 | | Re: Vote against/for... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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... —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) 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... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
