There was a post a while back, someone mentioned they were awaiting the verdict from John Roberts.
The verdict came in.
John Roberts seeking 30% raises after only being on the job for 3 months.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453739.0555555555.html

This is VERY SERIOUS

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute forsaw that U.S. and NATO troops would be distracted not by Al-Queida and other terror groups, but by the growing opium trade in Afghanistan.

The opium trade is how Al-Queida and other terror groups get their funding for their jihad not only againstthe United States but against the West. Afghan President Hamid Karzi statedthat the trade will decrease or be eliminated within 5years. I highly doubt it. Afghanistan would do better to legalize the opium trade thus disarming the terrorists from getting their funding. The United States and other Western Nations should also follow suit. It maybe worth a great deal of lives.

I am upset,however,that NATO troops will not engage Al-Quieda or the Taliban. That they would be only there to be a peacekeeping force. I find that very upsetting.

The decrease in troops, I believe, will give the United States more mobility in Afghanistan to go after Al-Quieda, the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden. I think it will work out overall. Only time will tell. Until then, I just stay positive.

I have to agree with the anonymous poster. It is folly to look at the Iraq or Afghanistanian situations without complete reference to the situation in Iran. Either the U.S. or Israel will soon be destroying that reactor in Iran. WHEN that destruction will be accomplished is the only question. No sane person is going to allow the Iranians to obtain that capability.

But as I said before, such an attack will bring the U.S. into full fledged war with Iran, unless the U.S. fully withdraws its forces from the Mideast beforehand.

I don't know about anybody else here, but I want no part of a land war with Iran.

I think it's disastrous and foreboding that the USA focues its energy in such counterproductive ways. We need a sufficient and engaging presence in Afghanistan. We need to remove our political interest units from around the world, and direct them to places that pose a threat.
Also, we should ignore the opium trade.Their economy will collpase, and all because the government feels the need to tell people how to live their lives. Few people would ever argue opium is good for you.It is, I think, the most addictive substance. So what?Let people screw up their lives, and stop those who would screw up other's -- terrorists.

How about we take all of our troops from throughout the world and bring them to the states? It would be the best solution. At least it will result in the U.S. military having all the necessary resources to defend the states instead of serving as the world's policeman.

We should only focus on having the special operations forces put Al Qaeda cells out of commission.

Alex, if we REALLY wanted bin Ladin, we would have had him years ago. He was, and may still be a CIA asset.

Chuck, I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden is a C.I.A. asset. If anything, he is the U.S. and the West's public enemy number 1.

Furthermore, as to the question of getting and having him years ago, I believe the U.S. will get him. The U.S. will capture Osama Bin Laden. He will face American justice. The question is when.

Here patience is requiered. I know that that is tough to practice. Nevertheless, we must have faith and believe that justice will be done. I know it is too much to ask. We are an impatient lot. Nevertheless, I believe we will get bin Laden soon. He will then answer for his crimes.

4 years and 2 wars later, no Bin Laden. How many American lives are worth his? I believe he'll die a natural death.

It will soon be war number 3. Lets get out of there now. If Bin Laden was ever a threat to us he has long since been neutralized as such. And the U.S. probably armed and trained him anyway, back in the days when we were funding the insurgency against the Soviet government in Afghanistan.

Alex, I know you do not believe it. I know you want to believe we are still the "good guys".

Nevertheless it is the truth.

The CIA trained, financed and equipped him in the 80's to fight the Soviets. Even though he has gone "black", he knows too much and would be a HUGE embarrassment if he were captured and decided to talk.

We have deliberately passed up opportunities to capture him since the early 90's. Think he is that clever? Supposedly a $20 Million Dollar bounty has been placed on his head. That will buy an awful lot of falafel in that region of the world. So why does he still elude capture??? Saddam didn't. If we really wanted him we would have captured him long ago.

The Neoconservatives are making us the new "Evil Empire".

As Libertarian’s Alex, we can all contribute our time, efforts and talents to make us the "good guy's" again. We start first by facing reality and rejecting Government Propaganda.

Chuck - "Supposedly a $20 million dollar bounty has been placed on his head. That will buy an awful lot of falafel in that region of the world."

LOL. Good one, Chuck. Don't froget that it would buy alot of cous-cous and hummus.

On a serious note, the Bush Administration isn't concerned about finding Osama bin Laden. In fact, President Bush admitted that he's not concerned about Osama bin Laden. That should tell us everything that we need to know about the Administartion and their supposed War on Terror.

Chuck - The neoconservatives are really a bunch of neo-Soviets.

Tommy, when did the Amiable Doofus admit "that he isn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden" being found? And in what context?

You know a bounty on BIN LADEN head sounds like a good idea. hmmm. Would it have worked? it would have saved a lot of people from dying over there and a lot of money that didn't have to be spent.

Creech - A reporter asked the President a question along the lines of whether the pursuit for bin Laden has been affected by his operating of the war in Iraq. The President said that since he was concentrating on the happenings in Iraq, for the time being he wasn't concerned about bin Laden. I'm not sure if those are the exact words. But, I remember hearing something along those lines.

Creech - I remember hearing something similar to those words from the horse's mouth.

nameless - There was a $25 million bounty on bin Laden's head shortly after 9-11.

Osama bin Laden has been a CIA asset for years. His CIA code name was Tim Osmond. The Bush family have been long time buniness partners with the bin Laden family. The Bush's and the bin Laden's have been involved in oil companies and defense contracting together. In fact, Osama's father was in the Carlyle Group (an investment firm that's heavily involved in defense contracting) along with GW's Bush's daddy. There is also evidence that CIA agents actually met with Osama bin Laden at an American hospital in Dubai just a few weeks before 9/11. And don't forget that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the USA right after 9/11 even while all other flights were grounded. Do a google search on this subject and you'll find a lot on information about it. Also, check out the following web sites...

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

www.911truth.org

$25 MILLION??? That settles it Tommy, I'm going to grab my Berlitz instant Translator book, rent a camel, and find the S.O.B. myself!! I can't do much worse than all the combined intellegence services of the world from the CIA, MI6, NATO the Mission: Impossible guys, etc. who have stumbled all over themselves over the last four years and have still failed to get him.

Wonder if "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is up for a little trip?

Chuck if you could really find him, that would for sure insult the white house.

As members of a political party dedicated to a peaceful, pro-market, non-interventionist foreign policy, we should applaud any reduction in military presence anywhere in the world; however, as far as I can tell, the U.N. will continue to rely upon a substantial U.S. military contribution in Afghanistan, and there is no indication from the Pentagon that the military reduction in Afghanistan will result in those withdrawn troops being brought home.

Additionally, given recent saber-rattling sounds emanating from the Offal Office and other GOP Bushitartists respecting Iran, the US is likely to redeploy those troops where they are more likely to be wasted: maybe even as part of a ground war in Iran.

Harry Browne is/was, of course, right about Osama Bin Forgotten and the CIA's prior use of him, as well as the phony-baloney "hunt" for Bin Laden. The Bushitartists have no interest whatsoever in capturing Bin Laden . . . never did and never will.

All this conspiracy stuff is bound to drive people out of the LP. If they are that big and powerful, then they are going to find creative ways to "take out" those who expose them. Does the LP want to be the exposer? The FBI had a "plant" in NatCom in the eighties; wonder who
today's conduit to the Feds is?

Our inability to capture bin Laden in over 4 years isn't "conspiracy stuff", it is a fact unless you have him chained in your basement.

Creech, what you consider to be "conspiracy stuff" is in reality standard operating procedure for the government. They think of it as business as usual and consider the “sheeple” imbeciles who will believe anything they are told, as long as an "authoritative" representative says it and it is repeated over and over by the mainstream media. "Repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth." It is known as disinformation. "Taking out" people literally or figuratively draws unwanted attention and risks REAL exposure, remember Watergate? Ignoring facts and then labeling people who expose those facts as "whackos", terrorist sympathizers or traitors, keeps the truth in a box. Psychology 101.

This keeps the masses feeding on the mainstream media and "official" versions of everything. The mass of people have a basic fear of non-conformity, why in hell do you think so many people are afraid to think for themselves and meekly accept every outrage cast upon them? They do not want to seem different from anybody else.

Did it ever occur to you Creech, that some of us might know about some of these things from first hand experience with the more - shadowy - aspects of life?

As to driving people out of the Libertarian Party, most if not all Libertarians are hostile, mistrustful and suspicious of government and "authority" to start with. This is true for all non- Republicrats. We think for ourselves and do not fear the truth. Those that do only weaken our movement; however the Republicrats will welcome them back with open arms. So to them, if any, Bye-Bye.

If we are the "Party of Principle" Creech, answer your own question: “Does the LP want to be the exposer?" If your answer is anything other than YES, what principles do you stand for?

If the LP leadership signs on to nonsense that Bush is in league with Bin Laden, then I and lot of others are out of here. What I'm alluding to in post above, is that if there is a huge powerful conspiracy, then it isn't going to let itself be outed by the LP or some tiny minority who dares to "speak the truth." We can only win if we think we can change minds and win victories through the political process. If it is all rigged, all controlled by dupes and toadies in the media, then let's get on with enjoying whatever remains of our freedom.

The article states: NATO troops will have to deal with a growing opium trade in Afghanistan.

I'm wondering what their cut will be, and in what currency NATO will be paid?

Creech -

If we don't air out our grievances now, then we'll wind up giving the government more ammunition to run roughshod over us.

Yes, lets file a grievance. Who do we file this to? The grievance is, our lives are ruined.

The "vast conspiracy" that is not a conspiracy in the true sense, has already been outed by those with better resources than me. The problem lies with those who think the ultimate goal of this movement is to win political office. The win at any cost philosophy. What is it that you think we should be "winning"? That is what turns political parties into hollow clubs where people do no more than bitch and moan about the state of the world.

Libertarianism represents a 180 degree shift in the role of government and public policy in the body politic. We will not win dog catcher unless we can FINALLY wake the public up and get them motivated enough to take back control of their own lives. In doing so, it will be necessary to tell them things they do not want to hear. Things like, there really IS no free lunch, and yes YOU are responsible for you own lives and problems, not the government.

Yes Creech, the system is rigged as it stands, but it can be undone if we want it undone badly enough. If we as Libertarians are unwilling to try to change what is, what is the purpose of this exercise to start with? The Republicrats won't shake the boat. The truth will set us all free.

Why is it that people refuse to consider and test the validity of information when the evidence is laid out in front of them? Is it because it is easier to believe in the official story? Do you really think W is just an "amiable doofus" bumbling his way through history, destroying our civil liberties and invading nations with the madcap abandon of an Inspector Clouseau? I am not asking you or anyone else anyone to believe anything; I deal in evidence and reason, not faith. All I ask Creech is that you just check the facts and have a REASON for your conclusions. THINK!! You say that the fact of bin Ladin's CIA connection is "nonsense". You think the Bush family had nothing to do with Bin Ladins’ in the oil business. All right Creech, present YOUR proof, your counter arguments, I am willing to listen if your argument and evidence is strong enough. "Because O'Rielly and Rush say so" does not count as evidence, nor do arguments from emotion or blind jingoism.

I do not speak for anybody on this site except myself Creech. I have been a registered Libertarian since 1976. I am a Libertarian, not just because I disagree with the policies of the Republicrats, but because I passionately believe in the principles of the Libertarians. I have seen and to my regret, participated in, first hand in my lifetime, in a professional capacity some of these things you would rather not know about. I will not sit back placidly and plead youth, plead ignorance or make excuses for these things or pretend they were right. I will do what I can in whatever lifetime I have left to help in whatever modest way possible, to prevent this nation from going completely down the tubes. It is my personal philosophy that we are all here to make this place just a little better when we leave it, than it was when we got here. If I go it alone, so what? If a principle, a cause of liberty is not worth living or dying for, what was the purpose of this nation to begin with, and what did all those military people die for over the last 200 plus years? If I fail, at least I tried. Are YOUR convictions really that weak Creech. If so, what makes you a Libertarian to start with?? I personally don't care if you remain a Libertarian or not, that is your private business. Lead, follow, or get the Hell out of the way. You want to go home? Again Bye-Bye, it is your sole choice.

So once again we hear from those who would rather be right than President. The problem is, the LP can't change squat without political power; and we will never gain political power arguing about how many mini-anarchists can dance on the head of a pin...not to mention the damage consistently being done to the party by conspiracy advocates. And why do you think it is called the Libertarian PARTY? Not Libertarian Debating Society, not Libertarian Conspiracy Outers, but Libertarian PARTY.

We must appeal to the great center of the body politic if we are to change things. We will see the second coming of Christ before the anarchists and tin-foil hat wearers will see the American people "come to their senses" and adopt fringe ideologies.

666 June 6 06

Thanks John Shuey. At least one LPer out there is sane. I agree with Chuck that we have to continually tell people there is no free lunch. We have to promote self responsibility. What the LP has to avoid is becoming like the John Birch Society - it became an albatross around the neck of the Goldwater conservatives because it promoted the idea of Eisenhower as a comsymp.
The fact that most Birchers were also free market
and anti-interventionist was dismissed. Whether or not you agree with Goldwater conservatism, its libertarian elements eventually were leached out (or walked out) because yahoos and kill-the-commies gained the upper hand. The broader libertarian movement does not need a nutty LP
hanging around its neck.
Yes, bin Laden was a CIA invention. Mistakes can be corrected, no? And just because someone in your family is a criminal terrorist doesn't mean you are too or even that you sympathize with them.
If you want to spin conspiracy theories, one could spin one that shows the LP is already in the thrall of the vast conspiracy. How about mysterious deaths over the years: was the young Mr. Crickenberger done in? Did someone tamper with the airplane of the ex-Delaware State Chair?
Was Mr. Seehausen thoroughly investigated by a security agency before he was hired? Did he quit because someone made him an offer he couldn't refuse? Is "Chuck" a provocateur? Why does the LP tolerate people in leadership positions who join one year and are elevated to positions of power because they volunteer? The paranoid can see plots and plotters everywhere, and one can't prove or disprove their "special knowledge" of what's "really going on." Let's stick to what we really know: individual liberty in this country is being submerged by a flood of citizens too timid or too greedy to stand on their own two feet. That, alone, is very hard to sell, without
adding in that the neocons or the oil barons or the Mossad or somesuch planted bombs in the World Trade Towers.

If you can't be right, why do you want to be President? If you stand for nothing, what have you won?? If you are going to be no different from the Republicrats you might as well stick with what you have now. Does "political power" flow from the top down or the bottom up? What do we do to get that power? Lie to the people in order to get elected and then enact our agenda once we have gotten into office? Libertarianism itself is a "fringe ideology" compared to the status quo you seem so eager to defend. You also still employ your discredited "Argument from Intimidation" ploy to mask your bankruptcy of ideas. Try logic instead of invective for a change. Again how are easily verifiable truths "conspiracy theories"? Why and how are people who want to restore integrity to government and live by principles of honor "Anarchists"? Do you even know what an anarchist is?

The center of the body politic is made up of those people who accept Income taxation, Social Security, interventionism in the affairs of other nations, restriction of trade, the United Nations, the Federal reserve System, nanny-state laws etc. as the facts of life. Our job is to make the people realize that they can take back their lives and this country. We have to tell people that they have been misguided in their beliefs and actions all their lives and their sloth is about to destroy this nation. Think that is going to be an easy sell? Assuming you have read the Party Platform, our job is more conversion than assimilation. When you assimilate you lose your identity then we become Republicratarians. Our very mission is radical. Our Presidential candidate in the last election was ARRESTED on a matter of principle. Think he should have conformed and obeyed to shill one or two more votes? Yes, this is the Libertarian Party, the Party of PRINCIPLE.

Incidentally, I always thought the purpose of these forums was debate and exchange of ideas. Or is this really the Neocon forum?

Someone wrote: There was a post a while back, someone mentioned they were awaiting the verdict from John Roberts.
The verdict came in.
John Roberts seeking 30% raises after only being on the job for 3 months......

Nice to see that john roberts is joining the ranks of the good ol boys. Looking out for themselves first, america last.

TO PERSON in charge of the chat. It would be nice to have the chat after 5:00pm as some of us work and cannot access chat.

History may very well be repeating itself, but consider this.

Most of history is cyclical. Is this bad or is this good? If a cycle is broken it could be good, but what if the cycle is broken and then something worse happens. At least with a cycle the outcome is certain.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams

Chuck, et al...

If you really believe in advancing the cause of liberty and shrinking government, then you have to be willing to participate in the political arena. Short of a coup, there is no other way.

I would rather advance liberty and shrink government by 1% a year than sulk on the fringe and hurl epithets at anyone who disagrees with me. Imagine how much better this country could be after only one decade of such libertarian advances.

Chuck...you have not a single chance in hell of ever converting the body politic en masse to your (our) way of thinking. The way the American people will gravitate toward Libertarianism is to be shown how it can effect their lives, and that can only be done by winning elections and working for incremental changes -- Cut taxes 10%, bring home half our troops, cut funding for PBS, close the Dept of Education, decriminalize pot. Then, when folks realize they are better off, do more.

We did not reach our present nanny state situation overnight. The socialists and one-worlders have quietly and slowly, yes incrementally, been pushing their agenda for 60 or 70 years. Reversing their damage may take almost as long...or it will not be done at all.

One last thing...Libertarianism is not a "fringe ideology"...it is the original liberalism of Locke, Mills, and our founders. It is our attitudes, rhetoric, and approach that makes it seem radical or fringe; and that...not our ideals...is what we must change if we are to change our world.

John, you are absolutely correct on numerous levels, to you and I Libertarianism is anything but fringe. But look as the masses out there who, as you correctly say have been indoctrinated by the creeping socialism of the last 100 years or so. G.W., with the ONLY good idea he has had in the last 6 years or so, proposed MODEST privatization of the Social Security system. The collective national teeth chattering would make you thing he was kicking everyone into the streets and shooting their puppies. What do you think their reaction will be when they find out we intend to return the nation to the Republic it was when it was founded and crush their "entitlement society" utterly? The media on both sides of the Liberal/Conservative puppet show support the preservation of the status quo. It is their bread and butter. Centralized Banks and the Federal Reserve depend on massive public debt and the meek acceptance of Income Taxes to stay profitable. Certain groups both private and public thrive on the perception of public helplessness and victimization to feather their nests. It is not enough to say the form of government is bad; you have to provide easily recognizable examples. Thanks to the dumbing down of society by the governments education system which now includes large dollops of political indoctrination that will be a tougher and tougher sell.

Our primary opportunities for elective office at this point lie at the local, regional and state levels. Experiments such as the Free State Project in New Hampshire for example. There is now a Bill pending in that state which would make it a Felony to confiscate the firearms of law abiding citizens in emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina. Even FEDERAL MARSHALLS would be subject to arrest and imprisonment. As we build up on the local level, we would be teaching by example. Ideals are what created this nation to begin with, common cause and purpose. We as a nation have exchanged hope for nothing more than mere animal survival. We work harder and harder for less and less. The "trickle down" economic philosophy of the 80's has become "tinkle on" for the once invincible middle class backbone of this nation.

As to running for office myself, I am a PRACTICING Libertarian, John. This is not an exercise in political theory to me, I am passionate about this. I live as a free man in a Slave society. I do not accept mindless jingoism, unthinking support of official stories, people who refuse to question "Authority", the excuses of intellectual or moral cowards and I do not suffer fools. That is not the definition of a Politician I am afraid. I would not get past the vetting process.

Chuck why don't u run for President?

Great debate guys.

IMO, both sides are "right". On one hand our top-level leaders can, and do, get away with anything (and "control" the National media too).

One the other hand, most Libertarians (in my experience), are "hostile" to the truth. This "side" is correct in the sense, the LP will have a tough time, if it's leaders speak the truth.

Oh by the way, isn't the LP having a really tough time with the "straight and narrow" (boring old) approach?

People it's time to WAKE UP!

Wake Up -

What method would you consider using in order for the LP to gain some progress?

Chuck why don't u run for President?

Posted by: at January 6, 2006 02:02 PM

That thought even scares me. But thanks.

I tell you what I think, I think Capital hill is sooo corrupt, that all the goods one are smart enough to not run for President because they just want the dirty guys in office so they can be controlled by neocons to sign whatevery they can for socialism otherwise they want to ruin the good guys life for doing the right thing.

OK