Libertarian activist/blogger James Leroy Wilson announces a Facebook group calling for the nomination of just-acquitted proud pornographer John Stagliano for President “by acclamation at the 2012 Libertarian Party National Convention.”
Wilson, arguing in support of the notion:
Nominating Mr. Stagliano for President would send a message to America. It would say that libertarians reject, completely, the federal war on consensual behavior, and that, whatever we think of pornography, we’d rather have a porn producer who respects individual rights, as Mr. Stagliano does, as President than anyone who believes porn producers should be in jail.
sc: Robert, I would far rather see you as president of the United States than the current president or vice president, any member of the Supreme Court, or any member of Congress save perhaps Ron Paul.
me: My oversight not to’ve thanked you for these kind words. I wish I agreed. While I strongly disagree with Obama and Biden, and I find jurisprudential theory wanting, I’m not qualified for any of those offices. Congress, maybe. If Bernie Sanders and Sonny Bono can be elected, we know that in America anything is possible. In my case, since I live inside the Beltway…not gonna happen.
Now, Starchild for Congress representing SF: That’s compelling!
Given how long it’s probably been, he might come before unzipping his pants.
Milnes: “Like I said,”First come, first served.
If Smith come forward for the vp position, I would be hard pressed to say no.”
Translation: PLeASe get Milnes a date. If any woman will say something other than no, get under him and assume the position, he will press forward hard and come.
Like I said, he’s erratic. Some of the passages below about arms and government generally and that he says he’s not a R put him in the vague L camp. Invading Columbia? Not so much.
WIKI on Willis’s politics:
In 1988, he and Moore actively campaigned for Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis’s Presidential bid. Four years later, he supported President George H.W. Bush for reelection and he was a vocal critic of Bill Clinton. However, in 1996, he declined to endorse Clinton’s Republican opponent Bob Dole, because Dole had criticized Moore for her role in the film Striptease.[51] Willis was an invited speaker at the 2000 Republican National Convention,[52] and actively supported George W. Bush that year. He did not make any contributions or public endorsements in the 2008 presidential campaign. In several June 2007 interviews, he declared that he still maintains some Republican ideologies.[4][14]
In 2006, he proposed that the United States should invade Colombia, in order to end the drug trafficking.[53] In several interviews Willis has said that he supports large salaries for teachers and police officers, and says that he is disappointed in the United States’ foster care and treatment of Native Americans.[51][54] Willis also stated that he is a big supporter of gun rights:
“Everyone has a right to bear arms. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, then the only people who have guns are the bad guys.” Even a pacifist, he insists, would get violent if someone were trying to kill him. “You would fight for your life.”[55]
Willis has criticized the religious right and its influence on the Republican party. In February 2006, Willis appeared in Manhattan to talk about 16 Blocks with reporters. One reporter attempted to ask Willis about his opinion on current events, but was interrupted by Willis in mid-sentence:
“ I’m sick of answering this fucking question. I’m a Republican only as far as I want a smaller government, I want less government intrusion. I want them to stop shitting on my money and your money and tax dollars that we give 50 percent of… every year. I want them to be fiscally responsible and I want these goddamn lobbyists out of Washington. Do that and I’ll say I’m a Republican… I hate the government, OK? I’m apolitical. Write that down. I’m not a Republican.[56] ”
Willis’s name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times on August 17, 2006, that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[57]
That’s the side of paleolibertarianism I like least. Their economic and foreign policy work is among the best. Social issues are their achilles heel IMO.
About the only thing I know about his views is that he is pro-war and, if I remember correctly, a Bush/McCain supporting Republican. I can think of one person who thinks that makes him a “true libertarian,” but I think most of us would disagree.
I’m not convinced that the general public is equally persuadable. Certain segments of the general public, who are strongly alienated by the prevailing status quo, are a much more focused audience for us.
Granted, those include some who strongly disapprove of pornography as well. The acid test with those is whether they are willing to coexist with pornographers in a political coalition that would also benefit other groups they are more likely to be a part of or sympathize with – e.g., homeschoolers, tax resisters, gun enthusiasts, etc. A successful liberty coalition would have to unite pro-liberty elements that would otherwise want nothing to do with each other.
pc, Gibson’s top of mind as the Rockwell crowd seem to be promoting Mel of late. Their paleo proclivities die hard, I guess.
Die hard? Hmm. Bruce Willis’s politics seem a bit erratic, but he seems vaguely in the L camp.
Point is: An adult filmmaker who is L and who has been unsuccessfully prosecuted is not a complete non-starter for me, but I cannot imagine that this is the image we’d want to advance to the general public nationwide.
Rodney King would be a good Libertarian candidate if he is a libertarian. Stagliano adheres to a libertarian ideology, thus would make a credible libertarian candidate. King has certainly felt the brunt of government at its worst, but so have many other people who have not extrapolated from their experience to other areas of government action. Some, however, have. If you have a way to contact King and ask about his political views, I’d encourage you to do so.
Mel Gibson would make a poor libertarian candidate. He has made some good movies (and not just the ones you mention), but what I know about his political views is that he is a Pat Buchanan type, perhaps a bit on the David Duke side. Obviously, he has some serious personal problems. Domestic violence, chronic alcohol abuse and racism are among the traits that I would least look for in a candidate. However, if Gibson were to overcome those personal issues in a convincing way and adopt a much more consistent pro-liberty philosophy, his celebrity and wealth would make him a compelling candidate.
In case my last comment was not sufficiently clear, I don’t think a history of being abused by the government is in itself sufficient to qualify someone to be a libertarian candidate. However, among the many people who agree with drastically cutting government in all areas, I would say that having “been there and done that” is a plus, not a minus should they choose to consider running for office.
pc, our mutual hero, Rodney King, fits your description of a good L candidate well. Not only did he do drugs, the cops bashed his head in on tape.
Or, Mel Gibson might be a good choice. I do believe he was born in the US, and when he cried out “Freedom” in BRAVEHEART, that certainly was inspirational. And for the Truthers, his role in CONSPIRACY THEORY adds all sorts of street cred. He might not play with certain ethnic groups, like Jews and Russian women, but we can’t let a few shortcomings diminish an otherwise strong candidate.
Just in case it’s not obvious, I am kidding!
Just what voters would be gained by nominating Stagliano?
A candidate who has put his life, freedom and fortune on the line for liberty – in this case, freedom of speech – would impress many people as someone who should be taken seriously when he mouths words, unlike the numerous suits who run for office and generally can’t be believed to do what they say if/when elected.
Furthermore, although a lot of people don’t like to admit to watching porn, the sales figures indicate that a lot of people do. Many of them will already know who Stagliano, at least if he mentions “Evil Angel,” “Buttman,” etc.
The first job of a Libertarian candidate is to get attention. Any angle that leads to a media interview or mention is an opening. After that, it’s all about how well said candidate can handle the questions.
mhw, and I didn’t say you did. This thread, however, is all about putting an adult filmmaker at the top of our ticket.
RC writes: “It’s loopy, however, to say that those in jail would make better presidents! For all we know, they might be FAR worse.”
I didn’t say or suggest that someone behind bars would make a better president. Where did you read that in my comment?
mhw, ADR, but one has nothing to do with other, IMO. Of course in the grand scheme of things presidents authorize acts that are harmful and unjustified. And of course there are people in jail who have harmed no one.
It’s loopy, however, to say that those in jail would make better presidents! For all we know, they might be FAR worse.
Chauncey Gardener is part of a fairy tale!
IMO.
#30: over the top or to lose relevance or time to cancel the show because it’s become a joke.
The Crane faction thought the shark had been jumped when Bergland was nominated in ’83 after Clark’s relative success. Others thought so when Marrou won. Or when the hermit Harry Browne got nominated the first time. Badnarik’s resume didn’t strike a cord with the average voter either. At least Barr had been a congressman but lots of voters remembered his impeach Clinton fervor. Just what voters would be gained by nominating Stagliano?
#36: stop worrying about being taken seriously?
Is the LP not supposed to be a political party that wants to win races? One hopes our leadership can figure out ways to be both serious
and engaged in doing the right thing.
sc: Libertarians should stop worrying about whether or not they are going to be taken seriously, and just focus on doing the right thing!
me: I’d put a full stop in after “worrying.” 😉 It never makes things better, only worse!
Doing the “right thing” is indicated. I’d suggest there’s LOTS of latitude as to what the right thing is.
The most helpful illustration I’ve found is when some Ls — who, I’m sure, are well meaning — advocate the right to private nukes, publicly and proudly. I don’t happen to agree with them that that’s the right thing, but in my judgment it CERTAINLY discredits them with virtually the entire population of the Earth. I’d wager big money on the outcome of that poll.
Maybe — especially when advocating grandiose ideas — we should take into account sensible feedback, yes? On some theoretical level right up there with string theory and black holes, there IS a “right” to private nukes. That doesn’t sound humble or effective to me, but, then, I’ve been incorrect before!
Let see. We got a guy behind bars who may have helped some others learn that sex can be a pleasure for people. And we have a couple of U.S. presidents who are responsible for the deaths of a number of innocent civilians walking around and getting the big bucks. Maybe we have a problem? WWJD?
Paulie, thanks for posting that beautifully written appeal to free Max Hardcore.
Robert, I would far rather see you as president of the United States than the current president or vice president, any member of the Supreme Court, or any member of Congress save perhaps Ron Paul.
If your community is being terrorized by a criminal gang, the most important qualification for gang leader is a desire to stop the terrorism. People may expect lots of things from the gang leader that are very difficult to do in a manner that meets their expectations, but none of that really matters. Most of what the gang is doing is wrong, so if the gang leader did absolutely nothing, this would be a significant improvement on the status quo.
Libertarians should stop worrying about whether or not they are going to be taken seriously, and just focus on doing the right thing!
Max Hardcore and John Stagliano came first many times, and have the videotaped evidence to prove it.
sc, OK, well I do see it as both illogical and non-serious, so it appears our opinions differ. I, for ex., would like to see innocent people released from jail, but I don’t believe I am qualified to be president of the US. Simply having one or several or all opinions being aligned with liberty is not preparation for a challenging job. It doesn’t follow that having the opinion that liberty is “right” and it works is suffices as the sole qualification for that job. That’s not logical, near as I can tell.
Non-serious should be obvious. Do you really believe that nominating an acquitted adult-film producer would be viewed by a significant percentage of the population as a “serious” candidate?
IF so, we’re definitely watching a different movie, my friend. But it really is all good.
http://www.maxhardcoreblog.com/2009/08/reflections-from-behind-bars.html
now can we free Max Hardcore??
http://maxhardcoretv.com/FreeMaxHardcore.htm
Free Max Hardcore!
As you have probably heard by now, the groundbreaking and legendary adult film maker Max Hardcore, was recently found guilty for the production of “Obscenity,” and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison, and fined Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars! Other artists who have been convicted of Obscenity in the past include comedian Lenny Bruce and author James Joyce.
Max Hardcore’s films were found to be illegal because they “violated community standards.” With the assistance of the judge, the prosecutor inflamed the jury as they painting Max Hardcore as a violent predator – even though there was no real violence at all! Thoroughly prejudiced, the jury ignored the fact that Max’s scripted and staged productions involved only willing and well paid participants of legal age. The jury even ignored the glowing praise by one of his so-called victims who starred in three of the five movies on trial.
Take a quick look at history and you will find that most truly great art violates community standards. Max Hardcore was sentenced to prison because he is a creative, brilliant, groundbreaking pornographer. Instead of being tried in Los Angeles, where he lives and works, he was tried in a conservative part of Florida, because some of his internet servers happened to be located there. This sets a very dangerous precedent to all those who have blogs or websites no matter where you live!
Humanity progresses through offensive ideas. Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. Copernicus and Galileo were arrested for proving that Earth was not the center of the universe. Jesus was crucified for teaching a religion of peace and acceptance.
The freedom of speech is the right to pursue and develop ideas, and to share those ideas with the world. It is the right to pursue greatness and truth. It is the right to do art, to do science. It is to express yourself with the help of others, so long as everyone is participating of their own free will.
By jailing a truly groundbreaking artist, the government has not just taken away one man’s freedom. They have taken away the right to pursue new ideas, to challenge and improve the accepted ways of doing things, to seek artistic greatness. And they have taken this right not only from Max Hardcore, but from every one of us.
Sincerely,
Stanton Audemars
Rattled Films
You Can Do Something About this!
Max Hardcore was never a rich man, but has financed this case up to this point, and spent nearly all his money. To carry it onward to the appeals process, Max now needs the help of all people who know the importance of Freedom of Speech, and the Sanctity of one’s own home.
Now is the time to show you mean business, and contribute whatever you can, be it $20, $100, $1,000, or more, every dollar counts! Max has set up a fund so he can mount a robust appeal, and get this case thrown out, for so many good reasons, that it shows the conservative elements of the Justice Department that people aren’t going to stand for being treated like unpatriotic citizens anymore! Here’s what you can do:
Contribute by Check or Money Order:
Make checks Payable, and Send them to:
Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz, LLP
Attorneys at Law
920 Fourth & Race Tower
105 West 4th Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2726
(Memo Note on check that it’s for the Max Hardcore Defense Fund)
Contribute using a Credit or Debit Card! Call them at: 513 721-4876
(Say you want to contribute to the Max Hardcore Defense Fund)
Contribute using a PAYPAL account: Put [email protected] as the recipient.
Three cheers for John Stagliano on his acquittal! I don’t know about president — we certainly shouldn’t nominate *anyone* by acclamation — but it would be nice to see a congratulatory resolution from the Libertarian National Committee.
To Robert Capozzi @9 – I see nothing illogical or non-serious about stating that libertarians would rather have a porn producer who respects civil liberties as president than anyone who thinks porn producers should be in jail. Picking a hedonist over a tyrant should be an easy choice.
The millions of innocent people in jail in the United States should be near the top of any pro-freedom president’s list of concerns — especially considering that all wrongfully incarcerated federal prisoners could be immediately released by the simple act of a presidential pardon (see http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/prespardons.htm)
around, “jump the shark” I take to mean to go over the top. If we’re on the same page, I’d ask in which campaigns have we jumped the shark? I can only think of a few, like the blue guy in MT.
Do we have to jump the shark in campaign after campaign???
“NF explained his name a little while ago.
I think it had something to do with when his clothes were in style.”
Aw shucks, Bob… you remembered!
NF explained his name a little while ago.
I think it had something to do with when his clothes were in style.
And Robert Milnes asks the very sane question that everyone is probably asking. How to blamee Nader for the oil spill?
I have much information whose sources I cannot divulge, but evidence will be forthcoming at some undefined point. Nader is a secretive manipulator with reserves of assets a thousand times large as the richest person currently known. He is one hundred times powerful than George Soros, who has used his money to change the economy.
Nader, along with his three main strategists/partners Michael Kavlan, Wayne Allyn Root and Mark Seidenberg, control BP. They made the decision to spill oil into the Gulf of Mexico on purpose, in order to attempt to damage Obama’s reputation. Nader pretends to care about the environment, but he is willing to destroy it because he thinks it may prevent the rise of Catholic Trotskyism.
But Catholic Trotskyism, after a difficult year, is on the rise again. God showed a sign of this because of CCatholic socialist Spain’s victory over the predominantly protestant, libertarian-leaning country of the Netherlands.
Thanks NewFederalist.
By the way, what exactly is “new federalism?” Is it a well-defined ideology, or still in development?
Like I said,”First come, first served.
If Smith come forward for the vp position, I would be hard pressed to say no.
now can we free Max Hardcore??
I am so happy to hear that the charges were dismissed. John Stagliano is a long-time California Libertarian and is certainly devoted to the cause. With all the sexually-related material on the internet, and on DVD, it’s a wake-up call that federal prosecutors are still interested in prosecuting such cases. It seems like something out of the 1970s or 1980s. Of course, the LP has advocated the repeal of pornography laws since the 1970s, and this just shows that we must remain vigilant. There are untold thousands of laws on the books that aren’t being enforced — until they are!
—–
Let’s really ruin the LP’s chances.
Stagliano/Ruwart.
—–
Stagliano/Ruwart would get probably 100-200 times as many votes as Milnes/anyone.
Saying that something, making pornography for example, shouldn’t be against the law is a far cry from saying that it is a good thing. It is the same as saying that the Drug War is a BAD thing, while also saying that using illicit drugs is a bad choice (while continuing to insist that self-ownership makes that choice a right).
“The LP blew it in 2008 with the rejection of Christine Smith.”
Hmm… Milnes/Smith the winning ticket in 2012? I could happen! Characterize them as Peter Pan and Tinkerbell and THAT’s a winning strategy!!
Okay, how would Gravel-Ruwart been a winning ticket? Gravel was seen as a joke when he ran for the Democratic nomination and as soon as Ruwart’s nutty philosophy regarding children came out, well………………..
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
The LP blew it in 2008 with the rejection of Christine Smith.
Let’s really ruin the LP’s chances.
Stagliano/Ruwart.
CT, how can you blame Nader for the BP oil spill?
& how many decades has it been since Ralph bought a new suit & shoes?
C ‘MON.
Stagliano should run for dog catcher first.
Paulie, moron. & since you supported dinosaur prick fossil Ron Paul all 2008, then Stagliano/Paul is ok with you?
But OBVIOUSLY I meant that sarcastically.
PLAS is passe… PSLA is the new way!
We coulda, we coulda.
Welcome home Catholic Trotskyist! You are a breath of fresh air and a welcome sanity check to this serious group of largely humourless pundits. God save the Tsar!
Can’t someone nominate him for Congress first?
jlw: …we’d rather have a porn producer who respects individual rights, as Mr. Stagliano does, as President than anyone who believes porn producers should be in jail.
me: I wonder if this “logic” is widely held in the LP? Or is Wilson making a joke?
Regardless, I find it a non-serious point. The job of president entails many skills and views. While I certainly agree that adult film producers shouldn’t be in jail, I can’t say it’s ever been a consideration of mine, and I suspect has never been a consideration of many with the possible exception of adult film producers.
My list includes things like:
– Unlikely to push the button on the nuclear football.
– Considers war a last resort.
– Would do what he or she could to begin to unwind the Nanny State.
– Strongly biased against using federal policies to manipulate the private markets.
– Understands that legal and regulatory certainty is important in allowing the economy to grow.
– Inclined to liberalize social policies, aligning the rule of law with a more peaceful approach.
As to this post, the Catholic Trotskyist Party will under no circumstances sympathize with the presidential campaign of a pornographer. As for Milnes’s PLAS, I agree with it for the most part except that it must include the Constitution Party and theocrats in general as well.
And it must never include Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader is a fascist/stalinist criminal of the highest order. He is personally responsible for the BP oil disaster, and his various secret investment movements have led to the current financial crisis we are now in. Nader is a false flag progressive. In reality, he is the mastermind behind George W. Bush, along with the leadership of Iran, North Korea and many African dictatorships. He must be stopped.
Well, additionally, many of you will be unhappy to hear that I, the chairman of the Catholic Trotskyist Party, have returned, and will be posting on IPR fairly regularly for the next couple months.
Some have speculated that I was gone for so many months because I needed to conduct various important missions for the Vatican and Hugo Chavez and our revolutionary commander Barack H. Obama. Others may speculate that I am the same person as various other IPR trolls who have been posting for the past several months. I may divulge the truth at some point, but I will neither confirm nor deny all rumors.
Excellent idea. Has anyone asked him?
I have too many facebook groups now BTW…I can no longer join even if someone invites me, at least on my main account.
I’m sure some of the old ones are junk, but I don’t feel like looking through them to unjoin some.
tk, Hah! I do have many other interests!
But, yes, this idea has “contra-indicated” written all over it.
I’m pleased you are learning how to anticipate my opinions! 😉
Did you win?
Damn it. I bet myself a quarter that Capozzi would come in with a bad case of the “contra-indicated” vapors before Milnes represented with the “we coulda won if only …” PLAS hype.
In 2012 the LP can win by:
1. Nominating a fusion-progressive/libertarian- ticket. Gravel was clearly an anti-war progressive.
2. Nominating an Independent fusion ticket. Such as Nader/libertarian. Milnes/libertarian. If Nader had selected a libertarian vp, instead of a fellow progressive, that would be it. Accept it & help it win or lose.
& remember, a winning ticket has huge coattails.
That’s right. Throw away another opportunity to win the presidency.
You had a winning fusion candidacy land in your laps in 2008-Gravel/Ruwart.
You STILL could have won in 2008 with BTP or just after with Milnes/Ruwart.
Who would be the Stagliano vp., counterrevolutionary Ron Paul?
Losertarians.