David that is a very good idea. Yes I like it, if a state party or region does not like the national platform change an omissions they can go back to the old one. Plus you are probably right to not even have anything in there on two of the most divisive issues in the LP between LP members. I hope other states and regions will follow your lead.--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It gives me very great pleasure to announce that the Libertarian Party of Northeast Ohio, one of the > six regions of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, has adopted the 2000 National Platform of the Libertarian > Party, minus the Abortion and Immigration planks and clauses related to them, as our Region Platform. > I urge all other LP affiliates to do likewise. > > For life and liberty, > David Macko > Chairman, Libertarian Party of > Northeast Ohio > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: terry12622000 > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:15 PM > Subject: [Libertarian] A divorce in the LP is greatly needed > > > For some time before the November election especially after the > Portland Convention I have been saying that pro market people need 2 > or more partities, that the LP is far from productive, that the LP is > not productive for either the purist or the libertarian lites. I > thought with at least two parties both would gain more members than > the LP has now and each would get far far more donations than the LP > gets > now. > > Since the election I see the value in the REpublican Liberty > Cacus and the DEmocratic Freedom Cacus and I think both of them can > do something that I don't think the LP can do right now and probably > shouldn't even attempt now that is elect several members to the US > House of REpresentives. I think most libertarian lites would be far > more productive and happy in either the RLC or DFC than they are in > the LP. If the thoughts of helping one of the two main party is out > of the question for some even the libertarian leaning wings of the > two big boys then Maybe The Person Choice party would suit you > better, maybe the Constitutional party. or maybe the Boston Tea Party > but I think most of you would like either the RLC or > DFC. > > > Now as far as the LP goes I think we need to build from the grass > roots up, from the bottom/ up and we need to set our foots down > towards members that hold political office, run for political office > and hold an offical post in the > LP. > Maybe someting like the Nolan quiz as it was in 2000 should be > giving to the above and they must get > 100%. > The questions droped or changed from the 2000 quiz was on taxes > and > immigration. > > The tax question ask All taxes should be repealed fund the > government with user fees. Maybe a better way to put it would be > REpeal all taxes fund the government with user fees and or > donations. > Maybe the immigration question should read something like > this instead of just saying open > borders. > THe federal immigration policy is not only a failure from a > policing stand point but is a violation of individual and property > rights and is disrespectful to local situations. DO you think the > federal immigration service should be abolished? > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
