 | | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) Slinging names is not the way to keep this debate where it needs to be. Because when you use even a mild one like "Losertarian" you enable ill mannered rabble rousers to do the same (in kind, but far worse in degree). I find the use of the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) See also this analysis... (URL) an admittedly partisan source) My favorite excerpt: "It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat," wrote Miller. "If there had been no Libertarian (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) If that's all your party ever wants to aspire to be (a spoiler), then knock yourselves out. But think about this: think about a senate with *no* clear majority and libertarian Republicans controlling the swing votes. That's power. What you (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) It's not. But we're performing a useful service to the country nonetheless. A filibuster proof Senate with the likes of Bob Barr running some things is a scary thought to behold. (...) c /libertarian Republicans/Libertarians/ and you're on to (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) Give it a rest. I wrote this post in an effort to stop your disruptive behaviour: (URL) man enough to either stick to the issues or keep quiet. Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) I prefer Mike Huben's analysis: "The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort." ;) More here: (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
