Do you wish your party would say this...
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>
>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>
>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
1996 Presidential Election Results:
Democrat: 49.2%
Republican: 40.7%
Reform: 8.4%
Green: 0.7%
Libertarian: 0.5%
Other: 0.44%
The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
"I have no temptation to vote, to campaign, to try and stop a candidate
who promises new follies." -- Harry Browne, "How I Found Freedom in an
Unfree World", 1973
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "I'd like to go down to South America. There is a
complicating factor there. The Mexican presidential election is taking
place, and I certainly don't want to get involved in that." -- Shrub,
unsure of his continents.
Lee
"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:spgjb5...@corp.supernews.com...
: In article
<Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
: Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: >The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
: >learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
: >
: >He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
: >
: >The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
: >only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
:
: 1996 Presidential Election Results:
:
: Democrat: 49.2%
: Republican: 40.7%
: Reform: 8.4%
: Green: 0.7%
: Libertarian: 0.5%
: Other: 0.44%
:
: The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
In elected offices:
Libertarians - 169
Reform - 8
:
:
: "I have no temptation to vote, to campaign, to try and stop a candidate
Travis Pahl
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>>
>>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>>
>>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>
>1996 Presidential Election Results:
>
>Democrat: 49.2%
>Republican: 40.7%
>Reform: 8.4%
>Green: 0.7%
>Libertarian: 0.5%
>Other: 0.44%
>
>The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
I am not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that people should
not support the Libertarians because other people have not supported
libertarians? This does not seem to be a valid reason to not support a
candidate. Or am I misinterpretting what your message is?
>
>"I have no temptation to vote, to campaign, to try and stop a candidate
>who promises new follies." -- Harry Browne, "How I Found Freedom in an
>Unfree World", 1973
What is your point here? I have no temptation to vote or campaign for a
candidate who promises new follies either. As far as trying to stop
them... I do intend to. Mr browne did not in 1973. now 27 years later he
has changed his mind. I am glad to see he has.
Travis Pahl
neuralnoise
"Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000814...@dante08.u.washington.edu...
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>
> >In article
<Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
> >>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
> >>
> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
> >>
> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
> >
> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
> >
> >Democrat: 49.2%
> >Republican: 40.7%
> >Reform: 8.4%
> >Green: 0.7%
> >Libertarian: 0.5%
> >Other: 0.44%
> >
> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the population
demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
freedom and personal responsibility. With Buchanan handing the reforms to
the religious right, liberty-loving reformers need to know about the Party
Of Principle. http://www.lp.org
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>>
>>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>>
>>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>
>1996 Presidential Election Results:
>
>Democrat: 49.2%
>Republican: 40.7%
>Reform: 8.4%
>Green: 0.7%
>Libertarian: 0.5%
>Other: 0.44%
>
>The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
More elected office holders than all other third parties combined. The
presidential race does not represent the real strenght of the party.
It is estimated that we will have 2,000 candidates this year.
M. Simon
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>>>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>>>
>>>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>>>
>>>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>>>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>>
>>1996 Presidential Election Results:
>>
>>Democrat: 49.2%
>>Republican: 40.7%
>>Reform: 8.4%
>>Green: 0.7%
>>Libertarian: 0.5%
>>Other: 0.44%
>>
>>The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>
>I am not sure what your point is here.
I'll make it as simple as I can:
3 < 5
> Are you saying that people should
>not support the Libertarians because other people have not supported
>libertarians? This does not seem to be a valid reason to not support a
>candidate. Or am I misinterpretting what your message is?
That's a given in any thread.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.21.000814...@dante08.u.washington.edu...
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>>
>> >In article
><Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
>> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>> >>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>> >>
>> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>> >>
>> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>> >
>> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
>> >
>> >Democrat: 49.2%
>> >Republican: 40.7%
>> >Reform: 8.4%
>> >Green: 0.7%
>> >Libertarian: 0.5%
>> >Other: 0.44%
>> >
>> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>
>Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the population
>demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>freedom and personal responsibility.
And you know this ... how?
neuralnoise
How do I know what? I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as usual. If those 8.4%
really want change, they need to know about the only party with the
ideological backbone to change things.
Eric da Red
>
>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>news:spgjb5...@corp.supernews.com...
>: Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>: >The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>: >learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>: >
>: >He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>: >
>: >The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>: >only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>:
>: 1996 Presidential Election Results:
>:
>: Democrat: 49.2%
>: Republican: 40.7%
>: Reform: 8.4%
>: Green: 0.7%
>: Libertarian: 0.5%
>: Other: 0.44%
>:
>: The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>
>In elected offices:
> Libertarians - 169
> Reform - 8
Since they cannot get out the national vote, they are not the third
largest political party in the US, which was Travis' claim. Electing LP
candidates to the county airport advisory board is not the stuff of
popular groundswell.
In 1996 I thought that Harry Browne, possessing a reputation outside of
the bombastic world of the LP, would reverse the downward trend of the
party's vote totals in national elections. I was wrong, and have seen no
reason to believe that 2000 will be any better for him.
Clave
news:rN2m5.112020$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> "Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.21.000814...@dante08.u.washington.edu...
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> <Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
> > >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
> > >>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
> > >>
> > >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
> > >>
> > >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
> > >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
> > >
> > >1996 Presidential Election Results:
> > >
> > >Democrat: 49.2%
> > >Republican: 40.7%
> > >Reform: 8.4%
> > >Green: 0.7%
> > >Libertarian: 0.5%
> > >Other: 0.44%
> > >
> > >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>
> Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the population
> demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
Jim
neuralnoise
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:lqfm5.503$FC5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Wow, well, I didn't know Jim was authorized to speak for 8.4% of the
population. I'll remember that.
Clave
<...>
> > > Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of
> > > the population demanding a third party, who hasn't yet
> > > heard the Libertarian message of freedom and personal
> > > responsibility...
> >
> >
> > We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
> >
> > Jim
>
> Wow, well, I didn't know Jim was authorized to speak for 8.4%
> of the population. I'll remember that.
Did you forget that *you* were claiming to see 8.4% of the population
"demanding" a third party?
Or is it that only *you* can speak for that 8.4%???
Asshole.
Jim
neuralnoise
OK, why do you think they voted for Perot?
Clave
Why do you think they *didn't* vote for Browne?
Jim
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:lqfm5.503$FC5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>> > Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the
>population
>> > demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>> > freedom and personal responsibility...
>>
>> We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
>>
>> Jim
>Wow, well, I didn't know Jim was authorized to speak for 8.4% of the
>population. I'll remember that.
He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is most
of the population.
Eric da Red
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>"neuralnoise" <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:rN2m5.112020$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>> Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the population
>> demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>> freedom and personal responsibility...
>
>
>We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
Sometimes, it's like a street preacher who comes up to you and says, "Have
you heard about Jesus?"
neuralnoise
> In article <mQem5.436$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> >news:spir4sd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> >> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US.
> >The
> >> >> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media
exposure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Democrat: 49.2%
> >> >> >Republican: 40.7%
> >> >> >Reform: 8.4%
> >> >> >Green: 0.7%
> >> >> >Libertarian: 0.5%
> >> >> >Other: 0.44%
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
> >> >
> >> >Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the
population
> >> >demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message
of
> >> >freedom and personal responsibility.
> >>
> >> And you know this ... how?
> >
> >How do I know what?
>
> personal responsibility."
>
> Maybe they've heard it, and rejected it.
Some probably have. Some probably haven't.
> > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
> >see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as usual.
>
> Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions allowed in
Buchanan's world?
neuralnoise
> In article <ZBgm5.451$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >news:lqfm5.503$FC5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> ...
>
> >> > Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the
> >population
> >> > demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message
of
> >> > freedom and personal responsibility...
> >>
> >> We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
> >>
> >> Jim
>
> >Wow, well, I didn't know Jim was authorized to speak for 8.4% of the
> >population. I'll remember that.
>
> He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
> not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is most
> of the population.
How on earth would you know?
neuralnoise
> In article <lqfm5.503$FC5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
> Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> >"neuralnoise" <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:rN2m5.112020$Yr4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> ...
>
> >> Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the
population
> >> demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message
of
> >> freedom and personal responsibility...
> >
> >
> >We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
>
>
> Sometimes, it's like a street preacher who comes up to you and says, "Have
> you heard about Jesus?"
So tell me then, which are you opposed to? Freedom, or personal
responsibility?
Clave
We were at the meeting, you weren't.
Jim
Clave
message news:jZkm5.597$z4.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> "Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:spjf0j...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <mQem5.436$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> > neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> > >news:spir4sd...@corp.supernews.com...
<...>
> > That the 8.4% "hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
> > freedom and personal responsibility."
> >
> > Maybe they've heard it, and rejected it.
>
> Some probably have. Some probably haven't.
Many have. Few haven't.
> > > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
> > > see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as
> > > usual.
> >
> > Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
>
>
> Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
> allowed in Buchanan's world?
*Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
Jim
Lee
: In article <mQem5.436$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
: neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
: >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
: >news:spir4sd...@corp.supernews.com...
: ...
:
: >> >> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
: >> >> >>
: >> >> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US.
: >The
: >> >> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media
exposure.
: >> >> >
: >> >> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
: >> >> >
: >> >> >Democrat: 49.2%
: >> >> >Republican: 40.7%
: >> >> >Reform: 8.4%
: >> >> >Green: 0.7%
: >> >> >Libertarian: 0.5%
: >> >> >Other: 0.44%
: >> >> >
: >> >> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
Selective statistics.. "1996 Presidential Election Results"
I will say it AGAIN.
In elected office:
Libertarians - 169
Reform Party - 8
WELL??
Steve Krulick
How about some more precision?
"The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US."
It all depends on how one defines "largest," doesn't it?
Number of party members in elected office (which equals someone on the
airport commission with a US senator) does not measure the "largeness"
of a political party.
1996 Presidential votes are out of date. Besides, people vote for
candidates even if they ARE NOT members of the party, and '96 numbers do
not reflect the number of registered party members today. Are there more
or fewer registered Libertarians today than in '96? Greens? Reform?
--------------------------
"Nothing can stop
the power of
an informed citizenry
when it is
empowered, organized, and
motivated." (Ralph Nader)
--------------------------
neuralnoise
Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
neuralnoise
> He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
> not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is most
> of the population.
OK, see, now I get it. I didn't get it before. Yes, I think you are right,
governemt should be neither conceived nor executed with any ideological
center. It is ridiculous to expect government to live up to the same
principles which we must. I mean us blockheads are asking for so much --
don't kill, don't steal, don't enslave. Yeah, living in a world where
government was forbidden to do those things would be terrible.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>news:spjf84m...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
>> not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is most
>> of the population.
>OK, see, now I get it.
Would that it were true.
> I didn't get it before. Yes, I think you are right,
>governemt should be neither conceived nor executed with any ideological
>center.
The airplane landed, the passengers disembarked, the luggage was unloaded,
and you're at the bus station wondering where everyone is.
> It is ridiculous to expect government to live up to the same
>principles which we must. I mean us blockheads are asking for so much --
>don't kill, don't steal, don't enslave. Yeah, living in a world where
>government was forbidden to do those things would be terrible.
That's why we love net.libertarians so much. We call them blockheads, and
then to prove that they are not blockheads they immediately submit
blockheaded posts.
Drop by anytime.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:S3lm5.1315$FC5.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>> > > > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
>> > > > see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as
>> > > > usual.
>> > >
>> > > Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
>> >
>> > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
>> > allowed in Buchanan's world?
>>
>> *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
>Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
Is it just me, or is neuralnoise starting to sound like Travis' younger
and not-so-bright brother?
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>news:spjf84m...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > Well...You see 8.4% Reform, .5% Libertarian. I see 8.4% of the
>> >population
>> >> > demanding a third party, who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message
>of
>> >> > freedom and personal responsibility...
>> >> We've *heard* it. Over and farking *over.*
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >Wow, well, I didn't know Jim was authorized to speak for 8.4% of the
>> >population. I'll remember that.
>>
>> He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
>> not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is most
>> of the population.
>How on earth would you know?
From all the years I've lived outside of the Libertarian Party.
Eric da Red
>
>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>news:spjf0j...@corp.supernews.com...
>: In article <mQem5.436$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
>: neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>: >news:spir4sd...@corp.supernews.com...
>: ...
>:
>: >> >> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>: >> >> >>
>: >> >> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US.
>: >The
>: >> >> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media
>exposure.
>: >> >> >
>: >> >> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
>: >> >> >
>: >> >> >Democrat: 49.2%
>: >> >> >Republican: 40.7%
>: >> >> >Reform: 8.4%
>: >> >> >Green: 0.7%
>: >> >> >Libertarian: 0.5%
>: >> >> >Other: 0.44%
>: >> >> >
>: >> >> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>
>Selective statistics.. "1996 Presidential Election Results"
Of course, as are your statistics. We are then left to evaluate the
relative importance of a national election in which millions of people
voted with a small set of folks occupying positions on the park advisory
board.
Obviously, we put different weights on these two statistics.
>I will say it AGAIN.
>
>In elected office:
>
> Libertarians - 169
> Reform Party - 8
>
>WELL??
I don't have any stake in the Reform Party, but I think one of their
electoral victories was for a governor of a fairly populous state. This
is a bit more impressive than any number of winners of elections for water
quality review councils.
neuralnoise
> In article <K3qm5.1334$z4.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >news:S3lm5.1315$FC5.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> ...
>
> >> > > > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
> >> > > > see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as
> >> > > > usual.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
> >> >
> >> > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
> >> > allowed in Buchanan's world?
> >>
> >> *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
>
> >Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
>
> Is it just me, or is neuralnoise starting to sound like Travis' younger
> and not-so-bright brother?
Is it just me, or does Eric da Red like flinging insults more than answering
legitimate questions?
neuralnoise
> In article <8Hqm5.1346$z4.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> >news:spjf84m...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> He's authorized to speak for the percentage of the population that does
> >> not consist of babbling ideological blockheads, which fortunately is
most
> >> of the population.
>
> >OK, see, now I get it.
>
> Would that it were true.
>
>
> > I didn't get it before. Yes, I think you are right,
> >governemt should be neither conceived nor executed with any ideological
> >center.
>
> The airplane landed, the passengers disembarked, the luggage was unloaded,
> and you're at the bus station wondering where everyone is.
>
>
> > It is ridiculous to expect government to live up to the same
> >principles which we must. I mean us blockheads are asking for so much --
> >don't kill, don't steal, don't enslave. Yeah, living in a world where
> >government was forbidden to do those things would be terrible.
>
> That's why we love net.libertarians so much. We call them blockheads, and
> then to prove that they are not blockheads they immediately submit
> blockheaded posts.
>
> Drop by anytime.
Thank you for proving everything I've said.
Abolish thinking, vote for Eric da Red!
Clave
<...>
> > > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
> > > allowed in Buchanan's world?
> >
> >
> > *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
>
> Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
What is it with libertarians and the ability to stick to a point?
I don't give a tinker's god-damn who voted reform. You asserted that it was
because they hadn't heard the Libertoonian siren-song of light and
happiness, and I think you're dreaming.
Jim
Clave
> In article <K3qm5.1334$z4.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >news:S3lm5.1315$FC5.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> ...
>
> >> > > > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
> >> > > > see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as
> >> > > > usual.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
> >> >
> >> > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
> >> > allowed in Buchanan's world?
> >>
> >> *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
>
> >Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
>
> Is it just me, or is neuralnoise starting to sound like Travis' younger
> and not-so-bright brother?
Evangelical Libertarian. Nuff said.
Jim
Clave
Depends on the day, really, but when you set people up with stupid questions
like that, you should expect people to stop taking you seriously.
HTH,
Jim
Clave
news:8nd136$ro9$1...@news.snowcrest.net...
<...>
> I will say it AGAIN.
>
> In elected office:
>
> Libertarians - 169
> Reform Party - 8
>
> WELL??
Well what? I'd vote for a libertarian for dogcatcher with no trouble.
When your party's fantasy-land politics scale up to where you can get taken
seriously on a national level, *then* come back and brag.
Jim
Gwen Nelson
neuralnoise (neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com) wrote:
: Is it just me, or does Eric da Red like flinging insults more than answering
: legitimate questions?
It's just you.
neuralnoise
When did I ever assert that? I asserted that they were obviously not fond of
the Demopublicans, ie sick of business as usual. I then asserted that they
need to hear about the LP, because the LP is the only party not sticking a
new name on the Demopublican agenda. And if you "don't give a tinker's
god-damn", then why did you jump into the conversation in the first place?
What is it with Jim and his inability to understand a point?
neuralnoise
How on earth would you know? Since neither you nor your buddy has answered a
single question or given one shred of indication as to what you believe, no
issues have been raised, so how could you possibly know what my positions or
inclinations are?
I have no alternative but to conclude that you are well aware of whatever
flaws there may be in whatever position you may hold, thus your attempts to
"silence by irritation" your opponents. How can you expect anyone to take
you seriously if you are afraid to stand behind your own ideas?
neuralnoise
There was nothing stupid about the question. And, yet again, you have failed
to answer it.
Clave
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:9_Am5.1461$T7.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > "neuralnoise" <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:K3qm5.1334$z4.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > > > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
> > > > > allowed in Buchanan's world?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
> > >
> > > Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
> >
> >
> > What is it with libertarians and the ability to stick to a point?
> >
> > I don't give a tinker's god-damn who voted reform. You asserted that it
> > was because they hadn't heard the Libertoonian siren-song of light and
> > happiness, and I think you're dreaming.
>
> When did I ever assert that?
Good God -- Travis and Bill rolled into one...
Look, Linenoise, do you really believe we can't scroll back and read the
thread from the beginning?
Direct quote:
"I see 8.4% of the population demanding a
third party, who hasn't yet heard the
Libertarian message of freedom and
personal responsibility."
> I asserted that they were obviously not fond of the Demopublicans,
> ie sick of business as usual. I then asserted that they need to
> hear about the LP, because the LP is the only party not sticking a
> new name on the Demopublican agenda.
Actually, you never said *any* of those things. Do you actually assume that
everyone out here has reading skills as bad as yours? That's a big mistake,
pal.
> And if you "don't give a tinker's god-damn",
Ahem. What I didn't give a damn about was your attempt to change the
subject.
Pay some frickin' *attention* already.
> then why did you jump into the conversation in the first place?
To make fun of a silly, evangelical libertoonian, of course.
> What is it with Jim and his inability to understand a point?
Make one.
Jim
Clave
<...>
> > Evangelical Libertarian. Nuff said.
>
> How on earth would you know? Since neither you nor your buddy has answered
a
> single question or given one shred of indication as to what you believe,
no
> issues have been raised, so how could you possibly know what my positions
or
> inclinations are?
"I see 8.4% of the population demanding a third party,
who hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of freedom and
personal responsibility. With Buchanan handing the reforms
to the religious right, liberty-loving reformers need to
know about the Party Of Principle."
HTH
BTW, what questions have I failed to answer?
> I have no alternative but to conclude that you are well aware of whatever
> flaws there may be in whatever position you may hold, thus your attempts
to
> "silence by irritation" your opponents. How can you expect anyone to take
> you seriously if you are afraid to stand behind your own ideas?
Sorry, Linenoise -- I don't care if anyone takes *me* seriously or not.
Jim
Clave
Stupid is as stupid reads, Gump.
> And, yet again, you have failed to answer it.
I answered it. Stop lying.
Jim
Bill Bonde
Actually, it is true that Eric da Red does prefer the insult to the
actually answering of questions.
neuralnoise
I did, long ago. You missed it. Over and over and over and over....
neuralnoise
A lucky thing for you.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>news:splgm9...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > > > I wasn't claiming knowledge to anything. I just said I
>> >> > > > see 8.4% of the population who is sick of business as
>> >> > > > usual.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Sure looks like a claim of knowledge to me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Funny, looks more like an opinion to me. Or aren't opinions
>> >> > allowed in Buchanan's world?
>> >>
>> >> *Buchanan's* world??? Boy are *you* off base.
>>
>> >Well, then why are so you worried about who voted reform?
>>
>> Is it just me, or is neuralnoise starting to sound like Travis' younger
>> and not-so-bright brother?
>Is it just me, or does Eric da Red like flinging insults more than answering
>legitimate questions?
I've answered every one of your legitimate questions.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise's confusion on this point is understandable because he's under
the delusion that's he's asked a legitimate question in this thread.
Eric da Red
...
>> > Is it just me, or is neuralnoise starting to sound like Travis' younger
>> > and not-so-bright brother?
>>
>> Evangelical Libertarian. Nuff said.
>How on earth would you know?
Possibly by combining objective evidence with sharp reasoning skills.
He's good at that sort of thing.
> Since neither you nor your buddy has answered a
>single question or given one shred of indication as to what you believe, no
>issues have been raised, so how could you possibly know what my positions or
>inclinations are?
Originally, I offered some statistics to back my contention that the LP is
not the USA's third largest party. In response to your undocumented claim
about the LP's electoral success, I offered some reasons why I put more
weight on my statistics than on the miniscule LP victories while
acknowledging that other people can weight the facts differently.
All serious, all on topic.
Your response was to simply repost your numbers with no elaboration or
justification, go off on a tangent about Pat Buchannan, and ask a couple
of "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions.
All noise, all irrelevant, all typically fundamentalist libertarian.
>I have no alternative but to conclude that you are well aware of whatever
>flaws there may be in whatever position you may hold, thus your attempts to
>"silence by irritation" your opponents.
Silence? Heavens, no. I really enjoy it when libertarians embarrass
themselves in public.
Don't stop now.
> How can you expect anyone to take
>you seriously if you are afraid to stand behind your own ideas?
Psychologizing. Another typical net.libertarian trait.
Eric da Red
neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:9_Am5.1461$T7.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>> I don't give a tinker's god-damn who voted reform. You asserted that it
>was
>> because they hadn't heard the Libertoonian siren-song of light and
>> happiness, and I think you're dreaming.
>When did I ever assert that? I asserted that they were obviously not fond of
>the Demopublicans, ie sick of business as usual. I then asserted that they
>need to hear about the LP, because the LP is the only party not sticking a
>new name on the Demopublican agenda.
Which is what he said.
I need to reconsider my earlier assessment of our new chum whitenoise.
He's really a lot more like Bonde than he is like Travis.
> And if you "don't give a tinker's
>god-damn", then why did you jump into the conversation in the first place?
>What is it with Jim and his inability to understand a point?
This is like Brittney Spears asking, "What is it with Dawn Upshaw and her
inability to sing?"
Eric da Red
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>Well what? I'd vote for a libertarian for dogcatcher with no trouble.
I can't think of a less suitable job for a libertarian than dog catcher.
All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
tell them to get a job, and release them.
Of course, this would be the case only if the libertarian dog catcher was
an independent contractor. If he worked for Dogs R Us or Ralston-Purina,
he'd do whatever his corporate masters told him to do.
>When your party's fantasy-land politics scale up to where you can get taken
>seriously on a national level, *then* come back and brag.
No matter how hard they try, LP candidates always end up talking about
privatizing roads.
Clave
<...>
> > > What is it with Jim and his inability to understand a point?
> >
> > Make one.
>
> I did, long ago. You missed it. Over and over and over and over....
Only if your point was that you're as typically unprepared to defend your
silly philosophy as most evangelical libertoons.
Jim
neuralnoise
Yes, go ahead, sling more mud. Prove my point again and again.
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <n2Bm5.1475$T7.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
>Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>Well what? I'd vote for a libertarian for dogcatcher with no trouble.
>
>I can't think of a less suitable job for a libertarian than dog catcher.
>All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
>tell them to get a job, and release them.
>
>Of course, this would be the case only if the libertarian dog catcher was
>an independent contractor. If he worked for Dogs R Us or Ralston-Purina,
>he'd do whatever his corporate masters told him to do.
>
>
>>When your party's fantasy-land politics scale up to where you can get taken
>>seriously on a national level, *then* come back and brag.
>
>No matter how hard they try, LP candidates always end up talking about
>privatizing roads.
Lets start talking about privatizing air. I want to charge you to
breathe.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
Travis Pahl
>In article <8na7m0$n1h$1...@news.snowcrest.net>, Lee <sh...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>
>>: Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>: >The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>>: >learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>>: >
>>: >He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>>: >
>>: >The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>>: >only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>>:
>>: 1996 Presidential Election Results:
>>:
>>: Democrat: 49.2%
>>: Republican: 40.7%
>>: Reform: 8.4%
>>: Green: 0.7%
>>: Libertarian: 0.5%
>>: Other: 0.44%
>>:
>>: The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>>
>> Libertarians - 169
>> Reform - 8
>
>Since they cannot get out the national vote, they are not the third
>largest political party in the US, which was Travis' claim. Electing LP
>candidates to the county airport advisory board is not the stuff of
>popular groundswell.
>
>In 1996 I thought that Harry Browne, possessing a reputation outside of
>the bombastic world of the LP, would reverse the downward trend of the
>party's vote totals in national elections. I was wrong,
I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>and have seen no reason to believe that 2000 will be any better for him.
perhaps the antional telivision commercials he has had running the last
month will affect your prediction. Or the fact that party memberhip has
increased dramatically since last election. Or perhaps the fact that he
has already raised more money this election than he did the whole campaign
last time. I would suggest you reevaluate your position.
I am not saying that you shoudl support him. I know you disagree with
him. I am just saying that you should avoid making claims that are going
to be false just cause of your hatred of him.
travis
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000814...@dante08.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000812...@dante58.u.washington.edu>,
>>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>The following is Harry Brownes Homepage. If you are interested in
>>>>learning more about this candidate go to www.harrybrowne2000.org
>>>>
>>>>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>>>>
>>>>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US. The
>>>>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media exposure.
>>>
>>>1996 Presidential Election Results:
>>>
>>>Democrat: 49.2%
>>>Republican: 40.7%
>>>Reform: 8.4%
>>>Green: 0.7%
>>>Libertarian: 0.5%
>>>Other: 0.44%
>>>
>>>The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>>
>>I am not sure what your point is here.
>
>I'll make it as simple as I can:
>
>3 < 5
So? i still do not get your point. If that is as simple as you can make
it, I suggest a communication course.
>> Are you saying that people should
>>not support the Libertarians because other people have not supported
>>libertarians? This does not seem to be a valid reason to not support a
>>candidate. Or am I misinterpretting what your message is?
>
>That's a given in any thread.
I do not seem to have problems interpreting others messages. Once again I
have to suggest a communications course.
Always a pleasure talking with you Eric.
Travis
Travis Pahl
>> > That the 8.4% "hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>> > freedom and personal responsibility."
>> >
>> > Maybe they've heard it, and rejected it.
>>
>> Some probably have. Some probably haven't.
>
>Many have. Few haven't.
Actually as a libertarian that likes to spread the 'gospel' I think I can
probably give a better estimation than you can on this one Jim. It is
surprising how many people hve not heard of libertarianism. In terms of
few and many... it is stilll many who have NOT heard and few that have.
travis
Travis Pahl
>Lee wrote:
>>
>> "Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>> news:spjf0j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> : In article <mQem5.436$z4....@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
>> : neuralnoise <neura...@no.spaam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >"Eric da Red" <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
>> : >news:spir4sd...@corp.supernews.com...
>> : ...
>> :
>> : >> >> >>He is running on the Libertarian ticket.
>> : >> >> >>
>> : >> >> >>The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US.
>> : >The
>> : >> >> >>only measure where they are not third is unfortunatly media
>> exposure.
>> : >> >> >
>> : >> >> >1996 Presidential Election Results:
>> : >> >> >
>> : >> >> >Democrat: 49.2%
>> : >> >> >Republican: 40.7%
>> : >> >> >Reform: 8.4%
>> : >> >> >Green: 0.7%
>> : >> >> >Libertarian: 0.5%
>> : >> >> >Other: 0.44%
>> : >> >> >
>> : >> >> >The Libertarian Party: Bigger Than "Other".
>>
>> Selective statistics.. "1996 Presidential Election Results"
>>
>> I will say it AGAIN.
>>
>> In elected office:
>>
>> Libertarians - 169
>> Reform Party - 8
>>
>> WELL??
>
>How about some more precision?
>
>"The Libertarians are the third largest political party in the US."
>
>It all depends on how one defines "largest," doesn't it?
>
>Number of party members in elected office (which equals someone on the
>airport commission with a US senator) does not measure the "largeness"
>of a political party.
Well we could also measure by number of candidates. Number of members,
number of candidates running for federal office. Number of elected
officials in federal office. Number of officials in state
governments, or number of states the presidential candidates on the ballot
for. I think in all these categories the LP is number 3. or we could
measure by a race for president 4 years ago.
>1996 Presidential votes are out of date. Besides, people vote for
>candidates even if they ARE NOT members of the party, and '96 numbers do
>not reflect the number of registered party members today. Are there more
>or fewer registered Libertarians today than in '96? Greens? Reform?
I know there are more libertarians. I know there are less reform. I am
guessing there are more greens.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> > That the 8.4% "hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>>> > freedom and personal responsibility."
>>> >
>>> > Maybe they've heard it, and rejected it.
>>>
>>> Some probably have. Some probably haven't.
>>Many have. Few haven't.
>Actually as a libertarian that likes to spread the 'gospel' I think I can
>probably give a better estimation than you can on this one Jim. It is
>surprising how many people hve not heard of libertarianism.
I'm always willing to be surprised. How many people have not heard of
libertarianism? How do you know?
> In terms of
>few and many... it is stilll many who have NOT heard and few that have.
Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard of a
philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with libertarian
ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that it describes very
few Americans.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>perhaps the antional telivision commercials he has had running the last
>month will affect your prediction.
Probably not, since LP ads in the past seemed to have no impact on the
results.
> Or the fact that party memberhip has
>increased dramatically since last election.
It increased "dramatically" before the 1996 election, too.
> Or perhaps the fact that he
>has already raised more money this election than he did the whole campaign
>last time.
That might help. This is America, after all, and it's money that matters.
One factor that could help Browne and other non-major party candidates is
that the public this year seems unusually uninvolved, perhaps because they
realize the relatively small differences between Gore and the Shrub.
> I would suggest you reevaluate your position.
Here's my prediction: Browne will get 0.8% of the national vote. What is
your prediction?
Just for the record, before the 1996 election I predicted that Browne
would get at least 1% of the vote, based on his popularity outside of the
LP, and possibly as much as 2%. I mention this to the unwary who might be
tempted to place a wager based on my prediction.
>I am not saying that you shoudl support him. I know you disagree with
>him. I am just saying that you should avoid making claims that are going
>to be false just cause of your hatred of him.
What's your prediction of his national vote percentage?
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
...
>
>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
here are the LP vote counts:
1996: 485,798 0.50%
1992: 291,627 0.28%
1988: 432,179 0.47%
1984: 228,314 0.24%
1980: 921,299 1.06%
1976: no data
1972: 3,673 0.00%
In 1972, John Hospers "officially" finished third because he got one
electoral vote. I've heard that Agnew nearly dumped in his drawers when
the vote was announced in Congress, which may be the most valuable service
ever performed by the Libertarian Party.
One of the votes in 1980 was mine. I guess they don't make Libertarians
like Ed Clark anymore.
Using those powerful analytical and mathematical skills you picked up at
the University of Washington, what trend do you see in these numbers?
Carl Christensen
>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
>tell them to get a job, and release them.
That would be interesting, wouldn't a libertarian dogcatcher encourage
every dog to eat as much from the communal doggie bowl as he could?
That would be the best proof of the dog-eat-dog Randian philosophy!
:-)
---
Carl Christensen, Philadelphia, PA USA
car...@mixcat.zzn.com http://www.geocities.com/carlgt1
Clave
> In article <95kops0secdlrci90...@4ax.com>,
> Carl Christensen <car...@mixcat.zzn.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:22:20 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
> >wrote:
> >>All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
> >>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their
collars,
> >>tell them to get a job, and release them.
>
> >That would be interesting, wouldn't a libertarian dogcatcher encourage
> >every dog to eat as much from the communal doggie bowl as he could?
>
> I tell ya.
Not only that, but every dog has the right to *own* its bowl.
Jim
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>...
>>
>>I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
>>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>
>I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
>here are the LP vote counts:
>
>1996: 485,798 0.50%
>1992: 291,627 0.28%
>1988: 432,179 0.47%
>1984: 228,314 0.24%
>1980: 921,299 1.06%
>1976: no data
>1972: 3,673 0.00%
>
>In 1972, John Hospers "officially" finished third because he got one
>electoral vote. I've heard that Agnew nearly dumped in his drawers when
>the vote was announced in Congress, which may be the most valuable service
>ever performed by the Libertarian Party.
>
>One of the votes in 1980 was mine. I guess they don't make Libertarians
>like Ed Clark anymore.
>
>Using those powerful analytical and mathematical skills you picked up at
>the University of Washington, what trend do you see in these numbers?
You are looking in the wrong place.
What you need to look at is the growth of the party at the local
level. We gained another Libertarian in office last night when a
Libertarian was appointed to the a local library board to fill an
unexpired term. He runs for re-election in April.
There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
certainly will be more libertarians.
In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <95kops0secdlrci90...@4ax.com>,
>Carl Christensen <car...@mixcat.zzn.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:22:20 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>>>All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
>>>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
>>>tell them to get a job, and release them.
>
>>That would be interesting, wouldn't a libertarian dogcatcher encourage
>>every dog to eat as much from the communal doggie bowl as he could?
>
>Communal? Oh no no no no no no. Every bite of dog food is earned, EARNED
>I tell ya.
>
>
>>That would be the best proof of the dog-eat-dog Randian philosophy!
>>:-)
>
>Besides, every doggie has a natural right to sniff for food, but not a
>right to food itself.
If not earned that leaves gifts and theft. Which do you prefer?
Remember Robin Hood was not primarily a gift giver. He was primarily
a thief. The fact that he had a prefrence for stealing from other
thieves (tax collectors and government officials) does not exonerate
his theft.
Eric da Red
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:42:11 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <95kops0secdlrci90...@4ax.com>,
>>Carl Christensen <car...@mixcat.zzn.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:22:20 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>>wrote:
>>>>All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
>>>>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
>>>>tell them to get a job, and release them.
>>
>>>That would be interesting, wouldn't a libertarian dogcatcher encourage
>>>every dog to eat as much from the communal doggie bowl as he could?
>>
>>Communal? Oh no no no no no no. Every bite of dog food is earned, EARNED
>>I tell ya.
>>>That would be the best proof of the dog-eat-dog Randian philosophy!
>>>:-)
>>
>>Besides, every doggie has a natural right to sniff for food, but not a
>>right to food itself.
>If not earned that leaves gifts and theft. Which do you prefer?
Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a big hand for that all-time greatest
show stopper, The False Dichotomy!
>Remember Robin Hood was not primarily a gift giver.
He wasn't a dog, either.
> He was primarily
>a thief.
He believed in the right to bear arms.
Eric da Red
I was asking Travis, an act generally synonymous with "looking in the
wrong place."
>What you need to look at is the growth of the party at the local
>level.
1. Actually, I don't "need" to do anything.
2. I've already pointed out that there are different ways to interpret a
word like "largest" (as in "third largest"), just as there are several
valid answers to the question "what is the largest state in the USA?" In
addition, I've offered a brief rationale for my preference for using
national vote totals.
This is considerably different that the libertarian approach in this
thread, which is to pick the metric most favorable to their viewpoint.
> We gained another Libertarian in office last night when a
>Libertarian was appointed to the a local library board to fill an
>unexpired term. He runs for re-election in April.
Today the library, tomorrow ... the park district!
>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>certainly will be more libertarians.
I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
to that of other parties?
In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
of growth.
>In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
>passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
>Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why did they reach that opinion?
>We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
>
>For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
>the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
>
>The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
Which is just what I heard during my membership in the LP in the mid-70's.
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <399da5c1...@news.xta.com>, M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:42:11 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <95kops0secdlrci90...@4ax.com>,
>>>Carl Christensen <car...@mixcat.zzn.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:22:20 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>All he'd do is pick up stray pets, give them lectures about personal
>>>>>responsibility, pin "Harry Browne For President" buttons on their collars,
>>>>>tell them to get a job, and release them.
>>>
>>>>That would be interesting, wouldn't a libertarian dogcatcher encourage
>>>>every dog to eat as much from the communal doggie bowl as he could?
>>>
>>>Communal? Oh no no no no no no. Every bite of dog food is earned, EARNED
>>>I tell ya.
>
>>>>That would be the best proof of the dog-eat-dog Randian philosophy!
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Besides, every doggie has a natural right to sniff for food, but not a
>>>right to food itself.
>
>>If not earned that leaves gifts and theft. Which do you prefer?
>
>Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a big hand for that all-time greatest
>show stopper, The False Dichotomy!
No the greatest show stopper is claiming an alternative and not
presenting same.
Kind of like Nixon's secret plan to end the war.
M. Simon
wrote:
It has a 30 million a year budget.
You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
minors.
Be patient. We are moving up.
>>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>>certainly will be more libertarians.
>
>I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
>figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
>to that of other parties?
Candidates in office.
>In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
>of growth.
Other parties may get more national votes.
There are more Libertarians in office than all the other third parties
combined.
>>In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
>>passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
>>Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
>
>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why did they reach that opinion?
Because we get out the vote and have elected candidates to the school
board (250 million a year) and have defeated other taxes and bond
issues. ie. precious results.
And we are growing in power locally.
>>We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
>>
>>For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
>>the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
>>
>>The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
>
>Which is just what I heard during my membership in the LP in the mid-70's.
We are running 2000 candidates this year and already have over 200
Libertarians in office.
And 33,000 members this year vs 10,000 four years ago.
I have seen the advance in our locality.
There is no rush. The trends are in the right direction.
Be patient, the results should be visible even to you in eight years.
Should you live so long.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Clave wrote:
>"Lee" <sh...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>news:8nd136$ro9$1...@news.snowcrest.net...
>
><...>
>
>> I will say it AGAIN.
>>
>> In elected office:
>>
>> Libertarians - 169
>> Reform Party - 8
>>
>> WELL??
>
>
>Well what? I'd vote for a libertarian for dogcatcher with no trouble.
>
>When your party's fantasy-land politics scale up to where you can get taken
>seriously on a national level, *then* come back and brag.
The only bragging being done wsa that libertarain candidates actually have
balls to say what they mean and want./ Other candidates don't. After
that Eric decided to try to change the subject to the size of the LP
andtried to make it sound as if it were way smaller than even other thrid
parties.
Since that time all that has been done isa few LP'ers have defended the
size of the LP and shown everyone that Eric is being dishonest in his
portrayal of the size of the LP. Of course I think any LP'er here would
rather discuss the Merits of the LP platform and principles, than sit and
bullshit about the size of the party, but Eric and you seem to have
problems with that. To each his own.
Trvis
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>...
>>
>>I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
>>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>
>I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
>here are the LP vote counts:
Actually you did. Otherwise you would not have erased what you
wrote. Youy had something to the effect that you thought browne was going
to bring the LP up a little bit, but instead he disappointed you. By the
loos of it he nearly doubled the turnout.
>1996: 485,798 0.50%
>1992: 291,627 0.28%
>1988: 432,179 0.47%
>1984: 228,314 0.24%
>1980: 921,299 1.06%
>1976: no data
>1972: 3,673 0.00%
>
>In 1972, John Hospers "officially" finished third because he got one
>electoral vote. I've heard that Agnew nearly dumped in his drawers when
>the vote was announced in Congress, which may be the most valuable service
>ever performed by the Libertarian Party.
>
>One of the votes in 1980 was mine. I guess they don't make Libertarians
>like Ed Clark anymore.
>
>Using those powerful analytical and mathematical skills you picked up at
>the University of Washington, what trend do you see in these numbers?
Well from 92 to 96 I see a sharp increase which shows harry brone was good
for the party despite what you claim.
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > That the 8.4% "hasn't yet heard the Libertarian message of
>>>> > freedom and personal responsibility."
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe they've heard it, and rejected it.
>>>>
>>>> Some probably have. Some probably haven't.
>
>>>Many have. Few haven't.
>
>>Actually as a libertarian that likes to spread the 'gospel' I think I can
>>probably give a better estimation than you can on this one Jim. It is
>>surprising how many people hve not heard of libertarianism.
>
>I'm always willing to be surprised. How many people have not heard of
>libertarianism? How do you know?
>
>
>> In terms of
>>few and many... it is stilll many who have NOT heard and few that have.
>
>Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard of a
>philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with libertarian
>ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that it describes very
>few Americans.
I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
supports them. And the answer is very few.
Travis
Travis Pahl
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>...
>>
>>perhaps the antional telivision commercials he has had running the last
>>month will affect your prediction.
>
>Probably not, since LP ads in the past seemed to have no impact on the
>results.
that is right advertising means nothing I forgot. Everyone already knows
about the LP and its ideas I forgot.
>
>> Or the fact that party memberhip has
>>increased dramatically since last election.
>
>It increased "dramatically" before the 1996 election, too.
Actaully the increase has not come immedatly before this election. It was
a steady climb over the last four years.
>
>> Or perhaps the fact that he
>>has already raised more money this election than he did the whole campaign
>>last time.
>
>That might help. This is America, after all, and it's money that matters.
Why do you think money will help but advertising will not. What do you
think the money is used for?
>One factor that could help Browne and other non-major party candidates is
>that the public this year seems unusually uninvolved, perhaps because they
>realize the relatively small differences between Gore and the Shrub.
This is true most every election. The people seem to be cathcing on about
this this year however.
>
>> I would suggest you reevaluate your position.
>
>Here's my prediction: Browne will get 0.8% of the national vote. What is
>your prediction?
I would guess 1-2%. But it depends alot on how the press reacts in the
next few months.
Travis
Travis Pahl
>In article <399d9d07...@news.xta.com>, M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:13:38 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>
>>What you need to look at is the growth of the party at the local
>>level.
>
>1. Actually, I don't "need" to do anything.
He was saying you need to do this if you want to continue to be considered
worth while of a person to discuss things with. Not everyone is as nice
as me and gives you undeserved attn. for years.
>2. I've already pointed out that there are different ways to interpret a
>word like "largest" (as in "third largest"), just as there are several
>valid answers to the question "what is the largest state in the USA?" In
>addition, I've offered a brief rationale for my preference for using
>national vote totals.
>
>This is considerably different that the libertarian approach in this
>thread, which is to pick the metric most favorable to their viewpoint.
As in all the other ways? More candidates, more elected officials, more
members, on more state ballots for president, and our candidates have more
balls.
>> We gained another Libertarian in office last night when a
>>Libertarian was appointed to the a local library board to fill an
>>unexpired term. He runs for re-election in April.
>
>Today the library, tomorrow ... the park district!
Or as is the case of a town in california, today the city counciltommorow
the mayor. And now he is running for VP. You make fun of it, but that is
how politics works. people get smaller offices and work their way up.
>>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>>certainly will be more libertarians.
>
>I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
>figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
>to that of other parties?
More candiates elected into office than all the other 3rd parties
combined. and more candidates running for office than all other third
parties combined.
>In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
>of growth.
No... I beleive the claim at the begining of this thread was that Harry
Browne has the balls to actually say things that many of the democrats and
republicans would like to hear their candidates say.
>
>>In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
>>passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
>>Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
>
>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why did they reach that opinion?
I am guessing they looked at past bond issues and teh local LP stance
onthem and drew a conclusion.
>
>>We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
>>
>>For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
>>the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
>>
>>The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
>
>Which is just what I heard during my membership in the LP in the mid-70's.
We never said that the LP has been super successful. it has taken a long
time, but they have accomplished alot in that time.
M. Simon
If he increases the percentage it will be enough.
Clave
Ahem. *You* were the one trying to prove something. *I* was just pointing
and laughing.
Still am, too.
Jim
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000819...@dante17.u.washington.edu...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
<...>
> >Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard
> >of a philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with
> >libertarian ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that
> >it describes very few Americans.
>
> I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
> supports them. And the answer is very few.
Another assertion you can't support. Your hiatus hasn't changed you a bit.
Jim
Travis Pahl
You have claimed one thing. I have claimed the opposite. I have not
attempted to prove anything. I have however explained why I would
probably be more credible of a sourece in this issue. Until you can
explain why your opinion might be more accurate than mine, or until you
can give some objective facts showing otherwise, I do not have to say
anything more.
Clave
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Clave wrote:
>
> >"Travis Pahl" <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>
>news:Pine.A41.4.21.000819...@dante17.u.washington.edu...
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
> >
> ><...>
> >
> >> >Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard
> >> >of a philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with
> >> >libertarian ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that
> >> >it describes very few Americans.
> >>
> >> I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
> >> supports them. And the answer is very few.
> >
> >
> >Another assertion you can't support. Your hiatus hasn't changed you a
> >bit.
>
> You have claimed one thing.
Try *reading* what you quote, Travis, and from whom it came. Not that I'd
expect you to change now.
> I have claimed the opposite. I have not attempted to prove anything.
You couldn't anyway.
> I have however explained why I would probably be more credible of a
> sourece in this issue.
<snort>
You did? I must have missed that. Please reiterate. Real laughs are hard
to come by in an election year.
> Until you can explain why your opinion might be more accurate than
> mine, or until you can give some objective facts showing otherwise,
> I do not have to say anything more.
Typical. Not only do you still misattribute and edit abominably, but you're
still just as full of shit as you ever were.
Jim
Eric da Red
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:59:25 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
>>>What you need to look at is the growth of the party at the local
>>>level.
>>
>>1. Actually, I don't "need" to do anything.
>>
>>2. I've already pointed out that there are different ways to interpret a
>>word like "largest" (as in "third largest"), just as there are several
>>valid answers to the question "what is the largest state in the USA?" In
>>addition, I've offered a brief rationale for my preference for using
>>national vote totals.
>>
>>This is considerably different that the libertarian approach in this
>>thread, which is to pick the metric most favorable to their viewpoint.
>>> We gained another Libertarian in office last night when a
>>>Libertarian was appointed to the a local library board to fill an
>>>unexpired term. He runs for re-election in April.
>>
>>Today the library, tomorrow ... the park district!
>It has a 30 million a year budget.
Looter.
>You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
>minors.
Or, you can spend all your time in the minors and never get called up.
Can you think of any political party in US history that worked its way up
from minor local offices to national influence?
>Be patient. We are moving up.
New decade, same song.
>>>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>>>certainly will be more libertarians.
>>
>>I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
>>figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
>>to that of other parties?
>
>Candidates in office.
The figures ... ?
>>In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
>>of growth.
>
>Other parties may get more national votes.
And they do.
>There are more Libertarians in office than all the other third parties
>combined.
Ok. The LP is the major force among minor parties in unpaid advisory
electoral offices.
Wow. Reminds me of a comic I heard in a Reno lounge, who billed himself
as "America's slowest rising young comedian."
>>>In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
>>>passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
>>>Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
>>
>>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why did they reach that opinion?
>Because we get out the vote and have elected candidates to the school
>board (250 million a year) and have defeated other taxes and bond
>issues. ie. precious results.
Is there something more substantial than this opinion?
>And we are growing in power locally.
>
>>>We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
>>>
>>>For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
>>>the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
>>>
>>>The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
>>
>>Which is just what I heard during my membership in the LP in the mid-70's.
>
>We are running 2000 candidates this year and already have over 200
>Libertarians in office.
>
>And 33,000 members this year vs 10,000 four years ago.
>
>I have seen the advance in our locality.
>
>There is no rush. The trends are in the right direction.
We all know how reliable trends are among measurable human action. Just
ask anyone heavily invested in tech stocks in March, 2000.
>Be patient, the results should be visible even to you in eight years.
>Should you live so long.
Which is exactly what I heard after Ed Clark did so well in 1980.
--
Quote Of The Week: "No administration in modern history has been as good
for American business as the Clinton-Gore team. None has been as
solicitous of the concerns of business leaders, none has generated as much
profit for business." -- Robert Reich
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>...
>>>
>>>I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
>>>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
>>here are the LP vote counts:
>
>Actually you did. Otherwise you would not have erased what you
>wrote.
Travis, we've been through this before. I snip things as a courtesy, so
that people don't have to plow through the same posts burried multiple
layers deep.
I did not make the claim you said I did.
> Youy had something to the effect that you thought browne was going
>to bring the LP up a little bit, but instead he disappointed you.
Yes, in 1996, although "disappoint" isn't the correct word.
I did not make the claim you said I did. In fact, I took a few moments of
my busy day to post the actual numbers. Since you are congenitially
unable to perform an act of this nature, perhaps you're just a little
disoriented.
> By the
>loos of it he nearly doubled the turnout.
>
>>1996: 485,798 0.50%
>>1992: 291,627 0.28%
>>1988: 432,179 0.47%
>>1984: 228,314 0.24%
>>1980: 921,299 1.06%
>>1976: no data
>>1972: 3,673 0.00%
>>
>>In 1972, John Hospers "officially" finished third because he got one
>>electoral vote. I've heard that Agnew nearly dumped in his drawers when
>>the vote was announced in Congress, which may be the most valuable service
>>ever performed by the Libertarian Party.
>>
>>One of the votes in 1980 was mine. I guess they don't make Libertarians
>>like Ed Clark anymore.
>>
>>Using those powerful analytical and mathematical skills you picked up at
>>the University of Washington, what trend do you see in these numbers?
>Well from 92 to 96 I see a sharp increase which shows harry brone was good
>for the party despite what you claim.
Brilliant. Take two points, ignore all others, and draw a trendline.
It's a good thing that you never embarassed yourself by enrolling in
graduate school.
BTW, stop lying about what I claimed.
Eric da Red
>><...>
>>
>>> >Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard
>>> >of a philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with
>>> >libertarian ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that
>>> >it describes very few Americans.
>>>
>>> I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
>>> supports them. And the answer is very few.
>>Another assertion you can't support. Your hiatus hasn't changed you a bit.
>You have claimed one thing. I have claimed the opposite. I have not
>attempted to prove anything. I have however explained why I would
>probably be more credible of a sourece in this issue.
How exactly does membership in the LP give you an enhanced perspective on
the perceptions of non-LP voters? A better source of data would be to ask
non-LP voters themselves if they are aware of the LP and what they know
about it.
We can also examine the information sources available. You have claimed
that there are more LP candidates on ballots than any other third party.
This implies that people in these districts are at least familiar with the
name "libertarian."
Here in the Evergreen State there have been LP candidates on the ballot
during every major election and most state-and-local-only elections.
This qualified the LP to include a statement of principles and positions
in the Voter's Guide, distributed free to everyone.
There have been numerous articles describing the popularity of
libertarianism among techno-geeks, especially in places like Silicon
Valley. The popularity of Browne in on-line polls in 1996 is a symptom of
this.
We can look at the strength of LP candidates in 1980; presumably many of
those voters are still alive and remain aware of the LP.
There is also the listenership of libertarian-oriented talk radio shows.
Harry Browne himself is a best-selling author and made many appearances on
mainstream TV and radio shows both before and after his commitment to LP
politics.
Quite an impressive array of information sources, really. It undercuts
the conclusion that the lack of strength of the LP at the national level
is due to lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.
> Until you can
>explain why your opinion might be more accurate than mine, or until you
>can give some objective facts showing otherwise, I do not have to say
>anything more.
A brief sketch of my reasoning is shown above.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
...
>>>perhaps the antional telivision commercials he has had running the last
>>>month will affect your prediction.
>>
>>Probably not, since LP ads in the past seemed to have no impact on the
>>results.
>that is right advertising means nothing I forgot. Everyone already knows
>about the LP and its ideas I forgot.
Apparently, there is no declarative sentence so simple and precise that
you can't screw up its meaning.
Some things never change.
>>> Or the fact that party memberhip has
>>>increased dramatically since last election.
>>
>>It increased "dramatically" before the 1996 election, too.
>Actaully the increase has not come immedatly before this election. It was
>a steady climb over the last four years.
>>> Or perhaps the fact that he
>>>has already raised more money this election than he did the whole campaign
>>>last time.
>>
>>That might help. This is America, after all, and it's money that matters.
>Why do you think money will help but advertising will not.
That's not what I think. I pointed out above that LP ads in the past
seemed to have no impact on the results.
With enough money, the LP might reverse this trend, but I suspect that it
will take a LOT of money.
> What do you
>think the money is used for?
>
>>One factor that could help Browne and other non-major party candidates is
>>that the public this year seems unusually uninvolved, perhaps because they
>>realize the relatively small differences between Gore and the Shrub.
>This is true most every election.
It is MORE true in this election.
> The people seem to be cathcing on about
>this this year however.
>>
>>> I would suggest you reevaluate your position.
>>
>>Here's my prediction: Browne will get 0.8% of the national vote. What is
>>your prediction?
>
>I would guess 1-2%. But it depends alot on how the press reacts in the
>next few months.
M. Simon
wrote:
>In article <399e41cc...@news.xta.com>, M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:59:25 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>...
>
>>>>What you need to look at is the growth of the party at the local
>>>>level.
>>>
>>>1. Actually, I don't "need" to do anything.
>>>
>>>2. I've already pointed out that there are different ways to interpret a
>>>word like "largest" (as in "third largest"), just as there are several
>>>valid answers to the question "what is the largest state in the USA?" In
>>>addition, I've offered a brief rationale for my preference for using
>>>national vote totals.
>>>
>>>This is considerably different that the libertarian approach in this
>>>thread, which is to pick the metric most favorable to their viewpoint.
>
>>>> We gained another Libertarian in office last night when a
>>>>Libertarian was appointed to the a local library board to fill an
>>>>unexpired term. He runs for re-election in April.
>>>
>>>Today the library, tomorrow ... the park district!
>
>>It has a 30 million a year budget.
>
>Looter.
This is always a problem.
But government will not be wiped out overnight.
At the present time I am content to take slices.
>>You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
>>minors.
>
>Or, you can spend all your time in the minors and never get called up.
>
>Can you think of any political party in US history that worked its way up
>from minor local offices to national influence?
The Libertarian Party.
Our sentiments are popular.
>>Be patient. We are moving up.
>
>New decade, same song.
More results.
Carla Howell is running a $400,000 campaign against Ted Kennedy.
Of the 24% of the electorate that has heard of her 2/3 or 16% are
going to vote for her.
If she maintains that conversion rate and gets 77% recognition Ted
Kennedy loses.
>>>>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>>>>certainly will be more libertarians.
>>>
>>>I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
>>>figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
>>>to that of other parties?
>>
>>Candidates in office.
>
>The figures ... ?
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/congress/
These are just the 278 candidates for the House and the Senate.
We are contesting 256 house seats (more than 1/2) and 22 Senate Seats
(are there 33 or 34 up for election?)
I'm not sure if this has ever been done before by a third party.
>>>In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
>>>of growth.
>>
>>Other parties may get more national votes.
>
>And they do.
>
>
>>There are more Libertarians in office than all the other third parties
>>combined.
>
>Ok. The LP is the major force among minor parties in unpaid advisory
>electoral offices.
>
>Wow. Reminds me of a comic I heard in a Reno lounge, who billed himself
>as "America's slowest rising young comedian."
>
>
>>>>In my local area the newspaper recognized that no bond issues could be
>>>>passed without the approval of the Libertarian Party of Rockford
>>>>Illinois. And said so in a news article and an editorial.
>>>
>>>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why did they reach that opinion?
>
>>Because we get out the vote and have elected candidates to the school
>>board (250 million a year) and have defeated other taxes and bond
>>issues. ie. precious results.
>
>Is there something more substantial than this opinion?
No. We have them completely fooled with smoke and mirrors.
We plan to extend this to a national scale.
>>And we are growing in power locally.
>>
>>>>We are building a thousand farm teams. Some are succeding.
>>>>
>>>>For the time being the national campaign is mostly pro-forma. Worth
>>>>the effort to keep our hands in but not critical.
>>>>
>>>>The real strength of the party is the local clubs.
>>>
>>>Which is just what I heard during my membership in the LP in the mid-70's.
>>
>>We are running 2000 candidates this year and already have over 200
>>Libertarians in office.
>>
>>And 33,000 members this year vs 10,000 four years ago.
>>
>>I have seen the advance in our locality.
>>
>>There is no rush. The trends are in the right direction.
>
>We all know how reliable trends are among measurable human action. Just
>ask anyone heavily invested in tech stocks in March, 2000.
Just ask anyone invested in Intel in the last ten years.
Or are you a day trade promoter?
As I said there is no rush. We are pursuing a Viet Cong strategy. We
will keep coming back till we win.
As my friend Winnie has said:
We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds.
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in
the hills. We shall never surrender!"
- Winston Churchill, to the House of Commons on Dunkirk, 4 June 1940.
Eric da Red
>>In any case, the claim that started this thread was about size, not rates
>>of growth.
>
>No... I beleive the claim at the begining of this thread was that Harry
>Browne has the balls to actually say things that many of the democrats and
>republicans would like to hear their candidates say.
This complete misreading of the thread into a topic on which you feel
comformtable is an example of why intelligent discourse with you remains
impossible.
Bye for now.
Eric da Red
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:03:44 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
...
>>>You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
>>>minors.
>>
>>Or, you can spend all your time in the minors and never get called up.
>>
>>Can you think of any political party in US history that worked its way up
>>from minor local offices to national influence?
>
>The Libertarian Party.
Can you think of an example that doesn't involve a circular argument?
>Our sentiments are popular.
>
>>>Be patient. We are moving up.
>>
>>New decade, same song.
>
>More results.
>
>Carla Howell is running a $400,000 campaign against Ted Kennedy.
>
>Of the 24% of the electorate that has heard of her 2/3 or 16% are
>going to vote for her.
I shall keep this in mind.
>If she maintains that conversion rate and gets 77% recognition Ted
>Kennedy loses.
You must be drawing upon a novel meaning of "lose."
>>>>>There may be a Libertarian in congress after this election. There
>>>>>certainly will be more libertarians.
>>>>
>>>>I spent a few moments digging up figures behind my opinion. What are the
>>>>figures showing that the growth of the LP at the local level is superior
>>>>to that of other parties?
>>>
>>>Candidates in office.
>>
>>The figures ... ?
>
>http://www.lp.org/campaigns/congress/
Thanks.
Note to Travis: See? You CAN be a libertarian and still offer citations
to support your opinions.
>These are just the 278 candidates for the House and the Senate.
>
>We are contesting 256 house seats (more than 1/2) and 22 Senate Seats
>(are there 33 or 34 up for election?)
>
>I'm not sure if this has ever been done before by a third party.
Certainly not in recent decades.
Travis Pahl
>In article <39a26e11...@news.xta.com>, M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:03:44 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>>You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
>>>>minors.
>>>
>>>Or, you can spend all your time in the minors and never get called up.
>>>
>>>Can you think of any political party in US history that worked its way up
>>>from minor local offices to national influence?
>>
>>The Libertarian Party.
>
>Can you think of an example that doesn't involve a circular argument?
>
it is not circular. It would be circular if I was trying to prove that
the LP COULD build up from localelections to the point of influencing
national things. However that is not my arguement. My arguement is that
they HAVE done so. To use other minor parties as proof oif something the
LP has DONE would be pointless.
>
>>These are just the 278 candidates for the House and the Senate.
>>
>>We are contesting 256 house seats (more than 1/2) and 22 Senate Seats
>>(are there 33 or 34 up for election?)
>>
>>I'm not sure if this has ever been done before by a third party.
>
>Certainly not in recent decades.
>
the last two do it were the communists some time in the thrities i
bleieve.
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000819...@dante17.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000816...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>
>>>>I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
>>>>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>>I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
>>>here are the LP vote counts:
>>
>>Actually you did. Otherwise you would not have erased what you
>>wrote.
>
>Travis, we've been through this before. I snip things as a courtesy, so
>that people don't have to plow through the same posts burried multiple
>layers deep.
And when you would rather not have them read something that shows you are
lying.
>I did not make the claim you said I did.
unfortunatly I am having some problems with Dejanews right now. but i am
fairly sure you did.
Well during my education i was told to ignore points that have nothing to
do with the current trend. You will often find that different functions
control the trend curve at different intervals. In the particular trend
being discussed, what happened in the 70's 80's and early 90's has nothing
to do with the the trend right now. They are in fact negligble components
of the equation representing the intervval of the line we are at right
now.
>BTW, stop lying about what I claimed.
>I will look again later to prove that you were lying not I.
travis
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000819...@dante27.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Clave wrote:
>...
>
>>><...>
>>>
>>>> >Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard
>>>> >of a philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with
>>>> >libertarian ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that
>>>> >it describes very few Americans.
>>>>
>>>> I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
>>>> supports them. And the answer is very few.
>
>>>Another assertion you can't support. Your hiatus hasn't changed you a bit.
>
>>You have claimed one thing. I have claimed the opposite. I have not
>>attempted to prove anything. I have however explained why I would
>>probably be more credible of a sourece in this issue.
>
>How exactly does membership in the LP give you an enhanced perspective on
>the perceptions of non-LP voters? A better source of data would be to ask
>non-LP voters themselves if they are aware of the LP and what they know
>about it.
I explained how I am better equipped than YOU. not better than
everyone. And I am in fact better equipped to give a more valid opinion
on this matter for the precise reason you just mentioned. i have asked
and talked to many non-LP voters about libertarianism. I feel that as an
active libertarain that likes to recruit others, i have probably done more
of this than you a non LP-voting person.
>We can also examine the information sources available. You have claimed
>that there are more LP candidates on ballots than any other third party.
>This implies that people in these districts are at least familiar with the
>name "libertarian."
It implies that they are enough people to get teh person on the ballot in
more places than other third parties. It by no means means that a lot of
people are familiar with the LP.
>Here in the Evergreen State there have been LP candidates on the ballot
>during every major election and most state-and-local-only elections.
>This qualified the LP to include a statement of principles and positions
>in the Voter's Guide, distributed free to everyone.
>There have been numerous articles describing the popularity of
>libertarianism among techno-geeks, especially in places like Silicon
>Valley. The popularity of Browne in on-line polls in 1996 is a symptom of
>this.
>We can look at the strength of LP candidates in 1980; presumably many of
>those voters are still alive and remain aware of the LP.
>
>There is also the listenership of libertarian-oriented talk radio shows.
>Harry Browne himself is a best-selling author and made many appearances on
>mainstream TV and radio shows both before and after his commitment to LP
>politics.
>
>Quite an impressive array of information sources, really. It undercuts
>the conclusion that the lack of strength of the LP at the national level
>is due to lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.
>
It really does not show much since most people have ignored most of this.
>> Until you can
>>explain why your opinion might be more accurate than mine, or until you
>>can give some objective facts showing otherwise, I do not have to say
>>anything more.
>
>A brief sketch of my reasoning is shown above.
You have not shown how your opinion is more accurate. Instead you have
tried to show that people have heard of libertarainism. That does not
make you anymore credible.
Travis Pahl
decision for ourselves.
'...to believe that Congress can raise the standard of
living for working Americans by simply forcing employers
to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to
claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a
law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.'
- Rep. Ron Paul 3/9/00
Travis Pahl
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>In article <39a26e11...@news.xta.com>, M. Simon <msi...@xta.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:03:44 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>>You don't pitch major league ball without spending your time in the
>>>>>minors.
>>>>
>>>>Or, you can spend all your time in the minors and never get called up.
>>>>
>>>>Can you think of any political party in US history that worked its way up
>>>>from minor local offices to national influence?
>>>
>>>The Libertarian Party.
>>
>>Can you think of an example that doesn't involve a circular argument?
>it is not circular. It would be circular if I was trying to prove that
>the LP COULD build up from localelections to the point of influencing
>national things. However that is not my arguement. My arguement is that
>they HAVE done so.
Except that they haven't.
In 1972, the LP candidate got an actual electoral vote.
In 1980, the LP Presidential candidate got the highest national vote
percentage in its history. That was 20 years ago.
The LP started out big on the national level, and (according to you and
several other posters) is now getting more powerful at the local level.
This is exactly opposite of working up from local offices to achieve
national influence.
If the LP is a powerful national force in 20 years because of its labors
at the local level today, you will be right and I will be wrong. I asked
for a US party that has ever achieved national success by following this
path and you gave the incorrect answer of the LP. In fact, this model has
never happened in the US, so if the LP makes it work, it will be a US
first.
--
ShrubJoke Of The Week: "Do you realize that if, God forbid, anything
should happen to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush would be President?" --
Mark Russell.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Why don't you repost the first post to this thread for us all to make that
>decision for ourselves.
Lazy and evasive as ever, aren't you?
Eric da Red
>>>>> >Do you mean "haven't heard of the Libertarian Party", "haven't heard
>>>>> >of a philosophy called 'libertarianism'", or "are not familiar with
>>>>> >libertarian ideas?" If it's the latter, you'll probably find that
>>>>> >it describes very few Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean familiar with libertarian ideas and aware of the party that
>>>>> supports them. And the answer is very few.
>>
>>>>Another assertion you can't support. Your hiatus hasn't changed you a bit.
>>
>>>You have claimed one thing. I have claimed the opposite. I have not
>>>attempted to prove anything. I have however explained why I would
>>>probably be more credible of a sourece in this issue.
>>
>>How exactly does membership in the LP give you an enhanced perspective on
>>the perceptions of non-LP voters? A better source of data would be to ask
>>non-LP voters themselves if they are aware of the LP and what they know
>>about it.
>I explained how I am better equipped than YOU. not better than
>everyone.
No, you just claimed it. You didn't explain how or why.
> And I am in fact better equipped to give a more valid opinion
>on this matter for the precise reason you just mentioned. i have asked
>and talked to many non-LP voters about libertarianism.
So have I, both during my sojourn in the LP and afterwards. In fact, I've
discussed this topic with people for almost 30 years.
In the Battle Of Anecdotes, I have more scars than you do.
> I feel that as an
>active libertarain that likes to recruit others, i have probably done more
>of this than you a non LP-voting person.
You are wrong.
>>We can also examine the information sources available. You have claimed
>>that there are more LP candidates on ballots than any other third party.
>>This implies that people in these districts are at least familiar with the
>>name "libertarian."
>
>It implies that they are enough people to get teh person on the ballot in
>more places than other third parties. It by no means means that a lot of
>people are familiar with the LP.
Your belief rests on a premise that people will see a candidate labeled
"Libertarian" on the ballot and have no curiosity to learn what that means
or what the candidate stands for. While there are certainly many
unintelligent and uninterested voters, there are also many who take their
civic responsiblities seriously and attempt to find out what's going on.
>>Here in the Evergreen State there have been LP candidates on the ballot
>>during every major election and most state-and-local-only elections.
>>This qualified the LP to include a statement of principles and positions
>>in the Voter's Guide, distributed free to everyone.
>
>>There have been numerous articles describing the popularity of
>>libertarianism among techno-geeks, especially in places like Silicon
>>Valley. The popularity of Browne in on-line polls in 1996 is a symptom of
>>this.
>
>>We can look at the strength of LP candidates in 1980; presumably many of
>>those voters are still alive and remain aware of the LP.
>>
>>There is also the listenership of libertarian-oriented talk radio shows.
>>Harry Browne himself is a best-selling author and made many appearances on
>>mainstream TV and radio shows both before and after his commitment to LP
>>politics.
>>
>>Quite an impressive array of information sources, really. It undercuts
>>the conclusion that the lack of strength of the LP at the national level
>>is due to lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.
>It really does not show much since most people have ignored most of this.
There you go again.
I listed five objective reasons to support my opinion that people are not
ignorant of the LP or its positions:
1. The presence of LP candidates on ballots.
2. Statements by LP candidates in voter's guides.
3. Articles about techno-geek libertarianism.
4. Past votes for LP candidates, such as the 1980 election.
5. The popularity of Harry Browne outside of LP circles.
There are other sources of info available to the public, like campaign
ads, libertarian editorialists and pundits, appearances of LP
spokespersons on talk radio and TV, etc., but I thought five easily
verified examples would be sufficient.
You reply, with no empirical basis whatsoever, that people ignored these
sources of information.
Your opinion rests solely on your personal experience. My personal
experience, gained over a much longer time, cancels out yours.
Game over.
Feel free to have the last word.
>>> Until you can
>>>explain why your opinion might be more accurate than mine, or until you
>>>can give some objective facts showing otherwise, I do not have to say
>>>anything more.
>>
>>A brief sketch of my reasoning is shown above.
>You have not shown how your opinion is more accurate. Instead you have
>tried to show that people have heard of libertarainism. That does not
>make you anymore credible.
I'm perfectly willing for the unfortunate folks still reading this thread
to contrast my reasoning with yours and choose the argument that they find
to be better supported.
Eric da Red
>>>>>I am pretty sure he got more votes than the LP candidate the election
>>>>>before. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think I made any claim to the contrary. But, just to help us out,
>>>>here are the LP vote counts:
>>>
>>>Actually you did. Otherwise you would not have erased what you
>>>wrote.
>>
>>Travis, we've been through this before. I snip things as a courtesy, so
>>that people don't have to plow through the same posts burried multiple
>>layers deep.
>And when you would rather not have them read something that shows you are
>lying.
deja works fine, so anyone who thinks I'm mistakenly snipping crucial
elements of threads, especially to hide information, can retrieve the
posts and demonstrate my duplicity.
In the meantime, it appears that your departure from the Evergreen State
did not improve your understanding of the concept of "lying."
>>I did not make the claim you said I did.
>
>unfortunatly I am having some problems with Dejanews right now. but i am
>fairly sure you did.
So you have no reason to accuse me of lying.
Your apology will be graciously accepted.
Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
Unless there's a solid empirical reason to toss out data points (such as
known flaws in the sampling technique), you have to use all the points.
Skipping over data, especially data that work against your opinion, is not
acceptable.
> You will often find that different functions
>control the trend curve at different intervals. In the particular trend
>being discussed, what happened in the 70's 80's and early 90's has nothing
>to do with the the trend right now.
Why not? Please be specific.
> They are in fact negligble components
>of the equation representing the intervval of the line we are at right
>now.
What factors make them negligible? Please be specific.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
...
(normal bilge deleted, except for ...)
...
>>Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
>>if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
>
>Yeah i guess it is. You would not seem to be able to handle it very
>well. Of course this is not taught in statistics since statistics has
>very little to do with finding trendlines.
Priceless. Do you want me to include your name when I use this in a
future .signature file?
Bill Bonde
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.A41.4.21.000904...@dante28.u.washington.edu>,
> Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
> ...
>
> (normal bilge deleted, except for ...)
> ...
>
> >>Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
> >>if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
> >
> >Yeah i guess it is. You would not seem to be able to handle it very
> >well. Of course this is not taught in statistics since statistics has
> >very little to do with finding trendlines.
>
> Priceless. Do you want me to include your name when I use this in a
> future .signature file?
>
He's tricking you again. The goal is to dilute your .sigs that attack
Dr. Laura and George W. Bush.
Eric da Red
Like Travis can think that far into the future.
It's less than two months until the election, and I'll be needing new sig
material by then.
Bill Bonde
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <39B95E8C...@mail.com>, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> ><Pine.A41.4.21.000904...@dante28.u.washington.edu>,
> >> Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Eric da Red wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> (normal bilge deleted, except for ...)
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >>Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
> >> >>if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah i guess it is. You would not seem to be able to handle it very
> >> >well. Of course this is not taught in statistics since statistics has
> >> >very little to do with finding trendlines.
> >>
> >> Priceless. Do you want me to include your name when I use this in a
> >> future .signature file?
>
> >He's tricking you again. The goal is to dilute your .sigs that attack
> >Dr. Laura and George W. Bush.
>
> Like Travis can think that far into the future.
>
> It's less than two months until the election, and I'll be needing new sig
> material by then.
>
Why don't you just use stuff from you own posts?
Eric da Red
>> >> (normal bilge deleted, except for ...)
>> >> >>Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
>> >> >>if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah i guess it is. You would not seem to be able to handle it very
>> >> >well. Of course this is not taught in statistics since statistics has
>> >> >very little to do with finding trendlines.
>> >>
>> >> Priceless. Do you want me to include your name when I use this in a
>> >> future .signature file?
>>
>> >He's tricking you again. The goal is to dilute your .sigs that attack
>> >Dr. Laura and George W. Bush.
>>
>> Like Travis can think that far into the future.
>>
>> It's less than two months until the election, and I'll be needing new sig
>> material by then.
>Why don't you just use stuff from you own posts?
Sometimes I do.
You really aren't paying attention, are you?
--
ShrubQuote Of The Week: "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold
this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile."
Bill Bonde
Eric da Red wrote:
>
> In article <39B96646...@mail.com>, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> ...
>
> >> >> (normal bilge deleted, except for ...)
>
> >> >> >>Wow. I'm glad that I didn't study statistics in the engineering school,
> >> >> >>if this is the sort of thing that's taught there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yeah i guess it is. You would not seem to be able to handle it very
> >> >> >well. Of course this is not taught in statistics since statistics has
> >> >> >very little to do with finding trendlines.
> >> >>
> >> >> Priceless. Do you want me to include your name when I use this in a
> >> >> future .signature file?
> >>
> >> >He's tricking you again. The goal is to dilute your .sigs that attack
> >> >Dr. Laura and George W. Bush.
> >>
> >> Like Travis can think that far into the future.
> >>
> >> It's less than two months until the election, and I'll be needing new sig
> >> material by then.
>
> >Why don't you just use stuff from you own posts?
>
> Sometimes I do.
>
There's plenty of silly material there for you to use.
> You really aren't paying attention, are you?
>
Sure, I am.