You continue to confuse candidates with parties and political
philosophies. The latter doesn't usually include compromise -
that is left to the candidate. The LP, as a pillar for progress,
is a force for compromise in that direction. You seem to think
the LP itself should start endorsing compromise. What's the sense
in that? A compromise of a compromise is nothing.
************
{In a criminal trial, no American juror is legally bound to vote
"guilty" if he/she has reasonable doubt over the
constitutionality or fairness of the charge, no matter the
evidence of guilt. Nor is the juror bound to arrive at a
unanimous verdict to avoid a mistrial. Get on a jury, stand your
ground, and help fulfill one of its original purposes: to
counteract abusive government. See www.fija.org.}
_____
China is not the US, they don't have a multi party system, and so
China isn't realy relative to what I am talking about, I got side
tracked by Paul's evil stupifying vudoo...
This is the question you have then, compromise and make greater
progress, or refuse compromise and not reach your full potential
of
progress.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
