MODERATOR'S NOTE: Wow, Barr's supporters must be getting pretty desperate if they are launching childish attacks like the one below.
According to Guy McLendon, those who choose not to participate in selecting the next leader of the Protection Racket are "sophomoric" "nut-jobs" that are maintaining "neutrality" and need an "IQ test", but they may be "CIA covert operatives". Is choosing not to participate in Government the same as maintaining neutrality? Is voting for Bob Barr a valid way of promoting Liberty? Are Barr's loyalists capable of supporting their candidate without engaging in name-calling, false analogies, and conspiracy theories? ---Sasan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Everyone, This email is intended to differentiate between intelligent "non-voting" vs damaging "non-voting". When giving advice, one must be clear as to who one's audience is in context of a specific individual's perceived options. For a rabid Democrat, it's true: a vote for McKinney or Nader is slightly better than a vote for Obama. For a rabid Establishment-voter, a vote for no one is better than a vote for the duopoly. However, the optimal course in our mutual struggle for freedom is only a vote for liberty-oriented candidates. There are some nut-jobs running around the liberty movement who are advocating that a deliberate, general program of not voting is doing us all a favor. To them, I'd provide an appx quote from Dante's "The Inferno" "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, living through a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Example: my own Dad & I nearly had a major personal "falling out" after he confessed he voted for George Bush in 2004. My point to him wasn't that his one vote influenced the election one way or the other, but rather was that his vote rubber stamped approval for the Establishment. Blessing the Establishment, to me, is akin to treason. That saga is to point out that I 100% agree voters should not vote for the Establishment, and even not voting is a preferred option when the audience perceives he/she has *only* two options. If a voter sees only two options: Establishment, or nothing . then fine, nothing is better. However, telling a liberty activist to just not vote is damaging to our mission. There are generally two active liberty-candidates on the ballot this coming November: Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin. While I understand Mr. Baldwin is a fine man, the fact is that Constitution Party's strength is small compared to the LP. Chuck already spun his wheels by running for vice-President in 2004 . and, that ticket received only a fraction the votes received by Michael Badnarik in 2004. Bob Barr is poised to receive many, many more votes that Badnarik . especially, if the members of the LP will pull our heads from our nether eye, and support our own candidates. To fight our opponents, dilution of our strength leads to failure . just as certainly as application of force to an overly large area reduces pressure . as in engineering. Nonsense like proactively promoting "None of the Above" will lead to failure . you have my 100% guarantee. Proponents of such sophomoric policy should be checked via an IQ test, or to confirm they're not CIA covert operatives. Further, splitting the liberty-vote will lead to failure - 100% guarantee. It's imperative that we concentrate our forces. We all need to get behind one presidential campaign, and push the Establishment all the way to Hades. In 2010, the Constitution & Libertarian Parties *really* need to merge, and form one single party. The decision being made to *not* pursue this option is due to the ego of the party's leadership, and not the best interests of the respective membership. Divisive issues that keep the two parties separate should be eliminated from the fusion-organization's National Platform, and delegated to state affiliates. Guy McLendon Vice-Chair LP of Texas Chair Harris County LP Houston, Texas www.HarrisLP.org <http://www.harrislp.org/> PS: I am generally an advocate for cooperation among various factions to support the Rule of Law according to the US Constitution, and invite even non-liberty focused groups to do the same. Please see the recently updated page that documents attendance at the first of our series of "Common Ground - The US Constitution" meetings held in the 21st century: http://www.mclendon.net/active/commonground.htm Please note: this effort was intended to focus all groups on the importance of genuine constitutionalism. Posted by: "Chris Edes" <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0to%20Meet%20with%20Lee%20Mercer> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://profiles.yahoo.com/chrisedes1> chrisedes1 Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:45 pm (PDT) Thanks. I have read it. The idea appears to be that with 50% of Americans (or more) not voting already, an additional 1% or 2% not voting will suddenly expose the illegitimacy of the system. Sure it will! Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
