|
|
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Well, James, we've already had this argument. You know darn well already that all of these things above are goods, rather than rights. And as I've said before, there is no moral right to free goods. But since you're a communist: (URL) not sure (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Fair enough. (and it's not only in congress that they are entrenched) There are two opposing forces here that shape the LP platform... One force being that there is a need to avoid Libertarian Macho Flash, which causes people who haven't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) D'oh! It's a shame that there isn't an alternative for them, though I applaud their self-reliance. (...) Living in Pittsburgh, I don't see much advertisement locally, but "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." I see countless (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Easy there, big fella. My point wasn't intended to be as sharp as you're inferring. 8^) And in any case you gain great credibility by going against Perot's model--perhaps Nader has something to learn from you in that regard. What I meant was (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Used to, at the general level, although the bar has been raised to 5% of the popular vote. Still does, for the primaries. (...) No. The LP is the Party of Principle. (...) I see it all the time. But then people who drive Volvos see more Volvos (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) The LP is not going for the Ross Perot model of winning elections, in which one takes the top office but nothing else. The LP is working for change at all levels. Therefore if a Libertarian gets elected president, it stands to reason that the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) For some of us that IS the issue which overrides everything else in this election! Maggie C. (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) All kidding aside--does the Libertarian party qualify for Federal campaign funding? If so, do they accept it? It seems they've been around for quite some time, and with a fair amount of support, but in my adult life I've never knowingly seen (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I don't know if it's bizarre per se, but I'm a little puzzled by the assertion (which you snipped for some reason) that: (...) That just doesn't make sense to me at face value. Whether Browne's stances are admirable or not, the simple truth is (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I agree with this one, at least as far as some drugs go. The 1/2 (bumed) war on drugs is a waste of money and effort. (...) Well...you see, I don't _want_ to need a M1A1 Abrams tank to defend my home, thank you very much. Do you really think (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
