It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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”.
As governmental power increases, the liberty and freedom of the individual decreases.
It really does not matter WHO did 911.
No, who gives a damn who did 911.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, because those are all obviously political issues.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Your fairy tale vision of this country is going to hell either way, so enjoy your ride.
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.