Because I still have a lot of close friends in the LP; Scott Kohlhaas, Jake Whittmer, Bruce Cohen et.al.
I've also invested a great deal of time in the LP, like the TX Ballot Drive in 2004 where I collected nearly 4,000 signatures, and put Scott and Jake up at my home - much to the great consternation of my lovely wife - for two months and shuffled them all around, while also picking up LP petitioners at the Airport - for ZERO reimbursement. There's still some hope for the LP. So long as there are a few individuals left in the LP with, what I regard as, some real world political perspectives, John Famularo, Cohen, Mark Murphey, Bill Redpath, Steve Dasbach, Scott and Jake et.al. there's still some hope for the Party. --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I they are going to run for office the LP does not need a few of > these people, they can run as a Republican or DEmocrat or Indepedent. > Eric what don't you leave the LP alone and help one of those fine > Republicans run for office. If the GOP does not suit you start your > own party, you have the skills, why do you want to mess with the > Lp? I really wonder about you and some of these " top people in the > linbertarian movement", you all got the skill and probally the money > or money connections to run people for office, so why are you using a > principled party as an excuse for your failure to elect people to > office. Or do you all want to remove a prinipled party from any > possible competition? --- In [email protected], "Eric > Dondero Rittberg" <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > I'm with you 100% Geoff!! Best thing to do is invite as many > people > > as possible into the libertarian movement, rather than run them off > > cause they're not "dogmatic enough." > > > > Here's a question you'll never get an extremist libertarian to > answer. > > > > If you want to restrict libertarianism to just the purists, than > what > > label do you give to advocacies of partial libertarianism; > > basically inconsistent fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant? > > > > They hate this question. Puts them in a corner. Forces them to > > admit that deep down they are advocating exclusivity. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "steven linnabary" > > > <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But referring to yourself as "libertarian" (or anything else > for > > that > > > > matter) doesn't make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This brings up the question of whether Libertarianism is > subjective > > or > > > objective. Why would we want to discourage people who consider > > > themselves Libertarian? There are many Catholics out there who > > > support abortion. The Catholic church has not seen fit to > > > excommunicate American Cathloics who support abortion. > > > We need as many Americans as possible to self identify as > > Libertarian. > > > Let's bring them in with open arms. Once we get them to think > > > outside the two party box, the more philosophically minded can > > > introduce them to Rothbard, Hayek, Rand, etc. > > > There is no point in the philosophical Imams of > Purity 'expelling' > > or > > > 'exposing' those who are not 'true believers.' This party will > > never > > > grow beyond the 2% fringe if we expect every member to pass > > > philosophical muster. > > > > > > 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/
