson posted IP addresses on public forums and has divulged private information. Bad. Fucking. Move. (Yeah, I’m pissed; not just about plastering private emails and IP addresses..but the whole clusterf**k.)
As far as a tie, the way things are going I assume that the solution will be something akin to a death cage match.
Thanks for fixing the tag.
You’re welcome.
Still time to reconsider your vote, Paulie.
I thought I was voting in a secret election. I don’t think someone should be counting the votes and lobbying people to change those votes – unless it is stated up front that is an open election.
BTW, it’s 24-24 now. What happens in the event of a tie?
Thanks for fixing the tag. I find it now when I click the tag for Boston Tea Party. Spiffy.
Still time to reconsider your vote, Paulie.
24 NOTA, 23 Todd
GE, you don’t seem to understand sardonic humor, which seems odd.
Gene, there’s no evidence of lust for leadership on Todd’s part. There’s lust for destruction on Neil’s part, which is why we’re having another poll.
See, Neil is a Stalinist, so he didn’t want to count the votes in the earlier poll. I think Douglass may have deleted that poll, because I cannot find it. In any event, my recollection of the votes cast was that many members of the party of longstanding voted.
Neil, unhappy with the outcome, which favored Todd, declared it was a miscarriage of justice to count the votes of people who, through no fault of their own, voted after Neil felt the poll should have been closed.
Then, unhappy with the outcome of the poll with the members of the party available, Neil began to recruit, or create, new members. The behavior of these new voters is very different from the behavior of the established members. Apparently, Neil will stop at nothing to destroy the Boston Tea Party.
24 NOTA, 21 Todd
I usually liken the lust for “leadership” in such organizations as the BTP to “being a big fish in a small pond”.
In this case, “big bacteria in small petri dish.”
Jim Davidson – Libel is a false statist crime. I thought you’d know that.
I usually liken the lust for “leadership” in such organizations as the BTP to “being a big fish in a small pond”. To take this aquatic theme further, I would like to declare that with is asinine fight, the BTP has now jumped the shark.
Rubbernecking is a common guilty pleasure, it seems…
Meanwhile, the BTP traffic pattern…
DWP: Stop the fighting
http://www.bostontea.us/node/610
VTV, in comments: No.
Todd speaks
http://www.bostontea.us/node/611
23 NOTA – 21 Todd
Trent,
“With the exception of Thomas Knapp, the Boston Tea Party seems mostly to be comprised of grown adults acting like 4 year olds.”
I know you’ve modified that comment, but I’d like to respond anyway. I think the entire sentiment underlying it is incorrectly placed.
If I told you that the BTP didn’t have its share of wingnuts, I’d be lying. It does have its share — given the situation, no more and no less than its share. I don’t care to offer a list of names, it being rather a subjective matter in any case … and frankly I’d have trouble naming a BTP member who is less sane, IMO of course, than the average garden-variety Keynesian “stimulator.”
Many BTPers, including many of its national “leaders,” are young people who have never participated in a political party before in any meaningful sense. They’re trying to build something new from scratch. They’re probably going to make most of the same mistakes every other third party has made, and they’re going to do so in public to a greater extent than past third parties, this being the age of the Intarwebs and this being a particularly Intarweb-centric and transparency-oriented organization. When they hit their own thumbs with the hammer, they’re going to yell. Anyone would. These guys and gals just happen to be in a place where the yell is particularly audible.
I’ve seen no behaviors on the BTP’s national committee that I haven’t also seen at first hand or read about on the LP’s national commitee, the Constitution Party’s national committee, one batch of Greens in Missouri, and more more than one city council chamber. I’ve been guilty of some of the worse such behaviors myself.
Politics, even the right politics — maybe even especially the right politics — brings out the worst in people.
For some, it represents an opportunity to be pompous or power-hungry, even if they’ve never thought they had that in them before.
For others, it provides an outlet for not-unjustified rage.
Still others, being right on politics, suffer continuous heartburn from being involved in politics at all, and choose to stay involved despite that heartburn because they feel it’s necessary … but that doesn’t mean the heartburn won’t make them grumpy.
I’m not going to ask anyone who doesn’t feeling like bearing with the BTP to do so — hell, I frequently reconsider whether or not I should do so myself.
However, if you insist upon thinking of most BTPers as grown adults acting like four-year-olds, please attempt to think of them as grown adults acting like four-year-olds while they try to figure out how to act like grown adults. In most political parties, the goal is to figure out how to get the universe to reward them for acting like four-year-olds in perpetuity.
He didn’t just one mistake Darryl. He made MANY mistakes. That’s the point. And I have no confidence that he will suddenly improve.
Todd, like every other living breathing non-comatose person, made a mistake. Should he win, he will be a good addition to the National Committee.
22 NOTA, 21 Todd
Todd already had his shot. He resigned in embarassment after his gross mishandling of the situation in Florida. I don’t think we need more of Todd Barnett by any means.
Former Chairman Jason Gatties
“I haven’t always agreed with Todd Andrew Barnett, in fact, I would say I’ve disagreed with him far more often than I have agreed with him. His “tactics” don’t always mesh well with what I consider to be productive activism. However, what I do like about Todd is his passion. Sometimes passionate to a fault, but passionate never the less.
Todd helped build this party nearly 3 years ago and when the party rose from the ashes again in 2008, Todd was there to help with the re-building. I feel he deserves a shot to help continue to grow this party as we build towards the future.
I cast my vote for Todd because of the passion he brings to this party. However should he get elected, I hope that Todd & Neil can put aside their differences and work for the members of this party rather than against them. Internal bickering does the membership no good and will never advance the cause of liberty. Swallow your pride and do whats right for the members. Thats all I ask.”
Current Chairman Doug Gaking Todd Andrew Barnett is one of the first members of the Boston Tea Party that I met when I joined. He was a candidate for the party’s Vice Presidential nomination at the time. He was a guest on my radio show, then I was a guest on his, and we have kept in touch ever since.
Todd has always taken initiative when he has seen an issue of importance to him. He has authored well-written, even provocative press releases about major events in the libertarian movement and in national politics. We could expect him to do a great job of recording and publicizing the work of the Boston Tea Party National Committee. With Todd’s help, I think this committee could draw more publicity and greater membership numbers to the party during the rest of this term, providing a foundation for the committee we elect in 2010 to prepare for a successful 2012 presidential race.
This committee can be more effective with all seven of its positions filled. Todd has the skills and passion to serve successfully as the Secretary of the Boston Tea Party National Committee. I have casted my vote for Todd Andrew Barnett, and I hope that you will too.”
Oh yeah, and after Todd apologized to this lady for calling her a liar, he later retracted his apology.
“Another point that should be raised is that I’m guilty of responding ethically and fairly to an email message that needed to be responded in that fashion. I am now retracting my apology to Dagny Kira Barnes, because I should never have apologized to her, simply because:
* I don’t believe her.
* I think she’s a liar.
* I think she’s doing this for publicity and not for the welfare of the voters in her home state and for the entire electorate of the country
* I think she’s batshit crazy. PERIOD!!!
Why don’t I believe her? Because, in my experience, women can and say anything for sympathy and they have an agenda. The latter is their primary motivation.”
Thanks.
Anyone want to make their best case for Todd now, for the people that don’t follow links?
So, it all started one day sometime back in December I believe, when I suggested that we move our meetings to conference calls. My intention was to have these conference calls broadcasted on the internet, and recorded on MP3 archives so that the membership could listen to them whenever they wanted. I knew of more then a few organizations that do this, including Campaign for Liberty and Restore the Republic.
Jim Davidson asserted that I was suggesting this because I didn’t want transparency. And went on to make a lot of crazy allegations. I didn’t know Jim Davidson at the time. And I wish I didn’t know him now. Todd Barnett had asked me to join the Boston Tea Party and I thought we were becoming friends. So I sent him a message on Gmail chat, asking him what Jim’s problem was. I was actually hoping to get advice from him on how to deal with this person who was intentionally and viciously attacking me personally. A person he didn’t know, and was inclined to behave as though he could read my mind to warn everyone that I was somehow an evil person for wanting to give our members live conference calls for their meetings rather then the inefficient message boards that it uses now that sometimes cause a motion to take weeks to discuss.
At some point, I was very frustrated, and I indicated to Todd that I thought someone should punch Jim Davidson in the nose for his behavior. I have since deleted the emails in question. But suffice it to say Jim Davidson was off the hook. I never intended to punch Jim Davidson in the nose. Nor did I imply that I wanted to. Sometimes people say things like that just to vent frustration with no real intention. Todd in his infinite wisdom felt the need to cut and paste what I said to Jim rather then talk to me about it. So what was to be a private conversation between myself and someone I thought was my friend turned in to Jim Davidson’s claim that I personally threatened him with violence. Even though I never said any such thing to him. And even when I mentioned it I never gave any indication as to who would be doing the punching. (Largely because I never intended anyone to be doing any punching.)
This then exploded into the war you see here. As Jim went even further off the deep end, and Todd backed him on it. Jim continually emailed me and I made it clear to him that I didn’t want to converse with him any longer and in any fashion. It was my intention at that time to simply ignore him. Jim could not handle that, so he took our private issue to every blog and forum he could think of so that everyone could waste their time with a situation that really should of ended with a few emails.
Along with other tactics to try and defame me, Jim started emailing me again. And then when I gave him responses he started posting the responses to his emails as evidence of me harassing him. Todd wrote me an email telling me to stop emailing him even though I hadn’t been emailing him or in any way communicating with him at the time. And then posted my replies just as Jim did as evidence that I was harassing him.
Around this time I was made aware of some allegations that were being leveled against me on the Boston Tea Party yahoo group. I had not even looked at them but a member of the committee asked me to address the concerns. What followed was a laundry list of contrived conspiracy theories and outright lies about me. Apparently not liking Jim Davidson personally means I must be part of a conspiracy theory to destroy or take over the party. This can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/946
I responded to these absurd allegations.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/957
But at the time I did consider just how far they where willing to go to invent my motivations based on little to no evidence. It was clear at that point that they were intent on an internet smear campaign. They would make crazy allegations and hope that the ignorance of the readers would allow them to garner support.
This was also when I first became aware of the btpnc forum that was being used where these allegations came from.
In any case, Todd Andrew Barnett said the following:
“I didn’t resign from the Michigan chair seat and dismantled the affiliate BEFORE the personal feud at Mike Seebeck’s webcasted chat room on justin.tv on the day of the LNC’s San Diego meeting on December 6 (a Saturday, for those of you who don’t know). My resignation and my dismantling of the affiliate occurred after the events in the chat room. Neil drove me to do that; therefore, his antics in the justin.tv chat room (which I copied, pasted, and submitted to Jim Davidson) were the catalyst for my abrupt resignation and dismantling of an affiliate,”
Apparently Todd felt it was a good idea to dismantle the Michigan affiliate due to his personal problems with me that were expressed in a JustinTV chat room during the LNC review of Angela Keaton. Eventually Jim convinced him to put the affiliate back together. Todd did so and decided to make the affiliate a tool of his own personal vendettas. This can be found here:
http://bostontea.us/node/530
The statement he made that damned him on it was:
“However, I am removing an At-Large Committee member from the Michigan BTP ExecComm, because of my feud with him.”
So, because he and I got into a text confrontation in a chat room Todd Andrew Barnett felt it was a good course of action to remove me from my seat in the Michigan affiliate. There was not even a question as to what he was doing it for. He made it perfectly clear. He couldn’t do it, and thankfully someone pointed that out to him. So then he suggested he was going to allow me back on a “trial” basis as if he had the authority to do that. Despite the fact that I had done nothing wrong whatsoever in the Michigan affiliate, having an argument with Todd was apparently enough. I made it easier for Todd by simply telling him I wanted nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party of Michigan as long as he was in any way affiliated with it. I still stand by that decision. I refused to be in any way associated with someone who would do something that childish.
I could go on for hours quoting various things that Todd Barnett has said and done to be an embarassment to the party. I will try to stick to some of the best.
His handling of the situation in Florida lead to that affiliate wanting nothing to do with the national party.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/charles-jay-slams-btp-…
This is a portion of the text of the email that he sent to the lady mentioned in that article that angered the members of the Florida affiliate:
“This is part of the email that Todd sent to the lady who informed the Boston Tea Party’s national committee about her father’s sexual abuse:
“Dagny, do you have any evidence to support your child abuse claim
against your father? Because, unless you have that evidence to support
your case and unless you have pressed criminal charges against him, your
accusation is nothing short of slander. I don’t believe your claim,
because if it were true, you would have taken criminal and legal action
against him a long time ago. Your credibility means nothing in the grand
scheme of things. And your behavior in this regard is outright
disgusting, if I may say so.
Once again, unless you have evidence to support your claim, then the
Boston Tea National Committee will treat your claim as a bogus one.
If it were a libel, then your father would have grounds to sue you, and,
in the eyes of the law, it would be rightfully so.
I am standing by John in this difficult time for him. Many members of
the Boston Tea Party, including its Florida affiliate, stand by him as well.
Please do us a favor and leave your father alone. Like my chairman, I
suspect you have a lot of growing up to do.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
Vice Chair, Boston Tea National Committee”
He recorded a private phone conversation with Charles Jay, and distributed it for his own purposes. He admits to doing this here:
“As usual, regarding my privately-recorded chat with Jay”
Which can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/576
And one of the things I find highly ironic about this race for Secretary, is that the only reason the seat is vacant is because our current candidate who is the only candidate I have ever seen duke it out with “none of the above” made statements that finally disgusted the party’s secretary to the point that she resigned. Jim Davidson later tried to say I could not prove that. However in her resignation she specifically quoted various statements made by Todd in his personal feud with me. A feud that was started because of his support of Jim Davidson’s childish behavior.
Todd made statements about my personal life, and my relationship with my wife on the public list in an effort to drive me out of the party.
Michelle resigned as secretary and quoted several things from Todd’s posts as her reasoning. Her post can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/577
These are quotes from Todd’s own statements in his feud with me that she referred to in her post:
“That the personal attacks have reached the “you’re queer for me” and “your wife left you because” level- is beyond embarrassing. I have two grown kids who receive the BTP digest; and while cuss words and ad hominem attacks are far from anything that surprises them, the
outright juvenile tone of these posts have caused even my 21 year-old to comment. She has expressed that these types of postings are more in line with Craigslist-type postings rather than a supposed serious political party and I am very much inclinded to agree.”
“I honestly fail to see how alleged freedom-minded folks are to be expected to stand up to jackboot thugs when the internet-equivalent of a duel at 20 paces is called for each and every time someone thinks someone else “threated me”. Grow some thicker skin.”
Todd’s statements to this effect cane be found on the lists in many places. I took the time to dig it up.
Reading this post would be enough for most people I know to not vote for Todd to administrate for a toilet.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/576
“People, I think Neil has a sexual crush on me. I think he harbors gay tendencies towards me..and maybe Mike Gravel himself. LOL LOL LOL!!”
So this person running for our national committee thinks it would be appropriate to imply that someone is homosexual. Then to do so in a fashion that is derogatory?
“Oh, and Neil, I can see why your wife left you. I can see it completely.”
“If Lin was wrong about what she “did” to you, Neil, then why is she still with Matt Harris, the Chair of the Libertarian Party of West Virginia?”
Point of fact, my wife is no longer with Matt Hariss. And she did apologize for everything that went on in our brief period of estrangement. However, this statement was quoted specifically in our last Secretary’s motives for leaving her seat. Jim Davidson later tried to insult our intellects by claiming that I had no proof that it was Todd’s statements that motivated her. But it is pretty clear when you look at his own words and her own reasons.
No matter what your feelings are for me, it is evident that if you just look closely at Todd Barnett yourself that he is not fit to be on the committee. Or to in any way represent our party. To recap, we are talking about a man who:
1. Recorded a private phone conversation to further his political agendas.
2. Participated in the spreading of lies and contrived conspiracy theories about a party member to further his personal agenda.
3. Dismantled a party affiliate for his own personal reasons, then tried to reverse that decision so that he could remove a member of it’s committee for in his own words his “personal feud”. Then tried to put that same member on “probation” despite the fact the member had done nothing wrong other then to personally dislike him.
4. Made derogatory comments about homosexuals. And accused party members of being homosexuals.
5. Is directly or at least mostly responsible for the resignation of our previous secretary.
6. Has resigned and came back, resigned and came back, resigned and came back in a great flourish of melodrama. Showing a clear sign of instability.
7. Is arguably directly responsible for the Florida affiliate wanting nothing to do with the national Boston Tea Party.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/charles-jay-slams-btp-…
Todd Andrew Barnett has done a lot of work for this party. I don’t want to see him leave the party, though I don’t worry too much about it as he will seem to come back without fail like a boomerang when it will get him more attention. However his conduct is unbecoming of anyone who would represent this party and particularly it’s national committee. And if we allow him to join that committee I have no doubt whatsoever that he will use that position to further his personal agenda with me there as well.
Your are the membership, it is for you to decide. And I acknowledge that I had a part in all this. But I am not running for secretary.
Do you want to summarize your case for NOTA for those who don’t read the BTP website or yahoo groups?
I was more implying that a piece of cardboard would do better.
Particularly since I noticed that Todd has been strangely quiet lately. And considering all the quotes I brought up from his previous debacles, I think even with an opponent who sat there and said nothing would win in a debate with someone with a unique talent for sticking their foot down their throat as Todd Barnett.
Given the closeness of this race I think perhaps the Boston Tea Party should host a debate to help the members of the party decide.
Not a bad idea. Do you want to be the stand-in to make the case for NOTA? Who would be the moderator? Debate rules?
Given the closeness of this race I think perhaps the Boston Tea Party should host a debate to help the members of the party decide. We should get Todd on the podium next to a cardboard cutout labeled “None of the above” and see how these two titans weigh out.
NOTA 22, Todd 20
The poll itself has 18 comments now
http://www.bostontea.us/node/597
And it dominates the “recent blog postings”…
http://www.bostontea.us/node/602
http://www.bostontea.us/node/603
http://www.bostontea.us/node/604
http://www.bostontea.us/node/605
http://www.bostontea.us/node/606
http://www.bostontea.us/node/607
http://www.bostontea.us/node/608
http://www.bostontea.us/node/609
A new member’s perspective.
http://www.bostontea.us/node/606
“Trent, you just insulted me & Paulie; neither of which IMO act like 4 year olds”
Ugh. Ohk, ill be more specific. I am, in fact, referring only to Jim Davidson, Todd, VTV, and the rest engaging in this crappy bickering.
The stats are off since a couple of people have voted since he posted the comment. However, Jim Davidson points out at the BTP site that a large number of voters in the poll have joined since the poll started, and are voting overwhelmingly for NOTA, while a majority of long-time members are voting for Todd.
20-20
I dont consider you a member, I think of you as an LPer first.
I’m a BTP member as well. In fact, probably among the top ten or twenty in my level of BTP activity, at least since the party has been re-started.
Like many BTP members, I also belong to other parties. I am a life member of the LP, and consider myself a small-g green. I’ve been considering formally joining the Green Party and starting a libertarian caucus, but so far I’ve concluded that it is easier to work on fixing the LP.
I’ve also considered rejoining the Democrats and working with the Freedom, Jefferson or Classical Liberal caucus within that party. I’ve worked on particular projects with the (Ron Paul) Republicans, Constitution Party, Socialist Party, Peace and Freedom Party and others that are not so much with us anymore (Natural Law, Reform)….so, I’m a multi-party activist for the causes I believe in: ending the war, ballot access, ending the drug war, cutting big government, etc.
You are probably correct, I am a Libertarian first and foremost, but then the same may be true of many other BTP members.
@115 Whatever else I am, I am not on state assistance. I have never applied for unemployment compensation. I have never applied for food stamps. I have never applied for disability compensation. I am not taking from the government.
Personally, I don’t regard “feeding my family” as sufficient excuse to steal from my neighbors. However, it appears to be the case that the national debt, and possibly much of the debts of the several states, are owed to foreigners in distant countries. Repudiating the debt, which is a logical action to take and supported by many members of our party, would place the cost of welfare state and warfare state costs squarely on the shoulders of those distant foreigners. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about that.
I believe in private charity, not public charity. I believe in working to pay my way. I think it is hypocritical for someone who seeks a smaller government on all issues and at all levels to be a burden on the taxpayers. Nevertheless, I do not know all the facts, and I’m sure Stephenson will now present extensive exculpatory details.
He couldn’t work because…?
He couldn’t feed his family because…?
He needed public dole because private charity wasn’t available…?
There isn’t one universal libertarian answer to how to respond to the welfare state.
Some libertarians believe in paying taxes and obeying regulations while working to repeal them.
Others believe in non-cooperation – neither taking from the state, nor contributing to it, any more than they can avoid.
Some believe in “crashing the state” by contributing as little to it as possible, while taking it for as much money as they can get away with. Using this strategy, receiving welfare is a positive action for liberty, since it hastens the points in which the state has too few producers willing and able to support all the people on welfare.
Another approach yet is to acknowledge that the situation we live in is an economy which is greatly distorted by the actions of the state, and all the opportunities which exist in a free society do not exist in ours. Thus, taking welfare may sometimes be an economic necessity within the present system.
Trent, you just insulted me & Paulie; neither of which IMO act like 4 year olds
I’m not insulted. Most people say I act like a two year old.
I’m actually trying to achieve a negative age and stay inside the vagina all the time. It’s nice and comfy in there – if I knew then what I know now, I would have never come out. Actually, I may have already had a strong premonition. I’ve been told it took about 24 hours for me to come out.
Bowling, Jim? I’ll bowl anybody any day. I may get my butt kicked, or not, but I’ll do it, because I do enjoy the game.
“With the exception of Thomas Knapp, the Boston Tea Party seems mostly to be comprised of grown adults acting like 4 year olds.”
Trent, you just insulted me & Paulie; neither of which IMO act like 4 year olds
“Thanks Trent, I appreciate that.”
I dont consider you a member, I think of you as an LPer first.
I wasn’t talking about categories, Paulie. I was talking about tags.
Gotcha.
This is Neil’s article. He should fix that.
bar space between right. and My
I’ll drink to that.
With the exception of Thomas Knapp, the Boston Tea Party seems mostly to be comprised of grown adults acting like 4 year olds.
Thanks Trent, I appreciate that.
NOTA 20, Todd 19
Looks a bit like a political version of Lord of the Flies. Thomas Knapp might then be Ralph, who represents the voice of reason until the hunter kids begin to turn on him.
HS,
To answer your question—yes, it is. With the exception of Thomas Knapp, the Boston Tea Party seems mostly to be comprised of grown adults acting like 4 year olds.
19-19
I have to ask. Is this party comprised of third graders? I came back to this thread this morning and it’s like a train wreck or bad soap opera.
If you realy cared about your party, all of you would take this public display to your own sites. I recall reading a statement about how this party would consider welcoming disaffiliated LP members. How is any of this going to entice those dissatisfied with their current parties to put their names onto something as childish as this?
Ah, well, I must have neglected to say, “go fuck yourself Neil.” Omission remedied.
The reference to the “article” is your self-aggrandizing and agonizingly long post here. Of the same old delusional bull you have been full of since I had the misfortune of encountering you on the internet.
I don’t have any obligation to do anything except what I think is the right thing to do. How do I know if I’m right? I don’t.
I said what I think is the right thing to do, not what is definitely, objectively, the right thing to do. I’m a human being. I make mistakes.
Most mistakes can be corrected. I have regretted some things, apologised for some things, and lived with a great many things that proved to be mistakes. Sometimes an actual act of contrition is necessary to set things right.
You are absolutely and utterly mistaken about me. Not only do I not believe that I’m infallible, I believe that I’m certainly fallible, and that you are, too. However, fallibility is no excuse for inaction.
A great many people waste a lot of time dithering. They have become so inured to self-doubt that they don’t do a blessed thing.
Action moves the situation. Wrong actions can be corrected and keep things moving. Right actions can be redoubled to move things further, faster. Inaction, however, is deadly.
I’m not obligated to do things that you think are right. I’m only obligated to do things that I think are right. If you want something done that you think is the right thing to do, you should rely on yourself to do it. Unless you can engage someone else’s self-interest, it is very unlikely that you can rely on anyone else, no matter what they assert about it. Politicians, bureau-rats, and banking gangsters may assure you that they are taking action on your behalf, but you can be sure that if you scratch ever so slightly at the surface of their claims, you’ll find their self-interest right there.
As such, I think the inaction that most people resort to is a sort of self-delusion. You’d like to think that you don’t have to do what you think is probably the right thing to do, and, after all, someone else is bound to do something. This sort of thinking leads nowhere.
Everyone has choices to take. What I’m saying is where I believe my moral obligation rests. Readers of Atlas Shrugged may recognise the terminology.
bar space between right. and My
JD__I have no obligation except to do those things I think are right.
My question to you is how are you so sure what you think is right IS right?
Ive come across alot of Libs who are positive about everything , me Im more the open-minded and always learning type.
I wasn’t talking about categories, Paulie. I was talking about tags.
In the left hand navigation menu below the recent comments there is the word “Tags” and then a bunch of keywords. One of these is “Boston Tea Party.” Clicking on it brings up recent articles on the party, except this article, which the incompetent one failed to tag. Or deliberately neglected to tag because he doesn’t want to promote the party.
is it still 18 to 19 Nota
Paulie, when I look at items filed under “Boston Tea Party” this isn’t found. It seems to be tagged “non left/right parties.”
It was originally tagged under minor right wing parties and Libertarian Party, neither of which it applies to. I am not allowed to add categories here. You’ll have to ask Trent since he is the only one authorized to do so. Last time we discussed it, the answer was that the BTP is too small to have its own category. Most people agreed that it is a non left/right party. Tom Knapp believes it is a left wing party, and I understand his reasoning, but it is not how most Americans understand the term left wing, so by and large we have classified it as non-left/right.
What are you talking about? I haven’t attempted to publish an article.
You lost me on that one, too.
What are you talking about? I haven’t attempted to publish an article.
Actually, I was just yawning at how unbearably predictable and full of contrived nonsense that “article” you just tried to publish is Jim.
Paulie, when I look at items filed under “Boston Tea Party” this isn’t found. It seems to be tagged “non left/right parties.”
Is there a way for someone competent to add the tag for BTP? Thanks.
Hey Michael Seebeck. It isn’t the “super bowl” either. No bowling.
@115 Whatever else I am, I am not on state assistance. I have never applied for unemployment compensation. I have never applied for food stamps. I have never applied for disability compensation. I am not taking from the government.
Personally, I don’t regard “feeding my family” as sufficient excuse to steal from my neighbors. However, it appears to be the case that the national debt, and possibly much of the debts of the several states, are owed to foreigners in distant countries. Repudiating the debt, which is a logical action to take and supported by many members of our party, would place the cost of welfare state and warfare state costs squarely on the shoulders of those distant foreigners. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about that.
I believe in private charity, not public charity. I believe in working to pay my way. I think it is hypocritical for someone who seeks a smaller government on all issues and at all levels to be a burden on the taxpayers. Nevertheless, I do not know all the facts, and I’m sure Stephenson will now present extensive exculpatory details.
He couldn’t work because…?
He couldn’t feed his family because…?
He needed public dole because private charity wasn’t available…?
(munching on popcorn while watching the drama)
No Oscar contenders here, folks. More like a mockumentary…
@95 You haven’t mentioned the possibility that the federal thugs would engage someone in a firefights, will he or nill he. It is in fact the case that I’m not going around seeking firefights with federal officials, at this time. It is not the case that anyone in this country can be sure they are safe from having federal agents kick in their door and gun them down for suspicion of possessing pot. An old woman in Atlanta, a group of church goers in Texas, and wealthy guy in California are just a few of the many victims of federal firefights.
How many people have to be slaughtered by your government before you wake up enough to defend yourself?
How is using the Boston Tea Party Facebook group to get people to vote for Todd any sort of conflict of interest? Todd created the group and is its administrator.
You never created a Facebook group for the party, didja, Neilie-baby? You think it unfair that we use the resources that are available to the members of that Facebook group? Screw yourself, you worthless thug.
VTV, aka Neil Stephenson, is not a psychologist. Neither is Trent Hill. Therefore, I don’t regard their ideas of diagnosis as even vaguely threatening, let alone having even such validity as the psychology profession might lend. I do think Neil would happily have agents of the state collect me and torture me in what he would label an “insane asylum” because he is that kind of thug – the kind who talks eagerly of kicking sand in the faces of children.
Neil is mistaken in his label sociopath. A sociopath is one diagnosed with sociopathy, which is an old-fashioned term. It has been replaced with terms like “antisocial personality disorder.” A person who violates the property, persons, or liberties of others frequently and as a behavioral pattern would potentially have been diagnosed some years ago as a sociopath.
Someone who doesn’t particularly care whether or not others like him is eccentric, iconoclastic, and perhaps a Nobel prize physicist. The phrase, “what do you care what other people think” comes from a book title by Richard Feynman, who clearly set his own course in life.
I am not insane. I am passionate. I believe in freedom, and I see many current and active attacks on freedom, both mine and the freedom of people I care about. I see members of the freedom movement engaged in acts of lunacy, such as Neil Stephenson’s repeated efforts to browbeat, insult, and torment my friend Todd Andrew Barnett.
I am prepared to speak boldly. I am willing to call a jackass a jackass, and to hell with anyone who says it is a king. I am without fastidiousness. I’m willing to look directly at things and call them as I see them.
No, I don’t feel any moral obligation to do anything because other people want me to, or because it would make me popular, or because it is traditional, or because it has become fashionable. I’m with Jefferson. It matters of style, float with the current, in matters of principle stand like a rock.
Yes, I do think the federal government should be directly attacked by whatever means available be they legal, international, documentary, investigatory, criminal, or other actions in order to restore habeas corpus, due process of law, end wars of occupation, end the attacks on individual liberty, and, if necessary, restore liberty at the cost of the continuity of government.
I am against authority, including reasoning from authority. I am against big government. I am against oppression.
I recognise that many of the people oppressing me, and people like me, are my neighbors and live in the same country. If, in the course of restoring liberty, it is necessary that an effusion of blood should take place, I am not afraid of it. I am not against the use of force for defending life, liberty, and property, and I never shall be.
If these words are treason, make the most of them. If you are afraid of the vigorous pursuit of liberty, then go in peace, cower in your basement, and may the chains of liberty chafe and burn. May the world forget you were ever an American.
I don’t know who the person is. Apparently I have posted on IPR from their IP address. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a personal vendetta. Or that it is someone I know who is simply under an alias.
I just find it too coincidental that they found their way to this thread to throw out a completely unrelated piece of information.
But whatever.
Well they are using the “Boston Tea Party” Face book to get contact information to convince people to vote for Todd. Talk about conflict of interest.
Looks like one of Jim Davidson’s relatives voted. I wonder if he has more relatives lining up to vote? lol
Todd – 18
NOTA – 19
NOTA 19, Todd 17
Yeah…that is kinda strange.
“the only reason you are even bringing this up is because of some form of personal vendetta?”
Seems odd to me that someone you don’t know has a personal vandetta against you.
“I’m disinfranchised with the two party system and voted for the third party last year expect for the congressional seat. I had to vote Candice Miller.”
I find it amusing that you “did your research” and allegedly found that I am on government assistance.
So you decided to vote for a lady who voted for the Patriot act, and virtually every violation of the fourth amendment that came across her desk. And has consistently voted for the war.
Glad you have your priorities straight. It is good that we have such informed citizens.
Or you can admit that the only reason you are even bringing this up is because of some form of personal vendetta?
Actually I have no idea who that person is Paulie.
Odd that someone has it in for you, and you have both posted from the same IP (not the one you normally post from), yet neither of you knows each other.
Oh well. For whatever it’s worth, I don’t care whether you are on state assistance. It wouldn’t add to or deduct from your credibility either way, IMO.
Actually I have no idea who that person is Paulie.
Because somehow, if I am or am not on state assistance to take care of my family would affect the facts of Jim Davidson being what he is. Or Todd being what he is.
Yes, but did you know it would happen when you got into Kelly? LOL
I would say it is an attempt at a smear. Pretty much typical Ad Hominem behavior to try and discredit the information I have presented.
No big deal. I knew that would happen when I got into politics.
Well now, Kelly, I may not be as good at research as you are. What brought you to do you research, what was your methodology, and what did you find?
Also: how did you come to find this post, about the Boston Tea Party, since you are now referencing the LP – and why do you find it important to talk about candidates from an election that is already over?
Lastly: no, the LP does not vet its candidates to any such extent.
Please don’t take me serious. I thought the LP new who they were backing . Thats my whole point. Do your own research, I have done mine good luck in future. Take care!
How can somebody who claims not to know someone who was posting from the same computer they are now posting from be taken seriously?
Not at all. How can a third party be taken seriously, with this type of behavior going on, be good for the party or bad for the party?
Hmmm. He must have snuck in your house and posted from your computer while you were out, then?
No, I don’t know him personally. I just did research.
Personally I do not know the candidate
Is that your final answer? I have pretty good reason to believe you were with him on Nov. 9th.
No I just did my research as a concerned voter. Personally I do not know the candidate, I just feel it would be embarrassing on a national level.
I’m disinfranchised with the two party system and voted for the third party last year expect for the congressional seat. I had to vote Candice Miller.
If he had been a serious candidate, the republicans would have eaten him alive.
And Neil stayed at your house at least one time while he was separated from his wife. Is that what this is about?
I was talking about last november the natinal race.
The only candidate in this race is Todd Barnett. NOTA is “none of the above” – in other words, leave the spot empty.
I live in Michigan 10th district,I am glad that I did my research before I cast my vote!!!!
@ Kelly
“I believe one of our candidates may be on the state assistince.”
Please give details and any references – thanks
“After doing A little research”, I believe one of our candidates may be on the state assistince.I hope this is not the norm for our party!This could be embarrassing for the party!! You go Jim your on the right path.
NOTA 19, Todd 16
NOTA 17, Todd 16
Jim Davidson said:
“Personally, I don’t understand this concept of embarrassment. I think it is stupid and a waste of emotion, like guilt or shame. I don’t care what other people think. Very often, I’m not even sure they do think.”
“I don’t particularly care if anyone likes me or not.”
These are the words of a sociopath.
Feeling better about myself said:
“Are you insane?”
I say he is. And Trent Hill said:
““For the record: I agree with VTV, and we dont agree on much, that Jim Davidson is crazy.”
Sure, I agree completely that Jim Davidson would not engage in a firefight. But when this particular person is the one who implies that loving freedom relates to engaging in a firefight with a “federal thugs,” and then expresses this mentality that we are in a “slave society,” he may very well be in that 10 percent that does instigate such violence.
As for the process of the BTP vs. individual, I think the low brow manner of which it is run says enough. The BTP is a perfect laboratory as to what happens in a pseudo-anarchaic system. It ain’t pretty, either.
Quoth “Feeling Better About Myself” —
“If this is the thought process of your party, then the BTP is tantamount to a hate group that advocates violence for political means.”
Parties don’t have thought processes, people do.
When people associate together, as in a political party, it’s assumed that there exists some kind of similarity in their thought processes, but the exact nature of that similarity is revealed in the official statements which end up being put out by the party pursuant to some defined process.
If you’re looking for some such statement which aims to “convince some poor disassociated sap to attack a police station in an effort to put the BTP in charge,” you’ll look in vain. That particular idea seems to be a product of your thought process, not anyone else’s.
If I had to guess (and not having statistics handy, that’s really all I can do at the moment), I’d guess that 90% of “firefights with federal thugs” are instigated by said thugs, not by the “poor disassociated saps” (for example, the men, women and children at Mount Carmel) they murder.
“If you think a few exchanges of emails containing naughty words are too much for your sensibilities, imagine how poorly you’ll do in a firefight with federal thugs.”
Are you insane? If this is the thought process of your party, then the BTP is tantamount to a hate group that advocates violence for political means. What are you going to do, convince some poor disassociated sap to attack a police station in an effort to put the BTP in charge? This little display posted here shows how great life will be under that model. Worse yet, this guy strikes me as the quintessential mouth-runner, but I seriously doubt he would ever engage in an actual firefight. He would leave that up to others.
@87 Then don’t join. No beer for you.
The party is the people who join. The discussion is the messages they post. The value of the party is in the actions of its members.
The party is not the nationalist committee. The party is not the whimsy of its officers. The party is not the discussions they choose to have.
Personally, I don’t understand this concept of embarrassment. I think it is stupid and a waste of emotion, like guilt or shame. I don’t care what other people think. Very often, I’m not even sure they do think.
I will say this about people who think it is important to distance themselves from vigorous discussion. Timidity is not going to win your freedom. If you think a few exchanges of emails containing naughty words are too much for your sensibilities, imagine how poorly you’ll do in a firefight with federal thugs.
I don’t particularly care if anyone likes me or not. I don’t act based on what is popular. I act based on what I think is right.
I’m willing to be advised by someone with the standing of Tom Knapp about what I’ve done that he doesn’t think right. I have been, and I’ve expressed regret for disappointing him in this case.
I don’t believe I have any obligation to you, libertariangirl. I’m not obligated to impress you, send you flowers, throw money on your bureau, or anything else. I have no obligation except to do those things I think are right. I believe that includes taking no part in a slave society.
This latter obligation is increasingly difficult to fulfill. But still important to me.
Hogarth is upset about what she describes as personal information. Information on each member’s account, including their profile which gives names and other particulars, are public. Any member of the party can see the information on, say, me, by visiting my user page:
http://bostontea.us/user/33
Substituting numbers from 1 up to 1020 generates the information on other members, as well. I’m sure if someone pursued it long enough, they’d come across information on all kinds of people who think it important to be a part of the Boston Tea Party.
Naturally, this information is “access denied” to non-members. Members can control what their profile says, if anything, and whether other members can contact them by e-mail using the site’s software. A member contacting another member by e-mail using that system, and checking the box to receive a copy, does not get the e-mail address of the other member.
It is an unanswered question whether there are any members involved in the accounts I posted, other than the member of the national committee who seems to think he needs to vote four times in the current poll.
Nevertheless, at Tom Knapp’s request, I have agreed not to post such information in future. I’ll rely on Tom’s discretion in such matters.
89 @ 86
Hmmm. i thought I remembered you did. But I can’t find it now. My apologies.
like not lie
Jim Davidson said Neil could disguise his voice and pretend to be several people.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the funniest shit ever.
heres some truth , I lie the BTP platform mostly , but let me say this , if i was searching for a new party and didnt know anything but came across oh say that yahoo group of this thread or others etc , i would NEVER CONSIDER JOINING.
how embarrassing and ridiculous this all is
“Tom Knapp has volunteered to talk to Neil, his wife, his sister and his buddy by phone.”
No, I have not.
NOTA 16, Todd 15.
Todd now has as many votes as he did at the end of the last poll, which was not closed on time, had when it was finally closed.
NOTA has 5 more votes now than it did then.
The Catholic Trotskyist Party could so easily infiltrate the BTP. Wouldn’t that be interesting? I don’t have anybody in my own party yet, but I have friends who are not Catholic Trotskyists who would probably join out of amusement and cause even more havoch. But I will not do this, I have received a message from God not to.
In other news:
Motions have been made
1) To have the multiple-users-from-one-IP issue investigated and
2) To keep IPs from being published.
Tom Knapp has volunteered to talk to Neil, his wife, his sister and his buddy by phone.
Jim Davidson said Neil could disguise his voice and pretend to be several people.
I suggested someone could talk to all of them via webcam.
That’s the last I checked on it.
This poll is scheduled to close at 15:14 on 02/24/2009
when do polls close
They are supposed to be open seven days. Last time the people who were able to close the poll either forgot to do it or wanted to leave it open longer to give more people a chance to vote.
when do polls close
NOTA 16, Todd 14
Jim, now you are insinuating that my wife and sister and I are having a sexual relationship.
If you videotape it, you could probably make some money.
😛
I do, however, agree to an extent with Ms. Hogarth at least in the case of naming the viewing habits of Justin and anyone else. That is a bit too Big Brother in some ways. But if that is how they run their party, then obviously it’s their call and I am merely the peanut gallery.
Looks like these guys already got into the Sam Adams 🙂 I think this is the angry drunk stage, with a touch of voyerism as they spy on poor new member Justin.
On a more serious note, it is admirable that they take such strides to create an open and transparent system. I know that is a big knock on the LP so it is refreshing to see such dedication to openess.
Zack Zero is someone named Anthony, perhaps a girlfriend of Neil?
I guess Jim’s idea of ‘transparency’ includes publishing personal member information that he happens to be privy to, and then making childish innuendos about it.
I hope this level of ‘transparency’ never inflicts the LP.
The level of dishonesty here is really quite amusing. On the one hand, Neil claims that he doesn’t care, at all, who wins the election. Then he goes and recruits all these people to vote against Todd. So, that was a lie.
First there are only two people other than Neil, then three, now, who knows how many? Three that he admits to, it seems. But it was two that he admitted to. One of those statements was false.
Now he’s pretending to be upset because his “personal” IP address has been posted along with information about the members of the party he either made up, or recruited to form. Since all four IP addresses are the same, what’s his real concern? His real concern is that he looks very dishonest in his approach to this election.
C’mon, Neil. Four votes? You really need to vote four times? This makes a point about you being better than Todd, how?
What’s more, all three of the new users, born yesterday, did no research on the election, looked at no other pages. They went and voted, that’s all. How interesting.
How completely unlike, say, new user Justin who went and read a bunch of pages on the site relating to the election, then voted.
Are these three users at your home the only meat puppets you’ve gotten involved? They aren’t the only brand new users based in Michigan.
It’s going to be fun.
Jim, now you are insinuating that my wife and sister and I are having a sexual relationship.
Anthony does have his own access to the internet. He just happened to be at my house at the time in question.
I maintained that it was myself, my wife and Anthony, and that my sister was considering joining later. She later did. That’s the four. No foul play there other then your foul mouth.
libertariangirl, I do plan to have several cases of Sam Adams at our meatspace gathering in May. But only for members.
Well, I say Neil is still lying. Three? No. Four.
Here are the four user accounts, IP addresses, and the longevity of the accounts.
That’s not complete. Four votes cast in the poll share the
same IP address. All four votes were cast the same way, but
I am not indicating which way. Here are those four user
accounts, IPs, and time since they joined.
LiN 68.60.116.226 10 hours
shootingstars 68.60.116.226 43 minutes
VTV 68.60.116.226 37 weeks
Zack Zero 68.60.116.226 7 hours
Four accounts, one IP. One of these accounts is not like the others. It wasn’t born yesterday.
VTV is Neil.
Zack Zero is someone named Anthony, perhaps a girlfriend of Neil? For some reason doesn’t have his own connection to the ‘net.
LiN is LiN Kiernan.
shootingstars is Christy Stephenson.
At a guess one of these Neil will claim as his wife and the other as his sister. Why the same connection? Perhaps he lives with his wife and sister? Caligula had it so.
NOTA is ahead 15-12
Oh, and FYI, Tom just clarified that he meant a total of three on my IP.
That’s me, my wife and one other person.
14-12
About four tenths of a percent grade, overall.
That does not sound very steep.
14-11 for NOTA
Well Jim, you whine endlessly about me not getting people to join the party. So today I had my Wife, and a friend of mine join the party. I am not sure where you get four, as that was only two. Both have been Libertarians about as long as I have. And I have offered Tom that he would be able to talk to them on the phone if he wanted.
And neither of them are too happy about Todd’s behavior, so neither of them voted for him.
West through eastern Colorado? How far?
The incline is definitely noticeable. By the time you get as far as Burlington, it is a clearly uphill trend over a series of creeks and rills that feed into some tributary of the Platte, I think.
Wikipedia gives the elevation for Goodland, Kansas (about 17 miles from the border on I-70) at 3,681 feet. Burlington is 4,170 ft and just about 31.5 miles from Goodland.
Limon is 5,377 ft and 77 miles from Burlington. Figure the average slope from Burlington to Limon is 1,696 feet up for 406,560 forward. About four tenths of a percent grade, overall.
Now, the average slope is not the only relevant slope, because some of those hills are quite steep. (Arguably, some of those hills are mountains, being more than 300 meters (984 feet) high and within an area generally higher than that.) And the trend matters a good bit, because you go up thousands of feet more than you come down.
Earlier today, I reported to Tom Knapp the surprising arrival of four new members all sufficiently familiar with the party to vote in the election for secretary. Most of our polls have gathered votes from a narrow subset of activists within the larger community.
Here is what Tom has written:
“It’s come to my attention, however, that several new members have joined the party, and voted in the secretarial election, in the last few hours.
“It’s also come to my attention that several of those members are doing so from the same IP (68.60.116.226), meaning that they are all on either the same computer or the same LAN; and that further that IP represents the computer or LAN that one member of this committee, Neil
Kiernan Stephenson, uses to reach the party’s site.”
Found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc/message/1135
Evidently Neil is also going to many pages on the party’s national web site and repeatedly posting a blog post from Todd which Todd had unpublished. I can understand wanting the members of the party to “have all the facts” but spamming multiple pages with the same content is just stupid.
I suppose when Neil gets the time he’ll convert all the pages on the site into rants against Todd. Or me. What a control freak.
Allegations of vote fraud have started….
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/735
“Still waiting for you to supply an explanation for several new members voting in the poll from your IP address. Talk about multiple personality disorder.”
13-10
NOTA 13, Todd 9
NOTA 12, Todd 9
You definitely deserve a beer 😛
That’s awesome though, making it that far.
Of course I also was supposed to go coast-to-coast but never quite made it all the way 🙂
I rode from Virginia Beach to Denver last summer to help raise money for an initiative looking to help injured soldiers who returned from the wars with such afflictions as traumatic brain injury. It is a gradual ride until a point where the incline becomes noticably worse. It’s not horrible, but you can tell.
It’d be something like hell going west through eastern CO on a bicycle, I suspect. Might (*might*) be fun the other way ’round, though.
I could be wrong, but I think the incline is too gradual to really be noticeable on a bike.
Anyone here actually do it?
NOTA 11, Todd 9
Trent Hill said:
“For the record: I agree with VTV, and we dont agree on much, that Jim Davidson is crazy.”
Yeah Jim, your doomed now as this is a sign of the apocalypse.
…eastern Colorado, which is much like Western Kansas…
Perish the thought. Western KS is soothingly boring. Eastern Colorado is punishingly boring.
This holds true, by the way, from either direction (Co>KS or KS>CO), so it’s not just an impression created by an overdose of boring.
Even West Texas is magnificently boring in its flatness. Eastern Colorado doesn’t have that, as it’s one long *very* gentle incline up to the Rockies. It’d be something like hell going west through eastern CO on a bicycle, I suspect. Might (*might*) be fun the other way ’round, though.
If anyone would like to vote it is at
http://www.bostontea.us/node/597
You need a BTP membership, which is free.
http://bostontea.us/user/register
You’ll need a username and valid email address.
The site also requires solving arithmetic questions every time you log in or post anything to help cut down on spam.
membership disclaimer:
“Thank you for your interest in the Boston Tea Party! We don’t charge dues, and joining us is as easy as registering for a free account at this web site. By completing and submitting this registration form, you certify that you desire to become a member of the Boston Tea Party and that you endorse the party’s platform, which reads as follows: “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.” Each user is permitted to register, maintain and use ONE (1) account on this site. Duplicate accounts will be deleted without notice, and may trigger legal action of the civil or criminal variety if used for malicious purposes. Welcome aboard! “
And
News
By: planetaryjim
New news at the top 18 February 2009 Our party grows. We show 986 people have joined the party on this site. Our largest Facebook group promoting the party now has 1,107 members. Please encourage your friends and family to join our party. Please get involved in your state or local affiliate.
The Boston Tea Party is holding a special election to replace our party secretary. Unfortunately, due to an error in the DruPal software, the automatic closing of polls is not functioning on this site. Our party chair has elected to issue a new poll, so if you voted, please vote again.
In other BTP news
Press release
For immediate release
Contact Jim Davidson
planetaryjim@yahoo.com
AVERT CRISIS – CUT COSTS
Boston Tea Party Calls for Sale of Plane, Mansion
Lawrence, KS – 19 Feb 2009 – The Boston Tea Party of Kansas today called upon governor Kathleen Sebelius to cut costs in the office of governor. “We think she should travel the same way other Kansans do. And live amongst us,” said party chair Jim Davidson in a message to members of his party in Kansas. “We don’t think the people of this state should have to wait for tax refunds, or wonder if state employees are going to teach classes and be at their other jobs while the governor flies around in a private plane and lives in a palatial mansion.”
Tax refunds, state worker paychecks and the other payments have been in jeopardy because of a budget standoff between Democrat Sebelius and Republican legislative leaders. The budget standoff is over, but the problems with deficit spending (not allowed in the Kansas constitution) and wasteful government are not.
“If the taxpayer-funded plane the governor uses were sold,” notes Davidson, “perhaps she could drive across the state and consider raising speed limits along the vast distances involved in rural highways. Colorado seems to have had no difficulty with 75 mph on Interstate 70 in eastern Colorado, which is much like Western Kansas.”
The Boston Tea Party seeks a smaller government on all issues and at all levels. They seek a larger government on no issue and at no level. In October 2008, the party’s national convention adopted the four point program of the Campaign for Liberty. Their program calls for an end to overseas occupation, a restoration of privacy and other liberties, no increase in the national debt, and a thorough review of the Federal Reserve.
NOTA has pulled ahead of Todd, 10-9
The lawsuit would certainly have some entertainment value.
Perhaps you and Sean Haugh could get together and find a lawyer who would take that case?
Speaking of Sean, he is now running petition jobs for Christina Tobin’s Free and Equal.
Besides , talk about the pot calling the kettle black . GEEZ! Jim Davidson is the biggest name caller and mean rhetoric giver of all!
For the record: I agree with VTV, and we dont agree on much, that Jim Davidson is crazy.
“Perhaps I should add IPR to the list of plaintiffs and libel to the list of complaints.”
Perhaps you and Sean Haugh could get together and find a lawyer who would take that case? lol. Sorry, my business happens to be intertwined with understanding libel and slander and how they are prosecuted via the Internet–and you have no standing to sue IPR.
I think in the end, this is why a party should have some semblance of structure rather than a more free-for-all anarchist approach. It’s a noble idea for those inclined, but in the end, they get bogged down in this kind of nonsense.
The BTP does have a structure. In fact, this thread is about a poll for an officer position in the party. By the way, that poll is at 9-6 for Todd over NOTA right now.
“VTV is as illiterate as he is Stalinist. The word is “fare” as in “how well is he going to fare against” not “fair.” Sheesh. Learn the language.”
Sorry, I attended public schools.
“Not mentioned in this obvious hit piece by a biased and vicious author – who hates the Boston Tea Party so much he’ll write dirt about it for publication here – is that Todd withdrew his statement of withdrawal also before the deadline in polling.”
No dirt. I just reported what happened. If you can prove otherwise then give that proof.
“Neil Kiernan Stephenson is a thug, a liar, a bully, and dishonorable. He has repeatedly claimed for himself authority to punch me in the nose, frequently threatened to do so, and continues to use the threat of force to intimidate members of the party. ”
This is a delusional lie.
“He frequently repeats slurs about my sanity which he knows are false.”
No, I do not know them to be false. And in fact there are plenty of people in the Libertarian movement who feel the same way. I honestly believe that about you Jim.
“His continued false and defamatory statements are now the subject of a slander suit. Perhaps I should add IPR to the list of plaintiffs and libel to the list of complaints.”
What I find ironic, and hugely hypocritical on your part is that when I asked you to stop communicating with me and that I would report you for harassment if it continued you then said that it was proof of me being a tyrant for being willing to use the state to get you to leave me alone. More proof that you don’t stand on principal. You just argue to feel important.
“The most amusing part of this ongoing controversy is that I have explicitly apologised to Neil for all my words touching his honor. ”
I wipe my ass with your mock apology.
“He has both refused to accept my apology and refused to apologise for his conduct bullying and intimidating members of the party on numerous occasions. ”
Now you are just being outright libelous. Please provide ANY proof of me doing anything of the sort. Oh, and FYI, responding to smear attacks by you and Todd does not constitute me intimidating or bullying anyone. You started that behavior, and I decided not to put up with it. If you don’t like it, take the offer to leave me alone I have given you several times.
“I reflect on these facts in concluding that Neil has no honor, no decency, and is not fit to govern a free people.”
And it’s all based on lies, and contrived garbage that you dreamed up so you could feel like you could be important and have a boogeyman to chase. There are no FACTS in what you said other then me refusing to apologize to you for speaking the truth about you.
I think some are addicted to drama because it allows them to vicariously live out their dreams of power when in fact we have none. BTP or LP .
Paulie pointed this out to me awhile back and i thought about it and decided it was truth .
what he said was we are all so desperate with powerlessness that we use eachother as a substitute for the punching bags we wish were the real power brokers.
Yes, I still think I was right.
I’m in too. Free beer!
I can get Heather and Debra, just for the price of beer? OK, I’m getting a keg.
I made a comment on a post awhile back about politics not being for the thin-skinned and those who do not handle rejection, verbal/written attack or criticism well. I think it may be relevant here as well.
True.
Is there an offshoot of the BTP in New Hampshire?
I know they endorsed Phillies for President, but I don’t know if they’ve done anything else with the NH BTP.
Perhaps I should add IPR to the list of plaintiffs and libel to the list of complaints.
IPR does not pre-screen articles for publication.
me__ I agree , i’ll reconsider my affiliation for anyone who gives me free beer
Mental note. I’ll have to give you beer when I see you. Then you can become my affiliate.
😀
I too believe it doesn’t have to be that way , and absolutely the Nevada affiliate doesn’t behave like that either. we would never dream of calling each other names in a public forum or privately for that matter. sure we have differences but we try to act like adults who realize ultimately we are on the same side. i completely agree with what you said .
Joey , to date I have never come across anyone more argumentative then Chuck . and he makes my point exactly , arguing because it makes you feel like your important when in fact you are not.
I should add that individual members will do and say some outlandish things. We have ours, I’m sure you have yours and the BTP has theirs. But there’s a line when it seems the entire official organization is reduced to what is posted here.
I think in the end, this is why a party should have some semblance of structure rather than a more free-for-all anarchist approach. It’s a noble idea for those inclined, but in the end, they get bogged down in this kind of nonsense.
Reminds me of a guy I knew who made it Priority No 1 to argue, bicker, fight, etc.
His name? Chuck Geshlider.
libertariangirl,
That is a good analysis for some, maybe even many, but it doesn’t have to be that way.
Capable and credible leaders and infrastructure can go a long way. I know we would never behave this way, and based on your comments here, I would hope that your Nevada LP affiliate would keep its in-house issues from escalating.
on a more serious note I see Jim is back to using his real name.
I went to the BTP yahoo group and man there is nothing but bickering bickering bickering.
I think some are addicted to drama because it allows them to vicariously live out their dreams of power when in fact we have none. BTP or LP .
Paulie pointed this out to me awhile back and i thought about it and decided it was truth .
what he said was we are all so desperate with powerlessness that we use eachother as a substitute for the punching bags we wish were the real power brokers.
I’m in too. Free beer! Stalin! A few good arguments and brawls! Thugs! Bullies! Liars! Sounds like a date I went on a few weeks back 🙂
Joey D__Plus, you guys need to give out free Sam Adams. It’s only fitting that the architect of the Boston Tea Party have free beer distributed
me__ I agree , i’ll reconsider my affiliation for anyone who gives me free beer .
I made a comment on a post awhile back about politics not being for the thin-skinned and those who do not handle rejection, verbal/written attack or criticism well. I think it may be relevant here as well.
Is there an offshoot of the BTP in New Hampshire? That’s the state I’m in right now, and the LPNH has, according to articles I’ve read online, openly suggested Libertarians run as Democrats and Republicans.
I thought that was kinda neat.
Not only that, but the BTP needs a presence in New England — all 13 colonies — but that’s just me.
Plus, you guys need to give out free Sam Adams. It’s only fitting that the architect of the Boston Tea Party have free beer distributed 🙂
VTV is as illiterate as he is Stalinist. The word is “fare” as in “how well is he going to fare against” not “fair.” Sheesh. Learn the language.
Not mentioned in this obvious hit piece by a biased and vicious author – who hates the Boston Tea Party so much he’ll write dirt about it for publication here – is that Todd withdrew his statement of withdrawal also before the deadline in polling.
Neil Kiernan Stephenson is a thug, a liar, a bully, and dishonorable. He has repeatedly claimed for himself authority to punch me in the nose, frequently threatened to do so, and continues to use the threat of force to intimidate members of the party. He frequently repeats slurs about my sanity which he knows are false. His continued false and defamatory statements are now the subject of a slander suit. Perhaps I should add IPR to the list of plaintiffs and libel to the list of complaints.
The most amusing part of this ongoing controversy is that I have explicitly apologised to Neil for all my words touching his honor. He has both refused to accept my apology and refused to apologise for his conduct bullying and intimidating members of the party on numerous occasions. I reflect on these facts in concluding that Neil has no honor, no decency, and is not fit to govern a free people.
It is a completely unfair statement to say that I accused more than one member of the party of being a Stalinist. I accused only Neil Stephenson, because he wants those who vote to decide nothing, those who count, or refuse to count their votes to decide everything.
So when do these guys rename themselves the Long Island Tea Party?
I’ll drink to that.
It takes two to have a war, it only takes one to launch a smear campaign of conspiracy theories and outright lies.
At that point the accused can either respond, or just let that person trash their reputation with anyone who doesn’t know them better.
Neil – doesn’t matter who started it – at this point, whoever stops first wins. The more you respond to them, the more they respond to you, and vice versa.
Mr. Phillies:
http://www.amazon.com/Associated-Press-Stylebook-Norm-Goldstein/dp/0465012620/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235012251&sr=8-2
This is the non-NYT reporter’s bible. (The NYT has their own style, because they are too pretentious for the AP one.)
So when do these guys rename themselves the Long Island Tea Party?
Joey,
Is “AP style” available someplace. Posting discussions of it might be very helpful to readers.
George
If you would be willing to edit our posts for things like grammar and things like that to make them look more professional, that would be great. You’d definitely have to talk to Trent about that, though, and our other contributors.
I just e-mailed IPR with the subject, “Editor position w/IPR.”
My focus would be AP Style. For instance:
Headlines: Libertarians garner 3%
Story Percents: Libertarians garner 3 percent.
Abbreviations: Libertarian state Rep. Jim Jones, L-Anytown, said today that he plans to…
I’ve got about 10 years under my belt in the journalism world.
I love and know AP Style.
Joey Dauben, I am sure we could use that help. Email us.
Joey,
From your blog, you have an interesting background. The world needs more people like you, particularly in politics (and editing). In my small corner of the political world, I work with a guy who was a journalist and then went on to become a lawyer. Seems to be a good combination so best of luck!
HS
And if IPR needs the resources of a former newspaper editor, let me know. I’ll do it for free 😉
“VTV, just an editing clarification, but you used the wrong form of “its” in the headline. There’s no apostrophe”
That caught my eye more than the oddity below. VTV, you also might consider spell check. I’m guilty of this too, but for future reference 🙂
VTV, just an editing clarification, but you used the wrong form of “its” in the headline. There’s no apostrophe 😉
-Joey Dauben
former news editor/The Ellis County Press
It takes two to have a war, it only takes one to launch a smear campaign of conspiracy theories and outright lies.
At that point the accused can either respond, or just let that person trash their reputation with anyone who doesn’t know them better.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk
Perhaps it is not so much a war as a lively and vigorous discussion that will result in solid public policy positions which can be implemented by local, state, and federal government.
“Flame war” has been spelled L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N lately…
Takes two (sides) to have a flamewar.
Sadly it pretty much has become the “Flame War Party” and the perpetrators of that in my opinion are too busy blaming it on the people they attacked for daring to fire back at them.
All that aside, if your in the party you should vote. I don’t care who for.
That Boston Tea must be strong stuff. Is that what the kids call it nowadays, Boston Tea? This is your party…this is your party on drugs…any questions?
Perhaps, we should dispense wid der “Boston Tea Party” und create new party, “Flame War Party,” so we no longer pretend to have any other purpose?
WSPP of der FWP….
“The Flame War Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of our party at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of our party at any level, for any purpose.”
Ist good, ja?