I agree with half of those votes you cite.

Who died and left you boss to decide what is and what is not
libertarian?

Flag burning? The entire US should be like Louisiana. Don't ban
flag burning but pass a law that states everyone has a right to burn
the American flag. And the good citizens of Louisiana have an equal
right to kick the shit out of flag burners with no fear of any
consequences.

I'd take it one step further. Limit the right to kick the shit out
of flag burners to Veterans and those Currently in the Armed Forces.\

The thought of some big bad Marine watching some dweeby San
Francisco type burning a flag, warms my heart.


--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Fason" <bfason@h...> wrote:
> Anti-choice. Voted for an amendment to the US Constitution to
prohibit "flag
> desecretion." (Did you know that US law stipulates that an old
worn out flag
> should be burned?) Voted to fund "military border patrols to
battle drugs &
> terrorism," i.e., the further militarization of law enforcement.
Voted to
> continue laws against US citizens traveling to or doing business
with Cuba.
> Voted yes on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. Voted
yes on
> banning Internet gambling by credit card. Voted for war with Iraq.
>
> He calls himself a "Libertarian-Leaning Conservative."
>
> /snicker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <ericdondero@y...>
> To: <Libertarian@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:14 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: DFC?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, I can go along with most of this post.
> >
> > Two quibles though:
> >
> > Number 1, twas not I my good friend who claimed that this Akin
guy
> > from Missouri was a "libertarian." Never heard of the guy. Is
he a
> > Congressman or a State Legislator?
> >
> > Number 2, I VIOLENTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT. RON PAUL
IS
> > NOT!!! THE ONLY HARDCORE LIBERTARIAN IN CONGRESS.
> >
> > Thomas, Jeff Flake has scored HIGHER than Ron two Liberty Index
> > surveys in a row. At this point I would say that Flake is more
of a
> > libertarian than Ron.
> >
> > Butch Otter, Tom Feeney and as always, Dana Rohrabacher are damn
> > close to the "hardcore libertarian" label, as well.
> >
> > In fact, given Ron's age, and his lack of interest in seeking
> > national publicity I'd say that Flake, Otter and Feeney ARE FAR
MORE
> > VALUABLE AT THIS POINT to the libertarian movement than Ron Paul.
> >
> > I like the guy, but he's well past his prime.
> >
> >
> > --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas L. Knapp"
> > <thomaslknapp@y...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoth Eric Dondero:
> >>
> >> > That would be insane. It would be like the Dallas Cowboys
> > versus the
> >> > Dallas Cowboys in the Super Bowl.
> >>
> >> Presumably, Dallas Cowboys fans would regard that as a great
thing.
> >> After all, it would mean that no matter what, the Dallas Cowboys
> > would
> >> win the Super Bowl.
> >>
> >> I agree with Eric that you have to choose a team to work with
and
> >> demonstrate some loyalty to that team. All that Fredrik was
saying
> > was
> >> that he hopes that the groups of people choosing up teams are
> >> effective enough in moving the teams they choose toward
libertarian
> >> ideas that eventually that's the basis on which those teams are
> >> competing. I happen to agree that that would be a good thing.
Not
> > sure
> >> it will ever happen, though.
> >>
> >> I recently realized something with respect to the DFC, and it
was
> > the
> >> RLC that highlighted it for my attention.
> >>
> >> I chanced across a "win list" from an RLC member awhile back --
I
> >> think you might have posted it over on libertarianrepublicans --

> > that
> >> named Todd Akin, of Missouri, as an "RLC victory" for re-
election
> > last
> >> November.
> >>
> >> When I mentioned that in an article, Bill Westmiller informed me
> > that
> >> Akin was NOT someone the RLC had publicly named as
a "libertarian
> >> Republican." Good thing, too -- that's about like naming Lloyd
> > Doggett
> >> as a "libertarian Democrat." Akin is a social
> > conservative/religious
> >> right type, not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
> > As a
> >> matter of fact, when Akin won his primary in 2000, another
> > prominent
> >> Republican approached the Missouri LP about replacing the LP
> > nominee
> >> and running against him. Ultimately it didn't work out (and I
think
> >> that was a good thing for both that Republican and the LP -- it
> > just
> >> wasn't a really good fit).
> >>
> >> So, I went and did some digging to find out what Akin's
> > relationship
> >> with the RLC was, and found a post somewhere relating some RLC
> >> members' work to defeat Bush's Medicare expansion program.
> >> Essentially, some RLCers successfully lobbied Akin to vote
against
> > it.
> >> Good deal.
> >>
> >> That's when the little little lightbulb came on in my head.
> >>
> >> Ron Paul is a great libertarian. He's also really the only
> >> congresscritter serving who could really be called a "hardcore
> >> libertarian" at this point. And he has precisely one vote in the
> > House.
> >>
> >> As opposed to worrying about creating "libertarian Democrat"
> >> politicians, my preference is to work to get pro-liberty votes
on
> > the
> >> floor of both houses of Congress and in the state legislators.
> >>
> >> For example, the DFC might set a goal of swinging 50 votes in
the
> >> House and 10 in the Senate this way on tax cuts or that way on
drug
> >> policy -- enough votes to turn a succcessful bill into a failure
> > or a
> >> failure into a success.
> >>
> >> The key thing is, it doesn't have to be the SAME 50 votes and 10
> > votes
> >> on every issue. Those votes don't have to be cast
by "libertarian
> >> Democrats." Russ Feingold or Barney Frank or Hillary Clinton or
> >> Barbara Boxer may vote our way on one issue and against us on
> > another.
> >>
> >> Sure, that process will create something of a "rating sieve"
which
> >> tells us that some legislators are more likely to vote pro-
liberty
> >> than others, and thus more worthy of support. And sure, to the
> > extent
> >> that we are able to influence policy votes, we gain credibility
> > which
> >> can then be used to pull more politicians our way on all issues
> >> instead of just one (because they want to be listed
as "endorsed"
> > in a
> >> DFC voter guide, or have the DFC raising funds for them, or
> > whatever).
> >>
> >> But the bottom line is that I'd rather have 60
congresscritters --
> > and
> >> it needn't always be the SAME 60 -- who can reliably _be
> > influenced_
> >> to vote the right way on legislation every time, than one
> > particular
> >> congresscritter who of his own accord votes the right way on
> >> legislation every time.
> >>
> >> Tom Knapp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >