[BAP2] Re: "Winning"

No. In general we were speaking about the remedy to the socialist enterprises destroying this country; the drug-war and the immigration-war being but two of the socialist enterprises.

The organized crime and its victims, created by the socialist enterprises is yet another aspect of their evil.

Milton Friedman has done an in-depth examination of the subject:

  1. The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedmandruglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm Cached
In 1972, almost twenty years ago, President Nixon started a war on drugs-the first intensive effort to enforce the prohibition of drugs since the original Harrison Act.

________________________________
From: "annemalcolm@..." <annemalcolm@comcast.net>
To: lpsf-discuss <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; John <javlin@ymail.com>
Cc: richard <richard@...>; Carole <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbmining <dbmining@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; bayareapatriots2 <bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com>; Winston <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"

Are you seriously calling a desperate woman finding herself in indentured servitude to common criminals a "consenting adult." Was the 8 year old boy recently found carrying multiple pints of marijuana across the border, just "helping out?" Stop this idiocy now.

Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App

From: javlin@ymail.com
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com,dbmining@...,davelibertyjones@...,richard@marshall-ranch.com,carole.mason@...,zakcarter@...,c4l-sf-list@meetup.com,dbacigalupi@...,winston.chin@...,chad@...,mschmidter@...
Sent:Tue Dec 31 02:14:43 UTC 2013
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"

Well this is getting lively. Good points. Nevertheless, never winning is loosing.

So Carole and I are speaking of the social formation that remains after the election to deal with the conditions after the election. This is a quantum leap in sophistication beyond the cheering of the crowds. Usually, the ENTIRE political world is dealing with the conditions BEFORE the elections. That's pretty stupid when you think about it.

The fact is, it doesn't much matter who gets elected, it matters who we are.

From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>

To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; dbmining <dbmining@sbcglobal.net>; davelibertyjones <davelibertyjones@...>; richard <richard@...>; Carole Robinson <carole.mason@...>; zakcarter <zakcarter@...>; c4l-sf-list <c4l-sf-list@...>; dbacigalupi <dbacigalupi@...>; Winston Chin <winston.chin@...>; chad <chad@...>; mschmidter <mschmidter@...>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Re: "Winning"

<sarcasm>Yes, we can see how beholden George W. Bush was to the conservatives who helped get him elected, and how beholden Obama has been to the progressives who helped get him elected. </sarcasm>

I saw Tim Donnelly speak in Sacramento a few months ago. Not impressed. Especially when I did some more research online and learned about his background as a leader of the anti-immigrant "Minuteman" vigilante group. He also said in his talk that he plans to make a campaign issue of human trafficking. HT is the latest tactic being used by an unholy alliance of man-hating feminists and anti-sex social conservatives to go after prostitution among consenting adults. The irony is that to the extent human trafficking is an actual issue and not just a political agenda that's benefitted from a lot of media sensationalism, the primary cause of it is -- immigration restrictions!

At least Donnelly is running as a Republican and not (that I know of) calling himself a libertarian. That's something to be thankful for. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot by further cementing their reputation as the party of xenophobia in a largely Hispanic/immigrant state, I don't want the public confusing them with us.

As for the charge that libertarians aren't doing better because "purists" (i.e. people not afraid to speak the truth) are losing influence and elections, my sense from years of watching election returns is that libertarian candidates who take strong libertarian positions on the issues don't typically do any worse than libertarian candidates who water down our views in the hopes of getting elected (or just aren't as libertarian to begin with). Perhaps in a very high profile race a moderate would have an edge -- but even that is far from proven. The "moderate" Prop. 19 marijuana legalization measure lost, and I'm pretty sure the reason why is because of the lukewarm support for it among those who should have been the most motivated to work to get it passed (the marijuana community itself). Besides, we see how candidates act in high profile races, before and after they get elected. Once in office, those who "run to win" typically betray their supporters

and sell out (see first paragraph above).