45 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Monday Message: Video from CPAC 2011”

1. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 20:23

   All kinds of awesome….
2. Steven R Linnabary February 14, 2011 at 20:29

   Jimmy & Sarah at the end of the video should be careful they don’t get sniffulus!
3. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 20:29

   Nice camera work @ 3: 15 LOL
4. Michael H. Wilson February 14, 2011 at 20:40

   Fantastic!
5. Robert Milnes February 14, 2011 at 21:25

   Ron Paul/Gary Johnson=counterrevolutionary -can’t win ticket.
   Ron Paul can’t win.-The Donald.
   Ron Paul will run-for another $35 million from libertarian suckers.
   Capitalism=freedom=wrong.
   I do like the Gary Johnson sucks t-shirt.
6. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 21:28

   Milnes, you are such a ray of sunshine. No wonder your campaign is such a huge success.
7. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 21:28

   Fantastic!

   Beyond fantastic! 🙂
8. Matt Cholko February 14, 2011 at 22:06

   The Fox News article (or blog post, I think is more accurate) that is linked to towards the end of the post, is hilarious.

   The video is pretty damn good too.
9. Matt Cholko February 14, 2011 at 22:07

   Woops. I didn’t mean to put my e-mail address out there like that. If anyone who has the ability to do so reads this, please remove my previous comment.
10. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 22:09

    Better?
11. Matt Cholko February 14, 2011 at 22:19

    Perfect. Thanks Paulie!
12. George Whitfield February 14, 2011 at 23:00

    Great video and effort. I like the music, the smooth flow, interesting content and Wes kept looking up! I sent a link to the Daily Paul. I am glad the Libertarian Party was there.
13. Sebastian Knowlton February 14, 2011 at 23:07

    Nicely done. I’m happy that there’s a large, growing Libertarian movement inside the GOP and that Paul won the straw poll again. We did good enough to get Fox to write a nasty article about us. That’s definitely a sign of progress.

    The sad reality though, is that Hinkle’s face should be on an LP wall of shame for allowing a kid toucher back into the party here in CA last year, just because he was a personal friend of Mark’s.

    We’d be a lot better off had Myers won chair.
14. paulie Post authorFebruary 14, 2011 at 23:32

    Sebastian,

    I definitely want to see Myers get one of the At Large LNC spots (2 vacancies to be filled). He might make an excellent chair in some future term, after he has had some experience on the LNC, if he chooses to run for chair at that point.

    I’m also glad we have a chair who has served on the LNC in the past, though.

    Mark Hinkle as chair of JudCom determined that the case you speak of was not handled procedurally properly. That is not necessarily an opinion on who should or should not be allowed to participate in the party, and at what level. It’s an opinion that people accused of any kind of wrongdoing should have a certain process with safeguards for proper procedure before they can be removed, that such a process in fact exists under party bylaws, and that it was not followed.

    That is not a reason that Hinkle should be ashamed.

    That is like saying the ACLU should be ashamed because they defended the rights of fascists and communists to speak.

    Or saying that someone should be ashamed if they say accused terrorists should get a fair trial.
15. Michael H. Wilson February 15, 2011 at 00:46

    re # 14. I was once in the middle of a following the process debate. One that ripped the local apart.

    This is an issue that needs to be brought up at the national level and someone, some time needs to write a series of article, and/or brochures on how to do some of the basics, i.e. rules of order are meant to allow everyone an opportunity to participate, etc, etc.
16. Sebastian Knowlton February 15, 2011 at 04:39

    @Paulie,

    I don’t think that you’re wrong. I think that you have been spoon fed the lie that Hinkle tried to pawn off on the rest of the party. I know for fact that two members of the JC here in CA refused to vote against Barnes (the convicted, multiple offense child molester) because he was their “friend”. Those men would be Ted Brown and Terry Floyd. Hinkle followed suit, and when I mentioned it on his facebook page, he pretended not to know what I was talking about. Personally, I don’t get their mentality. If I discovered that one of my friends was a kid toucher, we simply would not be friends anymore.

    This is still an issue that he should be made defend, and answer for. Mark knew what he was doing, and in the process, cost the party an obscene amount of credibility.
17. Robert Capozzi February 15, 2011 at 06:35

    That Paulie is willing to walk away is testament to why he should stay. It’s an attitude I admire, and makes him ideal for the role he’s filling. He is able to listen to others viewpoints and he actually understands them. He presents his perspective, sometimes forcefully, but is adult enough to recognize that he is not the be all and end all of all wisdom.

    More than once has he kept me on point, and for that I am grateful.

    His editorial judgment seems strong to me, aggregating interesting bits from around the LM. He even created these open threads, a brilliant move to vent frustrations. (I feel a song coming up!)
18. Robert Capozzi February 15, 2011 at 06:37

    (Last comment in wrong place…my bad.)

    Nice video. A few observations:

    – Not sure if he was having a bad day, but Gary Johnson was nearly as shifty-eyed as Bob Dole. It seems he needs to work on that, as the inability to fix eyes is often indicative of a person either deeply insecure or not trustworthy. I like Johnson, generally support what he stands for, would like to see him get the R nomination, or to become a L, so please don’t take this as an attack, just an observation. We all can be shifty-eyed at times, but re-watch this video and see if you see what I mean.

    – In other threads, I’ve indicated I am not pleased with the use of the word “shame” on the Republican Wall of Shame. I would lose the “Global Warming” point to mock Gingrich. First, his belief in global warming theory is not his most unL position. Second, I don’t think global warming IS unL. The platform doesn’t take that position. Many, perhaps most, Ls do not subscribe to man-made global climate change theory, but many Ls do. Are THEY “shameful” for holding that position?

    – Making the “Wall of Shame” personal is attention getting, but at a deeper level I’m not sure it works. What if it had been something like: REPUBLICANS: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY? There could have been a litany of ISSUES where the Rs have been anti-liberty or hypocritical. I understand that the smear/counter-smear/counter-smear thing is how politics is done these days, as we’ve seen the Limbaugh-ization of politics. We can’t take our eyes off the roadside car wreck. L can try to play this childish game, or we can transcend it. If we REALLY want to differentiate, maybe the LP can become the civil party. (Yes, I know that 19th century politics were nastier than even now. And this proves what exactly?)

    – Give me more Jimmy McMillan! Jimmy with the Palin impersonator was, as he said, “hot.”
19. Robert Milnes February 15, 2011 at 06:43

    Capozzi, maybe you & Tom should have your own thread for your seemingly neverending debates.
20. Robert Capozzi February 15, 2011 at 06:59

    rm19, if it’s a “debate,” my attitude is the other side always “wins,” since I don’t debate. I share and discuss. When Tom and I discuss things, it’s almost always in that spirit.

    If IPR wants our discussions to be off thread, I’m OK with that. I don’t own IPR.
21. langa February 15, 2011 at 07:56

    Many, perhaps most, Ls do not subscribe to man-made global climate change theory, but many Ls do. Are THEY “shameful” for holding that position?

    No, not shameful, just gullible. 🙂
22. Robert Capozzi February 15, 2011 at 08:02

    l21, hmm, are you serious? People like Phillies, Knapp, Sherer and Bailey are, IYO, “gullible”? Or do I hear a knee jerking?

    I have no position on the matter, but I certainly don’t find these folks to be “gullible” at all. They seem like deep thinkers to me.
23. langa February 15, 2011 at 10:15

    RC, it was actually intended as gentle needling (hence the smiley face). However, I have always found it to be a bit strange that many libertarians, who normally question virtually every type of authority, seem to make an exception when it comes to “scientific” issues, where they blindly accept every “expert” pronouncement, with no skepticism whatsoever.

    For example, it is generally accepted by most libertarians that you should take anything you learned in a public school with a grain of salt, since schools that get their funding from the government are quite likely to end up teaching what the government wants taught. In fact, this is one of the major libertarian arguments for abolishing public schools.

    However, this same reasoning would seem to apply to scientific research that is conducted at government-run facilities or in any other way funded or subsidized by the government. Just as government-funded schools are likely to teach what the government wants taught, is it not also likely that government-funded scientists are likely to reach the conclusions that are preferred by the government, especially in a case like global warming, where such conclusions can (and are) routinely used to justify massive government action?
24. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:18

    Not sure if he was having a bad day, but Gary Johnson was nearly as shifty-eyed as Bob Dole. It seems he needs to work on that, as the inability to fix eyes is often indicative of a person either deeply insecure or not trustworthy. I like Johnson, generally support what he stands for, would like to see him get the R nomination, or to become a L, so please don’t take this as an attack, just an observation. We all can be shifty-eyed at times, but re-watch this video and see if you see what I mean.

    Yeah, I noticed that too.
25. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:21

    RC

    In other threads, I’ve indicated I am not pleased with the use of the word “shame” on the Republican Wall of Shame.

    My response was:

    I’ll grant you that one.

    Unfortunately, this would have been too long for a headline:

    “We’ve already heard some talk about the Republican ‘three-legged stool.’ My view is, Republicans are wrong on foreign policy, they’re wrong on social policy, and they’re lying hypocrites on economic policy. Their stool has no legs.”

    Republican Wall of Shame got attention.

    Sometimes shame is better than force as a way to curb bad behavior.

    I’m for keeping things positive – but we are dealing with massive dysfunction, and it has to be confronted. War crimes, corporate bailouts of trillions, the homeland security state on speed and steroids, the 20 year war in Iraq and the 10 year war in Central Asia, entitlements and government debt spinning out of control, these are advanced signs of malignancy.

    A little shame now may be better than a potentially bloody revolution later, I think.

    Now all we need is to confront the Democrats with the equivalent message to “We’ve already heard some talk about the Republican ‘three-legged stool.’ My view is, Republicans are wrong on foreign policy, they’re wrong on social policy, and they’re lying hypocrites on economic policy. Their stool has no legs.”

    In the case of the Democrats that message is: your president and the congressional leadership of your party are perpetuating and worsening the Bush/Republican wars, the Bush/Republican assaults on civil liberties, and the Bush/Republican corporate bailouts. And what is more, you kept right on doing that when you had the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

    The Democrats aren’t delivering peace, civil liberties or social justice. The Republicans are not delivering economic liberty or small government.

    Over the past 20 years, we have had divided governments with Republicans as President and Democrats as President, and with Republicans in control of Congress and Democrats in control of Congress. We’ve had unified governments where Democrats controlled both the presidency and congress, and unified governments where Republicans controlled both.

    And no matter which of those arrangements we had, peace, civil liberties, economic liberty and social justice all keep going down the tubes.

    By all means, let’s keep taking that message to the Republicans. Let’s take it to the Democrats too.

    Even if we have to shame them a little.
26. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:26

    I would lose the “Global Warming” point to mock Gingrich. First, his belief in global warming theory is not his most unL position. Second, I don’t think global warming IS unL. The platform doesn’t take that position. Many, perhaps most, Ls do not subscribe to man-made global climate change theory, but many Ls do. Are THEY “shameful” for holding that position?

    My previous response to Dr. Phillies on that point:

    You know when a big government politician such as Newt says “we” should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere, what he means by we is the government…and whenever government tries to take “the most effective possible steps to reduce…” you name it: terrorism, poverty, drugs, drinking, or pretty much anything else…it is more likely than not to make things worse.

    Thus, even someone as utterly convinced of anthropogenic climate destabilization as you are should oppose whatever big government scheme Newt has in mind when he wants “we” to ” move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.”

    I know I still owe you a more detailed discussion of alternatives to monopoly government “solutions” to that problem. Sorry I haven’t gotten to that yet, but I’m still planning to.

    I think you are jumping to possibly unwarranted conclusions if you think the point about Gingrich was making any kind of statement about whether humans are causing climate destabilization or not.
27. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:28

    Making the “Wall of Shame” personal is attention getting, but at a deeper level I’m not sure it works. What if it had been something like: REPUBLICANS: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY? There could have been a litany of ISSUES where the Rs have been anti-liberty or hypocritical.

    All the discussions of individual Republicans quickly got down to issues.

    You can discuss issues all day long, but what good does that do if no one is listening?

    Give me more Jimmy McMillan!

    Yes!
28. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 12:45

    If I discovered that one of my friends was a kid toucher, we simply would not be friends anymore.

    And if you were being removed from an organization you worked hard in, for any reason, regardless of how valid or invalid, would you want a fair hearing where you have a chance to confront the evidence against you, have time to prepare a response, and be allowed to deliver one?

    If that was done in this case, and the result of such a process ignored due to friendship, you are correct about Mr. Hinkle.

    If the proper procedures were not followed, then you are wrong, regardless of whether you are correct that the person in question should have been removed or not.

    In any case, I stand by the other portion of my previous response: I’m glad we got someone to chair the LNC who has previously been on the LNC in other capacities, chaired a state party, etc.

    I’m also a big fan of Mr. Myers, hope to see him on the LNC as of the next meeting, and if he decides to run for chair in the future after getting some experience on the LNC, I may well support him.
29. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 17:15

    @ 26 For anyone who might wonder what that is in reference to, see

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/jim-duensing-running-for-libertarian-nomination-for-president-of-usa/

    Comments 260, and 265 through 281.
30. Porn Again Christian February 15, 2011 at 19:42

    http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap8.html
31. paulie Post authorFebruary 15, 2011 at 20:43

    That’s a good introduction to libertarian environmental perspectives. There’s a lot more, too. Still feeling kinda sluggish but I do intend to do some writing about this.
32. Robert Capozzi February 15, 2011 at 21:37

    l23: However, I have always found it to be a bit strange that many libertarians, who normally question virtually every type of authority, seem to make an exception when it comes to “scientific” issues, where they blindly accept every “expert” pronouncement, with no skepticism whatsoever. For example, it is generally accepted by most libertarians that you should take anything you learned in a public school with a grain of salt…

    me: Me? I take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. When people who are L like Phillies and Carl Milsted (ok, formerly) who’ve got PhD’s in physics and are quite the skeptics take the view that man-made global climate change theory is correct, that does get my attention, I admit. I don’t see those guys as obedient at all, and questioning authority is practically my religion!

    So when you speak of blind obedience to authority, your observation rings hollow for me, since I don’t know any Ls who fit your category.

    Interestingly, I see more “blind obedience” on ideological matters, e.g., the Rothbard/Block/Rockwell plumb line. Except for the narrowest of exceptions, those who follow them seem to me in an almost robotic state, reciting to me the plumb line when I challenge it, as if it were immutably cast in stone. Just my perception, of course.
33. John C Jackson February 15, 2011 at 22:18

    Milnes is Milnes but he probably has a point or two. Ron Paul can’t win, and the political business of Ron Paul is good for business. It was good for the newsletter business after his first Congressional career and low key LP run. And wow, that whole Ron Paul political business really exploded in 2008. 2011-2012 is looking like a great time to do some fundraising.

    Keep in mind, I’m not saying this is a Bad thing, especially if most of the money supports pro-liberty activism.
34. FYI! [More Don Lake] February 15, 2011 at 22:20

    # 22 Robert Capozzi // Feb 15, 2011:

    Phillies, Knapp,

    [Lake: the LP as the one and only American Peace Party ?????????????? Lordie, lordie!]
35. Michael H. Wilson February 15, 2011 at 23:09

    Mr. Cappozi @ 18 wrote, “First, his belief in global warming theory is not his most unL position.”

    Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy, or libertarian politics. How it is solved, if that is needed, may. And a couple of points on that issue have been posted here previously.
36. Matt Cholko February 15, 2011 at 23:19

    I think the whole wall of shame thing was quite appropriate for a gathering of people who are likely to have been “let down” by the GOP recently. That includes Newt’s “title”.
37. Paul Truesdell February 16, 2011 at 06:08

    http://floridawhig.com/issue/clintons-state-department a recent update to the website of the Florida Whig Party
38. Paul Truesdell February 16, 2011 at 06:09

    http://floridawhig.com/issue/cpac-heritage CPAC and Heritage.

39. Pingback: Leftist on conservative vs libertarian, supports stronger LP | Independent Political Report

40. Daniel Wiener February 17, 2011 at 03:54

    @1 Sebastian Knowlton stated:

    “I think that you have been spoon fed the lie that Hinkle tried to pawn off on the rest of the party. I know for fact that two members of the JC here in CA refused to vote against Barnes (the convicted, multiple offense child molester) because he was their “friend”. Those men would be Ted Brown and Terry Floyd. Hinkle followed suit, and when I mentioned it on his facebook page, he pretended not to know what I was talking about.”

    I’m afraid that Sebastian is factually-challenged. Ted Brown and Terry Floyd were not even on the LPC Judicial Committee. The five JC members were Mark Hinkle, Less Antman, Allen Hacker, Rick Nichol, and myself. Two individuals had their memberships suspended by the LPC Executive Committee, and in both instances the JC reached a unanimous decision to restore their memberships. Our conclusions certainly had nothing do with any friendships, but were based strictly on the merits of the cases as they were presented to us.

    We now return this discussion to the regularly-scheduled topic…
41. paulie Post authorFebruary 17, 2011 at 08:06

    Mr. Wiener,

    Thank you for the additional information.

42. Pingback: “Republican Wall of Shame” ad updates | Independent Political Report

43. Pingback: Republican Wall of Shame is up | Independent Political Report

44. Porn Again Christian March 11, 2011 at 15:21

    @43 Awesome! Finally!

45. Pingback: Libertarian Party Monday Message: Republican Wall of Shame ad has been placed in Washington Post online | Independent Political Report