 | | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) to go read the whole thread, in fact. Calling the LP a "white man's club", with the baggage and implications and all, is one of your worst smears ever. Shame shame for bringing it up again but you must be running out of other filth to fling. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) I take issue with the implication that my post was filth. 8^) But I agree that my post was hardly the beginning or end of that thread, so curious readers would do well to explore it further. Dave! (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) Shame on your for not aswering the point. Are you to fool to see that you are now smearing me? Don't you like the truth. Lets take a quick look at www.lp.org Take a look at this band-wagon: (URL) bus hijacking shows need for 50-state (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) For the record, I quoted your post as I remembered it as being a good summation of the argument, and I still think it is. Scott A (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "White man's club":...another smear by Scott
|
|
(...) Any such implication was unintentional and is hereby disclaimed. :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "White man's club":...another smear by Scott
|
|
(...) For the record, I quoted your post as I remembered it as being a good summation of the argument, and I still think it is. So what was it then? An accurate representation? (...) OK. Larry, I shall retract my comment if you can show us that the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A challenge to Larry which he will huff and puff about but ultimately not answer – (nothing new real
|
|
I forgot to change the title (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) Hmm. I don't think it's accurate to call this a band-wagon episode, unless we're accusing the LP of jumping on its *own* bandwagon. Whatever else can be said of the LP, they've been entirely consistent in their views regarding the right to (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) I'm only responding because this refers back to a post that I was at least in part quoted on. Saying the Libertarian party primarily appeals to middle/upper-middle class white males and calling it a "white man's club" are two different things. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) I was talking more about the linkage to events of 11th sept. The link is clear. (...) One would hope not. (...) Is so, that would be equall irrelevant (to me). (...) In the news yes. But this is not news. This is opinion from a political (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fatwah
|
|
(...) I'm not saying it is racist. If I thought that, I would say that. It is a bunch of white guys sitting playing with an agenda which will benifit them. This was covered in the thread a while back. I remembered that. I looked at Larry's views on (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "White man's club":...another smear by Scott
|
|
(...) I don't deny demographics. Never did. I deny relevance to message. (...) How convenient, you set the question up so you get to keep using your smear. The term is pejorative and you know it. (...) In fact it does. You are smearing by using the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "White man's club":...another smear by Scott
|
|
(...) Than you are in denial of reality (in my opinion). (...) That depends on the sense you imply. Do you prefer "overwhelmingly & disproportionately white man's club"? (...) Nope. Your post was a correction for dave. It had nothing to do with me. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) And this guy agrees: Libertarian party candidate drops from race (URL) the LP disagrees with him: (URL) A (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) politically independent news reporting, but it must also be said that the Libertarian party has no serious presence in State College, and, while Heicklen is certainly a bonehead, his methods and views were (when I was at PSU) denounced by many (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) That proves he's not particularly libertarian, then. Small parties do sometimes have to take what they can get at local levels but I'd support his ouster. Unfortunately these sorts of organizational issues give ammo to foamers drawing (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) Hmm. Getting rid of critics by calling them names? Are you really an adult? (...) "poor judgement" which the LP supports. Scott A but is NOT indicative of being a racist any more (or less) than (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) And that is not just my view: Racist rhetoric creates negative environment (URL) his claim that his intentions were innocent, I can't understand how he thought his message would be conveyed as appropriate rather than cruel. If his objectives (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) is a Libertarian only in name, and his shenanigans are more directed toward his own quest for social martyrdom and sensationalism than about furthering or even disseminating the Libertarian Party's goals or beliefs. It must by now be plainly (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) I agree with that and would fault them for not doing so. But it's not nearly the big deal that some make of it. (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) Agreed. It would be more of a reasonable PR move than a necessary statement of party purity. Harry Browne, for that matter, isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, but that absolutely does *not* invalidate even a single tenet of the Libertarian (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) You forgot to point out that you have (to your satisfaction, if not to mine) invalidated some of them through other means, Dave! GRIN. (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) Them? Surely you mean “us”, or have you resigned your membership? If you have not, what have you done to correct the situation? (...) I think it is not a huge issue. But according to my values it is a big deal. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) So what is his association with the LP? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slur used in Libertarian fliers (was Re: Fatwah)
|
|
(...) "Them" in this context are the officers. *I* already repudiated it, so it's not "us", it's them. (...) Sent them (the officers) a note about it. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
