 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
