Jesse Ventura talks about seeking Libertarian nomination, praises Cynthia McKinney as potential running mate

 

In the above recent interview, the former Independence Party Governor of Minnesota further explains an idea has talked about before: seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination at the 2016 convention, while refusing to become a member of the Libertarian Party and instead campaigning as a no-party-affiliation independent.

In the past Ventura has said that he would also want to reject the Libertarian ballot label, while still having Libertarian ballot access, which would not be possible in most states where the two are linked. He now seems to have dropped that condition, in favor of accepting the regular nomination or “endorsement” of the Libertarian Party, so long as the party agrees to his non-Libertarian status.

Ventura also praises Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party nominee for President, saying he would like to have her as a potential running mate.

388 thoughts on “Jesse Ventura talks about seeking Libertarian nomination, praises Cynthia McKinney as potential running mate

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    He really is obnoxious when he thinks we’d like to have him as our candidate. Ain’t no way, Jess!

  2. Andy Craig Post author

    I used to think his “if I can run as a non-Libertarian” thing was his way of dismissing the possibility of seeking the Libertarian nomination. From the sounds of it, he’s actually seriously considering the idea, and has thought out more in detail what it would take to actually secure the nomination, how ballot access would work, etc.

    My personal opinion is “absolutely not, and I trust the delegates will have better sense than that.” But at the same time Ventura vs. Johnson for the 2016 nomination is a very interesting scenario to ponder, and would be quite the development. It would make for a much higher-profile pre-nomination campaign than the LP has had in the past, that’s for sure.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    “My personal opinion is ‘absolutely not, and I trust the delegates will have better sense than that.'”

    Recent history suggests that your trust is misplaced. Remember, a majority of Libertarian National Convention delegates allowed themselves to be convinced that Bob Barr was a libertarian and that Wayne Root was wealthy and famous.

  4. Andy

    How about this? The LP has already thrown adherence to libertarian ideology under the bus with the 2008 and 2012 Presidential tickets, so how about Gary Johnson for President with Jesse Ventura as his Vice Presidential running mate in 2016?

    Sure, Jesse Ventura is not a solid libertarian, but neither is Gary Johnson, or Jim Gray, or Bob Barr, or Wayne Root.

    Jesse would bring a lot more publicity to the ticket tham Jim Gray does, and at least he is not a cop worshipper.

  5. Andy Craig Post author

    Maybe “trust” isn’t the right word. Still, even Barr and Root were smart enough to claim to be Libertarians, pander to the delegates, etc.. Other concerns (like basic sanity) aside, I have a hard time thinking the delegates would go for his don’t-sully-my-name-by-calling-me-one-of-you idea. Which is partly why I found it noteworthy that he did tone that down a bit, and laid out an agreement the LNC could actually hypothetically accept (even if they’ wouldn’t). Didn’t Nader have some sort of similar deal with the Greens, after all?

    Ventura running would automatically have many enthusiastic (rabid?) supporters, and even though I think he’s certifiably insane, I do think there is a segment of the LP that would receptive to it. And of course, as always, much depends on the composition of the convention delegations, and who has an organized turnout effort.

    However, I think we can all agree that however that might play out, the delegates to the Libertarian National Convention are about as likely to nominate McKinney for VP as they are the ghost of Karl Marx.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, it would certainly be interesting for two men who have both said that they’d really prefer to run without the Libertarian Party both attempting to win the nomination. I do think Gary Johnson needs competition, and it might make him finally give up on the Fair Tax and a few other issues if he had to compete.

  7. Andy Craig Post author

    “If he follows through, at least I’ll get to watch how that plays out from the best seat in the house in Orlando.

    #ManWithTheHammer”

    lol. 🙂

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    I absolutely can’t envision a Johnson/Ventura ticket. Why would Ventura agree to be only a vp candidate? And would Gary agree to be only a vp? I can’t see either one doing that.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    I can’t see Ventura accepting the second chair. Not just because of his ego, either. He was elected governor of a state with more than twice the population of New Mexico and without major party backing.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    “However, I think we can all agree that however that might play out, the delegates to the Libertarian National Convention are about as likely to nominate McKinney for VP as they are the ghost of Karl Marx.”

    I dunno. I know at least one 2008 Libertarian National Convention delegate who voted for her in the general election.

  11. tpsarrdesigns

    It was the Bush WH, Silverstein (Neten-yahoo’s bud) and Israeli Mossad that did 9/11. CIA confirms. See CIA Asset Susan Lindauer 911 Truth on Youtube, and reports on Veterans Today.
    Bush Sr was part of the pack that whacked JFK and he and Cheney and their puppets – LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Regan, Junior, Obama – have been destroying this country ever since. Again, see VT.
    Never trust a Bush, Clinton, Obama…. so Jesse ranks at the top. But both National Committies who foisted their criminals onto USA still call the shots, sad to say. Will he or anyone not peddling Israeli or corporate agendas ever be US President again?

  12. Andy Craig Post author

    I think there’s a pretty big gap between what Johnson said, and what Ventura is talking about. The similarities pretty much end with them both noting the value of the Libertarian Party’s ballot access. Johnson never said that he doesn’t want to be called a Libertarian, doesn’t want to be a member of the LP, etc. All he did say, was that “independent” is a popular description among voters, which is hardly some kind of heresy, before continuing to explain that he wants to run as a Libertarian because he views the LP as the best-fit for his ideas and that the LP has several advantages over a potential independent candidacy. That’s a far cry from being openly contemptuous of Libertarians.

  13. Andy Craig Post author

    “I can’t see Ventura accepting the second chair. Not just because of his ego, either. He was elected governor of a state with more than twice the population of New Mexico and without major party backing.”

    I think his ego would have a lot more to do with it than either of those factors. And even if Ventura was willing, Johnson (or anybody else likely to win the nomination) wouldn’t be, and rightfully so.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    “That’s a far cry from being openly contemptuous of Libertarians.”

    I agree. He does a decent job of hiding his contempt. Which must be pretty hard. He had to have been busting a gut trying to get back to his hotel room in 2012 before the fist pumps and belly laughs. “Jesus — I asked them to nominate me so I could get a government welfare check to wipe out my campaign debt from running for their worst enemy’s nomination … AND THEY BOUGHT IT! WHAT CHUMPS!”

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I think his ego would have a lot more to do with it than either of those factors.”

    Maybe, in a sense. Asking Jesse Ventura to play second fiddle to Gary Johnson in a political campaign would have been like asking Arnold Schwarzenegger to co-star behind Jesse Ventura in “Predator.” Some things just don’t pass the laugh test.

  16. Andy

    Jesse Ventura offered to be Ron Paul’s Vice Presidential running mate if Ron would have run as a Libertarian Party candidate or as an independent in 2012. Also, Jesse did endorse Gary Johnson for President in the general election in 2012.

    So how about it, Johnson/Ventura 2016?

  17. Andy Craig Post author

    “Maybe, in a sense. Asking Jesse Ventura to play second fiddle to Gary Johnson in a political campaign would have been like asking Arnold Schwarzenegger to co-star behind Jesse Ventura in “Predator.” Some things just don’t pass the laugh test.”

    I guess you’re trying to make this some kind of dig at Johnson, but I don’t see the point. Ventura was a one-term Governor of a medium-sized state. Johnson was a two-term Governor of a medium-sized state. If you’re just talking about paper credentials, it’s a wash. At least Johnson didn’t end his first term incapable of being re-elected. There are a number of reasons Johnson/Ventura would never work, but the idea that Ventura is just too impressive/famous/viable/credentialed/etc. to be Johnson’s VP isn’t among them.

  18. Andy Craig Post author

    “I can’t see any circumstances where I would support Ventura for the POTUS or VP nomination.”

    Same here. If he weren’t so unstable and such a conspiracy kook, the idea would have some possible merit. But then he wouldn’t be Jesse Ventura, he’d be some other hypothetical libertarian-inclined ex-Governor who isn’t crazy. And there’s only one of those.

  19. JudComm to Rise from Invisibilty

    The issue as noted above is that our delegates have a record of falling for people like Campagna, Barr, Root, etc. rather than people who appear to be actual party activists who have campaigns that do not function to raise money for their staff (long list here).

    There is some hazard that Ventura or Johnson will get the nomination, not to mention that Randall might show up.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    No, it’s not intended to be a “dig” at Johnson. I think Ventura would be an even worse candidate in a lot of ways. But that’s saying a lot right there.

  21. Jed Ziggler

    Despite the fact that Ventura is a former governor, it’s hard to take his presidential aspirations seriously. In his book Don’t Start the Revolution without Me he lays out a (completely serious, keep in mind) plan he laid out to Vince McMahon where Vince would create a ‘WWE Party’ for a Vinny Mac “presidential campaign”. The idea would be presented as completely kayfabe storyline, but in the meantime the party would gain actual ballot access. At the “convention”, live on RAW, Ventura would show up & declare his candidacy for the nomination, and the delegates (fans in attendance) would nominate Ventura over McMahon, and he would launch a real campaign.

    As you can imagine, Vince didn’t take him seriously, and rightly so.

  22. Richard Winger

    The article itself has a minor flaw. Jesse Ventura was elected on the Reform Party ticket, not the Independence Party ticket. When Ventura won, the party’s name was Reform Party. It changed its name back to Independence in 2000, while Ventura was Governor.

  23. Dave

    I think he’d do about as well as Gravel did. maybe slightly better, given his higher profile. Though even that has drawbacks, considering he’s a controversial figure. But eh, I hope he goes for it. If only for the excitement factor

    Libertarians, any guess if Johnson and Ventura would take from each other or have their own separate bases of support? Neither one seems to be someone more radical members of the party would jump for joy over.

  24. Mark Axinn

    Out of curiosity, in what way is the repellant Ventura even remotely small-l libertarian? (I already know he is not Large-L Libertarian.)

    Many on this list do not approve of Bob Barr, but at least he adhered to our platform (especially on privacy issues) when running in 2008.

    I don’t think Ventura’s “It’s all about me so shut up!” attitude constitutes much of a pro-freedom platform.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Many on this list do not approve of Bob Barr, but at least he adhered to our platform (especially on privacy issues) when running in 2008.”

    In your imagination, perhaps. In the real world, not so much.

  26. Andy

    Jesse Ventura could easily flood the LP Convention with delegates and take the nomination. Lots of regular LP people would vote for him as well with the hope that he’d bring the party more publicity, just like they voted for Barr in 2008 and Johnson in 2012.

  27. Andy

    While Jesse Ventura is not a hardcore, or consistent libertarian, he does hold a lot of libertarian views. I’d say that he hovers between centrist and lower libertarian on the Nolan Chart.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Jesse Ventura could easily flood the LP Convention with delegates and take the nomination.”

    The ease — and frequency — of “flooding” LP national conventions seems to mostly be myth. I’m only aware of one instance in which it was really given a very good try (Eli Israel for Chair, 2002), and that time it backfired.

    And really, Ventura’s 15 minutes have been up for awhile. I’m guessing that if it came down to a real fight to get people to stand for selection as delegates from state LP affiliates and make the cut if it was competitive, Johnson would whip Ventura’s ass without breaking a sweat.

  29. Mark Axinn

    Tom Knapp–

    Barr campaigned in my state a few times that summer. I recall he attacked FISA courts and Gitmo, PATRIOT Act, TSA. Very strong on 1st and 4th Amendment issues.

    In fucking reality, not in my mind.

    I stand by my statement.

    The point of course was not about Barr, but for someone to enlighten me on the several pro-freedom positions and actions Ventura has taken. I agree with Jed that he has helped the cause of third-party independents, but then so did Ralph Nader, Tom Golisano and Ross Perot.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mark,

    When you say Barr “adhered to the LP platform,” you’re not saying “he was good with part of it,” you’re saying he didn’t come out against it.

    He came out against it within a week of getting the nomination when he repudiated his apology for DOMA and claimed that DOMA was “state’s rights,” which in turn were “the essence of libertarianism.”

    If Hitler was good on everything except, you know, Jews, would you say he “adhered to the LP platform?”

  31. Mark Axinn

    DOMA was an idiotic bill and Barr never should have promoted it in the first place.

    I did not support him and even bumped into to him on the elevator in Denver wearing a button in opposition.

    Then he won the nomination and was our candidate and espoused libertarian positions on the same points I raised above. Your Hitler comment is churlish and inaccurate.

    I am still interested in whether Ventura, the subject of this article, has ever been even remotely libertarian and when. At least Barr had positions in which he adhered to the LP platform.

  32. Andy Craig Post author

    @Richard Winger “The article itself has a minor flaw. Jesse Ventura was elected on the Reform Party ticket, not the Independence Party ticket. When Ventura won, the party’s name was Reform Party. It changed its name back to Independence in 2000, while Ventura was Governor.”

    The article doesn’t say he was elected IP, it says ‘former Independence Party Governor of Minnesota’, which as you note he was for the latter half of his term. 😉 My understanding is that Ventura stuck with the Minnesota party, when it disaffiliated from Reform in protest of Pat Buchanan’s nomination, which is also when they changed their name back from Reform to Independence.

    @ Andy “While Jesse Ventura is not a hardcore, or consistent libertarian, he does hold a lot of libertarian views. I’d say that he hovers between centrist and lower libertarian on the Nolan Chart.”

    I think that’s a fair summation. Most of his weaknesses, are things that wouldn’t necessarily show up in a Nolan Chart position.

    @TLK “The ease — and frequency — of “flooding” LP national conventions seems to mostly be myth. I’m only aware of one instance in which it was really given a very good try (Eli Israel for Chair, 2002), and that time it backfired.

    And really, Ventura’s 15 minutes have been up for awhile. I’m guessing that if it came down to a real fight to get people to stand for selection as delegates from state LP affiliates and make the cut if it was competitive, Johnson would whip Ventura’s ass without breaking a sweat.”

    Hard to disagree with any of that, particularly the point that “packing” the convention is a lot easier said than done.

    @Jed Ziggler. Wow I didn’t know that, re the WWE presidential campaign.That’s truly pants-on-head insane. Then again this is a guy who is also talking about running for President, after he publicly claimed to have renounced his US citizenship (he didn’t really, at least not yet.)

    An interesting thought: has Ventura been a resident of Mexico these past several years? I know he splits his time between the two countries, but has he maintained US residency? If not, I could see a constitutional eligibility problem, though I don’t know if anybody would or could attempt to enforce that. I can see some Republican secretary of state trying to pull that to keep Ventura off the ballot though, if he were the nominee.

  33. Andy Craig Post author

    “I am still interested in whether Ventura, the subject of this article, has ever been even remotely libertarian and when. At least Barr had positions in which he adhered to the LP platform.”

    Your point about Barr is well-taken. However, I think it’s a fair summary to say that Ventura is 1) anti-war 2) favors individual freedom on social issues 3) generally opposes higher taxes and economic regulation 4) is pretty big on civil liberties, surveillance, etc.

    By no means a consistent libertarian, and many of his focus issues are outside the scope of ‘libertarian or not?’, but Andy’s description of him as straddling the centrist/libertarian sections of the Nolan Chart seems accurate to me. Keeping in mind that there’s no tinfoil-hat or personality axis on the Nolan Chart. 🙂

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    “An interesting thought: has Ventura been a resident of Mexico these past several years? I know he splits his time between the two countries, but has he maintained US residency? If not, I could see a constitutional eligibility problem”

    Nah. The Constitution residency requirement is that the candidate have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It obviously doesn’t have to have been the LAST fourteen years in sequence, or else neither Thomas Jefferson (returned from France in 1789, elected VP in 1796 and president in 1800) nor Dwight D Eisenhower (what was abroad through at least 1945 for World War II then elected in 1952) would have been eligible. Ventura has certainly spent more than 14 years of his life in the US.

  35. Austin Cassidy

    Ventura, sadly, has become a punchline.

    Constantly teasing these presidential campaigns that will never happen just to stay mildly relevant has gotten old. He’s Donald Trump without the money.

  36. David Cox

    Putting aside that Jesse believes (or pretends to believe) the government controls the weather, the man was in the worst Batman movie ever. That’s not something we can overcome.

  37. Joseph Buchman

    Andy @ March 3, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    “My personal opinion is “absolutely not, and I trust the delegates will have better sense than that.” But at the same time Ventura vs. Johnson for the 2016 nomination is a very interesting scenario to ponder, and would be quite the development. It would make for a much higher-profile pre-nomination campaign than the LP has had in the past, that’s for sure.”

    I agree wholeheartedly. At the 2008 LP POTUS nominating convention I cast a vote for Jesse Ventura (not sure it made the minutes, but it was shown up on the screen in one of the rounds).

    Today I have zero interest in Jesse, or in supporting ANY former Republican. If I go to Orlando, I’ll be voting for whoever is best at articulating libertarian principles — damn the expected vote count.

    That said, I think a fight among Jesse, Gary and whoever that libertarian-purist might prove to be would be great for the convention/for media coverage of libertarian ideas and conflicts. And it’s that media coverage that does more good for spreading our message than anything else that might come out of that convention.

    At least that’s how it seems to me this far back “in history” from when that Convention will actually be taking place.

  38. Andy Craig Post author

    “Nah. The Constitution residency requirement is that the candidate have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It obviously doesn’t have to have been the LAST fourteen years in sequence, or else neither Thomas Jefferson (returned from France in 1789, elected VP in 1796 and president in 1800) nor Dwight D Eisenhower (what was abroad through at least 1945 for World War II then elected in 1952) would have been eligible. Ventura has certainly spent more than 14 years of his life in the US.”

    Diplomatic or military service abroad doesn’t terminate a person’s United States residency for legal purposes like this. Jefferson and Eisenhower still had their homes in Virginia and wherever Ike lived. But I think you’re correct that the requirement can be satisfied cumulatively.

    Of course, if he actually followed through with his statement about renouncing US citizenship, then he clearly wouldn’t be eligible, and many states would probably refuse to put him on the ballot. Unless you want to argue that being a non-citizen doesn’t change the fact that he was still born as one, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I don’t think you can be a “natural born citizen” if you’re no longer a citizen.

  39. Joshua Katz

    In my opinion, Ventura’s most libertarian moments came as a commentator. See his great attacks on jingoistic patriotism – best examples are his comments on Hacksaw Jim Duggan, whose entire gimmick (besides carrying around a piece of wood for some reason) was unthinking patriotism.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Diplomatic or military service abroad doesn’t terminate a person’s United States residency for legal purposes like this.”

    It wasn’t a “United States residency for legal purposes” thing. It was a “we don’t have rulers who show up in the country for the first time, other than on vacations, just in time to take office, like they do in Europe” thing. In order to be president, you had to have actually resided “within the United States” for a total of at least 14 years during your life. And Ventura has.

  41. Guess what

    Like Gov. Ventura, McKinney is a leader on 9/11 — the most important libertarian issue of the century. Both blow Johnson and Barr out of the water on that issue. The only LP nominee who comes close is Badnarik. (But there’s no need to select a hobo for the ticket when there are two functional people willing to step up.)

  42. Andy

    Yeah, Jesse Ventura blows away some so called “Libertarians” when it comes to questioning official government bullshit stories, like what really happened on 9/11, with the JFK assassination, etc…

    I wish that Jesse was more hardcore on libertarian philosophy, like his fellow pro wrestler Glenn “Kane” Jacobs is. If he was, he’d be a pretty ideal candidate.

  43. Jed Ziggler

    “the man was in the worst Batman movie ever” It was a small role, though his starring role in Abraxas: Guardian of the Universe is something I think we all deserve an apology for.

  44. Jed Ziggler

    “But there’s no need to select a hobo for the ticket when there are two functional people willing to step up.”

    Hi Nathan Norman, how ya doin?

  45. Joshua Katz

    By the way, if he’s in the debate, I hope he gets asked about the Dino Bravo bench press challenge. I have two questions about that:
    1. How much did Jesse help while spotting?
    2. How much weight was really on the bar, and which of the plates were fake?

  46. David Cox

    I just won’t vote for a candidate who hasn’t studied the works of Rothbard and Gorilla Monsoon.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    I wasn’t a big fan of Clooney as Batman, but that movie isn’t even close to being as utterly and completely bad as the second Michael Keaton film was.

  48. Jed Ziggler

    I disagree, in fact I’d go so far as to call Batman & Robin the worst movie ever made. And yes, I know there’s all kinds of no-budget, z-grade, shot-on-video crap out there. I contend Batman & Robin is worse than all of them, because it is just as poorly made & visually unappealing, and was made by somebody who should’ve known better.

  49. paulie

    I think it’s a fair summary to say that Ventura is 1) anti-war 2) favors individual freedom on social issues 3) generally opposes higher taxes and economic regulation 4) is pretty big on civil liberties, surveillance, etc.

    Not based on his record as Governor. He talked libertarianish before he was elected governor, too.

  50. Joshua Katz

    What about The Room?

    Hopefully the crowd at the convention will go bananas. Not having seen the room, I’m not sure where the Gorilla Position will be.

  51. Andy

    Gary Johnson’s record as Governor is a bit overrated as well. Private prisons (a fake libertarian reform in a police state), lack of pardons, and apparently, government still grew as well according to an article Warren Reidlich (sp?) posted here a while ago.

    One cool thing Jesse did as Governor which I am not aware of any other Governor doing was that he publicly talked about the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports ( see http://www.CAFR1.com ) for state government in Minnesota, and he said that surplus money should be returned to the people.

  52. paulie

    Gary Johnson vetoed more bills than all other governors combined, and was the first governor I can think of – certainly the first Republican governor I can think of – who openly came out for legalizing pot while in office. Ventura passed the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history and wanted a draconian crackdown after 9/11, regardless of what he says about it now. As a mayor and governor he was pretty much a Democrat in all but name (DFL in Minnesota).

    Yeah, Johnson could have been even better as Governor, but consider the fact that he was elected twice as a Republican in a heavily Democratic state with large Democratic majorities in the legislature and relative weak gubernatorial powers compared to many states. There’s only so much he could have done. The legislature controls the budget process more than the Governor does. He did have the best job growth nationally, IIRC.

    Please show me which governors have issued blanket pardons for whole classes of state laws that people were imprisoned for. Not Ventura as far as I know. In fact I can’t think of a single one anywhere ever.

    So there was a world of difference.

  53. Matt Cholko

    For entertainment value, I’d love to see Ventura in the POTUS race. But, I damn sure do not want to see him on the LP line.

    I think the deal is that he’s full of shit. He will not run, at least not in any serious way, for POTUS in 2016. I’m pretty sure that he just says this stuff in order to keep himself in the conversation. Or, maybe he’s just bored.

  54. Andy

    According to Wikipedia, former California Governor Grey Davis vetoed 1,112 bills. That beats Johnson’s veto total of 750.

    I know there is more to the story, and I am not suggesting that Davis was better than Johnson.

  55. Dave

    One thing that can perhaps be said in Johnson’s favor is that before he ran for president, he was leading in the polls for the New Mexico senate seat ,the only Republican to do so. It probably would have been his had he wanted it(and indeed, I recall some RP supporters trying to lobby to get him to run for senate instead of president) He refused, probably because he prefers executive positions. But I don’t think his career as a Republican was entirely dead, and I think that refutes the notion that he only joined the LP because he had no other option. Though perhaps after his poor performance in the GOP primaries he felt that way.

    Actually, I just looked it up and apparently Johnson could technically run for governor again. The limit seems to be on two consecutive terms. I wonder if it’s something he’d consider. The next election is not until 2018, so he could pull a Sarvis and run for president and than governor in 2018. I do hope he honestly considers this.

    Getting back to the subject at hand, I doubt Ventura will run. But someone mentioned Donald Trump, and this seems to be the time he’ll actually give it ago, so who knows. Perhpas Jesse will get the bug as well.

  56. Austin Cassidy

    Donald Trump isn’t running for President. Jesse Ventura isn’t running for President.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Gary Johnson vetoed more bills than all other governors combined”

    I’ve seen that claim, but only in material very obviously promoting Johnson. Wikipedia says that’s an “estimated” kind of thing, and it it looks pretty sketchy.

    It’s hard to tell because the numbers are expressed as percentages, but it looks like Pete Wilson of California alone may have come close to keeping pace with Johnson on vetoes. Wilson had a slightly lower veto percentage during the same timeframe as Johnson than Arnold Schwarzenegger did later; Schwarzenegger vetoed nearly 2,000 bills in seven years. Of course, maybe a lot more bills landed on his desk than landed on either Wilson’s or Johnson’s. But until I see something besides “estimated,” I think I’ll consider the “more than all other governors combined” a likely myth.

  58. paulie

    That’s the first time I have even seen it questioned. Seems hard to believe that I wouldn’t have seen this counterclaim before. I’ll see what I can find out.

    Overall, from what I know, Johnson’s record as Governor was still much better than Ventura’s.

    Besides, I don’t think Ventura will follow through. He talks about running every time but never does it. He’s just trying to keep from fading in the news.

  59. Dave

    Ventura probably won’t run. Suggesting McKinney as a running mate shows he’s not exactly put much thought into it, unless he believe he can show up and be nominated.

    Though it makes for another fun hypothetical. Assuming the LP becomes enslaved by Mr. Ventura’s pure charisma and nominates him and McKinney, I wonder if the Greens would co endorse? Such an act would be something of a Biblical sized miracle, so perhaps the Constitution party would declare their support as well.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, to be clear:

    1) I’m not a Ventura supporter; and

    2) I don’t think Ventura would beat Johnson for the LP’s nomination, if for no other reason than that Johnson is well positioned to run a much better delegate recruitment ground game. Aaron Russo’s demeanor pissed off lots of potential supporters as he toured LP state conventions. I think Ventura would be like that, only more so.

    But I’m not too sure about #2, because so much of the result develops AT the conventions.

    PJ O’Rourke once wrote that trusting politicians with money and power is like trusting teenage boys with whiskey and car keys. An LP national convention is sort of like that, only add turning all those drunk teenage boys loose an enclosed parking lot with the family cars with trash bags full of cocaine in the passenger seats. There’s never any telling what kind of crazy shit they’re going to get up to. Frankly, I’m surprised that we’ve never had the national chair pull out a pistol, put it to his own head and pull the trigger right there at the podium.

  61. paulie

    Though it makes for another fun hypothetical. Assuming the LP becomes enslaved by Mr. Ventura’s pure charisma and nominates him and McKinney, I wonder if the Greens would co endorse? Such an act would be something of a Biblical sized miracle, so perhaps the Constitution party would declare their support as well.

    Sure. And the Democrats and Republicans will also nominate them. The election can be cancelled, they can be coronated as king and queen, and all will live happily ever after.

  62. Dave

    If it was not clear, I was being tongue in cheek. The Greens and LP co nominating the same ticket would be on par with the parting of the Red Sea. 🙂

  63. Andy Craig Post author

    The 750 figure is just for complete bills he vetoed, that doesn’t include his prolific use of the line-item veto, which ran well into the thousands. The claim is for both combined, vs. the total number of both types of vetoes in the same years by the Governors of the other 49 states.

    For comparison’s sake just on full-vetoes (where it’s easier, but still difficult, to hunt down actual numbers), in first year in office Ventura vetoed 45 bills, in his last year he vetoed 9, and he was considered a veto-happy Governor. Even with a few outliers (CA being one of them), most states don’t see a single veto of a complete bill in most years.

  64. Bondurant

    Jesse has some solid stances but a lot of his beliefs and philosophies fall well out of the libertarian sphere. Bob Barr and WAR probably are more libertarian than Jesse. In one of his books Jesse wrote that he had an image of Che Guevara on his mirror because he “admired” him. Listen to his interviews on the Howard Stern Show. Jesse has many socialist-Statist leanings.

    I have my doubts he’s have any success in Orlando and this wreaks of a publicity ploy.

  65. NewFederalist

    “Ventura, sadly, has become a punchline.

    Constantly teasing these presidential campaigns that will never happen just to stay mildly relevant has gotten old. He’s Donald Trump without the money.” – Austin Cassidy

    Seems to me this just about sums it up.

  66. Steve M

    I am in the “I hope Ventura Runs” side. Not that I want him to be the nomination. But the more nationally known people that seek the Libertarian niomination the more publicity the party will get. And as they say in rock and roll there is no such thing as bad publicity.

  67. Nicholas Sarwark

    Frankly, I’m surprised that we’ve never had the national chair pull out a pistol, put it to his own head and pull the trigger right there at the podium.

    Forgive me if I decline to be the first.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick,

    To be clear, I’m not suggesting it’s a good idea. I’m just saying I’m surprised that it hasn’t happened. By now, I would have at least expected Redpath to turn around, hose M Carling down with gasoline, and set him on fire. Or SOMETHING. The national convention stage is a surrealistic nightmare.

  69. Andy

    I’d prefer to see Jesse Ventura run as an independent rather than as a Libertarian, unless if he were to somehow brush up on libertarian philosophy (say he took some classes at the Mises Institute, or something like that).

    However, if we were to put philosophical purity aside, which the LP has basically done at Presidential nominating coventions since 2008, Gary Johnson for President with Jesse Ventura for Vice President may not be a bad idea.

  70. NewFederalist

    “However, if we were to put philosophical purity aside…”

    Which has happened all too often.

  71. Gene Berkman

    To put the California veto numbers in context: every year the California legislature passes more than 1500 bills – so a two term Governor will face signing or vetoing 12,000 pieces of legislation.

    The only exception occurred a few years back. Republicans elected 41 members of the state Assembly out of 80. Outgoing Democrat Speaker Willie Brown got all 39 Democrats plus one Republican to vote for a Republican for Speaker; the Republicans in Orange County organized a recall of the Assembly member who had been elected Speaker. So Willie Brown organized the 39 Democrats to vote for another Republican as Speaker; the new Speaker was then recalled by voters in his Fresno district. The oddity of three elections for Speaker distracted the Assembly, and they only passed 600 laws that year.

  72. Seymour Results

    As my old pal Greg used to say: “Nay-bobs of negativity niggling over nitnoids.” In true libertarian form, everyone here has read hundreds of books on philosophy, and not one book on basic political strategy. Nor have any of the people here figured out strategy on their own. Nor have any of the people here taken any action that could conceivably result in an outcome of more liberty, at the local level.

    Thus, the Libertarian Party is a joke and a laughingstock, and Jesse Ventura couldn’t make it more of one if he tried.

    Jesse’s support of government-run healthcare, lorded over by the FDA disqualifies him from calling himself a small-L libertarian. However, he could be a total communist and get the nomination, because he has something the LP lacks: a basic (if simplistic) comprehension of strategy. If Jesse Ventura had 500 or so people register as Libertarians right now (with the intention of working to get seated as delegates), he’d win at the Convention. Now, I doubt he’ll do that, but he’s capable of it. Jesse Ventura occasionally asks himself the question: “Would any mainstream voters support _______?” In doing so, he does what virtually every libertarian on this comment thread fails to do. For that, I salute him: he has indicated that he has a rudimentary conception of strategic reality.

    If Ventura wanted to, he could pack the LP Convention with delegates, count existing delegates as “number 2s,” and win over the margin of victory. It’s not that hard to imagine, given the victory of drug warrior (anti-libertarian) Barr.

    In fact, if Ventura bothered to crack a book and adopt more libertarian views, I might even support him, if only to nominate someone who cares about “the result/consequence/outcome of freedom,” rather than “the purely abstract philosophy of freedom.”

    Libertarians fail to see that the result of liberty is 50% philosophy(theory), and 50% strategy(implementation). Most libertarians don’t even get the philosophy correct, stupidly blathering about “anarchy v. minarchy” or a host of other non-issues that absolve them from doing the difficult work of actually working towards liberty. And that means they score a ZERO on strategy. So, the overall “libertarianism” score of most libertarians is around 40%. (40% philosophy + 0% strategy = 40%)

    Ventura beats that handily, because he’s about 30% on philosophy, and 30% on strategy. That gets him a 60% or a “D-” (for all those here who are government school graduates).

    There you go. History in the making.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    “In true libertarian form, everyone here has read hundreds of books on philosophy, and not one book on basic political strategy. Nor have any of the people here figured out strategy on their own. Nor have any of the people here taken any action that could conceivably result in an outcome of more liberty, at the local level.”

    Actually, I’ve read a number of books on basic political strategy. I’ve also managed winning political campaigns for local office, done reasonably well as a candidate myself, etc.

    When it comes to delegate recruitment and floor operations at Libertarian National Conventions, I’m not the most experienced person around, but I’d bet money I’m in the top ten.

    I’ve been heavily involved in the delegate recruitment end in two presidential cycles.

    In one of them (2004), my candidate came in first on the first two ballots, and the party establishment’s favored candidate was eliminated. His manager publicly blamed ME for that, by the way.

    In the other (2008), I was part of the working team of a coalition that held Bob Barr off for five ballots.

    I would bet money that if Ventura started a serious bid for the LP’s 2016 presidential nomination and there was a ground game for pre-convention delegate recruitment, Johnson would whip Ventura’s ass on that end of things without breaking a sweat.

  74. Andy

    If Ventura started early enough to organize, I think he could beat Johnson. Remember, Ventura was elected to the office of Governor as a minor party candidate in a state with more than double the population of New Mexico, plus he is a bigger celebrity than Johnson, and he has more charisma than Johnson.

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    Johnson’s not especially charismatic, to put it nicely.

    Ventura’s charisma goes in both positive and negative directions. Some people really like the simultaneously gruff and grandiose pro wrestler persona. Other people hate it.

    The ground game goes like this:

    Most 2016 national convention delegates will mostly fall into these groups:

    1) 2012 delegates who supported Johnson, most of whom seem to be glad they did.

    2) Newer members and first-time delegates, many of them drawn into the LP by Johnson’s 2012 campaign.

    Those people will probably support Johnson if he asks them to.

    3) 2012 delegates who didn’t support Johnson, but for reasons that militate against them supporting Ventura either.

    A prospective fourth group is new LP members whom Ventura recruits and asks to stand for selection as delegates.

    But if that turns out to be a competitive process, the people SELECTING DELEGATES will mostly fall into the first three groups.

    If Ventura wanted to run a successful ground game to pack the 2016 national convention, he needed to have started in 2013, if not earlier.

    His only option for getting the LP’s 2016 nomination is to run a Hail Mary — come to the convention and try to change minds.

    As weak as Johnson is, I don’t see anything like a majority of LP national convention delegates going for Ventura versus Johnson in such a case.

  76. paulie

    In true libertarian form, everyone here has read hundreds of books on philosophy, and not one book on basic political strategy. Nor have any of the people here figured out strategy on their own. Nor have any of the people here taken any action that could conceivably result in an outcome of more liberty, at the local level.

    Speak for yourself. Many people here have done all those things and more.

    Thus, the Libertarian Party is a joke and a laughingstock, and Jesse Ventura couldn’t make it more of one if he tried.

    Oh, I think he easily could.

  77. paulie

    Typically, a majority of delegates at any LP national convention are new, or fairly new. I expect only a minority of Orlando delegates will be people who were Summerlin, NV delegates. Of the Summerlin delegates 70% voted for Johnson, but some of those did so because he is an ex-governor, which Ventura is also, so they could be in play. Some people have told me they regret voting for Johnson or would not do it again. Some are just perpetually restless; my memory is a bit hazy, but I think Browne had a stronger contingent of detractors the second time he was nominated. I do know that none of the people who ran against Browne for the nomination either time were crossover mainstream politicians (ex-governors etc). It will be interesting to see what would happen if we have two former governors try for the nomination.

  78. paulie

    I don’t think either Ventura or Johnson would accept a nomination to run as VP with the other one. And I don’t believe the LP delegates will seriously consider Cynthia McKinney for any position on the ticket regardless of who else is on the ticket in any capacity.

  79. Andy

    There were LP delegates who voted for Mike Gravel, and he was about as libertarian as Cynthia McKinney.

  80. Andy

    I think Jesse Ventura may very well accept a VP run with Gary Johnson as the candidate for President. Remember, Jesse offered to be Ron Paul’s VP if he ran minor party or independent, plus Ventura likes Johnson and he endorsed and campaigned for him last time.

  81. paulie

    There were LP delegates who voted for Mike Gravel, and he was about as libertarian as Cynthia McKinney.

    Not nearly enough to nominate. I don’t think this will change.

  82. paulie

    I think Jesse Ventura may very well accept a VP run with Gary Johnson as the candidate for President. Remember, Jesse offered to be Ron Paul’s VP if he ran minor party or independent, plus Ventura likes Johnson and he endorsed and campaigned for him last time.

    Ventura might endorse Johnson, and might offer himself as VP if it were Ron Paul, but he would probably not think Johnson is a big enough deal for himself to run as VP.

  83. Joe Wendt

    I’m not a big fan of Ventura. Personally, I prefer DWP or George Phillies or Chuck Moulton for the nomination. But, I can see the appeal of Ventura being the nominee, and would prefer Ventura over Johnson. He has the charisma and he actually has a fan-base. I actually created a facebook group to see attempt to recruit delegates to support Ventura if he chose to seek the LP nomination, with a more Libertarian VP choice:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/LPJesseVentura/

    At least it will be entertaining.

  84. Guess what

    There are plenty of LP voters who aren’t necessarily involved in the party infrastructure, although they might have been to so,me degree in the past, who would support Ventura at the convention.
    But as Seymour pointed out, Ventura would have to declare in the next month or two to get these people (re)involved in the party enough in time to get delegate slots at the convention.

  85. Mark Axinn

    >Frankly, I’m surprised that we’ve never had the national chair pull out a pistol, put it to his own head and pull the trigger right there at the podium.

    Geoff Neale looked like he was ready to do so quite a few times in Columbus.

  86. Andy

    Jesse Ventura is noted for his charisma from his pro wrestling and Hollywood movie days. Gary Johnson is not the worst in terms of charisma, but Jesse Ventura definitely has him beat here.

  87. LibertarianGirl

    ‘>Frankly, I’m surprised that we’ve never had the national chair pull out a pistol, put it to his own head and pull the trigger right there at the podium.

    Geoff Neale looked like he was ready to do so quite a few times in Columbus.’

    shoulda seen Redpath in Denver, when a certain delegate, i forget who:),yelled division every single vote trying to filibuster , and drove him nearly mad …

  88. Joshua Katz

    For better or for worse, this party is more comfortable with “right deviations” than “left deviations.” I use scare quotes because I tend to have a less binary view than most of being a libertarian, but I do think delegates, and party membership, will tolerate a lot more social baggage than economic.

  89. paulie

    To whatever extent a Ventura run for the nomination might change that, as long as he doesn’t actually get the nomination, it may be a good thing.

  90. Joseph Buchman

    I’m surprised no one here has yet mentioned Jesse’s Conspiracy Theory television series (and the inherent negatives):

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572498/

    “Hidden power, secrets, cover-ups, corruption. You think you know the whole story? Think again. I’ve been governor, a Navy SEAL, a fighter. I’ve heard things that will blow your mind. And now I think it’s time that you get the whole story.”

  91. Andy

    Conspiracy Theory was an excellent show. It is a shame that it did not run longer, but I suppose it was too good to last.

    I think that show would bring in more votes for Jesse Ventura, as the people who did not like it were establishment types who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what.

  92. Mark Axinn

    Libertarian Girl:

    I was in Denver 2008; voted for Mary Ruwart on all six ballots.

    Bill held his cool better than Geoff, but both did fantastic jobs given the incredibly disrespectful attitudes of a small number of our members.

  93. paulie

    Only statist bootlickers think that’s a negative.

    Guess again.

    Believing in grand conspiracy theories doesn’t necessarily mean someone is anti-statist. It can mean they would like an even more statist regime than the one we have now, if we could only get replace the people in government with the correct people. It places the blame on a select group of conspirators, rather than on the nature of state power itself, and thus can be a deflection from realizing that no matter who you put in charge of that much power they will abuse it … even if they are not Freemasons, or Jews, or Illuminati, or whatever.

    There is an opening with people who are skeptical of government stories that they could be skeptical of government power, and there is some overlap between conspiracy buffs and anti-statists, but there are also many people who want to radically shrink or even eliminate monopoly government who are skeptical of, or even hostile to, grand conspiracy theories, and there are also conspiracy buffs who would prefer an authoritarian or even totalitarian state to the relatively softer authoritarianism of today’s regime.

  94. paulie

    That is, conspiracy-mongering has a positive side for seeking people more generally devoted to cutting government (skepticism towards government) but also a negative side (seeing the problem as being a select group of conspirators that has allegedly captured control of government – so we would be OK if we just took government “back” from them – rather than government power per se). For the most part it’s a distraction.

  95. Andy

    This same fallacy can be applied to anyone who questions anything the government does, that is, “Put me or somebody I support in charge of government, and I or we will run it right.”

    People who are wise to the fact that people in government tend to be more libertarian as a group (on average) than people who are not.

  96. Andy Craig Post author

    Well put, paulie.

    The government loves nothing more than being able to discredit its opponents as conspiracy kooks. I will never assist or promote such a portrayal of Libertarians. If we want to be taken seriously by voters as a plausible, legitimate alternative governing party, then we have to actually act like a plausible, legitimate alternative governing party. And that means knowing when to say “no” to somebody trying to connect their insane, delusional conspiracy rants to the party’s public image.

    Though, hypothetically, if we wanted to talk conspiracies and the Libertarian Party… If I were a nefarious government or major-party agent trying to disrupt and destroy the LP, I’d be sending in people who otherwise talk a good libertarian game and then start rambling on about chemtrails, aliens, psuedo-science, the Illuminati, and the New World Order, and other topics which signal “crazy” to the public at large while having precisely bupkis to do with promoting the Libertarian platform. It would probably be the single most effective way to undermine the LP and ensure we aren’t a serious threat to Republicans and Democrats winning elections.

    I don’t think that’s where our conspiracy kooks actually come from, at least not most of them. But it’s a lot more plausible than the government secretly controlling the weather and poisoning the clouds. Nobody is going to seriously consider voting Libertarian on the strength of our ideas about taxes or civil liberties or the economy, etc., if we’re standing next to a person in a tin-foil hat screaming about black helicopters and shape-shifting lizard people.

  97. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig said: “Though, hypothetically, if we wanted to talk conspiracies and the Libertarian Party… If I were a nefarious government or major-party agent trying to disrupt and destroy the LP, I’d be sending in people who otherwise talk a good libertarian game and then start rambling on about chemtrails, aliens, psuedo-science, the Illuminati, and the New World Order, and other topics which signal “crazy” to the public at large while having precisely bupkis to do with promoting the Libertarian platform.”

    What you’re suggesting is every bit as much a “conspiracy theory” as some of those you say will harm the party.

  98. paulie

    There’s nothing inherent in believing that the current government is controlled by a grand conspiracy that leads anyone to believe the government needs to be much smaller no matter who is in charge. And if we do make government much less relevant in our lives, it won’t be nearly as important who controls it. Libertarians are not seeking government offices because we are inherently more competent or better people than whoever have them now, but to reduce the power of those offices no matter who gets them.

    tend to be more libertarian as a group (on average)

    I don’t know that this is necessarily true. They may come off that way because they have some anti-government leanings, but in some cases that rhetoric can be misleading because they would actually replace it with a government that is just as big or bigger, but they say things which make you think they are more libertarian than they are. Is your evidence for this correlation only anecdotal, or do you know of any studies that point to such a correlation?

  99. Andy Craig Post author

    “What you’re suggesting is every bit as much a “conspiracy theory” as some of those you say will harm the party.”

    That’s the point, and why I described it as a hypothetical, not an assertion. I don’t think the powers-that-be actually take the LP seriously enough to bother.

  100. Andy

    I have been in the Libertarian Party since 1996 and I have never seen or heard of one Libertarian talking about lizard people.

    I have heard numerous Libertarians question things like 9/11, the OKC bombing, Ruby Ridge, the ’93 WTC bombing, the legality of the income tax and its application, the JFK assassination, the post 9/11 anthrax mailings, Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, etc…

    My experience from being involved in the Libertarian Party and movement since 1996, and after interacting with I do not even know how many thousands of people, is that those who question what the government says or does are more likely to be libertarian, or at least libertarian leaning, than those who believe everything the government says.

    The best way to grow the Libertarian Party and movement is by appealing to people who question authority, not by watering down the message in an effort to appeal to those who do not question authority.

  101. paulie

    Since I am not as necessarily averse to conspiracy theories in general as Andy C is, nor as enamored of them as Andy J, I’ll go ahead and say that it’s quite plausible to me that governments have “seeded” opposition movements with adherents of the most far out conspiracy conjecture (lizard people, hollow planets, the planes on 9/11 being laser projections, etc). On the other hand, I also think it would happen anyway, with or without government “plants.” The same is true with agents provocateurs who try to steer opposition movements towards terrorist violence.

  102. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy said: “The best way to grow the Libertarian Party and movement is by appealing to people who question authority, not by watering down the message in an effort to appeal to those who do not question authority.”

    I agree.

  103. paulie

    My experience from being involved in the Libertarian Party and movement since 1996, and after interacting with I do not even know how many thousands of people, is that those who question what the government says or does are more likely to be libertarian, or at least libertarian leaning, than those who believe everything the government says.

    Yes, that’s what is known as anecdotal evidence. It tends to have a strong confirmation bias. That’s why studies with methodology to assure a more neutral sample selection exist. Let me know if you can find any good ones on this question that we can examine.

    The best way to grow the Libertarian Party and movement is by appealing to people who question authority, not by watering down the message in an effort to appeal to those who do not question authority.

    Questioning specific authority and questioning authority in general are two different things, which may or may not correlate.

  104. paulie

    Since Cynthia McKinney was brought up – as a potential LP VP nominee no less – does she question government authority on issue such as the 9/11 report? Yes. Would she make government a lot bigger on the economic side? Also yes. There are many other examples. So the correlation between questioning specific authorities in power and in questioning the power of authority is less established than you may think.

  105. Andy Craig Post author

    Conspiracy theories aren’t about questioning the government, they’re not about challenging authority. They’re about questioning and challenging reality. The facts of events as seen, known, and accepted by everybody else on the planet. It’s about being in on some secret knowledge that the public at large doesn’t know, about convincing yourself you’re superior because you know better than all the dumb sheeple that live in the mundane world of rational sanity and let themselves be fooled by The Conspiracy™. None of it has anything to do with limiting or challenging government.

    The entire world of the conspiracy theorist is built around the idea of being a perpetually tiny persecuted minority – the concept of winning majority opinion over to change things doesn’t even compute with them. And why would it, when by their own theories it’s clearly a futile effort doomed to hopeless failure? Winston Smith didn’t defeat Big Brother, after all.

    And you might not have met a Libertarian talking about secret human-alien hybrids and the government cover-up thereof, but then you weren’t in Wisconsin last year. 😉

  106. paulie

    The entire world of the conspiracy theorist is built around the idea being a perpetually tiny persecuted minority – the concept of winning majority opinion over to change things doesn’t even compute with them. And why would it, when by their own theories it’s clearly a futile effort doomed to hopeless failure?

    It depends on which ones you mean. Lots of conspiracy buffs imagine themselves being at the front edge of leading a heroic charge to “wake the sheeple from their slumber” and start a revolution, topple the evil illuminati (or whatever they are), and live happily ever after.

  107. Andy Craig Post author

    That’s the rhetoric they talk to pump themselves up, and maybe they buy it. I’m sure there are Scientologists who think they’re going to convert the whole world, too. But groups built around a persecution complex, who never blame anybody except the omnipotent outside conspirators for their own failure, are not in a position to ever attempt mass conversion. Instead they’re fueled by the trickle of the alienated and marginalized, those who define themselves as being in opposition to the majority of society. To describe it as working like a cult, would not be a stretch of the imagination. Some of them are full-blown cults, others straddle that line.

  108. Jill Pyeatt

    Once again, Andy Craig is lumping all “conspiracy theories” into one category, refusing to acknowledge that many of them have quite a bit of merit, and quite a few believers. In short, several of them may indeed be correct. I know we’ve posted at least one of the lists that prove many “conspiracy theories” from the past have proven to be true, so I won’t bother to post them again.

  109. Andy Craig Post author

    Jesse Walker’s book, The United States of Paranoia, offers an excellent overview of the history of conspiracism in American politics. He also makes perfectly clear, that conspiracism in no way maps onto any particular political ideology about the proper size or role of government. Conspiracism is something that can be found on the fringes of every ideology, from Marxists to neo-Nazis to mainstream conservatives and liberals and centrists. The idea that there is some natural overlap between CTs and libertarianism, is easily disproven by all the many non-libertarian and anti-libertarian CTs out there. Hell, ask some people on the left and I’m sure you’ll hear all about how libertarianism itself is just a conspiracy from the ultra-rich to delude poor people into opposing big government.

  110. Andy

    Everyone believes in a conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11, as the official government story abot 9/11 is just that, a conspiracy theory.

    Those who do not believe in the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 due to the number of holes in the official government story, and due to the government’s active role in covering up what happened.

  111. Andy

    Using the term “conspiracy theorist” in a negative manner to smear somebody is a CIA creation. This came out in a FOIA request back in the 1970’s. The CIA did this in an attempt to discredit those who did not buy into the official JFK assassination story.

  112. Andy Craig Post author

    “Once again, Andy Craig is lumping all “conspiracy theories” into one category, refusing to acknowledge that many of them have quite a bit of merit, and quite a few believers. In short, several of them may indeed be correct.”

    Yes, I do lump them all in together, because they all share the same pathology and the same lack of merit. That’s also why I sometimes refer to “popular conspiracy theories” or “pop-culture CTs” to make clear what I’m referring to, instead of getting dragged down into a stupid overly-literal semantics argument about the definition of the words “conspiracy” and “theory”.

    There has never, in recorded human history, been a conspiracy theory that existed as such in the popular culture in the form a falsifiable assertion that was later verified. Actual criminal conspiracies that have been exposed? Sure. Ongoing criminal conspiracies that might be exposed in the future? Probably. Ones you could have heard about from a CT-ist before they were exposed by actual investigative journalists, whistle-blowers, etc.? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

    None of the supposed “conspiracy theories proven true” meet this criteria, because none of them existed as conspiracy theories ahead of time. At best, you’ve got a couple of “stopped clock right twice a day” examples, and even those are dubious.

    Stacked up against this perfect record of failure, is an endless stream of claims that are false, provably false, in some cases even knowingly false. You have confirmation bias run amok, facts twisted or rejected on a whim to fit the pre-ordained result, the invocation of debunked psuedo-science, and all the other aspects of conspiracism that every psychiatrist learns about in school. It is not a political ideology, and has nothing to do with politics.

  113. Andy

    I never said that everyone who questions official government stories is a libertarian, I said that they are on average more likely to be libertarian, or libertarian leaning, than people who do not question official government stories.

  114. Andy

    If the government wanted to sabotage the LP, another good way to do it would be to send in plants who pose as “mainstream libertarians” and who shout down, stereotype, or otherwise deride anyone who questions official government stories.

  115. Robert Capozzi

    ac: The idea that there is some natural overlap between CTs and libertarianism, is easily disproven by all the many non-libertarian and anti-libertarian CTs out there.

    me: Good point. It appears that CT believers and extremists of many stripes have quite a bit more overlap, yes? It appears to me that Ls have a very high percentage of extremists, taking positions far outside the mainstream.

    Indeed, there are those who believe that Ls are REQUIRED to be extreme since the NAP is extreme and unequivocal.

    This begins to explain why so Ls are CTs.

    Let’s not forget the Federal Reserve conspiracy and other JBS-tinged traditions in the LM.

  116. Andy Craig Post author

    ” anyone who questions official government stories.”

    It has nothing to do with ‘questioning official government stories’ (i.e. true facts that the government doesn’t deny), and everything to do with the absurdity and falsehood of the made-up stories offered as an alternative.

    But while we’re at it, I suppose round-earth and helio-centrism are also “official government stories”- they’re even part of the government school indoctrination curriculum! Clearly people who question this authority, are prime targets to be libertarians I take it? If not, why not? They’re challenging authority! They’re being independent thinkers!

    Of course the important thing is that they’re wrong, but that doesn’t matter so long as they’re accusing the government of lying, right?

  117. Guess what

    @paulie 4:19 – I’ll concede “state bootlicker” would be more precise.

    @ Andy Craig — You’re a state bootlicker. You conflate and equate the state’s delusional lies with “reality.” You are useless in any kind of real fight to undermine the Democrat and Republican criminals. Keep licking that boot, moron.

  118. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy J said: “If the government wanted to sabotage the LP, another good way to do it would be to send in plants who pose as “mainstream libertarians” and who shout down, stereotype, or otherwise deride anyone who questions official government stories.”

    I agree with this is well. People who can understand other possiblities are one of the reasons I’m a Libertarian. If I wanted to be with rigid and unquestioning thinkers, I’d still be a Republican.

  119. paulie

    I’ll concede “state bootlicker” would be more precise.

    It would be precisely wrong.

    Your shameful attack on Andy Craig is an illustration of this. He’s putting out great material through his campaign, rationally explaining the basis for deep cuts in all areas of government.

    Getting the government a new pair of boots won’t get them off our necks.

  120. paulie

    Conspiracism is something that can be found on the fringes of every ideology, from Marxists to neo-Nazis to mainstream conservatives and liberals and centrists. The idea that there is some natural overlap between CTs and libertarianism, is easily disproven by all the many non-libertarian and anti-libertarian CTs out there. Hell, ask some people on the left and I’m sure you’ll hear all about how libertarianism itself is just a conspiracy from the ultra-rich to delude poor people into opposing big government.

    Or some of the Rand Paulians, who think we are a government plot to “steal” votes from them. Or the anti-semites who aren’t happy with the Jewish ethnic origins (in whole or in part) of the Friedmans, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, etc.

  121. NewFederalist

    Has anyone checked the IP address of “Guess what”? He/she/it sounds like some others we used to have to tolerate here. Methinks he’s baaaaack!

  122. Andy

    Do an online search for the following: CIA created conspiracy theorist.

    Andy Craig is parroting CIA talking points whether he realizes it or not.

    “Conspiracy theorists are paranoid kooks,” or “Don’t talk about conspiracy theories,” etc… All CIA talking points.

  123. paulie

    I never said that everyone who questions official government stories is a libertarian, I said that they are on average more likely to be libertarian, or libertarian leaning, than people who do not question official government stories.

    Yet nothing besides anecdotal evidence in support of this claim.

  124. Andy Craig Post author

    And of course, it comes down to anybody who opposes the conspiracy-mongers, is themselves just a dupe or a shill of the conspiracy. And thus the circle of epistemic closure is complete.

  125. Andy

    Another CIA tactic is to make up some outlandish story that their “conspiracy theorist” target never said, and then try to lump their target in with the outlandish story, or falsely attribute it to them.

    Like the space alien or lizard people comments. I never said either, and neither did Jill or any other Libertarian of whom I am aware, yet Andy Craig keeps bringing it up.

    I am not implying that Andy Craig is necessarily CIA or anything like that, I am just pointing out that he is repeating their talking points whether he realizes it or not.

  126. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig, did you even look at the link William Saturn posted, or are you just so darn smart, you don’t need to?

  127. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Another CIA tactic is to make up some outlandish story that their ‘conspiracy theorist’ target never said, and then try to lump their target in with the outlandish story, or falsely attribute it to them.”

    Hmm. That sounds curiously similar to your own methods.

    Beginning: “Anyone who doesn’t believe 9/11 was an inside job is a FOOL!!!!”

    Middle: Refusal or inability to provide any credible evidence for the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

    End: Rather than admitting you can’t prove your claim, whinily try to associate anyone who “questions the official account” (Michael Badnarik, for example) with your that claim as an argument from authority.

    Is the end intentional and the beginning just a setup for discrediting prominent Libertarians? Or is there some other reason you’re doing the thing you say CIA agents do?

  128. Andy

    Some people on the left believe that only people the right engage in conspiracies, while some people on the right believe that only people on the left engage in conspiracies.

    A libertarian knows that people on the so called left and the so called right both engage in conspiracies, and that the entire “left vs. right” paradigm is a fraud that is designed to rob people of their freedom.

  129. Andy Craig Post author

    A conspiracy theorist getting all huffy because a skeptic isn’t addressing their own personal brand of conspiracism and the particular list of CTs *they* believe in, is like a a Southern Baptist and an American Baptist getting upset than an atheist doesn’t care about the distinction between them.

  130. William Saturn

    Through his statements on the number of Gary Johnson’s pardons, whether the National Socialists Movement runs candidates, the population of Minnesota vs. New Mexico (significantly smaller), whether any conspiracy theories were actually proven true, and others; Andy Craig has been wrong many times as of late. I do not think he is a CIA operative, however. I just think he has his facts wrong.

  131. Jill Pyeatt

    I also remember Andy Craig saying that some people thought there was more to Irv Rubin’s suicide in prison, which is certainly a conspiracy theory. That’s why I find it so bizarre that he lumps all “CTs” together (I really hate acronyms).

  132. Jill Pyeatt

    I check into the Skeptical Libertarian blog on occasion. I find it to be amusing, frankly.

    If I really want to laugh, I check into Metabunk.

  133. paulie

    Has anyone checked the IP address of “Guess what”? He/she/it sounds like some others we used to have to tolerate here. Methinks he’s baaaaack!

    If so, there’s no IP-related evidence, although that doesn’t prove the opposite either.

  134. Andy Craig Post author

    You remember incorrectly, because I have no idea who Irv Rubin is and know nothing about his suicide or imprisonment.

    But yes, describing New Mexico and Minnesota as both “medium-sized states” clearly destroys my credibility. *eyeroll*

  135. William Saturn

    If you don’t like the Minnesota vs. New Mexico misstatement, then just replace it with what Richard Winger said above:

    “The article itself has a minor flaw. Jesse Ventura was elected on the Reform Party ticket, not the Independence Party ticket. When Ventura won, the party’s name was Reform Party. It changed its name back to Independence in 2000, while Ventura was Governor.”

  136. paulie

    You remember incorrectly, because I have no idea who Irv Rubin is and know nothing about his suicide or imprisonment.

    I believe that was the other Andy.

  137. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig, you are right about the Irv Rubin comment. I found the one I was thinking of, and it was Gene Berkman who said it. I apologize.

  138. William Saturn

    The explanation doesn’t work for me. Reform Party ought to be mentioned. Plus saying “Independence Party Governor of Minnesota” can be interpreted to mean “Governor of the Independent Party of Minnesota” rather than “Governor of Minnesota.”

  139. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig, did you see the article William Saturn linked to? Do you believe that Operation Northwoods never happened?

  140. Jill Pyeatt

    “Personally I’m intrigued by David Icke’s reptilian theory. It would explain a lot. Including, but not limited to, M Carling.”

    Best line of the day!

  141. Andy Craig Post author

    @Jill Pyaett

    Making derogatory comments about the source of an article, is really cute coming from somebody who angrily demanded I read an 10,000-word InfoWars screed. Personally I hate the “trading links” style of debate/discussion. But when it comes to credibility, I’ll put the Skeptical Libertarian guys up against Alex Jones, Inc. any day.

    Anyway, this is getting pointless, as arguments about conspiracy theories inevitably become. I’m not even really trying to change any conspiracist’s mind, because I’m not in the business of trying to disabuse people of their religious beliefs. I’m just explaining that I am one Libertarian who does not share and will not promote such beliefs as being part of the Libertarian Party’s message. because they aren’t. And thankfully, I know from experience that non-CT Libertarians comfortably outnumber their louder but less numerous counterparts.

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    Rubin’s death was certainly suspicious. They claimed he committed suicide by first slitting his own throat, then throwing himself off a balcony. Seems like there are much easier and more effective ways to commit suicide.

    A few years later his co-defendant, Earl Krugel, also died in prison. The authoritahs weren’t stupid enough to claim that he committed suicide by walking up behind himself and caving in his own skull with a cement block, though.

    Of course, I’m not asserting any particular actors or motives behind their killings. Could have just been Aryan Brotherhood bubbas racking up some “kill a Jew” points or something, rather than any kind of more grand conspiracy.

    Or hell, maybe Rubin DID kill himself. But I don’t think wondering about it really puts anyone into paranoid freak territory.

  143. Andy Craig Post author

    Jesse Ventura was, as Governor of Minnesota, a member of the party that was known as “Reform Party” when he was elected, and during his term changed its name to “Independence Party.” From 2000 until he left office in early 2003, Jesse Ventura was the Governor of Minnesota and affiliated with the Independence Party. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that, or why this simple fact needs to be rehashed any time somebody mentions the partisan affiliation of Gov. Ventura as being “Independence” or “Reform”, both of which are equally correct.

  144. Andy

    Why would the CIA go to the trouble to invent the usage of the term “conspiracy theorist” to be used in a negative manner against those who question official government stories?

    Could it be that the CIA does not want people questioning official government stories, and that they want to slander anyone who does?

  145. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy Craig said: “There has never, in recorded human history, been a conspiracy theory that existed as such in the popular culture in the form a falsifiable assertion that was later verified. Actual criminal conspiracies that have been exposed? Sure. Ongoing criminal conspiracies that might be exposed in the future? Probably. Ones you could have heard about from a CT-ist before they were exposed by actual investigative journalists, whistle-blowers, etc.? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada”

    I understand that you’re done talking about this but, for the record, William Saturn has presented a link that points out that many Conspiracy Theories have turned out to be true. You can ignore it if you want, but we have presented evidence to disprove your statement.

  146. Andy

    There are plenty of investigative journalists and whistle blowers who have exposed the official 9/11 story as a lie.

  147. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There are plenty of investigative journalists and whistle blowers who have exposed the official 9/11 story as a lie.”

    And none who have proved an overall explanatory theory presented as an alternative.

  148. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Like others, sometimes I’m a fan of Ventura and sometimes I wish he would stay in Mexico…

    I think he’d have almost as good a chance of winning the Green party nomination as the Libertarian party nomination, especially if Cynthia McKinney backed him up as VP.

    I find that despite his cultural appeal to the populist right, Ventura’s policy opinions are mostly on the populist left. His libertarianism is mostly just civil libertarianism and opposition to the war/spy state that is wholly shared by most Americans who vote for Democrats or Greens.

    However, Ventura’s message is not necessarily liberatory. His points on the danger of party politics is well-taken. Yet on the other hand, we don’t need more apoliticism–we need more people to give a shit and have the courage to openly have political opinions outside of the mainstream. So in a way Ventura’s message sometimes backs up the mainstream media’s message that ordinary people should avoid politics and leave the task of governance to their betters (an attitude which unfortunately coincides with the dystopian future of direct corporate rule). As does the focus on conspiracy theory,which however much it is based on facts, also breeds an attitude of fear and powerlessness.

    I hope Ventura does run for president as it would bring much-needed attention to 3rd party politics. In a sense, it’s a bit of a shame that the Green and Libertarian parties too ideological for a populist iconoclast like Ventura to fit in. In order to genuinely run for president, Ventura needs a citizens movement backing him up, but Ventura’s politics are too all-over-the-place to command the loyalties of any one faction. They could consider resurrecting the Reform Party, but ballot access stands in the way.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The government has not proven it conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11.”

    Nor has anyone else proven any over-arching alternative to that conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11.

  150. paulie

    Supposing the govt story or one of the alternatives could be absolutely proven, what policies if any would anyone here change their minds on? Foreign invasions? Domestic espionage?

  151. Andy

    I can’t speak for everyone here, but I have met a lot of people who have changed their minds about a lot of political issues after they looked into 9/11 and realized the official government story is a lie.

  152. Andy

    Nobody, except for those who directly carried out the attack, knows exactly what happened on 9/11, but after years of lots of research by a lot of people, we have an idea of a lot of what happened that day. Does everyone agree on every detail? No, of course there are differing opinions, however, the one thing that everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement does agree on is that the official government story is a lie.

  153. Matt Cholko

    I think most people understand that government lies all the time. I don’t think many people would give a damn if it was “proven” that the official story is a lie, because everyone already knows that it is. Nobody knows to what extent the story has been fabricated, but everyone knows its not the straight truth. Now, if you could prove that a high ranking government official personally orchestrated the attacks, or something like that, then maybe some people would care. But, that’s not gonna happen.

  154. Andy

    It goes to show how well the government’s authoritarian indoctrination is that anyone who dares to question official government stories gets labeled as a “kook.” It really ought to be the other way around, as the people who “drink the government Kool Aide” are the real kooks.

  155. Seymour Results

    I was about to say Andy won the dead-horse-beating contest, but I think this comment makes me the victor. (In the “Libertarian” sense of the term “victor.”) Where do I collect my booby prize?

  156. paulie

    If your case against the wars and domestic espionage has to rest on the justification for them being a false flag attack, you haven’t really addressed the mindset that leads to support for these things every time people believe an attack by a foreign government or by terrorists happens. In the heat of that moment you are not going to have time to prove it is a false flag, even if it is. So you really have to address the mentality of warmongering/police state even if there is a legitimate attack. Otherwise all you can hope to do is retroactively address the justification for the last war, or the one before that.

  157. mikewb1971

    seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination at the 2016 convention, while refusing to become a member of the Libertarian Party and instead campaigning as a no-party-affiliation independent.

    Charles Collins tried this schtick back in 1996 and got some free TV time on C-SPAN while at the podium during the ’96 National Convention.

  158. Andy

    Addressing the Cynthia McKinney comment, she is more of a left wing conspiracy theorist, as in she does not get the complete picture. Even so, McKinney is more pro-freedom than the typical Democrat, and a lot of Republicans too for that matter.

    Also, it is no coincidence that most Alex Jones listeners were/are die hard Ron Paulers.

    Once you start to understand that the Federal Reserve is a scam, and that the government carries out false flag attacks, and that the police states robs us of our freedom, the only logical path to go is toward is libertarianism. Some people may veer off in other directions, but that is because they either do not really have a full understanding of things, or they are not good people themselves. People who think that only the left, or only the right, engage in conspiracies, are frankly stupid or naive. People who think the answer to government conspiracies is to put them, or people like them, in charge of big government are either delusional or they are evil themselves.

    Having said this, I would bet money that if you randomly selected 1,000 9/11 Truthers, and then you randomly selected 1,000 people who believe the official government story about 9/11, that you’d find that the 9/11 Truther group was more libertarian on average.

  159. Andy

    Uggggggg! Finding out that 9/11 was a lie is an eye opener for a lot of people which sends them down the rabbit trail and got them to become involved in the animating contest for liberty.

  160. Andy

    Once people know to look out for false flags they are far less likely to want to rush off to war or to support any new legislation.

  161. paulie

    It’s better to teach people to oppose wars regardless of whether it is blowback or false flag. Stopping war and empire should not rely on understanding of complex investigations into historical whodunits.

  162. Jill Pyeatt

    It’s hard to say at this point what the result of answers to the many 9/11 questions would be. It is my hope that the hatred toward all things Muslim would recede, but it’s certainly hard to see many of the haters of the country toning things down. I would hope, though, that a good deal of the population who are disgusted with the state of our government but haven’t done anything about it would stop voting for those who try so hard to control us. I’m convinced from my research that at least Dick Cheney knew it was going to happen, yet didn’t stop it. If the truth about that was known, then the legacy of that evil man might be known to the generations after us.

  163. paulie

    Addressing the Cynthia McKinney comment, she is more of a left wing conspiracy theorist, as in she does not get the complete picture. Even so, McKinney is more pro-freedom than the typical Democrat, and a lot of Republicans too for that matter.

    On some issues she is better, on a lot of issues, especially economic, she is a lot worse. How is she on gun rights? I don’t know off hand but wouldn’t be surprised either way.

  164. Andy

    Some people will not learn or become active unless you scare the shit out of them by exposing just how evil the system is that they live under.

  165. paulie

    I was about to say Andy won the dead-horse-beating contest, but I think this comment makes me the victor. (In the “Libertarian” sense of the term “victor.”) Where do I collect my booby prize?

    Your prize is a kiss from the person who gives you the award, although that may be a bit of logistical issue, since that is also you.

  166. Andy

    Cynthia McKinney started out as a typical leftist on guns, however, due to her research into government conspiracies, she became more pro-gun rights.

    Cynthia McKinney on Gun Rights

  167. Andy

    I just finished watching the Cynthia McKinney interview with Alex Jones that I posted above. It is really good. Check it out.. Cynthia McKinney definitely sounds more pro-liberty here than the typical Democrat or Republican. She admits that through her research, she changed her position on guns and is now pro-gun rights.

  168. Andy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    “Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals for actions against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]

    At the time of the proposal, Cuba had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the US Government (this is “False Flag Terrorism”).[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

    The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

    Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a ‘Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington’.

    The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the US government’s anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.”

  169. Dave

    My main issue with 9/11 conspiracies is if we assume the government could pull off this vast coverup (and they’d have needed to buy off or intimidate people at various levels for this to happen) why did they not convincingly fake wmd’s in Iraq? The lack of such was a big embarrassment to the Bush administration, and offered at least a temporary harm to the neoconservative ideology. Though I’ll confess it looks like it’s going strong again. Maybe the argument is that the powers that be did not care what people thought after they got their war and their lucrative profit, but I think if the weapons had been found it would have gone a long way to vindicating int he average American minds a conflict that has since lost most of its appeal to all but the truest of believers. Plus the continued trust in the government might have enabled us to push into Iran,which surely would have made certainly people obscenely rich as well.

    Personally I have great trouble reconciling the view that certain powers had enough ability to knock down the towers yet could not smuggle a few wmd’s into a country they completely controlled after it was occupied. I am curious how proponents of 9/11 truth address this situation. It seems to me any credible theory for government involvement in 9/11 would then have to explain why the same government could not pull off a grand deception in Iraq two years later.

    My other issue with conspiracy theories is there seems so many alternative theories. This is mostly with JFK’s death. I was a firm believer in something fishy going on there, and even now I suspect some key details have been missing or are suppressed. But look at how many people or groups are supposed to have killed him. It’s a bigger list than who shot JR or killed Laura Palmer! Each of them presents evidence for why their theory is correct, while indirectly disproving all of the others. But if a conspiracy truly did happen, it would seem more likely to me that any honest researcher would be able to dig up what really happened. Instead we see these honest researches coming up with at least a dozen semi credible theories as to how and why JFK was killed. To me the most credible conspiracy is one that has overwhelming support in the community of folks who investigate the issue.

  170. Andy

    Operation Mockingbird

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

    “Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

    In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire.”

  171. Andy

    There was no need to smuggle WMD’s in Iraq. They got what they wanted, so why risk getting caught? Also, a lot of morons bought into the lie that the WMD”s were smuggled into Syria.

    “They” wanted Bush to be perceived as a bad guy by more people at that point to make way for their next controlled puppet. CiA asset Barack Hussein Obama (aka-Barry Sotero).

  172. Andy

    It would not have taken a big army to carry out 9/11. Just a few people in a few key places. Some of the participants were likely compartmentalized.

    Look at all of the people who worked on the Manhattan Project, yet this was kept secret for a long time.

  173. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    “Once you start to understand that the Federal Reserve is a scam, and that the government carries out false flag attacks, and that the police states robs us of our freedom, the only logical path to go is toward is libertarianism. Some people may veer off in other directions, but that is because they either do not really have a full understanding of things, or they are not good people themselves. People who think that only the left, or only the right, engage in conspiracies, are frankly stupid or naive. People who think the answer to government conspiracies is to put them, or people like them, in charge of big government are either delusional or they are evil themselves. ”

    It’s difficult to deal with these problems without more citizens taking an interest in public affairs and the public good. It demands a culture of accountability and transparency. A culture of civic virtue. We can’t deal with these problems by passing them off to private agencies that are not transparent or accountable to us. So we need to maintain sovereignty in some areas, and in case of captured institutions like the Fed, reclaim sovereignty.

    What it all comes down to is that we, the people, get control of our own lives and destinies. To achieve that we need people who are not afraid of the burden of (self) governance and the duties that accompany it.

    So I don’t completely agree that becoming aware of the ingrained corruption within our institutions leads to libertarian ideas. I think it also increases one’s awareness of the fallibility of man and how greed corrupts judgement. With that corruption in mind, we require institutions that are accountable to people as well as economically vested in the people’s interest to maintain integrity.

  174. Andy

    Considering that man is fallible, it does not make much sense to take some men (or women), and place them in positions of power/authority over others, because this power/authority can be, and pretty much always ends up being abused.

    The key is to eliminate the power to control, or at least as much of it as possible.

  175. Gene Berkman

    Dave makes a good point – if the Bush league conspirators are so good at pulling off these conspiracies, why did not they not smuggle WMDs into Iraq?

    And, since the 9/11 attack was used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan, why did they not include “Iraqis” and “Afghans” (let alone “Palestinians”) among the fake hijackers?

    Andy’s response – “they” wanted to undermine Bush to put in their next puppet “Barry Sotero” aka “Barack Hussein Obama” shows why there is such a gap between conspiracy theorists and the rest of us. People who believe in large overarching conspiracies will say that any apparent failure was actually the intended outcome, and it shows how clever the conspirators are. The rest of us see the law of unintended consequences at work.

  176. Andy

    Gene, we do not really have the answers to all of these questions, I was just speculating.

    What we do know, or at least “we,” as in those among us who do not automatically believe everything the government says, and who take the time to investigate things, is that the official 9/11 story is a lie, and that there has been an active cover up to protect that lie.

    I am not so much a conspiracy theorist as I am a conspiracy realist. I deal in reality. If I am speculating, I will say that I am speculating.

    Why didn’t “they” plant WMD’s in Iraq? My guess would be because there was no need to do this, and because if people like Dave could think to do this, then it was probably too obvious a thing to do. Why go to extra trouble and why risk getting caught after you already got what you wanted? Also, there were plenty of idiots out there who bought into the line about Saddam’s WMD’s being smuggled into Syria, and about Saddam being a real threat.

  177. paulie

    Considering that man is fallible, it does not make much sense to take some men (or women), and place them in positions of power/authority over others, because this power/authority can be, and pretty much always ends up being abused.

    The key is to eliminate the power to control, or at least as much of it as possible.

    Focus on that. Everything is else is more of a distraction than anything else.

  178. paulie

    It’s a way to get stuck in a rut arguing over historical facts which can easily suck up a lot of your time and energy if you are not careful, and some of the people you would be arguing with already agree with bringing the troops home, winding down the military-industrial complex and ending domestic espionage. Seems like time wasted. It doesn’t require agreement with any particular conspiracy narrative to oppose concentration of power, and if you do manage to convince people of your theory, their conclusion could still well be that the problem is only in which people hold concentrations of power rather than in that these concentrations of power exist.

  179. Guess what

    Re people who “already agree with bringing the troops home, winding down the military-industrial complex and ending domestic espionage” — those are people who voted for Obama in 2008. If they can’t spot a lying asshole, they will vote for lying Democrat assholes who say they are for the same thing. And the LP will still lose.

  180. paulie

    I actually meant libertarians; people who voted for Obama don’t agree with the statement I was addressing (“Considering that man is fallible, it does not make much sense to take some men (or women), and place them in positions of power/authority over others, because this power/authority can be, and pretty much always ends up being abused. The key is to eliminate the power to control, or at least as much of it as possible.”)

    There are many ways to win besides directly winning, and as for actually winning the presidency outright, that’s extremely unlikely no matter what we do.

  181. Andy

    Guesswhat brought up a good point. Those who do not understand the conspiracies that go on behind the scenes are more likely to fall for the bullshit, and this includes some naive libertarians.

  182. paulie

    Or people who tend to believe everything is part of some big conspiracy will get told Libertarians are too and believe it. Take your pick.

  183. Andy

    “paulie

    March 8, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Or people who tend to believe everything is part of some big conspiracy will get told Libertarians are too and believe it. Take your pick.”

    First off, nobody said that everything is part of a big conspiracy. Second of all, people can be told that the moon is made out of green cheese, but this does not make true.

    People need to use some common sense.

  184. Andy

    Here are a few questions for Andy Craig:

    1) Has the US government or any other ever engaged in any false flag attacks? If so, which ones?

    2) Have you read about Operation Northwoods and Operation Mockingbird, and what is your opinion of them, or do you think that these things are just made up?

    3) Why would the CIA create the term “conspiracy theorist” to be used as a smear against those who question official government stories?

  185. Andy

    People who know that people in government frequently engage in conspiracies are more libertarian on average than those who do not acknowledge this, and even for the ones who are not libertarians, many of them are more likely to be supportive of other minor parties like the Green Party or the Constitution Party or etc…, and this is a good thing for the most part as anything that gets people away from supporting mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans is a step toward bringing the duopoly down.

  186. paulie

    People who know that people in government frequently engage in conspiracies are more libertarian on average than those who do not acknowledge this

    Still haven’t seen any objective evidence for this claim.

  187. Matt Cholko

    The Mob killed Kennedy, at the request of a young Dick Cheney, who was under the influence of CIA mind control, the method of which was given to them by aliens that landed in Roswell a couple of decades earlier. Years later, the CIA used the same technique to get Rumsfeld to order Bigfoot to tear down the towers in NY. and have Elvis fly a plane into the pentagon.

  188. Andy

    There is good conspiracy theory and bad conspiracy theory, just like there is good math and bad math. A person who says that 1 + 1 = 3 is wrong, but this should not be used to discredit the entire field of mathematics.

  189. RedPhillips

    I’m sorry I missed this when it was first posted, and I haven’t yet read the 200+ comments, but I would be tempted to support Ventura just to spite the Chris Kyle jock riders who acted as if truth didn’t matter in the Ventura vs. Kyle issue.

  190. Guess what

    Forget Alex Jones — Bob Barr was talking about the “conspiracy theory” that the NSA was recording all the phone calls way back in the 1990s.

  191. paulie

    Rand Paul is pushing a bill that would legalize medical marijuana at the federal level. While there are some problems with Rand Paul, I don’t think that he’s as bad as some people here are making him out to be.

    Rand Paul to Introduce Medical Marijuana Bill in Congress

    At this point it’s not that extreme of a stand, when a majority of the country (even in conservative states) is for recreational legalization. He’s doing the famous Rand Paul two step again…one step forward, two steps back.

  192. paulie

    Sorry if this has been answered above, but would the LP have to change their rules to nominate a non-party member?

    No.

    But on the other hand, I am not in favor of nominating someone who openly says they do not support the LP.

  193. paulie

    Forget Alex Jones — Bob Barr was talking about the “conspiracy theory” that the NSA was recording all the phone calls way back in the 1990s.

    Alex Jones, Bob Barr, Rand Paul, Jesse Ventura… could we send them all one-way to the moon? That would be a conspiracy worth pursuing.

  194. RedPhillips

    I’m going to write something up about this. So is it at least technically feasible? That he could get the LP nomination and ballot access wherever the LP has it but remain not a party member?

    Also, I suggest Paul Craig Roberts as a potential running mate, and I’m entirely serious about that, in case anyone thinks I’m trying to be funny.

  195. Jill Pyeatt

    I like Paul Craig Roberts. Does he self-identify as a Libertarian?

    BTW, FB tells me it’s your birthday, Red. Happy birthday!

  196. Andy Craig Post author

    Technically, there’s no requirement that the nominee be a member. There’s a rule about not being a member of any other party, but I’m told that’s routinely ignored for lower office and is currently being violated by at least one other declared candidate for the Pres. nomination. However whoever the nominee is, would appear on the ballot as “Libertarian” in the states where we have ballot access, which Ventura has said in the past he wouldn’t want to do. I’m not sure if it’s been explained to him that’s not possible, or if he’s just being his usual all-over-the-place self.

    As for the idea of a Ventura/Roberts ticket, I’m sure you are serious about it. Thankfully very few Libertarians would take it seriously, unless the goal is to find an even more disastrously unsuitable VP nominee than we had in 2008.

  197. KN@PPSTER

    “So is it at least technically feasible? That he could get the LP nomination and ballot access wherever the LP has it but remain not a party member?”

    Here’s the relevant language:

    “No candidate may be nominated for President or Vice-President who is ineligible under the
    United States Constitution, who has not expressed a willingness to accept the nomination of the
    Party, who served as a stand-in candidate during the current election cycle, or who is not a
    member of the Party.”

    That’s Article 15, Section 2 of the bylaws.

    I thought it was a convention rule, which would be a relatively simple matter of voting to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing the nomination, etc.

    Since it’s an actual bylaw, and since bylaws changes don’t take effect until the close of the convention at which they are adopted, and since there’s not another national convention between now and the 2016 presidential nomination, no, it’s not technically feasible.

    But just because it’s not technically feasible doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

  198. Andy

    “Guess what

    March 10, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Forget Alex Jones — Bob Barr was talking about the “conspiracy theory” that the NSA was recording all the phone calls way back in the 1990s.”

    Others talked about it as well, but it was disregarded by most people until Edward Snowden came along.

    This is yet another example of how what was considered to be “conspiracy theory” by some people is now accepted as conspiracy fact.

  199. KN@PPSTER

    Quoth Andy Craig:

    “Technically, there’s no requirement that the nominee be a member.”

    Yes, there is. Article 15, Section 2 of the bylaws.

    What you are thinking of is the bylaw that forbids state affiliates to nominate a “candidate of another party” for office.

  200. Andy

    “As for the idea of a Ventura/Roberts ticket, I’m sure you are serious about it.”

    I like Jesse Ventura, but given that he’s not a hardcore libertarian (as was mentioned earlier in the thread, he hovers around upper Centrist to Lower Libertarian on the Nolan Chart), I am not really in favor of him being on the Libertarian Party’s Presidential ticket, unless we are going to take the view that the Libertarian Party has already thrown commitment to hardcore libertarian principles under the bus in 2008 and 2012, so let’s just say, “The heck with libertarian principles!” again in 2016 and go for as much publicity as possible. I do think that Jesse Ventura would bring a lot of publicity to the ticket, and I could see a Gary Johnson for President / Jesse Ventura for Vice President ticket getting a lot of votes.

    If Jesse Ventura were to take some “crash courses” at the Mises Institute, and change a few of his issue stances, I would be very open to enthusiastically supporting him being on the Libertarian Party’s Presidential ticket.

    Given that Jesse Ventura is not only a centrist-moderate libertarian, if he were to run for President, I’d prefer to see him do it as an independent.

    I am familiar with Paul Craig Roberts, but I’d have to find out more about his exact stances on a bunch of issues before I’d consider him to be Libertarian candidate material.

  201. paulie

    Ventura doesn’t want to do all the work to get on the ballot everywhere as an independent, or humble himself to actually run as anything else.

  202. Andy

    Here’s a pro wrestler that I’d really like to see run for office, Glenn Jacobs, also known by his ring name, “Kane.”

    What are everyone’s thoughts on the idea of Glenn Jacobs as a Libertarian Party candidate for office?

    Check out this video of Glenn Jacobs about the Federal Reserve System, which was filmed on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia, where it is a conspiracy fact that the plan for the Federal Reserve was hatched:

  203. KN@PPSTER

    I suggested to Glenn that he should run some time ago. IIRC, his response was that he wasn’t really interested in doing so and that having been born in Spain might represent an eligibility issue.

  204. Andy

    “Given that Jesse Ventura is not only a centrist-moderate libertarian,”

    Should read, “Given that Jesse Ventura is only a centrist-moderate libertarian…”

  205. Andy


    KN@PPSTER

    March 10, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    I suggested to Glenn that he should run some time ago. IIRC, his response was that he wasn’t really interested in doing so and that having been born in Spain might represent an eligibility issue.”

    I spoke to Glenn Jacobs at the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention in Denver. During the course of the conversation, I asked him if he would consider running for office. He said that he does not like politicians, and is not wild about the idea of becoming one, although he said that he would not rule out running for office either. I did not just ask him about running for President, asked him about running for other offices like Governor or US Senate or US House or Sheriff or etc…

    Glenn Jacobs was born on an American military base in Spain. I don’t think that this could stop him running from running for President, since John McCain is supposed to have been born on an American military base in Panama and he was still able to run for President.

    The point of my question here is not so much does Glenn Jacobs plan to run for office or not, or what office would he run for if he decided to run, but rather to see what IPR readers think of Glenn Jacobs as a potential candidate for office.

  206. Matt Cholko

    I’ve not studied Mr. Jacobs’ politics. But, he seems to have a reasonably charismatic demeanor. That’s a plus. As I’ve said on IPR before though, I don’t think he brings any significant name recognition to the table. Being a WWE personality will probably land him a few extra interviews, but I doubt it will do much more than that.

    Not that celebrity status is necessary, or even preferable. I’m just sayin’.

  207. KN@PPSTER

    “The point of my question here is not so much does Glenn Jacobs plan to run for office or not, or what office would he run for if he decided to run, but rather to see what IPR readers think of Glenn Jacobs as a potential candidate for office.”

    Well, in that case, I’d love to see him run for office.

    I agree with you on his eligibility as well. He’s the one who brought it up, not me.

    I don’t recall exactly when I suggested he should seek the LP’s presidential nomination. I know it was after 2008. I’m assuming it was some time in the run-up to 2012. So I suppose he might have changed his mind since then.

  208. Andy

    “Matt Cholko

    March 10, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    I’ve not studied Mr. Jacobs’ politics.”

    I’d highly recommend that you look into him more. Glenn Jacobs is a hardcore libertarian.

    “But, he seems to have a reasonably charismatic demeanor. That’s a plus.”

    I’d say that he’s less charismatic than Jesse Ventura, but still more charismatic than most politicians and LP candidates.

    “As I’ve said on IPR before though, I don’t think he brings any significant name recognition to the table. Being a WWE personality will probably land him a few extra interviews, but I doubt it will do much more than that.”

    I’d say that he’s a bigger star than Wayne Allyn Root was, and he’s got more positive name recognition than Bob Barr.

    He’s not a mega-star, but he’s got a big enough name to bring in some extra publicity to a Libertarian Party campaign.

    “Not that celebrity status is necessary, or even preferable. I’m just sayin’”

    Having good name recognition (as long as it is positive, or at least mostly positive with the people you are trying to reach) is most definitely a plus for a candidate.

  209. Andy Craig Post author

    @ Knappster

    I stand corrected.

    “No candidate may be nominated for President or Vice-President who is ineligible under the United States Constitution, who has not expressed a willingness to accept the nomination of the Party, who served as a stand-in candidate during the current election cycle, or who is not a member of the Party.”

    So a nomination of Ventura would require this rule to be suspended or changed, and that would take a 2/3ds vote, not just the simple 50% + 1 to win the nomination. Making it even more far-fetched than it already was.

  210. RedPhillips

    I think Kane would be a great nominee or running mate for Ventura, and I have said that before but maybe in a different venue. Since, Kane is more of a straight line libertarian, maybe that would make Ventura at the top of the ticket more palatable.

    I wasn’t aware of the born in Spain issue. Was he a US citizen at birth? That seems to be the way most people interpret the “natural born” clause.

  211. KN@PPSTER

    Andy,

    No, it could not be suspended or changed on a 2/3 vote.

    Rules can be suspended on a 2/3 vote, but this is not a rule, it is a bylaw.

    Bylaws changes don’t take effect until the end of the convention at which they are adopted.

    It is technically impossible. The rules forbid it.

    But of course there’s a history of the LNC’s officers, and the national convention delegates, just ignoring the rules and doing whatever the hell they feel like.

    So, Ventura’s name is placed in nomination.

    If the chair is following the rules, he’ll rule that nomination out of order since the bylaws forbid it. And while I’ve seen some past chairs just throw the bylaws out the window to get the results they want, I don’t think for a minute that Nick Sarwark would do so.

    But the chair’s ruling could be appealed to the body. Which, if it really wanted to nominate Ventura, could overrule the chair (assuming the chair had ruled the nomination out of order) or uphold the chair (if someone had murdered Nick and replaced him with a body double who had ruled the nomination in order and THAT had been appealed to the body).

    Other than that, no dice. If Ventura wants to get into the contest without having to hope that the chair and/or delegates are willing to toss the bylaws out the window, the only way to do that is to join the party.

  212. KN@PPSTER

    “I’d say that [Glenn Jacobs] less charismatic than Jesse Ventura”

    Charisma is one of those subjective things. I find Ventura about as charismatic as Kermit the Frog on PCP.

  213. RedPhillips

    Thanks, Jill.

    I doubt that Paul Craig Roberts identifies as a libertarian. He has become a very vocal critic of the Establishment who appeals to both the right (because of his history) and the left (because of his current associations). I thought of him because the mention of McKinney makes me think that Ventura is envisioning some left/right anti-Establishment and anti-war fusion campaign.

  214. Andy


    KN@PPSTER

    March 10, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    ‘I’d say that [Glenn Jacobs] less charismatic than Jesse Ventura’

    Charisma is one of those subjective things. I find Ventura about as charismatic as Kermit the Frog on PCP.”

    I think that there’s a heck of a lot of people out there who’d disagree with you on this one, because Ventura in large part made a good living off of his charisma as a pro wrestler and a Hollywood actor.

  215. KN@PPSTER

    Ventura didn’t make a living at professional wrestling with charisma. He wrestled as a “heel” — a bad guy. The whole point of playing a “heel” is to radiate ANTI-charisma. That is, to make the audience hate you intensely.

  216. Jill Pyeatt

    If celebrity-dom is important, we should find a way to approach Vince Vaughn about joining the party. He’s been open about his libertarian views for some time.

    I know he’s friendly with the Pauls, however, because I know he attended at least one big family picnic.

    I don’t think we should be concerned about whether our candidate has a well-known name, though. Charisma is important, yes, because that is someone other people want to be around. Also, I’ve said it before, it’s important to me that Gary Johnson (assuming he runs) has some competition. He needs to debate other people, and possibly revisit his postion on a few things, such as the Fair Tax, in order to remain the frontrunner.

  217. Guess what

    Kane is from the Mises/Paul school. He’s pretty closely allied with the Paul/C4L people. He would be a great Senator from Tennessee. But I expect he’d more likely run as a Republican. LP wouldn’t be entirely out of the question, I suppose.

  218. Andy


    KN@PPSTER

    March 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    Ventura didn’t make a living at professional wrestling with charisma. He wrestled as a “heel” — a bad guy. The whole point of playing a “heel” is to radiate ANTI-charisma. That is, to make the audience hate you intensely.”

    Uuuuggggggg!!!!! A good “heel” has got to have charisma in order to draw heat. See Ric Flair or Roddy Piper, etc…

    Jesse Ventura is widely regarded as being charismatic. If you don’t see it then maybe you’ve just got really weird tastes.

    Jesse Ventura’s “mic work” was so good that he was given his own interview segment called, “The Body Shop,” and he was later made a ring commentator after he could no longer wrestle in the ring due to injuries.

    Jesse’s charisma also landed him roles in Hollywood movies, and also helped him get elected as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, and later Governor of Minnesota.

  219. KN@PPSTER

    “Jesse Ventura is widely regarded as being charismatic. If you don’t see it then maybe you’ve just got really weird tastes.”

    The heel persona is “bully, braggart and asshole.”

    If that’s how you define “charisma,” well, ONE of us has really weird tastes.

  220. paulie

    But I expect he’d more likely run as a Republican. LP wouldn’t be entirely out of the question, I suppose.

    He’s been a LP convention delegate in the past.

  221. KN@PPSTER

    Red,

    By any reasonable definition, Jacobs is a “natural born citizen.” He was born on a US military base in Spain to American citizens, one of who was serving in the US armed forces. His claim to that status is at least as good as John McCain’s and better than Barry Goldwater’s or George Romney’s.

    But the key word there, of course, is “reasonable.” Some (AHEM) “conspiracy theorists” have spent the last decade or so pushing unreasonable definitions for reasons I’m sure you’re familiar with.

  222. Andy

    Yes, and some of the biggest “faces” ever have been former “heels,” like Hulk Hogan, Shawn Micheals, Steve Austin, The Rock, etc….

    Guys like Ric Flair and Roddy Piper were consistently big draws whether they were regarded as “heels” or “faces.”

    Jesse Ventura said that he was in the process of doing a feud with Hulk Hogan which ended up getting derailed when he got injured. He said that not getting to wrestle Hogan probably cost him at least $1 million in lost income. Vince McMahon would have cut Jesse Ventura from the roster if not for the fact that he was good on the microphone, so he offered him a job as a commentator. Jesse tried to make an in ring come back a few years later, but it did not last long, yet he still had a lucrative career as a commentator.

    I think that a successful promoter like Vince McMahon has a better eye for who has got charisma than Tom Knapp does.

  223. Andy

    Glenn Jacobs does not have to run President. He could run for Governor or for US Senate or US House or Sheriff or etc… I just think that he’d be a great candidate.

    I’d love to see Glenn Jacobs run as a Libertarian Party candidate, and I am pretty sure that he is still a Libertarian Party member.

    Having said, there were some “Ron Paul Republican” types who tried to recruit Glenn Jacobs to run for either Governor or US Senate as a Republican, so here is a follow up question: Would you still support Glenn Jacobs as a candidate for office if he ran as a Republican?

    I would support him as a candidate regardless of if he ran as a Libertarian, a Republican, an independent, or whatever, but my first preference would be for him to run as a Libertarian.

  224. RedPhillips

    Ventura was an excellent heel announcer in his day. In the video he seems to over enunciate. Maybe that is a Minnesota thing, but I don’t recall him doing that so prominently as an announcer. It’s something he would need to work on.

  225. Jill Pyeatt

    “Jesse Ventura is widely regarded as being charismatic. If you don’t see it then maybe you’ve just got really weird tastes.”

    Personally, I find the guy to be creepy. I’ve always felt that way, but then I’m not a fan of wrestling at all. I actually think his obnoxious personality is why he’s never going to do much more than he’s done by now.

  226. NewFederalist

    “Personally, I find the guy to be creepy.”

    Really, Jill? I find old bald guys with ponytails to be very… uh… well… different! 😉

  227. KN@PPSTER

    “I think that a successful promoter like Vince McMahon has a better eye for who has got charisma than Tom Knapp does.”

    Probably so. And he also probably understands that 1) Not every factor which can result in popularity is called “charisma” and 2) that “charisma” is subjective.

    “so here is a follow up question: Would you still support Glenn Jacobs as a candidate for office if he ran as a Republican?”

    Nope.

  228. Joshua Katz

    Unless provided otherwise in the bylaws or in the motion to amend the bylaws, bylaw amendments take effect immediately upon passage.

  229. Andy

    Jesse Ventura’s personality may not appeal to everyone, but there are millions of people who did and do find him to be engaging and charismatic, so I think that Tom and Jill are in the minority on this one.

    The same can be said about a lot of other people. Alex Jones has the number one alternative talk radio radio show, and his websites receive millions of hits, but some people do not like his bombastic style. I like Alex Jones’ “in your face” style myself, and apparently a lot of other people do as well, or else he would not have so many listeners and so many people viewing his websites.

    Another example is Aaron Russo. I never met Aaron Russo in person, and I only spoke to him on the phone once during a conference call, so I can’t speak much from personal experience from knowing him, but I have heard some Libertarians say that they did not like his personality because he was loud and he made crude jokes (or something along those lines). What some people call loud or bombastic I call passionate, and I liked his sense of humor.

    You can’t please everyone.

  230. KN@PPSTER

    Andy,

    Oddly, I was going to bring up Aaron Russo, too.

    I met Aaron Russo, knew him from 1995 until his death, and worked for him during his presidential campaign.

    For some reason, he was really hung up on being described as “charismatic.” Every time we put out promotional material, he would say that it should play up how “charismatic” he was.

    I loved the guy, but “charismatic” was not a word I would have voluntarily used to describe him. Sure, I found him more “charismatic” than Jesse Ventura or Wayne Allyn Root. But probably less “charismatic” than Gary Johnson, whom I find about as “charismatic” as a toothache.

  231. Joshua Katz

    I never worked out of the 10th so I can’t say how long it’s been that way, but in the 11th it’s XVIII-57. I found nothing contrary in our bylaws or convention rules.

  232. KN@PPSTER

    I wasn’t thinking of Robert’s. I was thinking of the bylaws. They used to specifically state that amendments to the bylaws took effect at the end of the convention at which they were adopted.

    My guess is that this change may have been made in 2006 as pre-positioning for the later, unsuccessful attempt to gut the Statement of Principles with the “yes, we know that the bylaws say we need 7/8 to change it and that the bylaws say that we can’t amend that, but we can amend the part of the bylaws that say we can’t amend it, and then amend it” maneuver.

  233. Joshua Katz

    That extends back further than I was involved nationally. My first national convention was 2010.

    I’ve never been impressed with bylaws of that form, for exactly that reason. I’ve toyed with the idea of a bylaw of this form:

    Article x, section y: Stuff stuff stuff stuff stuff and no amendment shall be made to article x, section y without a unanimous vote at two consecutive conventions (or whatever threshold you want.)

    That seems to avoid the sort of thing you’re talking about, but I wonder if there might still be ways around it.

  234. Andy

    Tom, I disagree with you about Aaron Russo. I thought that he was charismatic. Go to the C-SPAN archives online and watch his closing remarks in the Presidential debate vs. Gary Nolan and Michael Badnarik. Russo showed tremendous charisma there, and he probably had the best closing remarks I’ve ever heard in any political debate. Badnarik had a better overall debate performance, but if Russo had not flubbed on a couple of questions, he may have been considered the consensus winner of the devate rather than Badnarik. Another good example of Russo’s charisma was his short lived political TV show Mad As Hell (only lasted for 3 episodes). Check out his opening rant in the first episode on YouTube. Good stuff.

  235. KN@PPSTER

    Andy,

    I’m shocked — shocked! — that you disagree with me.

    Yes, I’ve seen Mad as Hell.

    Yes, I heard his closing remarks in the presidential debate. Hell, there’s a pretty good chance I WROTE his closing remarks in the presidential debate.

  236. Andy

    Whether or not it was you, or Aaron Russo, or somebody else who came up with Aaron Russo’s “What’s radical?” closing remarks speech at the 2004 LP National Convention Presidential speech, it was Aaron Russo’s passionate delivery of those words that really drove it home.

    Any actor can read words off of a script, but there is a reason that stars like Brad Pitt and George Clooney and Tom Cruise and Leonardo DiCaprio and Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson and etc… get paid the big bucks.

  237. Joshua Katz

    By the way, I tend to think heels have more charisma than faces. I also tend to like them better – especially when the faces are offering nothing but jingoistic patriotism. I mean, really, who got Hulkamania going – Hogan, or Heenan? (Not to mention who f-ed up the heel turn…)

    I also suspect Ventura is blowing smoke about a feud with Hogan. I can’t picture McMahon booking that, given that they had basically the same gimmick, except that Hogan, for the first time, was using that gimmick as a face. McMahon did try briefly with Graham, but ended up turning Graham face and teaming him with Hogan until his injury. If he did book Ventura in a feud against Hogan, I expect the same would have happened – Ventura would have stopped getting heat and would have started getting cheered, and soon enough they’d have been tag team partners.

  238. Matt Cholko

    There are almost no circumstances in which I can see myself supporting a Republican with money or time. It is possible that I would root for a libertarian running as a R or D to win. But, having seen how incredibly shitty those organizations are, I just can’t imagine overtly supporting any of their candidates.

  239. Andy

    Jesse Ventura was scheduled to do a run with Hulk Hogan before he got injured and had to retire. It would have done big business back in the mid 1980’s.

  240. Andy

    Matt Cholko and Tom Knapp are too stuck on party labels. The ideology and character of a candidate are more important than party label, or lack thereof.

    The best situation for libertarians in an election would be to have a Libertarian Party candidate run against a libertarian Republican, a libertarian Democrat, and a libertarian independent. This way libertarians would win regardless of who got the most votes.

  241. KN@PPSTER

    “Matt Cholko and Tom Knapp are too stuck on party labels.”

    Labels are useful.

    For example, when I want dessert, I look for the container labeled “ice cream” rather than the container labeled “rat poison.”

    It’s always possible that someone put the ice cream in the rat poison canister, I suppose, but I’m not going to count on it. If it’s labeled “rat poison” I’m going to either throw it out or use it to kill rats, not eat it.

  242. Andy

    Tom, you and Matt do not seem to get it. If a person has libertarian views, they can maintain those views while running under a different label than Libertarian Party.

    Think of it as a disguise, kind of like when Luke Skywalker and Han Solo dressed up as Stormtroopers in Star Wars.

  243. KN@PPSTER

    The problem with that is that it can be almost impossible to tell whether it’s a libertarian disguised as a Republican, a Republican disguised as a libertarian, or an opportunist disguised as both.

    In the long run it almost always seems to turn out to to be that last one. Matter of fact, I can’t think of a single exception at the moment.

  244. Andy

    Yes, that can happen, but the same thing can happen with the Libertarian Party label, that is non-libertarians running as Libertarians. See the 2008 LP Presidential ticket for one example.

    I disagree that there have not been actual libertarians who ran under different labels, such as Republican, Democrat, independent, or some other minor party.

  245. Robert Capozzi

    tk; Labels are useful.

    me: I’d say they CAN BE useful.

    You missed an option: The label might say “ice cream,” but that doesn’t mean it’s not “rat poison.”

  246. langa

    I think the debate about “charisma” comes from different conceptions of what the word means. Andy seems to be using it as a synonym for “captivating”, while Knapp seems to be using it as a synonym for “likeable”. I have heard it both ways, but I think my own view tends more toward the former. For example, I did find heels like Ric Flair to be charismatic, even though I didn’t like them. Or to use a political example, I would describe both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as charismatic, even though I certainly wouldn’t describe either of them as particularly likeable. For me, “charismatic” is basically an antonym for “boring”, which is why I would say the least charismatic Presidential candidates I can remember would be guys like Bob Dole and Al Gore.

  247. langa

    I also agree with Andy about the candidate being more important than the party label. Look at it like this: If the LP suddenly started running blatantly non-libertarian candidates (not like Barr, but someone really anti-libertarian, like, for example, Santorum), would you still support them just because they had the Libertarian label? If not, why would you refuse to support someone who did have libertarian views just because they lacked the Libertarian label? In other words, why would you judge the book by its cover in the one case, but not in the other?

  248. Andy Craig Post author

    I’d be willing to support a non-Libertarian libertarian candidate, but they would have a higher hurdle to clear than an LP candidate would, and vanishingly few non-LP candidates meet that standard. That’s because a candidate’s party is not meaningless: even if the individual candidate is good, they are actively supporting a party that has a platform which isn’t, and supporting the election of other candidates of that party who aren’t libertarian (if not explicitly, as is usually the case, then at least implicitly.) So they’d have to be *really* good on the issues, across the board, to overcome that.

    The only current officeholder (US Rep or above) who might come close to that, is Justin Amash. And I’m not even entirely sure about that.

  249. Andy

    Running under a party label does not necessarily mean that one is supporting that party. This is like saying that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were supporting The Empire when they dressed up as Stormtroopers.

  250. Seymour Results

    Most candidates for political office are sociopaths. The ones that aren’t sociopaths are often delusional, and would implement sociopathic policy by accident. A good heuristic for determining who the exceptions are is:
    1) Do they favor doing things that the other candidates would never consider, because they would reduce the power of the office being sought? If so, good.
    2) Would they help prevent innocent people from being sent to prison or punished? If they have pardoning power, would they use it to free thousands of victimless crime offenders? If not, they’re useless egomaniacs.

    We don’t need any more useless egomaniacs (or ecomaniacs). The urge to save the world is a false face for the urge to rule it.

    …Unless you’re doing things that really can’t be described any other way as “purely benevolent in a way that reduces harm caused by government.”

    If you, running for Attorney General, say “If elected, I’m not going to prosecute anyone for unmarried cohabitation, or for drug trafficking, or for prostitution, or for gambling. I will only prosecute people for actual crimes, crimes that, by definition, have both ‘injury to a specific person’ and ‘intent to injure a specific person.’ …Nor will I spend more taxpayer money on my office and staff than my predecessor.” …then that would be a reasonable thing to say, and I would support your candidacy.

    If you say a bunch of wishy-washy politician-speak crap, then you don’t understand the purpose of elections in a true “proper democracy,” and supporting you would mostly be a waste of time,even if the wishy-washy crap was as good as some of the things Harry Browne said. Even he didn’t campaign well, except when discussing the presidential pardon.

    The only way any significant number of people are going to vote libertarian is on emotional issues, moral issues. No significant demographic even slightly understands economic issues. When you mention economics, you only lose votes, and cause the collective eyes of the American idiocracy to glaze over.

    I will vote for and support any candidate that campaigns on the message of jury independence, explaining to joe sixpack how to
    1) Get past voir dire, and get seated on the jury so that they can vote “not guilty”
    2) Explains that you cannot explain a nullification verdict, or you risk being replaced by the “alternate juror”
    3) promises to pardon ALL victimless crime offenders, and commute all death sentences to life in prison

    America is a grotesque caricature of its former self. It no longer has any claim to being the land of the free, home of the brave.

    It’s both unfree and cowardly to put 1% of the population in prison and on probation for victimless crime offenses.

    These are my demands for candidates, if they want my support. If they don’t want my support, they can campaign on “single issues” that don’t alter the overall system. …Because then, they’re really campaigning for a new job with a nicer office and higher pay for themselves.

  251. KN@PPSTER

    If I don’t know Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, then when I happen upon them dressed as stormtroopers, the safest assumption is that they’re stormtroopers.

    If I DO know Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, if I happen to come upon them dressed as stormtroopers without being in on the plan, I’m going to have to at least consider the possibility that they’ve changed sides and are really stormtroopers now.

    And if they stay in stormtrooper uniform for, say, ten terms in Congress, doing stormtrooper stuff quite a bit of the time while assuring me in private that they’re not really stormtroopers, I’m going to at least occasionally wonder which side they’re really on.

    Might there be Imperial agents dressed as Jedi? Sure, and I’m fine with keeping an eye out for them. And I’ll be especially watchful versus someone who turns up suddenly as a Rebel Alliance pilot after having served as an Imperial pilot for many years.

  252. Matt Cholko

    The problem (well, one of them) that I have with Repubs is that they’re part of an organization that goes to incredible lengths to take away freedom, eliminate choice on the ballot, and just generally do terrible stuff. I find it hard to believe that a true libertarian would associate with such an organization. Further, by voting for an R or a D, I would be showing some amount of support (or, some people would see my vote as an indication of support) for those parties. So, no thanks.

    I tried to leave a little bit of wiggle room with my previous statement. I didn’t say there is no way that I could ever support an R. I said (something like) I don’t see it happening. And that’s the truth.

    Frankly, I hope like hell that I do vote for an R sometime in the future. That would mean they’ve put forth a good candidate.

  253. Matt Cholko

    To clarify, that would mean that they’ve put forth a REALLY good candidate.

    On my scale of 1-10, 10 being a great candidate, and 7 being somewhere around the line where I would consider voting for a candidate, Republicans start at negative 100 billion. So, R candidates have to be really, really good to get back to where I’d considering supporting them.

    For the record, Democrats start at negative 99 billion.

  254. paulie

    I’d be willing to support a non-Libertarian libertarian candidate, but they would have a higher hurdle to clear than an LP candidate would, and vanishingly few non-LP candidates meet that standard. That’s because a candidate’s party is not meaningless: even if the individual candidate is good, they are actively supporting a party that has a platform which isn’t, and supporting the election of other candidates of that party who aren’t libertarian (if not explicitly, as is usually the case, then at least implicitly.) So they’d have to be *really* good on the issues, across the board, to overcome that.

    I agree.

  255. Mike Kane

    I agree with Matt here.

    I can think of just a few individuals that I could support, I think a few of the people involved with Free Keene ran as Democrats last year or the year before.

  256. paulie

    Running as a Republican is about as conducive to libertarianism as running as a Nazi or Communist. Maybe slightly more, but not by very much.

  257. Andy

    “Matt Cholko

    March 11, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    The problem (well, one of them) that I have with Repubs is that they’re part of an organization that goes to incredible lengths to take away freedom, eliminate choice on the ballot, and just generally do terrible stuff. I find it hard to believe that a true libertarian would associate with such an organization. Further, by voting for an R or a D, I would be showing some amount of support (or, some people would see my vote as an indication of support) for those parties. So, no thanks.

    I tried to leave a little bit of wiggle room with my previous statement. I didn’t say there is no way that I could ever support an R. I said (something like) I don’t see it happening. And that’s the truth.”

    Matt, I am not talking about voting for Republicans with mainstream Republican views. I am talking about voting for libertarians who run as Republicans, and when I say libertarians who run as Republicans, I mean libertarians who are pretty high on the Nolan Chart.

    I have no problem with libertarians running as Republicans, Democrats, independents, or whatever else. The bottom line is that they are pretty high on the Nolan Chart libertarians, and that they do what they say they are going to do.

    I know, or know of, people who have are philosophical libertarians who have run as Republicans, Democrats (there was one in Florida a few years ago who ran for US House as a Democrat and got something like 42% of the vote), independents, and under other party labels, like the Boston Tea Party that Tom Knapp started a few years ago, which he later abandoned, and which later went defunct.

    The goal here is liberty, not the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is certainly an important tool in the struggle for liberty, but it is not the only tool. Philosophical libertarians can run under other labels, plus there are pro-liberty ballot initiatives and referendums, and there are also outside of electoral politics strategies, such as jury nullification, alternative currencies, tax resistance, etc…

    What if a non-libertarian comes in to the Libertarian Party and ends up running for office as a Libertarian Party candidate (I believe that this has already happened on more than one occasion)? Should Libertarians mindlessly support them just because they have an “L” next to their name?

  258. paulie

    No, the party label is not the only thing that matters, but it’s definitely one of the things which matters when evaluating candidates. Any vote for a candidate running with a party label helps in a variety of ways to build both the candidate’s brand and that party’s.

  259. Dave

    I’d vote or at least consider voting for a few R congress critters. Amash, Brat, Jones, Massie. There are some Dems I’d vote for as well, like the one who ran against Collins last time and made civil liberties her whole campaign, or the self described anarchist who ran in Montana once the original Dem had to drop out. I do enjoy voting third party though. It’s hard work running a campaign when you know you have little chance to win or really be part of the media’s conversation, so I try to give them a boost when I can. Especially since i live in a state where the vast majority of races are dull affairs.

  260. Andy

    “people who have are philosophical libertarians”

    Should read, “people who are philosophical libertarians.”

  261. paulie

    I think the extent of just about all of the allegedly libertarian Republicans’ alleged libertarianism has been vastly overblown.

  262. Andy

    “paulie

    March 11, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    I think the extent of just about all of the allegedly libertarian Republicans’ alleged libertarianism has been vastly overblown.”

    I have met people in person whom I had long political conversation with who I’d say were indeed philosophical libertarians who ran for office as Republicans. I am not sure if any of the ones that I am thinking of got elected to anything, but some of them may have at least made it to some low level position.

    I am also a big Ron Paul fan, and I do consider Ron Paul to be both a small “l” libertarian and a big “L” Libertarian (since he is still a Life Member of the LP).

    I am well aware of the fact that a lot of the so called “libertarian Republicans” are not really that libertarian, but a few of them are probably legit.

    There are also Libertarians who also ran as Republicans at the same time in states where fusion is legal. I think that the Libertarian Republicans who got elected as fusion candidates in New Hampshire were for real (as far as I know).

    I hear a lot about libertarian Republican Congressmen Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. I need to do some research into their records sometime to get a better idea of how libertarian they really are.

  263. Andy

    I discovered this relatively new 9/11 Truth documentary online last night. It is about one guy’s journey to being “woken up” by 9/11. I know what some people are probably thinking, “Oh no, another 9/11 Truth documentary. Isn’t this subject getting old?” That’s what I actually thought until I clicked on the video and starting watching. It is really well done in my opinion.

    I have no idea where the guy in the video stands on all of the political issues (I’d guess that he’s probably at least a libertarian leaner), but he seems like exactly the type of person whom Libertarians should reach out to, and not take the Andy Craig approach with of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears while shouting, “Conspiracy theorist! Conspiracy theorist!” in a derisive manner, as put in the public lexicon by the CIA and their Operation Mockingbird accomplices in the mainstream media.

    9/11 – Anatomy of a Great Deception

  264. Andy

    Did you know that FEMA arrived in New York City the day before 9/11? How did they know to arrive in New York City the day before 9/11? Who gave the order to send these FEMA agents to 9/11 the day before 9/11?

  265. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well:

    1) “We” don’t “know” that the guy arrived the day before 9/11. For all “we” “know,” he was tired and got his days wrong, meaning that he arrived in New York on Tuesday night after the attacks and started working first thing Wednesday morning. Or maybe he did arrive on Monday night and that’s and indication that something is untrue in the “official account” (but what that might be is another question).

    2) Given that FEMA has more than 7,000 employees and that it has a major office in New York, it wouldn’t be surprising to see FEMA personnel arriving in (and departing) New York on any given day, but particularly on a Monday if they were there for some kind of training evolution. They’d start their work weeks, get on planes, go to a regional office (e.g. New York), do things all week and fly home Friday.

    Interestingly, this guy apparently later said “yeah, I was tired and got my days wrong in that interview,” while others (including Rudy Giuliani) responded, when asked about it, with claims that some kind of FEMA drill was scheduled for 9/12 and that they were bringing people in for it as of 9/10.

  266. Andy

    Tom, if this were the only odd thing, that would be one thing, but at some point one has got to come to the conclusion that all of this stuff can’t just be a coincidence. There seems to be a lot of “coincidences” if you buy into the official government story about 9/11.

  267. Andy

    And speaking of odd happenings and coincidences on 9/11, what about a the 5 Israelis whom numerous eye witnesses saw dancing, high fiving, and taking pictures and filming video of themselves in front of the carnage on 9/11? Is this what you’d call a normal response to a tragedy like that? The people who saw them celebrating did not think so, and they called the police. The police arrested them, and it turned out that they were Mossad agents, and they were released and sent back to Israel. They claimed that their job was to “document the event.” How in the hell did they know to “document this event,” and who sent them there to do this, and what in the hell are foreign intelligence agents doing in the USA anyway, and why were they released, and who ordered their release?

    Does anyone here think that dancing, high fiving, and celebrating is appropriate behavior when a lot of innocent people are dying?

    Could it be that these Mossad agents had something to do with carrying out the attack, or that they had something to do with people who did carry out the attack, and that they were celebrating a job well done?

    The 9/11 attack was a false flag that was likely carried out as a joint operation between factions within the US and Israeli governments. The people who carried it out had to have had high level national security clearances, with connections at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House.

  268. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, Andy, that’s the thing. I DON’T buy into the official government story about 9/11. And I agree that as alleged “coincidences” stack up, they constitute good reason for doubting that story.

    I’ve considered it a given for many years — going back to within a couple of months of the attacks — that the US government, and most likely the Israeli government as well, had some foreknowledge.

    The question, of course, is how much. And that’s hard to pin down. I suspect that they knew, at a minimum, the general timeframe and at least some of the likely targets. I couldn’t prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt, of course, but I’d say the preponderance of the available evidence points that way.

    This datum, if it does indeed indicate an unintentional disclosure of a true fact rather than a mere error recalling what day he arrived, etc., would tend to support at least that much. “Something big is coming, we don’t know if we can stop it … it might be a good idea to have some FEMA people in New York the week of 9/10-9/16, just in case … yeah, announce a drill as an excuse.”

    But as we’ve discussed, you then take the big leap from “doubting the official government story” to “anyone who doesn’t believe it was an inside job is a FOOL!” And when confronted with the fact of 11 years of complete absence of so much as a shred of evidence to support the latter contention, you sullenly retreat to trying to co-opt everyone who “doubts the official government story” as being supportive of your alternative theory.

  269. Thomas L. Knapp

    And there we go with the big leap I mentioned, even while I was in the process of mentioning it!

    “The 9/11 attack was a false flag that was likely carried out as a joint operation between factions within the US and Israeli governments. The people who carried it out had to have had high level national security clearances, with connections at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House.”

    Maybe you’re right. But you’d think that if you were right, you would have come up with evidence — even one single piece of evidence — that no other theory explains. And in 11 years, you haven’t done so.

  270. Andy

    “send these FEMA agents to 9/11 the day before 9/11?”

    Should read, “send these FEMA agents to New York the day before 9/11?”

  271. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    March 12, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    And there we go with the big leap I mentioned, even while I was in the process of mentioning it!

    ‘The 9/11 attack was a false flag that was likely carried out as a joint operation between factions within the US and Israeli governments. The people who carried it out had to have had high level national security clearances, with connections at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House.’

    Maybe you’re right. But you’d think that if you were right, you would have come up with evidence — even one single piece of evidence — that no other theory explains. And in 11 years, you haven’t done so.”

    I think that there has been plenty of evidence to back up what I said here, certainly far more evidence than what supposedly backs up the officially approved conspiracy theory by the government about what happened on 9/11.

  272. Wes Wagner

    There were clearly people who have plenty of knowledge about the attacks given the option trading that occurred. Why that has not been investigated/reported as much as it should be causes me to believe that much of it leads back to the doorsteps of “our allies” which would be embarrassing.

    We have a history of ignoring the actions of our alleged allies … cough … Stalin … cough … out of expediency. I suspect that this is no different.

    Like Knapp suggests … people knew, they probably camped on the information for different reasons and the plot was not busted before it happened.

    The concept that a bunch of crazy people using home equity loans could set in motion a series of events that would cause the largest imperialistic nation in the world to spend itself into bankruptcy and destroy itself is not at all implausible. Osama was a student of eastern military tactics and it is well known that he was trained by a number of our people and given organizational support during his conflict with Russia.

    All these conspiracy theories just cover up the fact that, we are idiots… we did idiotic things… we are destroying ourselves … that was their plan all along … it worked, and we are so stupid we can’t do anything about it.

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I think that there has been plenty of evidence to back up what I said here”

    Then why have you resolutely refused to share any of that evidence for 12 years now?

  274. Andy

    Maybe they should start a new dance troupe, called the 5 Dancing Israelis, starring:

    Sivan Kurzberg

    Paul Kurzberg

    Yaron Shmuel

    Oded Ellner

    Omer Gavriel Marmari

    They specialize in dancing at weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, and false flag attacks.

    Mass death and destruction going on: CALL THE DANCING ISRAELIS!

    This is just begging for a parody song:

  275. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Like Knapp suggests … people knew, they probably camped on the information for different reasons and the plot was not busted before it happened.”

    Well, the most benign explanation for foreknowledge without prevention is that the US intelligence community knew that a big attack was coming and had a general sense of where or what the targets might be, but were unable to put the other pieces (e.g. exactly who the attackers were and that they would be conducting the attack by hijacking planes flying out of a particular airport on a particular morning) together in time to stop it cold.

    There are other, less benign, explanations, running all the way out to the “inside job”/”false flag” explanation, with lots of other plausible ones in between.

    In order to pin down exactly what happened, you need evidence that only one of the plausible theories explains.

    I’ve paid as much attention as I can to the “inside job” theorists for 12 years now. Without exception, every bit of evidence they offer falls into one of two categories:

    1) Evidence that could be explained by other theories than “inside job;” and

    2) Bullshit.

  276. Andy

    THE ISRAELI DANCE (sung to the tune of The Safety Dance)

    We can carry out false flags if we want to,
    We can blow up your buildings,
    We can blame it on Muslim terrorists and start wars in the Middle East
    We can pose as art students, or we can pose as furniture movers
    but we really work for the Mossad and we carry out all of their acts

    Do the Israeli dance
    Do the Israeli dance
    It’s the Israeli dance
    Everybody do the Israeli dance

    We watched those buildings come down and we felt the need to celebrate

    I THINK I HEAR A HIT HERE!

  277. Andy

    Oh, gee, look at this, the Bush family was connected to the security at the World Trade Center, George “Dubya’s” younger brother Marvin was on the board of directors of the company that ran security at the WTC, as well as for United Airlines, and for Dulles Airport.

    Wow, another coincidence!

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

    “9/11 Security
    Courtesy of Marvin Bush

    Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]

    According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center ‘up to the day the buildings fell down.'”

  278. Andy

    Testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Dick Cheney’s bizarre behavior on 9/11:

  279. Andy

    Mineta and the secret orders of Cheney

    (In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission:

    Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”)

  280. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Thanks to this discussion I had a look at the 2004 Libertarian presidential debate at the convention.

    Aaron Russo was very impressive. Both on the level of 1) evident sincerity and 2) avoiding sales-pitch cliches and making interesting and controversial claims instead. Gary Nolan was quite impressive in his own way, but ultimately came off as a salesman hawking Repub-lite rhetoric. Badnarik seemed sincere and sometimes expressed libertarian ideas with remarkable clarity, but he also expressed some simplistic opinions indicating limited knowledge of history, politics and political theory.

    One of the issues where Russo seemed more sincere than his rivals was he was willing to admit in the debate that the standard Libertarian position on the environment (basically, private property rights and expanded tort law) is not a realistic or compelling view.

  281. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    Some people had enough details to buy puts only on the airlines that had planes involved in the incident in extraordinary numbers that defies statistical anomaly. That implies at least a some people were very aware. I suspect that they were bagmen for the very terrorist organizations who were pulling off the attack who would profit financially off their own operation (smart) .. I have seen some evidence that the money trails led to some people in Saudi Arabia that would have embarrassed our “allies” should it have become widely publicized.

    There was alot of other trades … but with the way computers trade those could have been benign and just touched off by the primary trades of the co-conspirators.

    Either way there seemed to be alot of reluctance to vigorously pursue those leads. That usually means it leads to people you don’t want to embarrass.

  282. Andy

    Wes Wagner said: “All these conspiracy theories just cover up the fact that, we are idiots… we did idiotic things… we are destroying ourselves …”

    Who is “we”? I had nothing to do with this, nor did I vote for or in any way support (unless you want to count involuntarily paying any taxes that may have been used to fund any of this stuff) those that did.

    Wes is also perpetuating the “everybody in government is stupid” myth. This is a delusion that some libertarians are under because they are unable or unwilling to confront evil, or admit that they are not really free and that they don’t really “run” anything.

    While there are certainly stupid people in government, the people who run government are not stupid, they are evil.

    If libertarians were so smart and everyone in government was really so stupid then we’d have already defeated them and we’d have a libertarian society right now.

    The people who run the government scam are smart, ruthless, and evil.

    You need to know what you are up against if you ever want to have a chance to win.

  283. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wes,

    Yes, I’m aware of the put options scandal. It’s one thing I’d like to see got to the bottom of. But based on the information we have about it, all we know is “SOMEONE/S knew in advance.” Which of course we already knew.

    Finding out who that SOMEONE/S was/were might provide a piece of evidence to support the “inside job/false flag” theory. And/or any number of other theories.

    The golden ticket for the “inside job/false flag” theory would be a piece of evidence — even one — which no other theory could plausibly explain. Still waiting on that.

  284. Andy

    Insider trading on 9/11 leads back to the CIA. Oh, gee, just another one of those gosh darn coincidences I suppose.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/illegaltades.html

    “SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING
    LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA’S HIGHEST RANKS

    CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR “BUZZY” KRONGARD
    MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED “PUT” OPTIONS ON UAL

    by Michael C. Ruppert

    [© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications, http://www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.]
    FTW, October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades — which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed — the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations”. In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

    Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

    THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING

    Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades – in real time – as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.”

  285. Thomas L. Knapp

    Damn. I didn’t think you’d post that one, Andy.

    It loosely falls into the second category I mentioned, “bullshit.” But not quite, because it doesn’t even really rise to the level of “coincidence.”

    Wow, a major bank once employed a guy who later worked for the CIA! Whodathunkit?

    Hey, Maxim Dlugy once worked for Bankers Trust as well. Does that mean that 9/11 was just a setup for his plus score at the 2006 US Chess Championship?

  286. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t get into discussions about 9/11 anymore because there’s tons of info out there for people who choose to research the issues. I always suggest starting with ae911truth.org as a place to start.

    And being called a “Truther” is totally meaningless, as are the ridiculous tinfoil hat comments. All it does is put the name caller back into grade school.

  287. Jill Pyeatt

    “Still I think I would rather be called a “truther” than a “liar”!”

    I agree with that, NF!

  288. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    I am more concerned about the path leading back to actual government sponsorship and knowledge in one form or another of governments from countries who we or they allege are “our friends” … that is where i think the money path might end… not in a false flag operation… but a very real sponsorship of an attack against us due to their dissatisfaction with our attempts at middle eastern hegemony.

  289. Matt Cholko

    How does an increase in volume of put option trading prove that anyone knew in advance? At best, its fishy. It damn sure ain’t proof. Put options are bought and sold regularly, for many reasons. Often, a large position is used by an “institutional investor” as a hedge against a move in the underlying security. All kinds of news can affect a stock price, and airlines are notoriously poor performers. So, its certainly possible that a few large postions, or many small positions were put on by investors or traders for any number of reasons.

  290. Andy

    Matt, there was an unusual amount of puts placed on those stocks that day. Just another one of the many coincidences and weird things that took place that day.

  291. Thomas L. Knapp

    Actually, some Muslims benefited a great deal from 9/11.

    Just like some Americans benefited a great deal from 9/11.

    Cui bono is a good starting point for any inquiry. It is not, however, evidence per se.

  292. Andy

    “Green_w_o_Adjectives

    March 12, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Thanks to this discussion I had a look at the 2004 Libertarian presidential debate at the convention.”

    I am glad to see that my comments on this thread caused somebody to go to the C-SPAN archives and look up that 2004 LP Presidential debate. This debate really ought to be put on YouTube. There’s a lot of other good stuff from the Libertarian Party and other minor party candidates in the C-SPAN archives that ought to be added to YouTube as well.

    “Aaron Russo was very impressive. Both on the level of 1) evident sincerity and 2) avoiding sales-pitch cliches and making interesting and controversial claims instead. Gary Nolan was quite impressive in his own way, but ultimately came off as a salesman hawking Repub-lite rhetoric. Badnarik seemed sincere and sometimes expressed libertarian ideas with remarkable clarity, but he also expressed some simplistic opinions indicating limited knowledge of history, politics and political theory.”

    The candidate selection for President at Libertarian Party National Conventions has gone downhill since this convention in my opinion.

    It is a shame that Aaron Russo never got a chance to be a candidate on the ballot for the LP. He was going to run for US Senate as a Libertarian Party candidate in 2002 but he had to drop out of the race due to health problems, and of course he lost the LP Presidential nomination in 2004.

    When I spoke to Aaron Russo during a conference call in 2006 I asked him about the 2004 LP nomination, and he said that losing was kind of a blessing of disguise, as that was what inspired him to make America: From Freedom To Fascism. He was actually supposed to make a part 2 of America: From Freedom To Fascism, but unfortunately he passed away before that could happen.

    During the conference call (which included G. Edward Griffin), he said that he wanted to recruit a high profile pro-liberty candidate to run for President in the Republican primary, or as an independent, and he said that if he could not find one, that he’d do it himself. The person he most wanted to recruit to run was Congressman Ron Paul.

    “One of the issues where Russo seemed more sincere than his rivals was he was willing to admit in the debate that the standard Libertarian position on the environment (basically, private property rights and expanded tort law) is not a realistic or compelling view.”

    This is one of the questions where I think that he flubbed, which is one of the things that cost him the nomination. I appreciate that he gave an honest answer, but he should have done more homework on the issue and I believe that he could have presented a more libertarian solution to the problem.

  293. Rob Banks

    The question of whether Ventura can run as a Libertarian without joining the party was already addressed above, and the answer is no. That’s also the answer as to whether this is in an way, shape or form a good idea at all.

  294. Andy

    “Rob Banks

    March 16, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    The question of whether Ventura can run as a Libertarian without joining the party was already addressed above, and the answer is no. That’s also the answer as to whether this is in an way, shape or form a good idea at all.”

    I know that it was already addressed. I just thought it was a good article, even though I disagree with the idea of anyone getting the LP nomination without joining the party.

  295. Andy

    The subject of charisma came up earlier in this thread. I think that Jesse Ventura has charisma, and would be the most charismatic candidate that the LP has ever had. I am not saying that he would be the best candidate for the LP, nor am I saying that he even should be an LP candidate (he is weak on several issues, and has not shown a commitment to the party), I am just saying that he’s got charisma.

    Gary Johnson has some charisma, but not as much as Jesse Ventura.

    Wayne Root had charisma (more so than Gary Johnson), but the problem with Wayne was that he sounded too much like a Republican, and his approach to outreach was to primarily cater to Republicans/conservatives while usually disregarding, or even alienating, the rest of the political spectrum. He also spent more time promoting himself than the LP. So while he was charismatic and he did get a lot of media (by LP standards) it did not translate into a lot of votes and new LP members.

    I thought that Aaron Russo had charisma (more than Gary Johnson), but Tom Knapp does not seem to think so, even though he worked for him.

    Which candidates, or would be candidates, do you think are charismatic?

  296. Joshua Katz

    The biggest problem with a WAR type candidate, besides confusing people as to what our message is (as Jesse would do also) is that they present no compelling reason to vote LP. It takes a leap to get someone to “waste their vote,” and they need to be genuinely inspired and moved to do it. What’s the inspiration in voting for another Republican – why not just vote Republican?

  297. Robert Capozzi

    Charisma is certainly not quantifiable. To me, it means “interesting and compelling.” I agree that JV has it. I’d say WAR does not, although he seems reasonably comfortable on TV. He comes off as arrogant, irritating, and somewhat goofy to me. He’s a shill, a Herb Tarlek.

    GJ has more of a Jimmy Stewart thing going on, but he could use work on his fluidity. He says a fair amount of off-key things as well.

  298. Andy

    Jesse Ventura, even with his philosophical flaws, appeals more to the type of people that should be voting LP than Wayne Root did. Root’s style and presentation was too Republican sounding.

  299. Thomas L. Knapp

    Charisma is both subjective and contextual.

    Subjectively, I find Ventura and WAR annoying, irritating and just not very attractive in any way.

    I loved Aaron, but then I knew him personally and that made a difference in how I saw him. In my professional opinion at the time, he would have done better if he’d toned down the bombast just a little. I could see it pissing people off. But even with that, he came in first place on the first two ballots in 2004 and only lost because the blood was so bad between him and Nolan (and their respective camps) that when Nolan was eliminated he went all out to take Russo down with him.

    Would he have won if he had followed my speaking advice … or if I hadn’t been such a hatchet man on his behalf that Nolan’s campaign manager publicly blamed me personally for torpedoing Nolan? I don’t know. But I suspect he would have.

    The kind of charisma that gets a million people to buy your book or see your movie may or may not be the kind of charisma that gets ~60 million people to vote for you for political office.

    In Ventura’s case it did seem to make that jump in Minnesota. I can’t see it working nationally, especially after subsequent water under the bridge, but I might be wrong.

    In WAR’s case, I can’t see him ever ascending past the “charm enough gullible people to turn a few bucks” level. So far, history has tended to confirm my judgment.

  300. Andy

    Wayne Root’s message was too Republican for the LP, but the guy did have charisma.

  301. Rob Banks

    Pointless argument; it’s a matter of personal taste. I may have said that already but it’s a really long thread and I don’t feel like reading it all again.

  302. Andy

    This is not an argument about charisma, it is more of a survey about which candidates, or potential candidates, IPR readers think have charisma.

  303. Rob Banks

    IMO, Marc Feldman is the most charismatic candidate announced so far. I don’t think the “votes not for sale” / no contributions over $5 strategy will get him very far though. Gary Johnson has his moments but at other times seems lost. Darryl Perry and Keenan Dunham come off as being too young for a presidential run, even though they aren’t. Personally I don’t find Ventura or Root to be charismatic.

    Harry Browne was more charismatic than other LP prez candidates in the time I’ve been paying attention. Barr has the charisma of a house plant. Ron Paul in ’88, from the few clips I have seen, didn’t seem nearly as well paced as he did 20-25 years later. Badnarik never really struck a chord with me. I haven’t seen any Marrou clips that stuck in my memory. Bergland was notoriously uncharismatic. I haven’t seen any clips going back further than that.

  304. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom, who do you consider to be charismatic?”

    In the LP?

    Although I didn’t support him for the LP’s nomination in either 1996, I thought Harry Browne was pretty charismatic.

    Bumper Hornberger, very charismatic in my opinion. And Mary Ruwart. Steve Kubby.

  305. Andy

    I disagree about Ruwart. She’s too mousey. She articulates a hardcore libertarian message, but I do not see much charisma there.

  306. Andy

    Yeah, but it is also what appeals to the most people. Jesse Ventura’s charisma was a big part of his success.

    Just going by charisma, I could see Jesse Ventura getting lots of votes.

  307. Stewart Flood

    I wasn’t a supporter of Dr Ruwart’s candidacy, but I do believe she was getting quite a bit better near the end of her campaign. She is also extremely good (aka charisma!) at fundraising. She did a fantastic job at the convention fundraising dinner. Everyone left with the happy feeling of having had their wallet picked clean by an expert.

    Dr Phillies was also getting much better near the end of his campaign in 2008. I recall telling him I thought he’d improved significantly. No, he does not have charisma, but he was becoming a much better public speaker.

    I watched the video of the Georgia convention, and my impression of Mr Feldman is that he is starting out far worse than either Dr Ruwart or Dr Phillies and I don’t really get the impression that the word charisma will ever apply. I wasn’t in disagreement with much of what he said (in spite of the glaringly obvious factual errors at several points). I just wasn’t impressed.

  308. Robert Capozzi

    and then there is gravitas. JV has that, too. Obama has both, too, I’d say, as did Clinton.

    Unfortunately, so too do some serial killers. Or psychopaths…Lance Armstrong comes to mind…gravitas there, a force of will kinda thing. Or, say, Dick Cheney. Not much “charisma” there, but lots of gravitas.

    These are — I think — matters of the heart, not the head, which is an area where most Ls get uncomfortable, as they tend to be more up in their heads and intellectual.

  309. LibertarianGirl

    Phillies found his voice that year, sounded way more confident at the end. he also had the best, most complete issues papers with plans. one page one for each topic, colored and nice looking on a table….I liked them alot

  310. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl

    March 20, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Phillies found his voice that year, sounded way more confident at the end.”

    Yes, candidates who work on it can improve their public speaking abilities.

  311. Andy

    “Jed Ziggler

    March 3, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Despite the fact that Ventura is a former governor, it’s hard to take his presidential aspirations seriously. In his book Don’t Start the Revolution without Me he lays out a (completely serious, keep in mind) plan he laid out to Vince McMahon where Vince would create a ‘WWE Party’ for a Vinny Mac “presidential campaign”. The idea would be presented as completely kayfabe storyline, but in the meantime the party would gain actual ballot access. At the “convention”, live on RAW, Ventura would show up & declare his candidacy for the nomination, and the delegates (fans in attendance) would nominate Ventura over McMahon, and he would launch a real campaign.”

    If there was some way to pull it off, getting ballot access petition signatures for Jesse Ventura at WWE events would be a great idea. WWE events draw tens of thousands of people. If it was planned out properly, it could be a way to get a large portion of the signatures that Jesse Ventura would need to get on the ballot as an independent, assuming the WWE agreed to let him do it.

    What I would recommend, would be to have tables set up near each entrance to every WWE event that was in a state where petition signatures were needed. I’d have a big sign that said something like, “JESSE VENTURA FOR PRESIDENT – SIGN HERE.” It may help also have a life sized cut out of Ventura as well. Considering the volume of people walking by, it would probably be good to have 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 petition circulators at each table. If you really wanted to be smart about it, you could have somebody there with a computer or IPAD that has a database of registered voters. People stopping at the table could ask the person if they are registered, and then check the database to see if they are actually registered, and at what address. If they were in a state where you can have people fill out voter registration forms and sign petitions the same day, voter registration forms could be made available to anyone who was not registered to vote.

    If this were done, I would not be surprised if some of the petition drives could be knocked out in one day. Even for ones that would not be knocked out in one day, gathering signatures at an event where a high percentage of people would be willing to sign could net a heck of a lot of signatures.

    I personally would not tie it in with a contrived angle, but the idea itself is actually a good one for helping to knock out the ballot access requirements. The only question is would WWE allow petition circulators for Jesse Ventura for President inside at their events. I doubt it, but who knows. Even if they do not allow it inside, petition circulators could always stand outside, but then they may get harassed and chased off by arena security. Most of these arenas have been tax payer financed, so they should be fair game for petition signature gathering, however, what should be and what is are not always the same thing when dealing with the police, security guards, venue managers, etc…

  312. Mark Axinn

    >GJ has more of a Jimmy Stewart thing going on, but he could use work on his fluidity. He says a fair amount of off-key things as well.

    He’s also really good at faking a heart attack. 🙂

  313. Joshua Katz

    The thing about petitioning at WWE (I hate writing that) events is this. You might remember that a few years ago, there was an angle where the Undertaker lost a Casket Match to Yokozuna, but then disappeared from the casket. The arena went dark, and he was then seen on the video screen, promising that his spirit lives on in the heart of every fan, and that he will return. There then followed a long sequence of reported “Undertaker sightings,” then a situation where the Undertaker returned, managed by Ted Dibiase, with Paul Bearer claiming it wasn’t the real Undertaker (“I communicated with MY Undertaker last night…” “Mr. Bearer, are you saying you spoke to the Undertaker?” “No, I said I communicated…” )

    Anyway, my point is, most fans had no idea why Dibiase was written into this angle, other than him being a generic bad-guy manager. It was perfectly logical, since Dibiase had, in fact, introduced the Undertaker (as ‘Kane the Undertaker’) as part of his feud with Hulk Hogan, managed by Brother Love, until BL announced he didn’t have time and had recruited Paul Bearer (“Brother Bearer”) to manage the Undertaker. That had happened about 8 years prior.

    So, how any fans would remember Jesse now, as a wrestler? Petitioning inside would work, if it were allowed, and that can likely be arranged. They tried to help Backlund when he decided to run for office because a worked angle where he ran had gone over so well, so they might be willing to do this too. I don’t see an effort outside the arena working, though, because wrestling fans are more likely to think of him as a politician than a wrestler by now.

  314. Andy

    I know a couple of petitioners who gathered signatures for LP ballot access outside a WWE event in Fargo, ND, and they did surprisingly well.

    I think a lot of fans would remember Jesse Ventura, and for the one’s who do not, there are plenty of clips of his wrestling days on YouTube. Also, Jesse could make some special appearances so that newer fans could be made familiar with him.

  315. paulie

    I was one of the petitioners at the Fargo event. And is there a government conspiracy to keep reviving this thread? LOL

  316. Andy

    Check out this preview for a new documentary about how the CIA created the use of the term “conspiracy theorist” as a pejorative and how they inserted this smear into the Mockingbird mainstream media.

    The Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy

  317. langa

    Perhaps there should be an Open Thread for discussion of conspiracy theories. Although I’m not that passionate about them one way or the other, I have to admit, it would be fun to see the two Andy’s going at it, in a steel cage death match (in honor of Jesse’s wrestling roots).

  318. paulie

    Maybe. But then do I have to keep bumping it too? Pretty soon our front page would be nothing but bumped open threads at that rate. I’m already going to add a new libertarianism/anarchy open thread, plus the regular one, plus LP state conventions…. anyone else have thoughts for or against?

  319. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve got nothing against an open thread for conspiracy theories, but I wouldn’t make it a “periodic bump” thread. Rather, I’d make it like the thread for PLAS or for petitioner griping — post it once, refer people to it as needed.

  320. Andy

    “paulie

    April 8, 2015 at 8:15 am

    Reviving this thread is an inside job!”

    I only posted it here because I did not see a more current thread where I thought the video was appropriate. If there was no recent appropriate thread, I would generally post something like this in the Open Thread for the month, however, I noticed that the Open Thread for April had the word Fools in it, and I did not want the perception that the video was some kind of April Fools joke.

    I’ve seen threads way older than this one get bumped here, so I don’t see what the big deal is.

  321. paulie

    Just because it keeps happening over and over and over.

    There are even more current threads about Ventura.

    I’ll take the fools out of the april open thread title it if helps you any.

  322. Andy

    “I’ll take the fools out of the april open thread title it if helps you any.”

    Yeah, take the word Fool out of the Open Thread title and I’ll post other stuff like this there, unless of course the topic becomes relevant in a new thread.

    The Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy video that I posted above is pretty interesting. I’d recommend that everyone check it out.

  323. Mark Herd

    Andy, your video has lots of great msm characters and I love the Alex Jones genre music in the background. Very good find. Now back to my good book “Who killed Kennedy, Oswald or Castro?

  324. Seymour_Results

    I offer all of the above as evidence that the gene that predisposes people to become big-L Libertarians is mutually-exclusive of the gene that predisposes people to comprehend basic political strategy. (Claims to the contrary notwithstanding.) This reminds me of the fine book of cartoons: “Everybody is stupid except for me.”

    This might also explain why Knapp hated “The Counselor” (Which is ironic, because it’s another of McCarthy’s case studies in sociopathy, in addition to “No Country for Old Men,” both of which one would think most libertarians could appreciate. Interestingly, the sociopath in “No Country” actually asks a character “How to prevail over that which you refuse to acknowledge the existence of?” …Which is the central reason why libertarians are nearly impotent against power-seeking sociopaths. The sociopaths want power far more than libertarians, and the libertarians can’t even acknowledge that sociopaths exist.)

    There you have it. …It may actually be genetic. Funny enough, even though Icke is a whack-job, the mammalian brain (and its empathy-inducing mirror neurons) came after the reptilian brain. Thus, as a metaphor, thinking of powerful sociopaths as “the lizard people” might be appropriate.

  325. paulie

    I offer all of the above as evidence that the gene that predisposes people to become big-L Libertarians is mutually-exclusive of the gene that predisposes people to comprehend basic political strategy. (Claims to the contrary notwithstanding.) This reminds me of the fine book of cartoons: “Everybody is stupid except for me.”

    Well, that does seem to be your motto, and you were at least at one time a big L Libertarian, so…

  326. Thomas L. Knapp

    I hated The Counselor because it was a bad film that neither made much sense nor was very entertaining.

    I thought No Country For Old Men was pretty good although both McCarthy and the Coen brothers love annoying endings.

Leave a Reply

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