Posted on 12/26/2004 6:30:43 PM PST by logician2u
For some strange reason this outreach philosophy has failed to work.
Go away, is a better response to losertarians.
Mr. Muth is out of touch. To get on the November ballot in WA from now on, candidates must come in first or second in the primaries. I doubt there'll be another Losertarian on the ballot again. Refreshing.
The Lib candidate pulled from Gregoire, nor did we "lose" this race. The Dems stole it, fair and square.
If we want to win we need to have the national guard stand over the ballots on election day. That, and convince the blue collar Dems the Party no longer represents them. I would say this is a worthy project for the Reps to pursue the next two years since the Presidential race has concluded.
Good point.
The GOP is absolutely entitled to take that view, but when Libertarians do just that in a state where they have enough votes to swing the election, Republicans thereby forfeit their right to bitch about it.
Perhaps some do, but I don't think the national LP has anything on it in their platform. It's always been, as far as I can tell, a state matter, as marriage is supposed to be.
Except that before the states intervened and required blood tests, birth certificates, etc., couples were usually married in a church and their union was duly recorded in church records. The gummint could have cared less.
All that seems to have changed since the income tax began and married couples got (for a while) a financial break, thus the need to "certify" that a man and his wife are married.
Do you really think this was a deciding issue in the Washington election? Would it have been for you?
What you don't have any right at all to is respect from others.
In my opinion Libertarians are habitual losers. They've never tasted victory or success. They've never known the satisfaction of implementing policy, of making the lives of the people better, of the responsibility of governing, and the reward of a job well done.
They have always been losers and will always be losers. They know it and feel comfortable being losers. No responsibility. No chance of unintended consequences. No possibility of the people who elected them turning against them.
They don't even know the embarrassment and hurt of losing because they tell everyone beforehand that they will lose.
Usually they are losers in all their endeavors, not just politics because they won't take the risks and face the challenges that winners are willing to take.
Llibertarians have every political right in the world, and the rest of us have every right to our opinions of them.
I doubt that the Washingon LP is going to take that lying down, if the law was changed as you say.
Look for a court battle before the next election.
I actually want your party stripped of ballot access.
I think the LP's antics in states such as Washington and Ohio (especially) justifies any legal action to remove that party from election lists.
We are not a democracy, and if the GOP-controlled states have the ability to crush you like a bug, I applaud and encourage their efforts.
Or we can laugh at 'em when they come to FR demanding attention and relevance. The fact is with the election of Cantwell and Gregoire, Libertarians have indeed made themselves relevant in electing the more liberal candidate.
Now they seek succor and adulation here? No thanks.
Yes, it is a critical/important issue for me as are all moral values issues. Rossi is by far the most pro-Christian, family values candidate in this race,and I strongly suppored him.
As for the impact on this election, it appears that Gregoire lost a lot of pro-gay and lesbian votes to the Libertarian. I don't know the full politics of this issue but from what has been written and said, Gregoire didn't cater to the pro-homosexual crowd as much as did the Libertarian candidate. Perhaps assessment and impression could be clarified... Again, I just don't know.
Member of the Center for Spiritual Living and usher team leader; member/contributor to many lesbian gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) organizations, including the LGBT Community Center, Lesbian Resource Center and Lifelong AIDS Alliance; volunteer at Columbia City Cinema.Her position on marriage:
Right now, our country has about 1000 laws which give special rights to different-sex couples that are prohibited to same-sex couples. This is wrong.
I know that many voters are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals living together in loving families. But comfortable or not, it is happening, and these families deserve the same rights and protections as any other families. Just because such families don't fit in with your religious belief or world view doesn't mean that the government should be giving special rights to one segment of our society and prohibiting it to another.
I fully support the right of any religious organization to define "Holy Matrimony" in any manner it chooses. However, our government does not have the same right to discriminate. Our nation's founders fought hard to establish a clear separation of church and state because they recognized how important that separation is to the cause of liberty. In this free country of ours, when a religious group - or even a majority of people - seek to impose their religious beliefs or world view on others, we must not allow it - to do otherwise is simply wrong.
The term "civil" refers to things done by a government or non-religious entity. Therefore, I support "civil unions" for everyone. If marriage is a good thing, why would anyone want to limit letting others participate? Marriage has been an evolving institution throughout history. Allowing same-sex partners to marry is just another little step in that evolution.
Your opinion is valuable, just like everyone else's.
Opinions have a way of changing as events unfold. Remember, for example, what happened April 10, 1993? I do, very well. And my opinion, based on the scant facts made available to me in the mainstream press, was at the time, "they deserved what they got."
A few months later, after seeing some alternative views, my opinion changed. Perhaps yours did too.
Most Americans don't have an opinion of the Libertarian Party, as most Americans have never seen a living, breathing Libertarian on the tube unless it was an actor or a comedian or a magician or maybe an athlete or something -- certainly no one on the talking heads shows or the nightly news or the other places where Republicans, Democrats and Ralph Nader get their views out to the public.
BTW, since you are one of those FReepers whose ideas on immigration are somewhat congruent with the LP's, maybe you'll appreciate the difficulty libertarian-leaning Republicans have as that party drifts more and more toward authoritarianism. National ID card? Sure, if it will put a stop to illegal immigration.
Some may have libertarian tendencies but they are not self-identified losers like members of the Libertarian Party.
Have you ever expected to win an election? Do you ever expect to in the future? A loser who feels smug about losing is still a loser.
PS. You shouldn't feel bad about being labeled a loser since you intentionally chose that role.
I think the LP's antics in states such as Washington and Ohio (especially) justifies any legal action to remove that party from election lists.
We are not a democracy, and if the GOP-controlled states have the ability to crush you like a bug, I applaud and encourage their efforts.
Is this person serious?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.