 | | 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)
|
