On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:38:46 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part:
> >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? > > Nothing. It has to do with the fact that he ran AS A DEMOCRAT. So what does that have to do with your influence in the conservative party? And if has nothing to do with it, then why did you answer with his story when I asked you what importance your influence in the Conservative party had? > Had he run > only as a Libertarian, he'd have no chance in the gen'l election, but now > he has no major opposition. (I forgot whether he also got the Republican > nomination or their line is blank. Working Families I don't know about. > You can go back to the URL above and it'll probably be there.) RUN IN > LARGER PARTIES. So I guess I will go back to square one... why are you in the conservative party if that is you big message? > >> 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. > > But that was only part of a thread about political effectiveness. Yeah from a big picture that was what we were discussing, but you had in that thread mentioned how you were not a Republican but instead a Conservative. If people are going to listen to you, they are going to have to see that you follow what you preach. So again, how is being a Conservative party member effective politically? > > The candidate > >appears to have already supported medical marijuana before you ever > >spoke to them in the Conservative party, > > How would you know that? We've sat together on the executive committee for > years, and I knew him as an activist in the Conservative Party before that. > The entire executive committee voted in favor of NYC's gov't adopting a > resolution in favor of a more effective medical marijuana law than NY's > existing one. During the time I've been involved with the Bronx > Conservative Party (since 1981), I've seen attitudes of the activists > change on drug policy. There's considerable sympathy now for less punitive > measures being imposed on drug users, for instance. I suspect my presence > has caused some of my thinking to rub off, because the state Conservative > Party is still in the punitive mindset and opposed to med mj. So we need > more libertarians to be active in the Conservative Party all over the > state. Hell, we need more libertarians in ALL parties in ALL states & > countries! Sorry, I had not know you had been active for 20+ years in that party. From your previous posts I had the impression that you had been active in the LP for a long time and that is how you gained the experience to tell everyone it was not worth our time. > I also think it possible that had attitudes about marijuana not changed on > the executive committee, someone other than John Wilson might have been > nominated by us, and we might not have encouraged him to seek the > Democratic nomination, or to run at all. So I think John Wilson is going > to be a judge partly because of me. (I helped with his campaign in more > direct ways too.) I am betting that had the Conservitive party not existed the next democrat chalenger to this march whiten guy would have proposed more liberal marijuana laws as well. It is pervasive idea throughout the democrat party. I do not see how you convincing a Conservative party member with that beleif to run as a democrat really changes things. I tried to find some info on that marc whiten guy and could not find anything but I would not be surprised if he too has the same views as your freind. > >> > 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, > > Damn it, use language with precision! > > Which line do you think will all his votes be > >from? > > None. However, I do think MOST (or at least a plurality) of his votes will > come on the Democrat line because that's what most voters pull around here. So you admit that the Democrats in the area are chosing the Democrat on the ballot and yet you think this is a victory for the Conservative Party? Sure he is enrolled in your party. What the hell does that mean? Nothing. > > What letter do you think will be next to his name in the > >papers? > > Once he's elected, "(C)". That's how the media abbreviate the enrollment > status of office holders. Pending the election, "(D,C)" or "(R,D,C)" (I > don't remember how the R line is -- maybe even "(R,D,I,C)" because I con't > remember about Independence), because that's how the media do THAT. I bet it will say D or R. But I guess we will have to wait and see. > >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. > > HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT, he's a Conservative!!!! How many times do I have to > explain that?! Do you not understand the concept of running for the > nomination of a party you don't belong to? I understand it. But the point is it is the Democrat nomination that is going to get him elected. The conservative party has no influence on him getting elected of not. > >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. > > And, since one is going to be elected, and since no other candidate is > going to make a strong enough showing to keep up momentum for the future > other than Nader, it's important that it be the less horrible. So it's > important to promote Bush and Nader and nobody else. Badnarik when polled has been just as strong as Nader and has the advantage of being supported basically because of the party not the name unlike Nader who is getting old and will probably not run again. > >> 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 > > He ran for the Republican nomination, but lost the primary to Fleming. He > beat Fleming in the Conservative primary, partly due to my effort. The point is the conservative party nomination is pointless. The fact that you supported him as a democrat is pointless too because you are really supporting him because he is a Conservative party nominee. > > 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. > > Yes, but that's because he was voting with the Democratic majority in the > Assembly. He plans to vote with the Republican majority in the senate. So he has no idealogy and just votes party line and even then he changes what party line he votes for? Wow what a winner. And you support this guy? ha! > As you should know, most of the important votes in the NY & NJ legislature > (committee & floor) are highly controlled by the party leadership, so it's > almost impossible to tell differences among Democrats & differences among > Republicans by their votes in the legislature. That's why you need to get > to know them individually. What I know is that politicians in NY and the NE in general are slimier and have less convictions than elsewhere in the country. Libertarians in NY are the opposite. > Unfortunately most committee meetings, at which you might get a better > chance of seeing the influence of individual legislators, are closed. > > >> > 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? > > ABOVE!! "[H]e could not get one single vote from your party line and still > get elected." You seem to say that the only way the Conservative Party > could be important would be if nobody could get elected without some votes > on its line. I am saying that the Conservative party votes are not important to him getting elected. That is not even close to saying that you beleive it is impossible to get elected without their support. You exagerate. My point is the conservative party is a minor party that is even more worthless than the R party and LP. The LP may be small but at least it represents a different idealogy than the major parties. The republican party may promote big government, but at least it is in power and gets candidates elected. The conservative party has no seperate ideas from the R and D parties, but has no influence on the election. If the did not exist politics in NY would be exactly the same. The same can not be said for the LP even if their effects are small, they at least effect things slightly and have a set of ideas different from the establishment. > > > All I am saying is that the > >conservative party has nothing to do with this guy getting elected, > > We got to know him over the years, gave him political experience, helped > him make connections, and encouraged him to run. That's a more useful than > the experience people get in the Libertarian Party. Not true. It too has gave people politcal exp. help make connections, and encouraged people to run. In addition it has actually stood up against big government. Something I rarely if ever see/saw from the Conservative party. > >> 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. > > Don't you want good guys, rather than bad guys, in office? Sure I want good guys. But I do not want to hear about every single one when I am trying to get information about something completly unrelated. Also your endorsement that he is good means little to me because of other people you have endorsed as good and worthy of a vote that I strongly disagree with. > If you had a > case before a judge, would you want the judge to be one of the types the > regular Democratic organization usually favors? No. Nor would I want one that the Conservative Party organization usually favors. Or one that the Republican party organization normally favors. > Otherwise, what's the point of politics? If you don't care to know > anything about the candidates, what's the use? I care to know about candidates but not neccearily civil court judges in the bronx when I live in seattle. I also would rather get answers to my qquestions rather than stories about judicial candidates. > >> >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. > > Actually, even Selective Service REGISTRATION was abolished for several > years during the 1970s. But you're trying to make mincemenat of the words > again. The draft was abolished, and there's still no draft -- hasn't been > for over 30 years, after over 30 years og their having been one. Do you think it was organization working through the parties that stopped the government from drafting people, or the end of the veitnam war? > > There just has not been a need for it lately, > >but that may soon change as well. > > So? Slavery was abolished, but that could come back too; it was > re-instituted in Equatorial Guinea in the 1970s, for instance. Burning > witches was abolished (gradually, BTW), but that could always be > re-instituted. You're asking for the impossible -- permanent change in > human affairs. That could be accomplished by only one thing -- extinction > of mankind. Arter that, no policy changes could occur. I am not asking for permanent change to human affairs. I am asking that the Selective service be abolished in its present form. As it stands now the only reason we do not have a draft is becuase there is not a strong need. That is not a victory. That is just a change in circumstances. Southern whitemen can not go round up black people and put them to work as slaves if they want. The government can round up 18-26 (i think it is 26, but not sure) year olds and send them to war. The analogy to slavery would be accurate if slavery ended not because it was oulawed in the constitution but because people stopped wanting tobaco and cotton worldwide and the slave owners just let their slaves go, but if they ever wanted to could go round up black people and put them back to work as slaves. They can not do that. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
