A BUZZFEED article by Robert Jardin titled, “Documentary I Am Gary Johnson Gets First-Look During 2018 Sundance Festival” claims that –
“This year’s Festival showcase (sic) 110 independent films from 29 countries and roughly 25 First-Look Premier (sic) Trailers scattered among venues up and down Park City’s busy Main Street proper. Among the coveted, First-Look Premier (sic) screenings, is politically charged documentary “I Am Gary Johnson”
This film is NOT a Sundance Film Festival film. See:
https://www.sundance.org/blogs/news/2018-sundance-film-festival–feature-films-announced
A similar announcement posted on the Cannabis Sativa inc page, states:
“This year the Festival highlights 110 films from 29 countries and roughly 20 independent First-Look events scattered among venues up and down Park City’s busy Main Street proper. Among the coveted events, “I Am Gary Johnson” . . . In addition to the preview, the celebrity infused, gourmet catered event, hosts a diverse panel of political luminaries including Larry Sharpe, New York Candidate for Governor, Nicholas Sarwark, Libertarian National Committee Chair, and Executive Director of the Freedom for America Super PAC R.J. Lyman. With other high-profile guest announcements coming later this week.”
A FACEBOOK invitation states:
“I Am Gary Johnson Director Brando Eaton is excited to Host the 2018 Sundance Film Festival First-Look at #IAGJ. . . . For Credential Information contact [email protected]”
Tickets to the event, which is being held Tuesday January 23rd in Park City, UT, are available for $100 each ($150 per couple) HERE. Proceeds support the Larry Sharpe for Governor campaign.
The words “Sundance Film” have been removed from an earlier version of this invitation, as has the location, which was initially identified as the MUSIC LODGE. The ticket price has also been lowered from $500 per person to $100.
Governor Romney’s office has not yet confirmed his attendance with IPR. LNC Chair Nick Sarwark confirmed his attendance. (19 JAN 2018 UPDATE: Nick has informed IPR that the panel discussion has been canceled, and he will not be attending.) Larry Sharpe confirmed his attendance stating:
“Join me, LNC Chairman Nicholas Sarwark, Governor Mitt Romney, Director Brando Eaton, R.J. Lyman, Daniel Thompson, Jenn Gray, and many more at the Sundance Film Festival for a VIP look behind the scenes at the most successful Libertarian presidential campaign in history. Special thanks to our friends at I Am Gary Johnson and Power & Industry for making this incredible film and event possible.”
Tickets are also for sale on the Salt Lake City CRAIGS LIST HERE.
Now that would be …interesting… if true.
I just heard President Trump and Mitt Romney have been given one of the coveted prime time speaking spots at the Libertarian National Convention in New Orleans!
(It’s in another hotel across the street, but it is in New Orleans and during the LP Convention. And the LNC, in an effort not to go all “Sharia Law” about it, is not going to do anything to stop them from claiming they were selected by the LNC to speak at the convention.)
All is well.
“Libertarians going around calling themselves liberals would just create a lot of confusion”
At this point, I think liberals calling ourselves libertarians creates more confusion. The term “libertarian” is getting hijacked by the far right and most people in the US now think that is what it means. “Liberal” has been effectively dumped by progressives after they hijacked it, as most of them are increasingly calling themselves progressives again (or just socialists).
“So, it’s time to call ourselves liberals again,”
Libertarians going around calling themselves liberals would just create a lot of confusion, and it is a false assumption to say that lots of people on the left would hear libertarians calling themselves liberals and start adopting libertarian principles because of this.
Is it possible for people on the left to adopt libertarian principles? Sure, but not all of them are going to do it, and it takes more than a cheap stunt/gimmick like a libertarian bringing back the true definition of the term liberal to refer to themselves to win converts from the left to libertarianism.
Liberaltarian or left-libertarian may be most accurate, but clunky. Liberal or leftist is OK, despite how many/most USAmericans misinterpret those in recent decades. “Libertarian” is becoming way too uncomfortably close to racist/fascist in the view of too many self-described libertarians and non-libertarians alike, so it’s if anything it’s much less embarrassing to be mistaken for a democratic socialist or progressive than for a neo-nazi. Voluntaryist or mutualist are also good alternatives to “libertarian” these days.
paulie: The point has already come, but fortunately there is a solution. The people who hijacked the term liberal have by and large subsequently abandoned it, a tiny number of counter-examples and anecdotes posted in this thread notwithstanding. Most people I know outside of libertarian circles are progressives and they do not call themselves liberals. They sneer at “liberals” almost as much as the right wingers I know do.
So, it’s time to call ourselves liberals again, and if that makes reich wingers think we’re the enemy, so much the better. We don’t need any more of their kind anyway, we already have too many, and all they are doing is preventing us from effectively reaching the much larger and more open-minded, more diverse and primarily but not exclusively young audience on our left flank.
Me: LOL
JOE!! How the heck are you???
Its amazing how one little word makes such a difference in a post. As a fellow volunteer at the ole SD, I didn’t see where the statement said “Awarded” or “Official” and shoot, any location on Main Street I would say is pretty coveted…wouldn’t you.
“20 independent First-Look events scattered among venues up and down Park City’s busy Main Street proper. Among the coveted events, “I Am Gary Johnson” a comprehensive look at the 2016 Johnson/Weld Presidential Campaign of two-term Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and Libertarian movement inching toward official recognition as a viable 3rd party.”
Absolutely right on the worthy of an article part, so glad you are in charge of this site, wouldn’t want to award you anything less.
Joe Buchman: The Feldman Foundation solicited donations to work on your behalf, when it appeared you would be barred from ballot and debate access.
The very people interviewed on this film, gave those donations. I being one of them.
I’m finding “principled Libertarian” to be a moving target, as most often it’s merely Virtue Signaling,
coupled with an upcoming campaign.
Once again, I expected better of Libertarians, only to find my confidences misplaced.
Sadly it appears everyone in Utah, wishes to be Sharia Republicans.
No wonder Evan “McMuffin” gained such traction.
“Other Screening events DURING the Sundance Film Festival” is NOT the same as claiming that the “film” was awarded one of the “Coveted Premiere Screenings” as if it was a selection of the Sundance Film Festival.
NONE of the venues you mention above (including SLAMDANCE – another festival occuring in Park City this week), NONE, ZERO, NADA promote themselves as offering ANY official “Sundance Film Festival” screenings.
This Gary Johnson “film premiere” (which was apparently, in reality, only an extended trailer) did.
As a volunteer for the Sundance Film Festival for the past 13 years, as the current Chair of the Libertarian Party of Utah, as a member of the national party’s audit committee, as an editor for IPR, and as someone just generally outraged by a lack of integrity around what (was at least once) “The Party of Principle” – I found that disingenuous and worthy of an article here.
See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KAdka1lOo
BTW – the “Weinstein Football Party” definitely Is NOT HAPPENING at the Sundance Film Festival this year. Nor will it ever again, I imagine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/business/media/sundance-harvey-weinstein.html
Gotta disagree with you there. The ongoing damage to the word libertarian by the conservative-libertarian fusionists, paleo “libertarians”, right “libertarians” and the alt right ethno-nationalists is far, far worse than the damage to the word liberal. “Libertarian” is quickly becoming Chernobyl Meltdown level toxic.
The point has already come, but fortunately there is a solution. The people who hijacked the term liberal have by and large subsequently abandoned it, a tiny number of counter-examples and anecdotes posted in this thread notwithstanding. Most people I know outside of libertarian circles are progressives and they do not call themselves liberals. They sneer at “liberals” almost as much as the right wingers I know do.
So, it’s time to call ourselves liberals again, and if that makes reich wingers think we’re the enemy, so much the better. We don’t need any more of their kind anyway, we already have too many, and all they are doing is preventing us from effectively reaching the much larger and more open-minded, more diverse and primarily but not exclusively young audience on our left flank.
Another social justice warrior attacking anything that shows Gary Johnson actually isn’t an idiot.
So why doesn’t this article mention there are hundreds of independent films and events during Sundance.
This is a hit piece from Adam Kokesh
FOR EXAMPLE HERE ARE OTHER SCREENINGS EVENTS DURING SUNDANCE
Lil Jon’s Bday Party
Oakley Learn To Ride
Louisiana Film Fest Party
Dell & Pitchfork
Weinstein Football Party
Bang & Olufson
Youtube Studio
Sundance Shabbat
Columbia of Chicago
Black Diamond Celebrity Poker
Tisch
NC Filmmakers Party
Queer Brunch
BMI
Cal@Sundance
Indie Lounge
Nikki Beach
DJ Vice
Iggy Azalea
Eddie Bauer Adventure House
Airbnb Haus
Slamdance Parties
New York Lounge
Power & Industry Lounge
Zen Den
SAG Indie
Catdance
Beauty & Style Bar
Stella Artois Lounge
Indiegogo
Dronedance
TAO
Latino Reel
Slamdance Happy Hours
Chase Sapphire Lounge
Chefdance
ASCAP
Sundance Channel HQ
Grey Goose Blue Door
Kickstarter
Creative Coalition
Ecolux Gifting Lounge
TurboKid Party
Black Sheep
Scott Weiland (STP)
Variety Film Lounge
DJ Mom Jeans (Danny Masterson)
Dubai Film Financing Fund
Pax Mansion
Billboard Live
Lena Dunham Party
Lipton Ice tea Lounge
Redbull
USC Filmakers
Lindsey Stirling
Don Most
Utah Film Commission Lounge
Village @ The Lift
Hottub Social
HP Live Lounge
Here is the info you seek. Daniel Thompson iss the maker of the documentary and owner(?) Of the Sundance Indie lounge where the film was going to be screened. He was arrested for sex crimes against a minor.
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/news/ci_10335956
https://gossip.thedirty.com/gossip/salt-lake-city/daniel-thompson-indie-lounge-sex-offender/#post-1772042
Andy Craig, it is true that a few people who most of us here would say are not libertarian have called themselves that, and/or have been referred to as being that, but even so, there has not been even close to the amount of damage done to the word libertarian as has been done to the word liberal. If the word libertarian ever gets misused to the extent that the word liberal does, then at this point, it may become necessary for people who are in the Libertarian section of the Nolan Chart to abandon the term libertarian, but I do not think that we are even close to reaching that point (at least not yet anyway, and hopefully, this point will never come).
The list of politicians that have described themselves as “libertarian” includes Mick Mulvaney and Raul Labrador, yet I don’t see anybody urging the LP to ditch the word.
Thomas L. Knapp
January 19, 2018 at 16:54
The last time I remember a prominent Democrat calling himself a “liberal” was in 1988 (Michael Dukakis).”
……………….
Maxine Waters- this liberal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU
Here’s another example that Buzzfeed is # Fake News
dl, an apologetic disclaimer: I try to be succinct, but, when unraveling a bowl of spaghetti it’s not possible, and what I see (current situations) is like that bowl of spaghetti- one thing leads to another, and as I’ve pointed out, numerous times, our situation(s) are due, in no small part, to a lack of education founded in Truth- IF our education system were founded in Truth this (and many, if not most) discussions wouldn’t even be necessary.
dl: Actually, I do have a problem with it per se if it serves as a decision-making rule, ie. a de facto constitution…
me: If that were the case, then it would be gov’t intervention ruling “by”, not market “influence” running its course, which is my meaning. I think we’re supposed to already have constitutional protection from “ruling by” but it depends on the elected representatives doing their job to allow a market run its course through “market influence” and not allow, or insist by decree, edict, or mandate that a segment, group or Individual have a legal advantage. That ties into another post regarding (the proverbial bowl of spaghetti) “misunderstood/misrepresentation” by authority figures intentionally changing the definition of a word or phrase to fit a certain agenda giving legal advantage (and in some cases purely psychological) of one over another, which then morphs into ruling ‘over- by, a constitution-
Something law makers ignore is the ability of a rule to be broken to suit a non-rule follower. Multiply that by 300+ million it’s easy to see there will be some who can and many who will. Some will work at it, some come by it naturally, and many will follow. It’s much easier (one would think) to corral a few (law makers-537 currently) with rules, to be “ruled over” than any number greater than the 537 who choose to ignore the rules (a constitution) through intentional misinterpretation/misrepresentation which is done because they can- as authority figures, who often as not are lawyers, a group, who pay others to teach them to lie legally by intentional misinterpretation depending on agenda and then having advocates of that by asserting an education in constitutional law makes them special, as though the constitution is an esoteric document.
These, combined with general populace ignorance, (lack of education founded in Truth) allow markets to be ruled by vs markets influenced by, no matter what the topic/commodity.
Actually, I do have a problem with it per se if it serves as a decision-making rule, ie. a de facto constitution…
dL said: “Anyone who runs away from the word liberal is usually not running away from something but rather to something…namely authoritarianism. Liberal is only a dirty word to authoritarians.”
Andy: I don’t see liberal as a dirty word, I see it as a misunderstood word.
Me: It’s misunderstood because authority figures intentionally misrepresent their intent creating intentional misunderstanding.
GP: As discussed at great and clear length in Asymmetric Politics, the Republican and Democratic parties are qualitatively different. A Republican is attached to some overarching conservative ideology. The Democratic Party is not ideological in the same sense. It is a collection of groups with specific policy objectives.
Me: I’ve not had the opportunity to read what you’re referring to, but, I’d have to say they’re referring to voters, not those elected.
dL
January 19, 2018 at 23:35
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
dl: DJ, that was a pretty good summary. I would only qualify it with
me: Thanks dl, but, you’re tempting fate and the wrath of paulie when you read, never mind comment positively on what I post. 😉
dl: (1) the term “neo-liberal” only came into vogue after the TARP bailouts and is usually thrown around as an accusation. Not that many people actually identify themselves as neo-liberals, although I do note the Adam Smith Institute dropped the libertarian label to willingly self-identify as “neo-liberal.” I would instead go with the straight-forward term, classical liberalism.
…………
The article I linked to was from the early 60’s.
I wasn’t using it as a means of self-identification for anyone, but, as a tool to see there are no discerning differences in the policies of D’s or R’s- ultimately, as their actions speak far louder than their rhetoric with us living the results as proof/evidence.
dl: (2) I’m not sure the perpetuation of American imperialism was the exact intent of the revised classical liberalism, but it is nonetheless clear that the rather nasty side-effect didn’t dampen the enthusiasm for the project. (Revised) classical liberalism believed that “rule by the market” would have liberalizing effect on governments. When it became apparent that was a mistaken assumption, I noticed a very subtle shift from Capitalism and Freedom to Capitalism and Prosperity.
me: Given the point in time the ‘recognition’ of the listed attributes(?) of neo-liberals I have my doubts about the intent of the policy beliefs. However, those beliefs are now part and parcel of Republican party talking points, which is what I was pointing out with ‘no discernible differences in actions/results’, in selling the same bullshit with different rhetoric.
That said, I don’t believe “rule by the market” is a problem, per-se’, since I don’t really remember the era, I was just a kid, but, in retrospect, and recognition of current events, I can see that gov’t intervention in the market(s) because of a belief, by both sides, in Keynesian policy has an effect on the market(s). Of course it’s positive because an influx of capital can always be put to use. The source though determines the rules and since the source of the influxes are from gov’t the ties that bind are by definition enslaving to an ‘official’ creed.
IMO Free markets will ‘influence’ a direction but they won’t “rule” a direction, or success or failure. What I see is success or failure determined in the market(s) by edict, though not directly pointed at, or admitted to by self- proclaimed anything.
DJ, that was a pretty good summary. I would only qualify it with
(1) the term “neo-liberal” only came into vogue after the TARP bailouts and is usually thrown around as an accusation. Not that many people actually identify themselves as neo-liberals, although I do note the Adam Smith Institute dropped the libertarian label to willingly self-identify as “neo-liberal.” I would instead go with the straight-forward term, classical liberalism.
(2) I’m not sure the perpetuation of American imperialism was the exact intent of the revised classical liberalism, but it is nonetheless clear that the rather nasty side-effect didn’t dampen the enthusiasm for the project. (Revised) classical liberalism believed that “rule by the market” would have liberalizing effect on governments. When it became apparent that was a mistaken assumption, I noticed a very subtle shift from Capitalism and Freedom to Capitalism and Prosperity.
dL said: “Anyone who runs away from the word liberal is usually not running away from something but rather to something…namely authoritarianism. Liberal is only a dirty word to authoritarians.”
I don’t see liberal as a dirty word, I see it as a misunderstood word.
I think they are saying each shares common roots, but they are not the same thing. That’s certainly what I would say.
Anyone who runs away from the word liberal is usually not running away from something but rather to something…namely authoritarianism. Liberal is only a dirty word to authoritarians.
I’m inclined to agree with you, Andy. I don’t see value in trying to reclaim it — even if we are technically correct. It’s a lot of difficult to get microphone and air time expended on explaining what the definition of “is” is.
So, George, if we go with the times(i.e, political opponent definitions), libertarian==republicans who like to smoke pot. The problem with “going with the times” is that politics is often rooted in doublethink and voluntarily succumbing to that reality would make any education effort a pointless exercise.
For example, did FDR actually self-identify as a “liberal”? Or did he better represent the progressive era shifting from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party? Modern liberalism as social justice starts with John Rawls in the early 1970s, a full 10 years after Milton Friedman (falsely) invented the classical/modern liberal taxonomy.
The progressive critique against liberalism is that the enlightenment era merely shifted the arbitrary power from the clerics to the corporations and trusts. And liberalism, hence, had merely become another form of conservatism. Should libertarianism merely accept that fact? Or, more accurately, accept it as a fact of spontaneous transition? If not, one would have difficult time attacking that fallacy if one accepts FDR as common man liberalism.
Of course, one could wave this off with “we are practical men, here. Who cares about this historical intellectual crap”? But I would retort with a paraphrase of Keynes: you are always going to be slave to some intellectual influence. Better it be to a scholar than a madman.
Kim Ruff said: “Knowing that, do we do like radicals do with “radical” and take back the word “liberal” because its denotative meaning is the same as ‘Libertarianism’ or do we acknowledge the connotative meaning is far afield from its historical and dictionary definition and avoid the albatross of incorrect, albeit very real, associations by the general public?”
Considering all of the battles that libertarians have to fight, I see fighting to reclaim the word liberal as a waste of time, as in any time a libertarian spends on that, is time that they could spend doing something more productive for the cause, and considering how the word liberal has become so identified with left wing socialist, even though this is not the true definition of the word, is only likely to create more confusion than already exists among the general public.
While Thomas Knapp, Paulie Frankel, and others are absolutely correct that “Libertarianism” and “classical liberalism” are the same thing, and that the Democratic Party and left-leaning talking heads refer to themselves as “Democrats” to connote party affiliation of “progressives” to connote their political philosophy, Andy is also correct in that the average person on the street still largely sees “liberal” as being synonymous with any political philosophy or identity that is considered left of center (on what they view as being a straight line, rather than the diamond we reference in the Nolan Chart.)
Knowing that, do we do like radicals do with “radical” and take back the word “liberal” because its denotative meaning is the same as “Libertarianism” or do we acknowledge the connotative meaning is far afield from its historical and dictionary definition and avoid the albatross of incorrect, albeit very real, associations by the general public?
Here is a video some guy posted online explaining why he is a liberal. He rattles off a list of reasons, and there are a few things he says where there could be some common ground with libertarians (although even on some of these, I’d bet that if he were questioned further, some of his solutions for these thing may not be so libertarian), but he also says a bunch of things that are pretty far outside the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart.
I’m a Liberal Because . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdZQzP-31vA
I would prefer it if the it was commonly understood that liberal is supposed to mean one who believes in liberty, which is what a libertarian is, but this is just not the reality in which we live.
In the academic/philosophic literature, liberal retains its historic meaning. However, in the popular vernacular, it’s used almost exclusively as an accusation( for cons, liberal==anti-american, for proggies, liberal==anti-progressive), and few, outside of the civil libertarian types, self-identity with the term.
Here is a Wikipedia article on modern liberalism. The entry does say that the left wing socialist meaning of “liberal” is mostly in the USA and the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
This is from Wikipedia: “The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare. Important social issues today include addressing inequality, voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women’s rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.”
Here is what Wikipedia lists as famous liberal politicians. I don’t see any libertarians on there.
Politicians
William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), Nebraska, 1896, 1900 and 1908 Democratic presidential nominee
President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), Republican President (1901–1909) Progressive Party nominee for President, 1912
President Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924), President 1913–21, Democrat
Governor and Senator Robert La Follette, Wisconsin (1855–1925), GOP and Progressive (Presidential nominee 1924)
Senator George W. Norris (1861–1944), Nebraska Republican & independent
Governor and Senator Hiram Johnson (1866–1945) of California, Republican and Progressive
Senator Robert F. Wagner, New York (1877-1953), Democrat
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), President 1933–45, Democrat
Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, Mayor of New York City, Republican (1882–1947)
President Harry S. Truman (1884–1972), President of the United States 1945–53, Democrat
Vice President Henry A. Wallace (1888–1965), Progressive Party presidential nominee in 1948; Democrat & Progressive
Harry Hopkins (1890–1946), adviser of President Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
Governor and Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891–1974), California, Republican
Governor Adlai E. Stevenson (1900–1965), Governor of Illinois, 1952 and 1956 Democratic presidential nominee
Mayor Richard J. Daley, Chicago (1902–1976), Democrat
Senator Ralph Yarborough, Texas (1903–1996), Democrat
Senator Jacob K. Javits, New York (1904–1986), Republican
President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908–1973), President 1963–69, Democrat
Vice President and Governor Nelson Rockefeller (1908–1979), New York, Republican
Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., New York (1908–1972), Democrat
Vice President Hubert Humphrey (1911–1978), 1968 Democratic presidential nominee
Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, Massachusetts (1912–1994), Democrat
President John F. Kennedy (1917–1963), President 1961–63, Democrat
Representative Bella Abzug, New York (1920–1998), Democrat
Mayor John Lindsay, New York City (1921–2000), Republican then Democrat
Senator George McGovern, South Dakota (1922–2012), 1972 Democratic presidential nominee
President Jimmy Carter (born 1924), President of the United States 1977–81, Democrat
Senator Robert Kennedy, New York (1925–1968), Democrat
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York (1927–2003), Democrat
Vice President Walter Mondale (born 1928), 1984 Democratic presidential nominee
Representative John Conyers, Michigan (born 1929), Democrat
Senator Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts (1932–2009), Democrat
Governor Mario Cuomo, New York (1932–2015), Democrat
Representative Barbara Jordan, Texas (1936–1996), Democrat
Governor Jerry Brown, California (born 1938), Democrat
Representative John Lewis, Georgia (born 1940), Democrat
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California (born 1940), Democrat
Representative Barney Frank, Massachusetts (born 1940), Democrat
Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont (born 1941), Independent; Democratic Socalist [222]
Vice President Joe Biden (born 1942), elected as Democrat 2008 and 2012
Senator Paul Wellstone, Minnesota (1944–2002), Democrat
Representative Dennis Kucinich, Ohio (born 1946), Democrat
President Bill Clinton (born 1946) President 1993–2001, Democrat
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (born 1947), 2016 Democratic presidential nominee
Governor Howard Dean, Vermont (born 1948), Democrat
Senator Elizabeth Warren (born 1949), Democrat
Senator Russ Feingold, Wisconsin (born 1953), Democrat
President Barack Obama (born 1961), President of the United States 2009–2017, Democrat
Richard, there are other obstacles to electing a Libertarian, or any other minor party or independent candidate, as president. Money to run a campaign, mainstream media bias, special interest groups, name recognition, voting blocks, and vote rigging are other obstacles. Also, if a presidential election is close, Congress gets to decide who is President, and considering that there are only Democrats and Republicans in Congress, I have a hard time seeing them picking anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican.
Unless some big changes take place, I don’t see the Libertarian Party or anyone else getting elected President who is not a Democrat or a Republican, unless for some reason the existing ruling establishment decided to back a phony (as in somebody they controlled) third party or independent candidate and push them into the White House.
Lots of radical changes would have to take place in this country beforehand to make it any kind of realistic possibility for a Libertarian, or anyone who is truly anti-establishment, to win the White House.
I just did a search for famous liberals. This article below came up. #1 on the list is Bill Clinton. The list is filled mostly with Democratic party politicians and operatives, but they put on Republican on the list.
I don’t see any libertarians on there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1435442/The-most-influential-US-liberals-1-20.html
Really, the assertion that most of the public equates liberal with libertarian is so absurd that is it laughable.
I have encountered people who were left wing liberals (aka-“progressives”/socialists) who mistakenly thought that libertarian meant left wing liberal socialist, as in that they thought that libertarians were for Affirmative Action, increasing the minimum wage, and other leftist causes which libertarians do not support. I would not count these people because these people didn’t even really know what a libertarian is.
Only a small segment of the population knows what a classical liberal is, and most of these people are people who are already self identified libertarians.
Paul said: “I did that for 20 years and I stand by everything I said in this thread. Knapp’s question still stands. Your answer does not.”
Most of the general public equates the word liberal with left wing socialist. Most people do not equate the word liberal with libertarian.
Denying this is denying reality.
What was the original point of the article and headline? It was a bit obscure.
As discussed at great and clear length in Asymmetric Politics, the Republican and Democratic parties are qualitatively different. A Republican is attached to some overarching conservative ideology. The Democratic Party is not ideological in the same sense. It is a collection of groups with specific policy objectives.
“Thomas L. Knapp
January 19, 2018 at 18:07
Andy,
If getting off your ass and going out on a petition drive is such an unalloyed universal educational good, why is it that people have to pay you to do it?”
Tom, I have actually also collected thousands of volunteer signatures, as in I have turned in thousands of signatures for free.
Why has most of my petitioning been for pay? Because if I did it all for free, I’d have to have had another job in order to support myself, therefore I would not be able to get as many signatures.
I was suggesting that you could go out and work as a paid petitioner, or you could go work as a volunteer petitioner, or you could just get off your ass, get from behind your computer screen, and venture out into the real world and start talking to the general public about politics without having a petition.
The only reason that I suggested grabbing some petitions, and asking people to sign them while you are out talking to people, is because I figured that you could use some extra money, and by being able to get paid for doing it, it would give you a chance to talk to more people than you would otherwise.
Regardless of whether you get paid or not, and regardless of whether you work on any petitions or not, my point still remains, and that is instead of sitting behind your computer screen in your home talking about what you think other people are saying, you should actually go out and talk to large numbers of people in “meat space” and find out what they are saying.
Another variable on electability for a non-Dem, non-Rep presidential candidate also depends on the effort to get the electoral college to work differently. That good work is being done by the National Popular Vote Plan organization. A third variable is the struggle for ranked-choice voting, which is going on especially in Maine right now.
The electability of any presidential candidate who is not a nominee of the Dems or Reps depends entirely on what happens with the Commission on Presidential Debates and the struggle to get it to change its rules for inclusion. Gary Johnson is doing good work on that front.
Andy,
If getting off your ass and going out on a petition drive is such an unalloyed universal educational good, why is it that people have to pay you to do it?
The notion that you actually listen to anything anyone says when you’re gathering petition signatures flies 180 degrees opposite the way you handle “conversation” with anyone else — repeating the same thing over and over and ignoring what they say unless it’s just cheerfully agreeing with you. So I’m gonna just hazard a guess as to your “people who told me they’r liberals.” That guess is: It never happened, you wouldn’t have heard it if it did happen, and you’re saying it happened because it’s what you want to have happened.
I have run into Democrats who would not sign a Libertarian Party ballot access petition and they said something to the effect of, “I won’t sign to put Libertarians on the ballot because I’m a liberal.”
“Thomas L. Knapp
January 19, 2018 at 16:54
The last time I remember a prominent Democrat calling himself a “liberal” was in 1988 (Michael Dukakis).”
Tom, I run into people all the time who are Democrats who call themselves liberals. They may say something like, “Oh, I’m very liberal. I voted for Bernie Sanders.” or, “I voted for Hillary Clinton. My views are liberal.” or something like that.
Yes, some established politicians may avoid the word due to the way the word liberal has been demonized by their Republican opponents, but the word liberal is still very common among rank and file Democrats.
If you don’t believe me, how about you get up off your ass and go out and work a petition drives. It would probably be good for you to get out of your house more often. I think that the Florida statewide ballot initiative petitions for the 2018 ballot in Florida have ended, or are about to end, but you could go back to your old state of Missouri and gather signatures as they are ballot initiatives going on there right now that are paying. There are other states with paid petition work as well. So get up off your ass and go talk to people instead of basing things on assumptions made while sitting behind your computer screen.
Exactly. Take that plus the ongoing hijacking of the “libertarian” label by conservative fusionists, paleos and finally the alt right and we have what I have been saying in this thread and many past ones.
Exactly.
I did that for 20 years and I stand by everything I said in this thread. Knapp’s question still stands. Your answer does not.
Andy,
I already know why you said what you said: Because you convinced yourself it was true.
The last time I remember a prominent Democrat calling himself a “liberal” was in 1988 (Michael Dukakis).
By 1992, the Democratic Party was pretty much in the hands of the Democratic Leadership Council, run by Republican In All But Name “centrists” Bill and Hillary Clinton. Since then the divide in the Democratic Party has been between “centrists/moderates/conservative Democrats” on one hand and “progressives” on the other.
In the last 20 years, I’ve primarily heard the word “liberal” used in two ways:
– Sneeringly, by conservatives, and
– Sneeringly, by progressives
Tom, I have worked on petition drives all over the country, spanning a time period of over 17 years. I have talked to I don’t even know how many people about politics. If you are unaware of the fact that many Demicrats and Green self identify as being liberals, then I would suggest grabbing some petitions, clip boards, and pens, and start going out and asking random people you encounter in public to sign your petitions. Do this for several weeks or months, and then you will find out about why I said what I said.
” Many Democrats, Greens, etc…, refer to themselves as liberals”
OK, name a few. I’ll wait.
Nick Sarwark has informed IPR that the panel discussion has been cancelled and he will not be attending.
I think maybe the problem, Andy, is that when you talk to people you don’t actually listen very much, you just talk at them. I have noticed that when I talk to you on the phone, especially lately, that you hardly let me get a word in edgewise, and practically never let me finish a sentence. Much like here, you just repeat the same things you always say, at far greater length than I want to hear them and far more often than I want to hear them repeated and you seem to pay little or no attention to what I or other people have to say. Thus maybe you are mentally framing people as “liberals” and just assuming that is what they call themselves when they do not.
I don’t know where you find these people. I talk to them all the time and virtually none of them call themselves liberals.
Don’t….damn wtf is going on?
Paul said: “Also not true. Those on the actual authoritarian (or authoritarian-leaning) left generally do not. They despise the term just as much as reich wingers do.”
I have talked to many, many, left wing authoritarians who self identify as being liberals.
Lots of Democrats think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are liberals.
Correcting spelling. I dodn’t know why the spacing didn’t space. I added hyphens to encourage the correct posting.
Take notes here, paulie. It’ll help your internet know it all persona immensely.
Andy, spaced and slowly c and p’d for paulie’s help:
“The -vast majority of the population- associates the word liberal with left wing socialist.
Me: Notice the wording. Remember what started this discussion? Words mean things.
paulie
January 19, 2018 at 15:04
The vast majority of the population associates the word liberal with left wing socialist.
Also not true. Those on the actual authoritarian (or authoritarian-leaning) left generally do not. They despise the term just as much as reich wingers do.
………….
Take notes here, paulie. It’ll help your internet know it all persona immensely.
Andy, spaced ans slowly c and p’d for paulie’s help:
“The vast majority of the population associates the word liberal with left wing socialist.
Me: Notice the wording. Remember what started this discussion? Words mean things.
You may not realize it but English is used a lot more outside of the US than within it.
Actual left wing socialists don’t.
Yes, but it was also abandoned by them several decades after that, now also several decades ago.
The other, bigger problem is that “libertarian” has increasingly also been intentionally hijacked by the far right in recent decades so it has a similar problem. But since progressives and socialists have largely abandoned “liberal” for quite a few years now, it’s a great way for libertarians who are not far right racists in disguise (or, increasingly, not even in disguise) to describe ourselves.
There aren’t. Virtually none of the people you are thinking of call themselves liberals. Other people call them that, in a negative way, but they call themselves accurately, progressives and socialists, and have been for quite some time now.
“paulie
January 19, 2018 at 15:05
‘. In at least one state the Libertarian Party was on the motor voter form, in addition to English, as the Partido Liberal’
That’s the most common definition of liberal throughout the world even to this day, including in English.”
It is most definitely not the most common definition for the word liberal, as in associating it with the Libertarian Party or libertarianism, in the English language. When you talk to the general public, almost everyone associates with the word liberal with left wing socialist.
I wish that this was not so, but that is reality.
Liberal means one who believe in liberty, which is inline with the word libertarian. The problem is that the word liberal was intentionally hijacked by socialists decades ago. The result of this is that most of the public thinks that liberal means left wing socialist.
Can you find some issues where some left wing “liberals” agree with libertarians? Sure, but there are enough differences to the point where libertarians calling themselves liberals creates more mass confusion than already exists.
There are a lot of people out there who call themselves liberals who don’t really believe in much liberty, if they even believe in any liberty at all.
That’s the most common definition of liberal throughout the world even to this day, including in English.
Also not true. Those on the actual authoritarian (or authoritarian-leaning) left generally do not. They despise the term just as much as reich wingers do.
Andy: Nobody that the Libertarian Party runs for President is electable, because the Libertarian Party is not even close to being in a position where it has any legitimate chance of electing anyone President. This would be true even if the Koch brothers were to get involved in the LP again and run as a presidential ticket. This would be true even if Rand Paul and/or Justin Amash and/or Tom Massie were to switch to LP, and run on the presidential ticket. This would be true even if Ron Paul were to run. This would be true even if Andrew Napolitano and/or John Stossel was on the ticket.
Me: I concur.
Andy: So from the standpoint of the LP running an electable candidate for President, that’s not going to happen anytime soon, and without some major changes taking place before hand.
Me: True also, so, sow seeds, they will bear fruit.
Andy: Talking about how electable any Libertarian Party presidential ticket is is rather ridiculous, since that’s not going to happen. The focus should be on how principled they are from a libertarian perspective, and how good of a job do they do conveying a libertarian message to the public. The Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket are basically sales reps for the Libertarian Party and movement. Their job is to disseminate a libertarian message to the public, and to build the party and the movement for future success, since winning the White House is out of reach for Libertarians at this time.
Me: So, they’re job, as you see it, is to sow seeds. I agree. In the meantime, and between candidates, I personally tell anyone I discuss politics with, I am libertarian. If asked what exactly that means to them I try to keep it succinct, depending on the topic of political discussion, but, usually, I respond to a proponent of an R or D to please tell me what either has done to enhance personal freedom in say, the last 100 years. LOL…. at that point they have to agree, nothing, which is when I tell them this libertarian subscribes to The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution as written, not an R or D “interpretation”.
Nope. Virtually none.
Unless and until we completely dissociate libertarians/liberals from the reich wing we get nowhere. At this point it is probably impossible to dissociate “libertarian” from reich wing as the term has suffered a hostile takeover by far reich fascists in the same way that “liberal” did by progressives a century ago.
Fortunately, there is a solution. Progressives have now mostly abandoned the term “liberal” and it has become little else except a pejorative used by the right. Since progressive socialists are now accurately describing themselves as progressives and socialists and cryptofascist racists and white ethnonationalists are well on their way to wholly owning the “libertarian” label, there’s no downside to going back to calling ourselves liberals. The fact that right wingers use it as a pejorative is not a downside, it’s an upside that separates us completely from them, as we should be. Actual socialists also use it as a pejorative, so that’s another upside.
Amusingly, in other languages words have done different things. In at least one state the Libertarian Party was on the motor voter form, in addition to English, as the Partido Liberal, which was being properly understood: anti-mercantilist and anti-clerical, though ‘clerical’ means something different than might have been expected.
“paulie
January 19, 2018 at 14:47
‘The word liberal has become so associated with left wing socialists,’
Only among the reich wing nationalists, fascists, corporatists, etc.”
No, it is heavily associated with this among left wing socialist types. Many Democrats, Greens, etc…, refer to themselves as liberals, and when these are people with lots of differences with anyone in the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart.
The vast majority of the population associates the word liberal with left wing socialist.
Ge
January 19, 2018 at 14:09
DJ Thank you for reminding us that many posters here are not very bright. There are reasons why Constitutional law requires knowing what words mean in the context of the Constitution, e.g. misdemeanor, these sometimes not being their 21st century meanings. On the other hand some words in the Constitution have very definitely changed their meanings, e.g., “press”.
………….
You’re welcome. Nancy Pelosi being the leader of the movement. Inert lives. Correct? Or was it Bill Clinton? The definition of is. Or Bush1? No new taxes. Or John Roberts? Taxes can be fines or vice versa.
American Leftist calling them selves Liberal. Republicans calling themselves republican, though they do want to conserve (status quo). Politicians pretending they’re different because of the letter after their name, when even on the surface they are no different IF one looks at the results which speak for themselves, no black robed inaccurate/incorrect interpretation needed.
When authority figures display their ignorance in public in a monkey see monkey do world follower monkeys follow suit. “Some” words have been bastardized. Some by politicians, some by lawyers, some by “journalist”, some by celebrity wanna be’s posing as talking heads, and some by internet know it all’s.
Fortunately, not all the monkeys subscribe to the head monkeys philosophy.
The “context” of the Constitution hasn’t changed. IF constitutional law doesn’t emphasize that then it is wrong, never mind the Declaration of Independence. But, the ones who believe it has changed are the same ones (usually lawyers and black robed idiots) who weren’t educated with Truth. It’s still the rules for elected servants and nowhere does it stipulate otherwise, or “mandate” because of the “will” of the people or “for the children”.
Only among the reich wing nationalists, fascists, corporatists, etc. On the actual left virtually no one calls themselves liberals, least of all socialists. Socialists call themselves socialists, and that label has lost its former toxicity in US politics. Both socialist and mixed-economy proponents on the left call themselves progressives. Very few people are calling themselves liberals right now. On the other hand, a lot of racists, fascists, Trumpster-nationalists and similarly loathsome types in the US have come to call themselves libertarians, and the problem is getting exponentially worse.
Since no one wants to call themselves liberals, I think it would work out very well in the long run if the folks who called themselves liberals before the term suffered a hostile takeover by progressives went back to calling ourselves liberals, now that progressives have largely gone back to calling themselves progressives or outright socialists and “libertarian” has come to mean “far right” to an overwhelming majority of both the general public and self-described “libertarians” alike.
paulie
January 19, 2018 at 14:11
DJ Thank you for reminding us that many posters here are not very bright.
I’ve stopped reading his comments a long time ago. He doesn’t need to remind me what he is, I already remember.
…………….
Your loss, no one else’s, but thanks for the props. Bad publicity is better than none. Right?!
The word liberal has become so associated with left wing socialists, that I don’t see it working out for libertarians to claim the word.
Even when you use the term classical liberal, most people have no idea what you mean, and to others, they think it means that you support FDR or LBJ or someone like that.
We’re still pretty early in the 21st century. Words that changed their meanings, perhaps temporarily, in the 20th century, and only in certain parts of the world, can easily revert back to their original, much longer standing and commonly accepted meanings in the 21st.
I’ve stopped reading his comments a long time ago. He doesn’t need to remind me what he is, I already remember.
“DJ
January 19, 2018 at 10:15
Just for the record. I never paid much attention to Gary Johnson. He didn’t strike me as very principled or very electable.”
Nobody that the Libertarian Party runs for President is electable, because the Libertarian Party is not even close to being in a position where it has any legitimate chance of electing anyone President. This would be true even if the Koch brothers were to get involved in the LP again and run as a presidential ticket. This would be true even if Rand Paul and/or Justin Amash and/or Tom Massie were to switch to LP, and run on the presidential ticket. This would be true even if Ron Paul were to run. This would be true even if Andrew Napolitano and/or John Stossel was on the ticket.
So from the standpoint of the LP running an electable candidate for President, that’s not going to happen anytime soon, and without some major changes taking place before hand.
Talking about how electable any Libertarian Party presidential ticket is is rather ridiculous, since that’s not going to happen. The focus should be on how principled they are from a libertarian perspective, and how good of a job do they do conveying a libertarian message to the public. The Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket are basically sales reps for the Libertarian Party and movement. Their job is to disseminate a libertarian message to the public, and to build the party and the movement for future success, since winning the White House is out of reach for Libertarians at this time.
Try again.
And in a further tempest in a teapot, apparently the film maker for the Johnson movie or one of the people involved with the film is allegedly a pedo, and Nick Sarwark was listed along with a bunch of other people somewhere as attending some event for the movie or somehow or another being associated with it in some vague way, and he hasn’t issued an immediate press release dissociating himself from this film guy, so now the Kokesh campaign is sending out emails claiming Sarwark is a “pedo protector.”
DJ Thank you for reminding us that many posters here are not very bright. There are reasons why Constitutional law requires knowing what words mean in the context of the Constitution, e.g. misdemeanor, these sometimes not being their 21st century meanings. On the other hand some words in the Constitution have very definitely changed their meanings, e.g., “press”.
Few USians describe themselves as liberals today. It has mostly become a pejorative used by reich wingers/national corporatists for anyone who is not them. Progressive democratic socialists have largely come back around to calling themselves progressives and, increasingly, socialists. It’s high time for actual liberals (libertarians) to reclaim the liberal name and use it with pride. For one thing, no one else wants it. For another, it’s less clunky than libertarian. For a third “libertarian” is increasingly becoming associated with paleoconservative cryptofascism and the alt right, and thus may need to be jettisoned as toxic waste in the near future. And finally, it has the added benefit of decisively separating us from the reich wing, an association that makes us toxic to the majority of the younger generation and the vast majority of our natural and most persuadable constituency.
So, maybe it will be a good idea to let the alt right and paleos claim “libertarian” and let the progressive socialists call themselves progressive socialists, and the real libertarians can just go back to calling ourselves liberals again.
True.
George Phillies
January 19, 2018 at 10:43
“Libertarians ARE Liberals”
This is as totally imbecilic as the 1950s claim that conservatives were required to support the New Deal, because they were supposed to conserve. It is retarded nonsense that contributes nothing sane to political discussion.
In the real world, words change their meaning with time. People who can;t understand this are simply out of touch with reality. We need go no farther than modern liberalism, wth its attachment to social justice, as opposed to FDR liberalism, with its emphasis on helping the common man.
……………
Then are we to assume The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence no longer mean what they did? Would that mean Nancy Pelosi is correct saying an inert piece of paper lives?
I think not. People not educated in Truth, and politicians, and lawyers bastardize words to suit the cause de-jour. That is the reality, and the example you offered is the evidence. Seeds were sown, they are now bearing fruit. Up is down, left is right, black is white, white is black there is a difference in political Party’s….
Truth: Conservative is status quo, by definition.
Truth: Liberals ain’t.
“Aiden
January 19, 2018 at 08:26
Andy, first issue with the kids video. Libertarians ARE Liberals by any proper definition of the word.”
Yeah, and this definition of the word has little or nothing to do with the people known as “liberals” today.
“Libertarians ARE Liberals”
This is as totally imbecilic as the 1950s claim that conservatives were required to support the New Deal, because they were supposed to conserve. It is retarded nonsense that contributes nothing sane to political discussion.
In the real world, words change their meaning with time. People who can;t understand this are simply out of touch with reality. We need go no farther than modern liberalism, wth its attachment to social justice, as opposed to FDR liberalism, with its emphasis on helping the common man.
Just for the record. I never paid much attention to Gary Johnson. He didn’t strike me as very principled or very electable. As far as his running mate I never heard of him until he became the running mate and even then I didn’t pay any attention.
The “reasons” I didn’t pay attention are pretty simple.
1) It doen’t matter who POTUS is. He/she will do as told and use his/her personality to sell the same bullshit.
2) Monetary policy is THE determining factor and until that is changed there will be no change. Anyone who believes differently ask JFK. (which is a whole ‘nother topic I’m willing to discuss)
3) One side sells lower taxes, one side sells more gov’t to fix what the gov’t fucked up and ‘some’ taxes will increase regardless of who’s running the show.
4) Even Ron Paul wouldn’t be able to implement his campaign promises.
He (or whoever) could, however, be able to use the bully pulpit to preach liberty and hopefully make the ignorant more aware, but that would have been, get ready, “sowing seeds” only. And I’ve not seen any other candidate I believed who would even attempt it.
The popularity of Bernie Sanders (if it is to be believed) shows just how bad our education system is in it’s failure to educate founded in Truth. The reason I keep beating that drum is because the sponges for brains have been inundated with incorrect information from the time they could understand English which is basic to our education. They (if the media is any indicator) believe gov’t’s role is to fix all our ills which couldn’t be further from the Truth.
Aiden: The political names have been bastadrized for political expediency. Clinton was/is no different than Trump, policy wise, and Romney was no different than Obama (who was no different than Bush2) policy wise. They ALL subscribe to imperial hegemony for the US using the same monetary policy which drives the foreign policy which drives domestic policy, none of which would even exist IF they did their job per the Constitution. They just usually use different rhetoric to sell the bullshit that they, and they alone, can better manage the bullshit. They are ALL Imperialist with different letters after their name. The policy “beliefs” they have are, in fact, neo-liberal from the 60’s.
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Admittedly there are some superficial differences but ultimately they are all alike.
Here’s another for you: http://aidenjames.me/PoliticalPhilo.png
Andy, first issue with the kids video. Libertarians ARE Liberals by any proper definition of the word. The libertarian party equivalent in Australia is the LIBERAL Democrats, the same goes for France and England. American Democrats are social democrats, not liberals. So he is right that Johnson is a liberal, or in any proper definition of the word, what is known as a libertarian in the United States. Outside of the United States a “libertarian” is actually the equivalent of the US Green Party. So if you want to use that definition then fine, you’re right.
You need to get the simple fact through your fucking head already. Libertarians ARE Liberals, and Johnson is a liberal and libertarian. You’re neither, and Democrats aren’t liberals. They’re center-right (when you take actual socialism into account – they’re center-right) social moderates.
Here you go: https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png |
https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries2012.png |
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
The irony of the entire 2016 election is that Clinton was the closest thing to anyone that held actual Republican values (she’s a right-leaning social moderate – exactly what encompasses Republicanism), yet the Republican Party nominated and then elected into office a Nationalist. Johnson was the second closest to actual Republicanism, but is more socially liberal.
TL,DR: The kid, and you, are fucking retarded.
This high school kid destroys Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Great video!
Gary Johnson is NOT a Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul-wafI4K4A
my first unqualified stamp of approval for Hollywood stories dealing with Indians in 20 years.
Charlie Blackfeet, Indians for Truthful Portrayal
my first unqualified stamp of approval for a Hollywood documentary dealing with the first successful libertarian candidate. Ever. A Tour de force
David Boaz, Cato, Libertarians for the Most Successful Libertarian Candidate Ever
Gina,
I know so many things that other people don’t know that I walk around bent beneath the weight of my immense knowledge.
Unfortunately, most of those things are stuff like what kind of cat food to buy if I don’t want to get yelled at by my wife, what the combination is to the lock on the storage unit I rent, and the exact number of seconds it takes for my particular microwave to get two hot dogs just right (41 seconds).
If I knew something like that I couldn’t tell you. I don’t kiss and tell.
Dirty dingus? Do you know something we don’t?
Found the trailer.
Fitting in with their neighbors. At least that’s what Joe Hunter said.
“Governor Romney’s office has not yet confirmed his attendance with IPR.”
Why would any self professed libertarian want to have anything to do with Mitt Romney? I can’t stand that guy.
Governor Mitt Romney? That ensures loss of any credibility to anyone. I wonder if his buddy Obama will stand in for him? LOL….
Wow, another Gary Johnson scam.