 | | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) I'm sorely tempted to make a wisecrack about what this says about the intelligence of libertarians, but I will refrain. Colloidal silver, indeed. --Bill. (22 years ago, 8-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Now, now! I'm far from a Libertarian apologist, but even I recognize the folly of judging a group by the silliness of one (or a few) of its members (though it may be a lot of fun!). It's much more rhetorically sound to address the tenets of a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) You're right, Dave! We should stick to pertinent topics propounded by the Libertarians. I mean, what Californian could forget candidate for Lt. Gov. Pat Wright's pet issue? (URL) C. (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) So, I'll be able to walk the dog, the cat, the bird, AND the ferret?!? Oh no..... Bruce (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) Good. Because if you go down that road it opens up a whole topic about crackpots... in every party... which I think we can skip, ne? However I think there IS an interesting topic in there, which is this, where should a smaller party draw the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the Green party...
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question. It's crystal clear to me that the parties should have a lot of say over how their name gets used. On the other hand, perhaps the parties should not "own" positions on the ballot. So, let's say a Republican (...) (22 years ago, 11-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
