9/11 Truth, Yay Or Nay For Libertarian National Committee

I know it's not much, but the long hard climb has to start somewhere?

www.independentpoliticalreport.com...

On Saturday April 24, Libertarian National Committee Chair candidates Ernest Hancock and Wayne Root debated at the LP state convention in Kansas. Each said he was scared by the prospect of the other being Chair

Hancock said: “I’m afraid of Wayne getting exactly what he promises. He will be the face of the LP if he gets LNC Chair. Everything he says will be seen as the Libertarian Party philosophy. To all the millions that will hear it, that will be it. I, as LNC Chair — it won’t be about me. It will be us, all over. And you want to know how it happens? The R3VOLution. You think that was an accident?”

Root later responded: “You talk about the face of the LP and what I’m going to do when I get to Washington — it isn’t going to make us the party that believes in 9/11 Truth. Can you imagine what would happen to the LP the next day if Ernie’s elected chairman, and the radical idea that the government and George Bush asked those planes to go into the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans? Are we out of our minds? Is that what you want the LP to be about?”

Hancock told the audience: “I will not back off from this 9/11 investigation. Will he?” Root responded: “Abso-freaking-lutely. I’d run away from it like a train on the tracks. If you want to destroy this Party, name a national chairman who believes that 9/11 was an inside job by the government.” Hancock rebutted by saying “if we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like 9/11″ then the LP is “not relevant”.

"Let's hope Hancock romps in.

I could of had fun with names hancock & root but thought I better not.

Good and interesting post. I hope for a real Libertarian Party. However, I must disagree. The problem with the faces of the Libertarian Party is as described. Most voters see Howard Stern or a local politician who cares only about legalization of marijuana. I believe voters are scared of Libertarians because they see mere radicals.

9/11 is an important topic. However, I fear that the Libertarian Party will now be seen as the party of legalization of marijuana and 9/11 truthers. 9/11 happened. It cannot be changed. But the way we handle the Wars and the expansion of government since then can. That is the most relevant topic.

In my mind, the Libertarian Party should be about the freedom of individuals and the pushing back of an increasingly expanding State. The current path, whether undertaken by Republicans or Democrats is unsustainable. Too much spending, too much debt, too much government. As governmental power increases, the liberty and freedom of the individual decreases.

I hope for a mainstream and articulate Libertarian Party. This is how I believe that the Country will be saved.

Star and flag from me because we are discussing the pulse and direction of a movement of freedom. Regardless of how it is decided, I believe it is a key debate.

reply to post by Sibilance

As governmental power increases, the liberty and freedom of the individual decreases.

Sometimes I feel as if "liberty & freedom" are just words from ye olde English of yester-year, whose definition has been obscured by the mist of time.

Sorry that isn't the mists of time, its the haze from all the hot air that politicians talk to try & confuse/distract everyone.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by acrux]

It really does not matter WHO did 911.

All that matters is we REPEAL the PATRIOT ACT.

God these two goons are retards.

They are probably BOTH plants meant to distract us and get us bogged down with stupid pointless arguments.

No, who gives a damn who did 911.

Let just repeal the Patriot Act and worry about the details of 911 LATER.

Pick your battles better guys!

I think anyone espousing the 9/11 rhetoric as a party platform would do the party a disservice.

First and foremost the actual ideals of Libertarianism must be told. Of course you have the shills of the Dems and Repubs spreading the standard anarchy slant they have used for decades to smear the party.

To inject 9/11 into the debate is ignorant in my opinion.

What are you going to do, inject as part of your platform the 9/11 truth movement? Yes it is important, but running on that is absolutely stupid.

Social freedoms and individual rights. Absolute fiscal conservatism and non interventionalism. A strong border. Moving away from fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking. Everything that is being screamed for now and they want to inject the 9/11 truth movement into it?

Sounds like CIP to me.

God, is this party going to die again because of idiots or possible CIP?

edit to clarify-I would like another investigation, one by say a conglomerate of AG's from several states, none that have been in the federal government, with subpoena power and several panels of specialists from different sectors of the science community.

But, you CANNOT run on this stance, you would be shredded by the two headed snake which runs the propaganda networks.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Sibilance

It really does not matter WHO did 911.
No, who gives a damn who did 911.

I for one give a damn who did 911, so that they can be taken before the World Court for "crimes against humanity."
Only after an independent investigation can we find out if it was Bush/Cheyney or Terrorists.
Thousands of murdered/tortured souls deserve closure.

reply to post by acrux


How does the Libertarian Party feel about the existence of a "World Court"? I can't confess to know much about their agenda, but it strikes me that the International Criminal Court is the kind of organisation to which Libertarians would be naturally inimical.

What kind of buffoon believes that pushing for presidential candidacy involves hanging your hat entirely on a nearly decade old issue? Seriously, anyone capable of being finnagled by conspiracy videos & sites and Charlie Sheen has no business running a country.

Although I consider myself libertarian and I am a member of the party, I must admit that the LP has consistenly had its collective head firmly residing in its posterior for years now. Even considering a 911 conspiracy cuckoo a viable candidate just packs their collective head further into the nether-regions. Actons such as this is precisely why we still don't have a viable third party in America.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

How does the Libertarian Party feel about the existence of a "World Court"? I can't confess to know much about their agenda, but it strikes me that the International Criminal Court is the kind of organisation to which Libertarians would be naturally inimical.

Yes America does seem to support an ICC at first, but then later to backflip on the whole proposal.
en.wikipedia.org...

History
Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, later became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. In his first book published in 1975, entitled Defining International Aggression-The Search for World Peace, he argued for the establishment of such an international court.

Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

Territorial jurisdiction
During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.

Membership
As of March 2010, 111 countries have joined the court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and roughly half the countries in Africa. However, these countries only account for a minority of the world's population.

A further 38 states have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute; the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty. Three of these states — Israel, Sudan and the United States — have "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute

[edit on 4-5-2010 by acrux]

reply to post by acrux


Thanks for the link. But I just meant that you seem to be in favour of the Libertarian agenda, and the ICC doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing a typical Libertarian would go for.

Apologies if I've picked you up wrong.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade
That's cool

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What kind of buffoon believes that pushing for presidential candidacy involves hanging your hat entirely on a nearly decade old issue?

Libertarians usually get what percentage of the vote?

And how many Americans are dissatisfied with what we have been told about 9/11?

9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply
Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
...
A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

www.scrippsnews.com...


Campaigning for 9/11 truth could be a smart move for the libertarians considering how pissed off so many Americans are about 9/11, and increasingly and increasingly so.

Originally posted by bsbray11
A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon

And the greatest selling song of all time is Candle In The Wind. And more people vote for American Idol contestants than for the presidential or mid term elections. By your logic, it would be good for a political party to nominate a pop vocalist who's an Elton John enthusiast.

Not that polls matter anyway. We have a lot more pressing issues to contend with in America than satiating those "confused" by 911 or those who still feel a need to prosecute those in the Bush administration. Nominating a 911 conspiracy theorist for the LP would be the most asinine maneuver in the history of politics.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And the greatest selling song of all time is Candle In The Wind. And more people vote for American Idol contestants than for the presidential or mid term elections. By your logic, it would be good for a political party to nominate a pop vocalist who's an Elton John enthusiast.

Yes, because those are all obviously political issues.

Not that polls matter anyway.

When it comes to electing our presidents, you are exactly right.

We have a lot more pressing issues to contend with in America than satiating those "confused" by 911 or those who still feel a need to prosecute those in the Bush administration. Nominating a 911 conspiracy theorist for the LP would be the most asinine maneuver in the history of politics.

And I'm sure many people felt that freeing that slaves was asinine as well. Oh well, not everyone is a winner.

And if this country isn't turned around by all of us who see the real terrorists sitting in our government already, then this country is already going to hell and there's not a damned thing you will be able to do to stop it no matter who you think you are electing.

Also the poll above is not really like other political surveys in that it's basically a binary issue. The two thirds who disagree would probably think the other respondents are nuts and actively stay away from a party that promoted the viewpoint.

So instead of having a manifesto where people might disagree with various points but vote for the party/candidate because they like the broad thrust of what they're trying to do, you instead have a big flashing light in the middle of the election literature that says "I am a total fruitcake". That's likely to be a turn off.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And if this country isn't turned around by all of us who see the real terrorists sitting in our government already, then this country is already going to hell and there's not a damned thing you will be able to do to stop it no matter who you think you are electing.

Perhaps so. But one thing I'm certain the people won't do is elect some 911 McCarthyite into the office of the president. I don't care what you believe about 911. Having a 911-obsessive conspiracy theorist focusing his energy on the 911 attacks instead of dealing with current issues and future policy will guarantee this country gets flushed down the crapper into certain hell.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, because those are all obviously political issues.

911 conspiracy theories are not political issues so much as they are mental issues. This is not ad hominem. Sorry, America does not need a conspiracy minded Ahmedinijad type as president.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So instead of having a manifesto where people might disagree with various points but vote for the party/candidate because they like the broad thrust of what they're trying to do, you instead have a big flashing light in the middle of the election literature that says "I am a total fruitcake". That's likely to be a turn off.

A turn off to one group, and a turn on to the other. So let the division in this country continue.

All the people who are fed up with what the government and media are constantly and systematically doing and can see beyond the charade, don't think everyone else who just chalks it up to "incompetence" or etc. is psychologically impaired or a "fruitcake" like you are saying, but just really, really, politically and/or socially stupid. For whatever reason these people don't learn from history, don't think their leaders would ever have sentiments to abuse or neglect them no matter what, they are naive and gullible to anything they are told by a man in a suit from an alphabet agency or organization, and frankly they deserve what they get. If they want another 4 years of whatever puppet president, let them have it, it will serve this country right, and you will have no one else to blame but your own ignorant selves for the mess you find yourselves in.


I can't wait until the "reinvestigate 9/11" or "9/11 was an inside job" messages start creating dramatic confrontations between the public and politicians, and between opposing politicians. We are already seeing it start to bubble here, and have seen smatterings of it, increasingly, in the past 9 years. 1/3 of the American population is not something to take for granted. Calling us names and mocking us is going to increasingly become grounds for some grim confrontations as we gain more and more ground in mainstream arenas. This isn't an internet game to us like it is to you, but a matter of our entire country falling into tyranny at the hands of fearmongers after generations of our families fought and died for the very freedoms and standards of living we are now losing on an almost daily basis. All because Americans have become apathetic and unbelievably stupid. It seems like all I do on these forums is point out blatant logical fallacies that far too many people are far too blind to see, and if I went back I could draw up lists of examples for both you and TD. The first post of TD's I ever read, he was taking a rhetorical argument literally and still didn't understand this even after multiple responses. Enough said. (And that's not 'ad hom' either. )

If you think this movement is going to die out and go away, least of all because of what you high schoolers spend your time doing on forums all day, then you are going to be very, very unpleasantly surprised.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Perhaps so. But one thing I'm certain the people won't do is elect some 911 McCarthyite into the office of the president.

McCarthy followed federal policy to the extreme, and inflamed a lot of the American population. It is the "truthers" who are the inflamed population today, as our leaders persecute Muslims now instead of commies or Jews, but it's the same age-old game that you still don't understand. 1/3 of the American people here are protesting federal conduct.

I don't care what you believe about 911. Having a 911-obsessive conspiracy theorist focusing his energy on the 911 attacks instead of dealing with current issues and future policy will guarantee this country gets flushed down the crapper into certain hell.

Your fairy tale vision of this country is going to hell either way, so enjoy your ride.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, because those are all obviously political issues.

911 conspiracy theories are not political issues so much as they are mental issues. This is not ad hominem.

It's a political issue until you can prove 1/3 of the American population is "mental." Good luck. And making smart-ass remarks doesn't count as proof either.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
McCarthy followed federal policy to the extreme, and inflamed a lot of the American population. It is the "truthers" who are the inflamed population today. 1/3 of the American people here are protesting federal conduct.

Those people have been snookered by unsupported anti-establishment conjecture. Being convinced of conspiracy in the absence of tangible evidence is lunacy.

Your fairy tale vision of this country is going to hell either way, so enjoy your ride.

That's a fairly presumptive statement, so tell me... what would that be?

It's a political issue until you can prove 1/3 of the American population is "mental." Good luck. And making smart-ass remarks doesn't count as proof either.

I already have: being convinced of conspiracy in the absence of tangible evidence is lunacy.

Sorry, America needs someone to take the country foward, not dwell in their conspiratorial fantasies about the past. Sorry that you and this candidate can't get beyond it. Hopefully you won't get too far behind.