 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
> > I guess you don't know what pandering is, then... In fact maybe you don't > > know what you're talking about at all, with respect to this. That's > > understandable, you're pretty close to the epicenter and can't be expected > > to be 100% (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Then why are you raving about it? Chris (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) I'm certainly not the one raving - LAR is. I simply stated that the LP issuing a statement is pandering for self promotoion. (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) It's Lar, not LAR. Please keep it straight, if you would, ED. Thanks. (...) And when I explained why it isn't, you foamed. I foamed back. Sorry. Do only the two big parties even *get* to have an opinion? Blech. Thank you LFB for the link to HB (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Lar, in this crises, good or bad, the "two big parties" in power hold the only opinions that will be acted upon. While many people and groups may hold opinions, the decisions about to be made will be made by those in power. A very simple (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) I hope to god that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will either. What I hope is that all groups, parties, and individuals make their voices heard so that we can go forward as a country united rather than straggling and unsupportive of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) True enough, but I believe Ed's point was that, given the party composition of Congress, the likelihood of a Libertarian Congressional Representative contributing to the forthcoming national policy is quite remote. I don't believe (and please (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) What (...) so (...) remote. (...) (Scarcasm on) Actually Dave, I'm all for a Republican War against Bin Laden. (scarcasm off). Dave, thank you summing up what I have been saying. (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Let me take this a step further. Do you really think Dubya or Colin Powell were sitting back waiting to read the LP opinion before they started planning whatever offensive will occur? (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) I don't think that's what he was saying at all. He has said that the LP has no business making its opinion known. (accusing it of pandering is in essence making that charge) I reject that notion, categorically. The LP has as much right (and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) No. Their loss. But that doesn't make it less valid an opinion or less valid as input to the common people who ought to make their stance known to their congressmen, who ultimately have to bear responsibility for funding and approving. That an (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Well, not unless it's being ignored *because* it's wrong or even irrelevant; that is, the fact that an opinion is ignored cannot be taken as proof that it's being ignored for political reasons. Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Or as disproof either. You are correct sir. Insert a "necessarily" in the appropriate place so my statement reads: That an opinion is being ignored doesn't *necessarily* make it wrong or even irrelevant. I would say that these particular (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Not an overreaction nor deliberate maliciousness. Just stating my opinion that the LP Statement is moot. The LP must know that their opinion in this crises is moot. Whether or not you like it, the majority of the country could care less about (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) That's a far different statement than your previous and I welcome your expressing your opinion. But calling it pandering is a smear. (...) "Crisis" unless we have several concurrent ones (which I guess you could say we do). I have already (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
I am still "done" but I spotted a bit of poor wording... fixing it: (...) "that is a majority opinion" refers to the notion of supporting the president no matter what is decided. I don't think nuking is likely to be a majority opinion, (knock on (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, this is news to me. I admit that the LP's views are sometimes in line with what actually comes to pass (just as my views are sometimes also in line), but I wasn't aware of any direct influence. Can you give a cite? Dave! (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Well, how about the fact that Ron Paul, former LP candidate for president, is once again in the GOP and is once again a representative from Texas? If you ask him I suspect he'll tell you he is just as Libertarian as ever and gives just as much (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) I'm not sure either, but I don't think he has any credibility in claiming that he's just as Libertarian (capital L) as ever; if he were, he surely wouldn't have joined the GOP. It's analogous to a certain former GOP member who's now (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) It sounds like you are assuming that politial party membership is by nature mutually exclusive of other party membership. It might be that way by law (I really have no idea) but it shouldn't be. I agree with some of the stances that each of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) But if you were going to run for office, under which party would you do it? It's fine (and appropriate) for individuals to support such political groups as are in line with the individual's views, but when one is running for office (in the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Well, I admit I am myself ambivalent about this. But consider this... (and know that since I am not Ron Paul I am speculating. But I HAVE pored over his website to see where he stands on stuff) The Republican party makes you sign no oath, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) I agree that if an LP member agrees with the tenets of the platform on which he is running, then he's under no conflict. If, however, he's (an abstract "he" rather than Paul) biting his tongue on major issues with which he might disagree (like (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Yes. But there is no requirement to agree with the GOP platform in order to run as a GOP candidate. I haven't pored over Ron's speeches in the level of detail to be able to tell if he bit his tongue or actually came out and said "I don't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
|
(...) Hmm... I think I'm slipping back and forth between Paul's case(1), so you're most likely correct about his consistency. I was speaking more in the abstract, conjecturing a case in which Candidate X ran under another party by falsely professing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dr. No, or how to be a Republican and libertarian at the same time
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip some musings about the nature of principle in an unprincipled party> Here is the LP's spin on "Dr. NO", from their excellent list of net liberty resources here: (URL) J. ought to like paragraph (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
