Where someone ends up on the quiz I handed out is irrelevant because
as we all know, the quiz DOES NOT determine who is or is not a
libertarian.  It merely shows those who MIGHT be libertarians, and who
are worth approaching.  

The NAP determines who is or isn't a libertarian.  The quiz is just an
outreach tool.

Not one of the people I mentioned in my post or those you bring up
repeatedly are consistent with their libertarianism.  



--- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Incredible.  
> 
> Every single one of the individuals you mention below would fall 
> well within the Libertarian Quadrant of the Political Quiz that you 
> were handing out.  
> 
> Take Jesse Ventura.  Go ahead, answer the questions for him.  
> 
> I think you'll find he ends up at about 80/80.
> 
> Tom McClintock?  More like 90/100.
> 
> How you going to explain that to those "40,000" people you handed 
> those cards out to?
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > Know how many Mark Selzer and I handed out at the 4-Day's of Unity
> > Rave?  Over 10,000.  Then I set us up with an information booth 
> (for
> > free) at an even larger rave with 45,000 people where we handed out
> > close to 20,000 cards, stickers, balloons, and lollypops.  At this 
> one
> > event we registered more than 500 people to be libertarians and 
> got 20
> > or so to join the party.
> > 
> > Your so-called activist resume will never compare, especially when 
> you
> > include the anti-libertarian things you've done like setup a 
> webpage
> > encouraging people to vote for the single least libertarian 
> president
> > in American history, claiming incredibly non-libertarian people 
> like
> > Joe Lieberman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dennis Miller, Tom 
> McClintock,
> > Jesse Ventura, etc. were libertarians and thus proving your don't
> > comprehend the meaning of the word "libertarian", let alone work
> > toward libertarianism.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg"
> > <ericdondero@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you know how many Political Quizes I handed out to Lieberman 
> > > campaign workers and volunteers?  
> > > 
> > > Oh, maybe 40 to 50.  
> > > 
> > > With just about all of them, I walked them through the Quiz, and 
> > > explained the questions to them, and especially graded them and 
> > > explained to them the Pro-Freedom position on the issues they 
> got 
> > > wrong.  
> > > 
> > > I can assure you every one of these political activists came 
> away 
> > > with a positive impression of libertarianism and the libertarian 
> > > movement.
> > > 
> > > But I guess, it's better if we libertarians simply play it 
> safe.  
> > > Continue to attend our Monthly LP Supper Club meetings at Chiles 
> and 
> > > talk about issues amongst our Libertarian friends for hours on 
> end, 
> > > huh?
> > > 
> > > Best not to get our hands dirty in the business of real world 
> > > politics.  Nah, let's continue to Preach to the Chior.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], "Andr� Kenji de Kenji de" 
> > > <andrekenjilistas2@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/08/08/libertarians-urged-to-
> board-
> > > joementum-train-wreck/
> > > > RLC Founder Urges Libertarians to Board "Joementum" Train Wreck
> > > > 
> > > > [image: Lieberman - libertarian rumors]According to the latest 
> > > polls,
> > > > Joe "Kissy
> > > > Face<http://www.wonkette.com/politics/funny-pictures/bush-
> kissing-
> > > lieberman-video-032091.php>"
> > > > Lieberman is running over 10 points behind Ned
> > > > "Kos-
> > > 
> Approved<http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/05/nedheads
> > > _pay_ho.html>"
> > > > Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary race for Senate. 
> > > Barring a
> > > > miracle, Joe Lieberman will *not* be the Democratic nominee. 
> > > However, the
> > > > taller half of "Sore/Loserman
> > > > 
> > > 
> 2000<http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/04/stickers.
> > > election/>"
> > > > has indicated that he will run as an independent for the seat 
> > > after a
> > > > trouncing by his own party.
> > > > 
> > > > Now, why should Lieberman's sour grapes independent run, which 
> may 
> > > have cost
> > > > him the primary in the first
> > > > 
> > > 
> place<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/08/thoughts_on_connec
> > > ticut.html>,
> > > > matter to libertarians? According to Eric "Master
> > > > Shake<http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle275-20040613-04.html>"
> > > > Dondero Rittberg,
> > > > 
> > > 
> liberventionist<http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s041302.html>gadfly
> > > > and founder of the Republican
> > > > Liberty Caucus <http://www.rlc.org/> (their motto: "he 
> promised to 
> > > stop
> > > > beating us if we stay and work it out"), Lieberman is "one of 
> the 
> > > ONLY
> > > > decent Democrats in the Nation" and deserves libertarian 
> support. 
> > > Not only
> > > > that, he's pimping Libertarians for Lieberman on various email
> > > > 
> lists<http://www.libertarianpeacenik.com/articles/lieberman.htm>and
> > > > encouraging people to call him on his cell phone to help.
> > > > 
> > > > Leaving aside for a second that Lieberman is
> > > > pro-
> > > 
> war<http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/pro_war_lieberman_bombing
> > > 
> _with_dems_regionalnews_maggie_haberman__in_west_hartford__conn___and
> > > _tom_topousis__in_new_york.htm>,
> > > > pro-
> > > 
> censorship<http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/sen_joseph
> > > _lieberman_gets_worked_up_over_video_games_again/>,
> > > > and pro-government
> > > > 
> > > 
> intervention<http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/20
> > > 06/07/28/michael_schiavo_campaigns_against_lieberman/>(especially
> > > > since the
> > > > last Presidential candidate Rittberg
> > > > 
> > > 
> endorsed<http://web.archive.org/web/20040925062425/http://www.liberta
> > > riansforbush.com/>was
> > > > all of those things), haven't we libertarians learned a painful
> > > > lesson about endorsing defectors from the major
> > > > parties<http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/06/06/an-inconvenient-
> > > libertarian-video-clip-william-weld-doesnt-want-you-to-watch/>?
> > > > Not only is Lieberman not a libertarian, I'm predicting that 
> after 
> > > the polls
> > > > close in Connecticut tonight, he's also going to be a loser.
> > > > 
> > > > While some rightly criticize our willingness to lose while 
> > > clinging to our
> > > > principles <http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000450.html>, 
> > > Rittberg would
> > > > have us abandon our principles to lose with a loser who's 
> > > abandoned his.
> > > > 
> > > > Update by Stephen VanDyke: RLC Secretary Thomas Sewell 
> commented:
> > > > 
> > > > I can tell you categorically that Rittberg is not an officer, 
> > > spokesman or
> > > > otherwise entitled to speak on behalf of the RLC. Please 
> attribute 
> > > his views
> > > > solely to him, not to the RLC.
> > > > 
> > > > Ouch…
> > > > 
> > > > Update by Nicholas Sarwark: As predicted, Lieberman
> > > > 
> > > 
> lost<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/lieberman_concedes
> > > _connecticut.html>and
> > > > he's gonna pick up his sour grapes and try to run as an 
> > > Independent.
> > > > It's a gutsy move, but all of the bigtime Dems he got to stump 
> for 
> > > him in
> > > > the primary are very unlikely to support him now that Ned 
> Lamont 
> > > has been
> > > > selected as the Democratic nominee.
> > > > 
> > > > Update by Nicholas Sarwark: Looks like Rittberg is in good
> > > > 
> > > 
> company<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/rove_offers_help
> > > _to_lieberman.html>in
> > > > backing Lieberman's bid.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [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/
 


Reply via email to