On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:42:36 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > > >> There was no scandal about the enrolled Democrat who was the Democratic > >> organization's preference for the nomination. Their organization put > >> most > >> of their campaign effort into primaries for other offices, so John > >> Wilson > >> out-campaigned them. > > >And the opponents name? > > Damned if I can remember. Try looking it up.
I did. Can't find it. Whoever it was must of ran a hell of a campaign to have it all but disappear from the web in a months time! > >> It is believed that voters also might have thought he > >> was black. Remember, as Jeff Friedman pointed out, more people vote for > >> ethnic reasons than ideologic ones, so why think you can win more voters > >> by > >> the right ideology? You win by campaigning more vigorously (effort & > >> money), and having candidates who are more attractive FOR WHATEVER > >> REASON. > > >So after argueing that your candidate is from the conservative party > >and is going to influence the election and all that, you now admt it > >is because people thought he was black? Wow. > > So, what's your problem? My problem is you are continually trying to argue that it is worthless to spend any effort on the LP, that instead we should work with the Republican and Conservative parties because that is where they can get elected and then you use an example a man who got elected in your opinion because people thought he was black and ran as a Democrat. What does that have to do with him being a Conservative party member? > >> Wilson's win shows you can win a party's nomination despite the overall > >> ideology of that party being against you. If an ideologic > >> "conservative" > >> can do it, so can ideologic libertarians. And being on the Democrat's > >> line, he'll be the winner for sure in Nov. (I think the Republican line > >> is > >> blank, or they may have cross-endorsed him, I forgot.) > > >I still fail to see how this shows Conservative party influence. > > I didn't say that one was an example of Conservative Party influence per > se. What I'm showing is that you can be conservative (this is why the > capitalization is important -- not no capital there) and win the Democrats' > nomination. And you were telling me this in response to me asking you how your influencing the Conservative party has been helpful. The candidate appears to have already supported medical marijuana before you ever spoke to them in the Conservative party, is going to win the election because he is a Democrat and got the Democrat nomination because in your opinion people thought he was black. If all you are telling me is that a conservative can win the Democrat nomination, fine. But do not tell me this when I ask "Yeah, you may have influenced [the Conservative Party]. What good has it done?" Because I being the young naive person that I am will assume when I ask that question, that your response will have something to do with my question. > You keep writing that things that I write don't demonstrate X, when they > were never intended by me to demonstrate X, but rather to demonstrate Y. You keep making claims X and when I askl for you to prove it you demonstrate Y. When I point out that Y!=X you seem to get upset. > > > He > >is going to be elected because he has the word DEMOCRAT written next > >to his name. He will be elected as a DEMOCRAT. > > No, he'll be elected as a Conservative enrollee with the Democratic & > Conservative nominations (and possibly those of some other parties, I > forgot). Call it what you want, Which line do you think will all his votes be from? What letter do you think will be next to his name in the papers? What Party leaders do you thhink he will listen to? > > And you are trying to > >convince me to vote for Bush so that a DEMOCRAT does not get elected. > >How does this story help? > > No, I specifically said the contrary -- that you need to pay attention to > the candidates and the races one at a time. I didn't say it was important > not to have any Democrat elected president -- just not THIS Democrat as > opposed to this Republican. I also wrote that at this time, it would be > better to have more Republicans in Congress. You did not say the contrary. You said something slightly more specific but certainly not contrary. You want people to vote for Bush so Kerry does not get elected and in argueing this, I ask you why you support republicans who have been increasing governent. You then respond that you are not a Republican but actually a member of the conservative party. I ask how this has helped decrease government and you respond that you influenced this guy who is going to be elected soon. Yet he is a Democrat. Now you are saying oh... it is important to look at the individuals. That is what I have said from the begining! Look at both Bush and Kerry. They both have HORRIBLE records when it comes to limiting the size and scope of government. > Anyway, the individual makes the difference. Steve Kaufman's an enrolled > Democrat, but I support him for the state senate. Good for you. He is also running as a conservative and Republican and according to SCOPE (http://www.scopeny.org/ARCHIVES/SCOPE_Canidate_Ratings_2004.pdf) he is as bad as you can get on gun rights. It is good to know that you are supporting gun grabbers in your fight for freedom. Guns just happened to be the issue I remember knowing where to go to get candidate ratings. I am sure is not too good on other issues too, but do not feel like looking for more organizations ratings. > > ANd you are trying to convnice me that the > >Conservative party is important when you even admit that he could not > >get one single vote from your party line and still get elected. > > When did I ever write that it was impossible to get elected in NY without > the Conservative nomination? When did I ever claim that you did? All I am saying is that the conservative party has nothing to do with this guy getting elected, yet when I asked you how you being in and influencing the Conservative party has helped in our fight for freedom you answered with this guys story. > > How > >has being a member of the conservative party had one bit of difference > >in this election? > > I NEVER SAID IT DID!! Technically no, I suppose you have not. But you did respond with this guys story when I asked how your influence in the conservative party is important. I just figured you would actually respond with a relevant answer. Now you seem to be claiming that your answer had nothing to do with my question. I am sorry I thought the two were related. > I described his background (colleague on the county > executive committee of the Conservative Party) just to show that I know him > well and can vouch for his goodness. Thanks for vouching for this guys goodness. Now tell me why I should care who this guy is or whether he is good or not. I certainly never asked for such a story. What I asked was, "you may have influenced [the Conservative Party]. What good has it done?" When you are ready to tell me, let me know. > >Name a political organization that has been successful in reducing the > >size and scope of government through the Rs and Ds. > > A bunch of organizations got the draft abolished that way. When you turn 18 you still get sent a postcard demanding you register for the draft. They are not actively calling kids up right now, but it is not abolished. There just has not been a need for it lately, but that may soon change as well. Have any other examples? Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
