Subject:
|
Re: Vote against/for...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:13:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > 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 Senate candidates in recent years, Republicans would not have
> > lost control of the chamber in 2001, and a filibuster-proof, 60-seat
> > majority would likely be within reach."
>
> > Think about it. Think about how scary a filibuster proof Senate in the hands
> > of the GOP (or the Dems, for that matter) would be. To that I say: "you're
> > welcome"
>
> If that's all your party ever wants to aspire to be (a spoiler),
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.
> 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.
c /libertarian Republicans/Libertarians/ and you're on to something.
But I'd settle for libertarian Republicans or libertarian Democrats who kept
their promises consistently. With the exception of Ron Paul, arguably the
most libertarian rep in the House, since he has switched parties twice, (and
perhaps a few others), Big Party guys who talk libertarian do it just to get
elected but don't keep their word. Instead we get the likes of Ashcroft and
Barr. No thanks.
> What you have now is hardly consolation IMO.
Not intended to *be* consolation.
But it is evidence of power, and increasing power at that, since we're doing
it consistently and we're running more people in elections more consistently
than any other third party currently (or in the past, going quite a ways
back). Electing more people to higher offices would certainly be welcome
though. (the 200 elected (to some office or another, including dogcatcher
and drain commissioner) number is getting dated, not sure what the number is
now)
All that said, the LP has faults, lots of them. And you can probably expect
poor debaters to respond as they have in the past, pointing these flaws out,
as if the flaws in the party's organizational structure were somehow an
argument against the ideas it espouses. (1)
But we know better than that, don't we John?
1 - note how a poor debater(1) just did a character assassination against a
Cato member instead of addressing the points raised, over in another thread.
2 - note that it's not a personal insult to point out that someone is a poor
debater. It may not be kind to point out the truth, but the truth is what it
is, after all...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
