Libertarian Wins Erie Council Seat

LIbertarian Ralph Beeman won a highly contested race for Erie County Council and the politicians are scared. Beeman is a fiscal conservative who says government has no business in citizens lives. He will vote to eliminate non-essential government ownership of libraries, auditoriums and airports.

He refused to give his social security number to PennDot and they suspended his drivers license.

He refused to pay federal income taxes for non-essential government projects and the IRS has taken him to court.

Ralph Beeman is a real AMERICAN! And the politicians are running scared!

Go Beeman wrote:

LIbertarian Ralph Beeman won a highly contested race for Erie County Council and the politicians are scared. Beeman is a fiscal conservative who says government has no business in citizens lives. He will vote to eliminate non-essential government ownership of libraries, auditoriums and airports.
He refused to give his social security number to PennDot and they suspended his drivers license.
He refused to pay federal income taxes for non-essential government projects and the IRS has taken him to court.
Ralph Beeman is a real AMERICAN! And the politicians are running scared!

So you believe the politicians are scared? Seriously? Afraid of a local government official with minimal individual authority, and the IRS on his case? He'd the one who'd better be worried, for the feds are still practicing "rendition."

You are a poor excuse for an American. Alas, you are not alone.

Go Beeman wrote:

You are a poor excuse for an American. Alas, you are not alone.

Ah, the usual right wng-nut retort: If some one doesn't agree with you, they're a "poor excuse for an American" or the alternate favored formula, "not a real American." You're ignorant of basic principles of American civics at best, and a closet anarchist at worst. You don't even utilize an identity of your own, "Go Beeman," and how very sad that is!

It's beginning, the third party movement is rising again. The NY results showed promise even with the loss in the 23rd district. I think we'll see more and more Libertarians, Conservatives, Socialists, Communists and other third party candidates as the two major political parties get closer and closer together under the banner of moderation. It's just not the American way.

If the Dems are smart they will retreat to the left while the GOP retreats to the right and both make their intentions perfectly clear. There are more and more Independent voters and a change in the Primary election system is the next logical step in Pennsylvania.
The only thing Politicians are afraid of is losing their office and their pension. Specter is the poster boy for current politics.

Old Cynic wrote:

It's beginning, the third party movement is rising again. The NY results showed promise even with the loss in the 23rd district. I think we'll see more and more Libertarians, Conservatives, Socialists, Communists and other third party candidates as the two major political parties get closer and closer together under the banner of moderation. It's just not the American way.
If the Dems are smart they will retreat to the left while the GOP retreats to the right and both make their intentions perfectly clear. There are more and more Independent voters and a change in the Primary election system is the next logical step in Pennsylvania.
The only thing Politicians are afraid of is losing their office and their pension. Specter is the poster boy for current politics.

A point of clarification, please: Precisely what is it you believe is not the "American way?" Is it your perceived rise of centrism in the major parties or the rise of multiple "third" parties? An interesting thesis in either case, though the real question remains an attempt to define the "American way," always a favorite pastime of the intolerant thinker. You would probably know that not all of the Founding Fathers endorsed political parties, so it is a valid question.

As for the "independents" wishing to vote in party primaries, it remains a question of trying to have it both ways: you don't want to identify an allegance to a party ideology, yet at the same tiome you desire to shape that ideology by participating in the process of selecting their candidates in a primary election. It's intellectually dishonest at best, and hardly logical.
I agree most- if not all- politicians are afraid of losing their office, but only until they've established themselves sufficiently to thrive as lobbyists and consultants after their departure from elected office. Many upper tier federal & state employees play a similar game, and double-dip their way to financial security. Many "twenty and out" police officials also play the same game.

The American way that refer to is the fact that there's not much of a difference between the major political parties. To have one similar way to approach things is definitely not American. They are both very dishonest in that they only want the power of being "in" office and really don't care about the folks who pay the bills. They cater to the slugs who depend on the government and constantly grow that segment in order to maintain their power. America has been blessed with very different outlooks, concepts and methods within limits of the Constitution. The D's and the R's have been pushing this limit. This will cause the third parties to waken,(again), and we might just get a new Bullmoose party, or Patriot Party, or perhaps a Perot or a Palin can create real change and put us back on track. I feel the country is ready, we need to change the whole congress before we can get America back. We've got to get back to America first with working Americans calling the shots. We simply cannot allow those on the dole to continue to run the show.

I would start with requiring honorable military service (preferably in combat) for all elective offices.

Old Cynic wrote:

We've got to get back to America first with working Americans calling the shots. We simply cannot allow those on the dole to continue to run the show.

In the USA it's one man, one vote. Those on the dole do not "call the shots;" their voice is heard through their elected representatives, and the majority rules. I'm truly surprised you make such a patently absurd claim. While Da'Dubya Bush created lots of new poor people, some on the dole, they aren't the majority yet. That would require the Republicans to return to power and finish the "contract ON America" they conceived so many years ago.

And "Working Americans" is just another polite euphemism for "Real Americans," a.k.a, the low-brow, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, gun-toting right wing-nuts of the conservative Republican movement. Two Bush administrations was enough of that crowd!

Stop Them Now wrote:

I would start with requiring honorable military service (preferably in combat) for all elective offices.

Why not require ilitary service of all Americans, so that as a democracy, our armed forces reflect our people as a whole, and our nation- as a whole- pay the price for any military adventures, rather than disproportionately the poor & uneducated... or paraphrase Dick Cheney, those "without anything better to do."

If you won't fight and risk your life for America, you should NOT hold public office.

Stop Them Now wrote:

If you won't fight and risk your life for America, you should NOT hold public office.

Really? FDR was not a military veteran, and Abraham Lincoln served only a few months in the Illinois militia, but did not see combat. Yet both men successfully lead this nation in it's two greatest military conflicts, one against multiple foriegn enemiies in a world-wide conflict, the other a bloody civil war that tested a young nation's will to live. Such simplistic litmus tests for leadership are dangerous at best.

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? FDR was not a military veteran, and Abraham Lincoln served only a few months in the Illinois militia, but did not see combat. Yet both men successfully lead this nation in it's two greatest military conflicts, one against multiple foriegn enemiies in a world-wide conflict, the other a bloody civil war that tested a young nation's will to live. Such simplistic litmus tests for leadership are dangerous at best.

Well, one of them, not Lincoln, got himself and his party so deep in economic mistakes and government programs that he had no choice but to start a war to cover his own ass. Everything FDR touched turned to crap and the country was beginning to see it. His only chance at greatness was the war which he also did not end. His successor, Truman, ended the war and in a dramatic way, which I suggest FDR would not have done. You are correct, however, in stating that he never served in the military and never had much use for the military until he needed them. He had constantly underfunded them in order to feed his failed domestic programs. The Roosevelt millions were spent to manipulate the voting public. It was FDR's way of never letting a good crisis go to waste.

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, one of them, not Lincoln, got himself and his party so deep in economic mistakes and government programs that he had no choice but to start a war to cover his own ass. Everything FDR touched turned to crap and the country was beginning to see it. His only chance at greatness was the war which he also did not end. His successor, Truman, ended the war and in a dramatic way, which I suggest FDR would not have done. You are correct, however, in stating that he never served in the military and never had much use for the military until he needed them. He had constantly underfunded them in order to feed his failed domestic programs. The Roosevelt millions were spent to manipulate the voting public. It was FDR's way of never letting a good crisis go to waste.

Address the question at hand, old man; but, no, instead, you seek to steal yet another opportunity to spew partisan vendictives that hold no value. When historians rank U.S. presidents, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists; do the research, eh? I take their learned and informed opinions every time over yours.

Geez' Krak - It was your guy,(Carter) that set up the current Selective Service System. He was the one that stopped the draft and decided that an all volunteer Armed force would be easier politically.
When I served, the letter came to the door and said "Greetings from the President of the United States. Off I went, without question. I agree that, that should still be the way that we staff our military. Everyone who reaches the age of 18 should serve 2 years and then when they return, they can be full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that that brings. But not until you serve.

You need to look up a little history on your own as to FDR. The historians treat him very differently than it actually was. He was not that good, he did not fix the depression, his legacy is debt and more debt and he did not win the Second World War. His social programs came at the expense of our military. He had so depleted our Army and Navy with his four terms that Japan felt were were defenseless. The Axis was not afraid of us either. We were not respected, we were sitting ducks for the world. I would hope we have learned that lesson and learned it very well.

Old Cynic wrote:

Geez' Krak - It was your guy,(Carter) that set up the current Selective Service System. He was the one that stopped the draft and decided that an all volunteer Armed force would be easier politically.

You need to look up a little history on your own as to FDR. The historians treat him very differently than it actually was.

It was during the 1968 presidential election that Richard Nixon campaigned on a promise to end the draft and establish an all-volunteer army, which Nixon saw as a way to undermine the anti-Vietnam war movement, since he believed affluent youths would stop protesting the war once their own possibility of having to fight in it was gone. Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 during the Ford administration, but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He was hardly the man who established the all-volunteer army.

As to FDR, you would so blythly dismiss the broad consensus of historians to substitute your own vewrison of the way it "actually was?" Good gawd man, you certianly have a very high opinion of YOUR opinions. I'll stay with the consensus judgement of history, thank you, sir!

We will forever differ on the effectiveness of FDR. He was a disaster that we will never get over.

Presidents campaign on many issues, witness the one we have now. If you were to hold this one to his campaign promises you would have a big problem. It's the congress and the President when the issue is put into law that counts.

"On July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration. The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those men born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays were reserved for men born in the later quarters of the year, and registration for men born in 1961 began the following week."

It's Carter's system. It was FDR who pulled the whole Pacific Fleet into Pearl for the first and only time. It was FDR who kept the Great Depression going for 10 years. It was Truman who ended WWII. Say what you want about how historians view things. Certain things remain true before the spin.

Old Cynic wrote:

We will forever differ on the effectiveness of FDR. He was a disaster that we will never get over.
Presidents campaign on many issues, witness the one we have now. If you were to hold this one to his campaign promises you would have a big problem. It's the congress and the President when the issue is put into law that counts.
"On July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration. The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those men born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays were reserved for men born in the later quarters of the year, and registration for men born in 1961 began the following week."
It's Carter's system. It was FDR who pulled the whole Pacific Fleet into Pearl for the first and only time. It was FDR who kept the Great Depression going for 10 years. It was Truman who ended WWII. Say what you want about how historians view things. Certain things remain true before the spin.

Again, the consensus of America's most prominent historians far outweighs your misinformed opinion my estimation. And all Carter did was re-establish registration, he didn't create conscription or even the current system.

And now you even hint that you're one of those conspiracy theorist/nut-jobs that believe FDR deliberately set US forces up for the Pearl Harbor attack. And the carriers, the most potent naval asset since- and including- the Second World War, weren't even at Pearl Harborm on Dec. 7, 1941 The war in Europe was finished before FDR died, and Truman was shocked to learn of the awesome weapon Manhattan Project, initiated by FDR, had produced. Hardly the architect of victory in the Pacific.

I'm afraid you don't even have a casual acquaintance with the truth of the matters you addressed above.