Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any large number, so there absence from the Paul campaign reveals very little
Well Bruce, I enjoy how you see things, as they are
similar to my view, yet said in a much better way. I
will look forward to seeing Brian at state convention.
It will be fun to see how many people are there in
support of the kinds of things I support, or came
because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin Takenaga's
leadership. I think I have done quite well in my short
tenure here in California at growing the LP of
California, I know I am doing way more than I did for
the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see just how
much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am eager to
see how many new LPers they bring into the party and
bring to convention as well.
-TJ
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any large
number, so there absence from the Paul campaign
reveals very littleFrom: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to readYou won't let a "few disagreements" stop you from
supporting a statist agenda. I happen to believe
that
there are certain things that are obnoxious and
shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
including racism and homophobia.You think that Libertarianism that appeals to a
narrow
band of people is good for our future. I think an
inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't marginalize
gay
people, women and minorities is the future.Let's compare notes after the election and see who
is
right. It's obvious you're going to do your thing
and
I'm going to do mine, although again, I am concerned
that leaders in the Libertarian Party is promoting a
Republican candidacy -- and intend to address this
concern at the convention in Sacramento next year.Cheers,
Brian
--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@ yahoo.com>
wrote:> I wish you would have been to that rally in Mnt
> View.
> I saw lots of young people, lots of young women, I
> am
> sure many of them, like me are pro-gay rights and
> pro
> choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
abortion,
> gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> disagreements with a candidate stop me from voting
> for
> them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry Browne and
> Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul gets no
> nomination for pres (Republican, Libertarian,
other
> 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the lesser of
two
> evil Libertarian candidate, as they will agree
with
> me
> most, but I am sure I will disagree with them,
> especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato, Root,
> Phillies or Hollist.
>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Phil:
> >
> > Here's the problem.
> >
> > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
benevolent
> > racist who would "help them" through eliminating
> the
> > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron Paul
> holds
> > racist views. As president, he's going to be
> making
> > thousands of decisions -- many of which may
hinge
> on
> > race as a factor. If African Americans don't
> > believe
> > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> "liberty
> > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing to
give
> > the
> > police state the benefit of the doubt when they
> > arrest
> > black Americans and charge them with crimes --
> he's
> > not going to get black support. This is holding
> > true
> > in Paul's abysmal numbers with the black
> community.
> >
> > Similarly, the overwhelming majority of gay
> > Americans
> > aren't going to elect or support a homophobe for
> > office, regardless of the general benefits that
> his
> > policies may offer them -- for similar reasons.
> > When
> > it comes down to it, Ron Paul supports policies
> that
> > keep gay people as second class citizens.
> >
> > Lo and behold, there's 20% of the population
that
> > Ron
> > Paul has already written off.
> >
> > Now, let's add in women (many of whom believe
> their
> > uteruses are their own property, and not that of
> the
> > state -- i.e. diametrically opposed to Ron
Paul's
> > position), Latino Americans (who chafe under
> Paul's
> > immigration strategy), and add them to the
African
> > American and gay communities and suddenly Paul's
> > campaign is excluding 80%+ of California, and
60%+
> > of
> > the national population.
> >
> > The reality is simple -- Ron Paul's campaign is
a
> > campaign of mostly older white straight guys. It
> > doesn't have much support amongst the young, or
> the
> > various other minorities who put together
> represent
> > a
> > supermajority. Nothing about the campaign
> > represents
> > liberty for a majority of the people who are
> > targeted/excluded by Paul's agenda, and the
> excuses
> > for his behavior (i.e. "wouldn't people he
doesn't
> > like still benefit from this?") are similar to
the
> > typical Democratic and Republican lines that I
> spend
> > quite a bit of time criticizing.
> >
> > That's why he's running as a Republican
candidate,
> > and
> > not a Libertarian one. Despite the spin-job
> phoney
> > poll being cited repeatedly, I firmly believe
that
> a
> > majority of Libertarian Party supporters would
not
> > support his campaign. He's unfairly trading on
> the
> > "libertarian" brand to advance a socially
> > conservative, fiscally conservative agenda that
> has
> > serious flaws and appeals to statism. To the
> degree
> > that he's attracting "new" people to
> > "libertarianism, "
> > he is attracting people who want a wall on the
> > Mexican
> > border, constitutional amendments to declare a
> > woman's
> > uterus property of the state, and laws that
> > permanently marginalize gay American citizens.
> >
> > If we're going to grow the "libertarian" base
like
> > that, why don't we come out for single-payer
> > socialized medicine while we're at it?!?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Philip Berg <philip@choosepeacen ow.us>
wrote:
> >
> > > It's not the man , it's the ideas. He says
that
> > > repeatedly. Will gettting rid of the welfare
> state
> > > be good for the black community, getting rid
of
> > the
> > > income tax?, Ending inflation and eliminating
> the
> > > Federal Reserve? These measures may hurt the
=== message truncated ===
I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials you're attempting to trade on will be supporting your outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates as an attempt to "grow" the party.
See you at convention. 
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Well Bruce, I enjoy how you see things, as they are
similar to my view, yet said in a much better way. I
will look forward to seeing Brian at state convention.
It will be fun to see how many people are there in
support of the kinds of things I support, or came
because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin Takenaga's
leadership. I think I have done quite well in my short
tenure here in California at growing the LP of
California, I know I am doing way more than I did for
the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see just how
much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am eager to
see how many new LPers they bring into the party and
bring to convention as well.
-TJ
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
> Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any large
> number, so there absence from the Paul campaign
> reveals very little
>
>
> From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read
>
> You won't let a "few disagreements" stop you from
> supporting a statist agenda. I happen to believe
> that
> there are certain things that are obnoxious and
> shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
> including racism and homophobia.
>
> You think that Libertarianism that appeals to a
> narrow
> band of people is good for our future. I think an
> inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't marginalize
> gay
> people, women and minorities is the future.
>
> Let's compare notes after the election and see who
> is
> right. It's obvious you're going to do your thing
> and
> I'm going to do mine, although again, I am concerned
> that leaders in the Libertarian Party is promoting a
> Republican candidacy -- and intend to address this
> concern at the convention in Sacramento next year.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@ yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wish you would have been to that rally in Mnt
> > View.
> > I saw lots of young people, lots of young women, I
> > am
> > sure many of them, like me are pro-gay rights and
> > pro
> > choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
> abortion,
> > gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> > disagreements with a candidate stop me from voting
> > for
> > them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry Browne and
> > Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul gets no
> > nomination for pres (Republican, Libertarian,
> other
> > 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the lesser of
> two
> > evil Libertarian candidate, as they will agree
> with
> > me
> > most, but I am sure I will disagree with them,
> > especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato, Root,
> > Phillies or Hollist.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Phil:
> > >
> > > Here's the problem.
> > >
> > > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
> benevolent
> > > racist who would "help them" through eliminating
> > the
> > > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron Paul
> > holds
> > > racist views. As president, he's going to be
> > making
> > > thousands of decisions -- many of which may
> hinge
> > on
> > > race as a factor. If African Americans don't
> > > believe
> > > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> > "liberty
> > > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing to
> give
> > > the
> > > police state the benefit of the doubt when they
> > > arrest
> > > black Americans and charge them with crimes --
> > he's
> > > not going to get black support. This is holding
> > > true
> > > in Paul's abysmal numbers with the black
> > community.
> > >
> > > Similarly, the overwhelming majority of gay
> > > Americans
> > > aren't going to elect or support a homophobe for
> > > office, regardless of the general benefits that
> > his
> > > policies may offer them -- for similar reasons.
> > > When
> > > it comes down to it, Ron Paul supports policies
> > that
> > > keep gay people as second class citizens.
> > >
> > > Lo and behold, there's 20% of the population
> that
> > > Ron
> > > Paul has already written off.
> > >
> > > Now, let's add in women (many of whom believe
> > their
> > > uteruses are their own property, and not that of
> > the
> > > state -- i.e. diametrically opposed to Ron
> Paul's
> > > position), Latino Americans (who chafe under
> > Paul's
> > > immigration strategy), and add them to the
> African
> > > American and gay communities and suddenly Paul's
> > > campaign is excluding 80%+ of California, and
> 60%+
> > > of
> > > the national population.
> > >
> > > The reality is simple -- Ron Paul's campaign is
> a
> > > campaign of mostly older white straight guys. It
> > > doesn't have much support amongst the young, or
> > the
> > > various other minorities who put together
> > represent
> > > a
> > > supermajority. Nothing about the campaign
> > > represents
> > > liberty for a majority of the people who are
> > > targeted/excluded by Paul's agenda, and the
> > excuses
> > > for his behavior (i.e. "wouldn't people he
> doesn't
> > > like still benefit from this?") are similar to
> the
> > > typical Democratic and Republican lines that I
> > spend
> > > quite a bit of time criticizing.
> > >
> > > That's why he's running as a Republican
> candidate,
> > > and
> > > not a Libertarian one. Despite the spin-job
> > phoney
> > > poll being cited repeatedly, I firmly believe
> that
> > a
> > > majority of Libertarian Party supporters would
> not
> > > support his campaign. He's unfairly trading on
> > the
> > > "libertarian" brand to advance a socially
> > > conservative, fiscally conservative agenda that
> > has
> > > serious flaws and appeals to statism. To the
> > degree
> > > that he's attracting "new" people to
> > > "libertarianism, "
> > > he is attracting people who want a wall on the
> > > Mexican
> > > border, constitutional amendments to declare a
> > > woman's
> > > uterus property of the state, and laws that
> > > permanently marginalize gay American citizens.
> > >
> > > If we're going to grow the "libertarian" base
> like
> > > that, why don't we come out for single-payer
> > > socialized medicine while we're at it?!?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- Philip Berg <philip@choosepeacen ow.us>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's not the man , it's the ideas. He says
> that
> > > > repeatedly. Will gettting rid of the welfare
> > state
> > > > be good for the black community, getting rid
> of
> > > the
> > > > income tax?, Ending inflation and eliminating
> > the
> > > > Federal Reserve? These measures may hurt the
>
=== message truncated ===
It's great to see how much you love to assume things
about people on this list who happen to disagree with
you.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials you're
attempting to trade on will be supporting your
outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates as an
attempt to "grow" the party.See you at convention.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Well Bruce, I enjoy
how you see things, as they are
similar to my view, yet said in a much better way.
I
will look forward to seeing Brian at state
convention.
It will be fun to see how many people are there in
support of the kinds of things I support, or came
because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin
Takenaga's
leadership. I think I have done quite well in my
short
tenure here in California at growing the LP of
California, I know I am doing way more than I did
for
the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see just
how
much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am eager
to
see how many new LPers they bring into the party
and
bring to convention as well.-TJ
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:> Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any large
> number, so there absence from the Paul campaign
> reveals very little
>
>
> From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read
>
> You won't let a "few disagreements" stop you from
> supporting a statist agenda. I happen to believe
> that
> there are certain things that are obnoxious and
> shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
> including racism and homophobia.
>
> You think that Libertarianism that appeals to a
> narrow
> band of people is good for our future. I think an
> inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't marginalize
> gay
> people, women and minorities is the future.
>
> Let's compare notes after the election and see
who
> is
> right. It's obvious you're going to do your thing
> and
> I'm going to do mine, although again, I am
concerned
> that leaders in the Libertarian Party is
promoting a
> Republican candidacy -- and intend to address
this
> concern at the convention in Sacramento next
year.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@ yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wish you would have been to that rally in Mnt
> > View.
> > I saw lots of young people, lots of young
women, I
> > am
> > sure many of them, like me are pro-gay rights
and
> > pro
> > choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
> abortion,
> > gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> > disagreements with a candidate stop me from
voting
> > for
> > them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry Browne
and
> > Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul gets
no
> > nomination for pres (Republican, Libertarian,
> other
> > 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the lesser
of
> two
> > evil Libertarian candidate, as they will agree
> with
> > me
> > most, but I am sure I will disagree with them,
> > especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato,
Root,
> > Phillies or Hollist.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Phil:
> > >
> > > Here's the problem.
> > >
> > > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
> benevolent
> > > racist who would "help them" through
eliminating
> > the
> > > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron
Paul
> > holds
> > > racist views. As president, he's going to be
> > making
> > > thousands of decisions -- many of which may
> hinge
> > on
> > > race as a factor. If African Americans don't
> > > believe
> > > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> > "liberty
> > > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing to
> give
> > > the
> > > police state the benefit of the doubt when
they
> > > arrest
> > > black Americans and charge them with crimes
--
> > he's
> > > not going to get black support. This is
holding
> > > true
> > > in Paul's abysmal numbers with the black
> > community.
> > >
> > > Similarly, the overwhelming majority of gay
> > > Americans
> > > aren't going to elect or support a homophobe
for
> > > office, regardless of the general benefits
that
> > his
> > > policies may offer them -- for similar
reasons.
> > > When
> > > it comes down to it, Ron Paul supports
policies
> > that
> > > keep gay people as second class citizens.
> > >
> > > Lo and behold, there's 20% of the population
> that
> > > Ron
> > > Paul has already written off.
> > >
> > > Now, let's add in women (many of whom believe
> > their
> > > uteruses are their own property, and not that
of
> > the
> > > state -- i.e. diametrically opposed to Ron
> Paul's
> > > position), Latino Americans (who chafe under
> > Paul's
> > > immigration strategy), and add them to the
> African
> > > American and gay communities and suddenly
Paul's
> > > campaign is excluding 80%+ of California, and
> 60%+
> > > of
> > > the national population.
> > >
> > > The reality is simple -- Ron Paul's campaign
is
> a
> > > campaign of mostly older white straight guys.
It
> > > doesn't have much support amongst the young,
or
=== message truncated ===
Actually, I don't think it's an assumption -- I go by what I see, and that leads me to believe the other folks you're invoking have the professionalism and integrity to take their position as Libertarian Party officials seriously, rather than view it as a bully pulpit to slam fellow party members in public.
I'm sorry you don't share their apparent integrity.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: It's great to see how much you love to assume things
about people on this list who happen to disagree with
you.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials you're
> attempting to trade on will be supporting your
> outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates as an
> attempt to "grow" the party.
>
> See you at convention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Well Bruce, I enjoy
> how you see things, as they are
> similar to my view, yet said in a much better way.
> I
> will look forward to seeing Brian at state
> convention.
> It will be fun to see how many people are there in
> support of the kinds of things I support, or came
> because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin
> Takenaga's
> leadership. I think I have done quite well in my
> short
> tenure here in California at growing the LP of
> California, I know I am doing way more than I did
> for
> the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see just
> how
> much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am eager
> to
> see how many new LPers they bring into the party
> and
> bring to convention as well.
>
> -TJ
> --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
>
> > Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any large
> > number, so there absence from the Paul campaign
> > reveals very little
> >
> >
> > From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read
> >
> > You won't let a "few disagreements" stop you from
> > supporting a statist agenda. I happen to believe
> > that
> > there are certain things that are obnoxious and
> > shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
> > including racism and homophobia.
> >
> > You think that Libertarianism that appeals to a
> > narrow
> > band of people is good for our future. I think an
> > inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't marginalize
> > gay
> > people, women and minorities is the future.
> >
> > Let's compare notes after the election and see
> who
> > is
> > right. It's obvious you're going to do your thing
> > and
> > I'm going to do mine, although again, I am
> concerned
> > that leaders in the Libertarian Party is
> promoting a
> > Republican candidacy -- and intend to address
> this
> > concern at the convention in Sacramento next
> year.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@ yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I wish you would have been to that rally in Mnt
> > > View.
> > > I saw lots of young people, lots of young
> women, I
> > > am
> > > sure many of them, like me are pro-gay rights
> and
> > > pro
> > > choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
> > abortion,
> > > gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> > > disagreements with a candidate stop me from
> voting
> > > for
> > > them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry Browne
> and
> > > Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul gets
> no
> > > nomination for pres (Republican, Libertarian,
> > other
> > > 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the lesser
> of
> > two
> > > evil Libertarian candidate, as they will agree
> > with
> > > me
> > > most, but I am sure I will disagree with them,
> > > especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato,
> Root,
> > > Phillies or Hollist.
> > >
> > > -TJ
> > > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Phil:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
> > benevolent
> > > > racist who would "help them" through
> eliminating
> > > the
> > > > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron
> Paul
> > > holds
> > > > racist views. As president, he's going to be
> > > making
> > > > thousands of decisions -- many of which may
> > hinge
> > > on
> > > > race as a factor. If African Americans don't
> > > > believe
> > > > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> > > "liberty
> > > > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing to
> > give
> > > > the
> > > > police state the benefit of the doubt when
> they
> > > > arrest
> > > > black Americans and charge them with crimes
> --
> > > he's
> > > > not going to get black support. This is
> holding
> > > > true
> > > > in Paul's abysmal numbers with the black
> > > community.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, the overwhelming majority of gay
> > > > Americans
> > > > aren't going to elect or support a homophobe
> for
> > > > office, regardless of the general benefits
> that
> > > his
> > > > policies may offer them -- for similar
> reasons.
> > > > When
> > > > it comes down to it, Ron Paul supports
> policies
> > > that
> > > > keep gay people as second class citizens.
> > > >
> > > > Lo and behold, there's 20% of the population
> > that
> > > > Ron
> > > > Paul has already written off.
> > > >
> > > > Now, let's add in women (many of whom believe
> > > their
> > > > uteruses are their own property, and not that
> of
> > > the
> > > > state -- i.e. diametrically opposed to Ron
> > Paul's
> > > > position), Latino Americans (who chafe under
> > > Paul's
> > > > immigration strategy), and add them to the
> > African
> > > > American and gay communities and suddenly
> Paul's
> > > > campaign is excluding 80%+ of California, and
> > 60%+
> > > > of
> > > > the national population.
> > > >
> > > > The reality is simple -- Ron Paul's campaign
> is
> > a
> > > > campaign of mostly older white straight guys.
> It
> > > > doesn't have much support amongst the young,
> or
>
=== message truncated ===
It's apparent to me that there are many folks who
agree with me as per the showing at the Ron Paul rally
in Mountain View, as per the showing of who got
elected to the LPC Ex Comm, many of them with my
support, I was the one standing there with my list of
libertarians at convention handing out Kevin Takenaga
pins and soliciting votes. That work, in addition to
the Party Rich Newell organized made Bruce Cohen
decide not to even challenge Mr. Takenaga. I believe
you do totally underestimate me and those in the party
who associate with me. I don't think I am anyone
important, but I do feel I am part of a growing change
that will make this party stronger and do things it
hasn't been able to do during the last 30 years of
infighting, insults and litmus testing.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Actually, I don't think it's an assumption -- I go
by what I see, and that leads me to believe the
other folks you're invoking have the professionalism
and integrity to take their position as Libertarian
Party officials seriously, rather than view it as a
bully pulpit to slam fellow party members in public.I'm sorry you don't share their apparent integrity.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
It's great to see how
much you love to assume things
about people on this list who happen to disagree
with
you.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials
you're
> attempting to trade on will be supporting your
> outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates as
an
> attempt to "grow" the party.
>
> See you at convention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> Well Bruce, I enjoy
> how you see things, as they are
> similar to my view, yet said in a much better
way.
> I
> will look forward to seeing Brian at state
> convention.
> It will be fun to see how many people are there
in
> support of the kinds of things I support, or
came
> because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin
> Takenaga's
> leadership. I think I have done quite well in my
> short
> tenure here in California at growing the LP of
> California, I know I am doing way more than I
did
> for
> the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see
just
> how
> much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am
eager
> to
> see how many new LPers they bring into the party
> and
> bring to convention as well.
>
> -TJ
> --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>
wrote:
>
> > Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any
large
> > number, so there absence from the Paul
campaign
> > reveals very little
> >
> >
> > From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
read
> >
> > You won't let a "few disagreements" stop you
from
> > supporting a statist agenda. I happen to
believe
> > that
> > there are certain things that are obnoxious
and
> > shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
> > including racism and homophobia.
> >
> > You think that Libertarianism that appeals to
a
> > narrow
> > band of people is good for our future. I think
an
> > inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't
marginalize
> > gay
> > people, women and minorities is the future.
> >
> > Let's compare notes after the election and see
> who
> > is
> > right. It's obvious you're going to do your
thing
> > and
> > I'm going to do mine, although again, I am
> concerned
> > that leaders in the Libertarian Party is
> promoting a
> > Republican candidacy -- and intend to address
> this
> > concern at the convention in Sacramento next
> year.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@
yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I wish you would have been to that rally in
Mnt
> > > View.
> > > I saw lots of young people, lots of young
> women, I
> > > am
> > > sure many of them, like me are pro-gay
rights
> and
> > > pro
> > > choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
> > abortion,
> > > gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> > > disagreements with a candidate stop me from
> voting
> > > for
> > > them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry
Browne
> and
> > > Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul
gets
> no
> > > nomination for pres (Republican,
Libertarian,
> > other
> > > 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the
lesser
> of
> > two
> > > evil Libertarian candidate, as they will
agree
> > with
> > > me
> > > most, but I am sure I will disagree with
them,
> > > especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato,
> Root,
> > > Phillies or Hollist.
> > >
> > > -TJ
> > > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Phil:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
> > benevolent
> > > > racist who would "help them" through
> eliminating
> > > the
> > > > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron
> Paul
> > > holds
> > > > racist views. As president, he's going to
be
> > > making
> > > > thousands of decisions -- many of which
may
> > hinge
> > > on
> > > > race as a factor. If African Americans
don't
> > > > believe
> > > > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> > > "liberty
> > > > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing
to
> > give
> > > > the
> > > > police state the benefit of the doubt when
=== message truncated ===
I attended a Hillary Clinton rally not long ago, in order to guage her platform. Does that now automatically make me a Hillary supporter -- or just someone who showed up to hear what she had to say?
Heck, if showing up to hear a candidate makes someone an automatic supporter, then I'll be supporting Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, McCain, Paul and Smith all at the same time!
I don't underestimate anyone, nor do I throw down political gauntlets to challenge who knows more "insiders." I believe that Libertarians like the truth, and facts, and that everyday Libertarian Party members want to hold their executives to high ethical standards. Apparently, you value "who you know" over "what you do," and that's your perspective.
Perhaps you're even correct about your internal politicking abilities -- who knows? I do know that most grassroots Libertarians don't want executives slamming their own party's candidates while promoting another party's, and I'll look forward to hearing, in an open and honest debate, your argument for why the California Libertarian Party should NOT require executive members to refrain from public attacks on the LP's own candidates during election time. The name dropping means nothing to me, nor the debate, in that regard.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: It's apparent to me that there are many folks who
agree with me as per the showing at the Ron Paul rally
in Mountain View, as per the showing of who got
elected to the LPC Ex Comm, many of them with my
support, I was the one standing there with my list of
libertarians at convention handing out Kevin Takenaga
pins and soliciting votes. That work, in addition to
the Party Rich Newell organized made Bruce Cohen
decide not to even challenge Mr. Takenaga. I believe
you do totally underestimate me and those in the party
who associate with me. I don't think I am anyone
important, but I do feel I am part of a growing change
that will make this party stronger and do things it
hasn't been able to do during the last 30 years of
infighting, insults and litmus testing.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> Actually, I don't think it's an assumption -- I go
> by what I see, and that leads me to believe the
> other folks you're invoking have the professionalism
> and integrity to take their position as Libertarian
> Party officials seriously, rather than view it as a
> bully pulpit to slam fellow party members in public.
>
> I'm sorry you don't share their apparent integrity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> It's great to see how
> much you love to assume things
> about people on this list who happen to disagree
> with
> you.
>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
>
> > I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials
> you're
> > attempting to trade on will be supporting your
> > outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates as
> an
> > attempt to "grow" the party.
> >
> > See you at convention.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
>
> > Well Bruce, I enjoy
> > how you see things, as they are
> > similar to my view, yet said in a much better
> way.
> > I
> > will look forward to seeing Brian at state
> > convention.
> > It will be fun to see how many people are there
> in
> > support of the kinds of things I support, or
> came
> > because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin
> > Takenaga's
> > leadership. I think I have done quite well in my
> > short
> > tenure here in California at growing the LP of
> > California, I know I am doing way more than I
> did
> > for
> > the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see
> just
> > how
> > much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am
> eager
> > to
> > see how many new LPers they bring into the party
> > and
> > bring to convention as well.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any
> large
> > > number, so there absence from the Paul
> campaign
> > > reveals very little
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
> > > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
> read
> > >
> > > You won't let a "few disagreements" stop you
> from
> > > supporting a statist agenda. I happen to
> believe
> > > that
> > > there are certain things that are obnoxious
> and
> > > shouldn't be supported in any circumstances --
> > > including racism and homophobia.
> > >
> > > You think that Libertarianism that appeals to
> a
> > > narrow
> > > band of people is good for our future. I think
> an
> > > inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't
> marginalize
> > > gay
> > > people, women and minorities is the future.
> > >
> > > Let's compare notes after the election and see
> > who
> > > is
> > > right. It's obvious you're going to do your
> thing
> > > and
> > > I'm going to do mine, although again, I am
> > concerned
> > > that leaders in the Libertarian Party is
> > promoting a
> > > Republican candidacy -- and intend to address
> > this
> > > concern at the convention in Sacramento next
> > year.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@
> yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I wish you would have been to that rally in
> Mnt
> > > > View.
> > > > I saw lots of young people, lots of young
> > women, I
> > > > am
> > > > sure many of them, like me are pro-gay
> rights
> > and
> > > > pro
> > > > choice. I do disagree with Paul's ideas on
> > > abortion,
> > > > gays, and immigration. But I won't let a few
> > > > disagreements with a candidate stop me from
> > voting
> > > > for
> > > > them. I am sure I disagreed with Harry
> Browne
> > and
> > > > Badnarik but I voted for them. And if Paul
> gets
> > no
> > > > nomination for pres (Republican,
> Libertarian,
> > > other
> > > > 3rd party or indy) I will vote for the
> lesser
> > of
> > > two
> > > > evil Libertarian candidate, as they will
> agree
> > > with
> > > > me
> > > > most, but I am sure I will disagree with
> them,
> > > > especially if we nominate Kubby, Imperato,
> > Root,
> > > > Phillies or Hollist.
> > > >
> > > > -TJ
> > > > --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Phil:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Black Americans aren't going to elect a
> > > benevolent
> > > > > racist who would "help them" through
> > eliminating
> > > > the
> > > > > income tax, etc. if they believe that Ron
> > Paul
> > > > holds
> > > > > racist views. As president, he's going to
> be
> > > > making
> > > > > thousands of decisions -- many of which
> may
> > > hinge
> > > > on
> > > > > race as a factor. If African Americans
> don't
> > > > > believe
> > > > > they're going to get a fair shake from his
> > > > "liberty
> > > > > agenda" -- and, indeed, that he's willing
> to
> > > give
> > > > > the
> > > > > police state the benefit of the doubt when
>
=== message truncated ===
Generally 99 percent of those taking a beautiful
Saturday to go see a candidate support or are
interested in that candidate and what they stand for.
And there will be many debates on this issue and more
both at our state convention (in Sacramento?) and in
Denver. BTW Brian, I am not the only "executive" to
support Ron Paul. I am just the only one who cares
what you are writing and wants to keep chatting with
you so you feel important. Plus I got nothing better
to do.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
I attended a Hillary Clinton rally not long ago, in
order to guage her platform. Does that now
automatically make me a Hillary supporter -- or just
someone who showed up to hear what she had to say?Heck, if showing up to hear a candidate makes
someone an automatic supporter, then I'll be
supporting Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, McCain, Paul
and Smith all at the same time!I don't underestimate anyone, nor do I throw down
political gauntlets to challenge who knows more
"insiders." I believe that Libertarians like the
truth, and facts, and that everyday Libertarian
Party members want to hold their executives to high
ethical standards. Apparently, you value "who you
know" over "what you do," and that's your
perspective.Perhaps you're even correct about your internal
politicking abilities -- who knows? I do know that
most grassroots Libertarians don't want executives
slamming their own party's candidates while
promoting another party's, and I'll look forward to
hearing, in an open and honest debate, your argument
for why the California Libertarian Party should NOT
require executive members to refrain from public
attacks on the LP's own candidates during election
time. The name dropping means nothing to me, nor
the debate, in that regard.Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
It's apparent to me
that there are many folks who
agree with me as per the showing at the Ron Paul
rally
in Mountain View, as per the showing of who got
elected to the LPC Ex Comm, many of them with my
support, I was the one standing there with my list
of
libertarians at convention handing out Kevin
Takenaga
pins and soliciting votes. That work, in addition
to
the Party Rich Newell organized made Bruce Cohen
decide not to even challenge Mr. Takenaga. I
believe
you do totally underestimate me and those in the
party
who associate with me. I don't think I am anyone
important, but I do feel I am part of a growing
change
that will make this party stronger and do things it
hasn't been able to do during the last 30 years of
infighting, insults and litmus testing.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> Actually, I don't think it's an assumption -- I
go
> by what I see, and that leads me to believe the
> other folks you're invoking have the
professionalism
> and integrity to take their position as
Libertarian
> Party officials seriously, rather than view it as
a
> bully pulpit to slam fellow party members in
public.
>
> I'm sorry you don't share their apparent
integrity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> It's great to see
how
> much you love to assume things
> about people on this list who happen to disagree
> with
> you.
>
> -TJ
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
wrote:
>
> > I doubt that Kevin or the other LP officials
> you're
> > attempting to trade on will be supporting your
> > outrageous attacks on Libertarian candidates
as
> an
> > attempt to "grow" the party.
> >
> > See you at convention.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
wrote:
>
> > Well Bruce, I
enjoy
> > how you see things, as they are
> > similar to my view, yet said in a much better
> way.
> > I
> > will look forward to seeing Brian at state
> > convention.
> > It will be fun to see how many people are
there
> in
> > support of the kinds of things I support, or
> came
> > because of Ron Paul, or John Inks, or Kevin
> > Takenaga's
> > leadership. I think I have done quite well in
my
> > short
> > tenure here in California at growing the LP
of
> > California, I know I am doing way more than I
> did
> > for
> > the LP of Michigan and I will be eager to see
> just
> > how
> > much Brian and Rob do with their PAC and am
> eager
> > to
> > see how many new LPers they bring into the
party
> > and
> > bring to convention as well.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Blacks rarely vote for Republicans in any
> large
> > > number, so there absence from the Paul
> campaign
> > > reveals very little
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Brian Miller
<hightechfella@...>
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re:
[ca-liberty]
> > > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters
to
> read
> > >
> > > You won't let a "few disagreements" stop
you
> from
> > > supporting a statist agenda. I happen to
> believe
> > > that
> > > there are certain things that are obnoxious
> and
> > > shouldn't be supported in any circumstances
--
> > > including racism and homophobia.
> > >
> > > You think that Libertarianism that appeals
to
> a
> > > narrow
> > > band of people is good for our future. I
think
> an
> > > inclusive Libertarianism that doesn't
> marginalize
> > > gay
> > > people, women and minorities is the future.
> > >
> > > Let's compare notes after the election and
see
> > who
> > > is
> > > right. It's obvious you're going to do your
> thing
> > > and
> > > I'm going to do mine, although again, I am
> > concerned
=== message truncated ===