I actually think that was the only fiery , emotion filled rhetoric ive ever heard Guy say . Good for you Guy
while i don't agree with him often , its good to hear him say something that doesn't sound so professional and nice. he seemed to have some passion in that post!:) > > 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] >
