Libertarians need to be more politically correct to succeed?

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Will you also call for Imperato and Root to defend
their views on the war in Iraq. Last I heard Root was
still calling himself a Republican on a website.

--- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:

Paul deserves an extreme examination because he's
going for the top
office.He must defend his views.

  From: Starchild
  Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need to
be more politically
  correct to succeed?
  Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:26:07 -0700

  I disagree. Republicans are by almost all accounts
even less PC than
  Libertarians, and yet Republican Party candidates
are regularly
  elected and their party firmly ensconced as half
of the
  establishment. The reasons that the LP is not more
successful lie
  I'm not saying "shut the hell up, faggot." I think
you're entitled to
  your views on Ron Paul, and I have a certain
amount of sympathy for
  them myself. But I'm trying to look at the bigger
picture of moving
  toward a free society, and not being a "single
issue voter."
  I also think there is a bit of "heretic syndrome"
going on here [i.e.
  no one is disliked more than the person who
differs enough from one's
  ideas or program to be seen as no longer in the
fold (in this case,
  not being in the LP), but still has enough in
common to not be seen
  as playing on the opposing team]. There are
clearly lots of
  politicians out there way more homophobic than Ron
Paul, but you seem
  to be devoting most of your criticism to someone
who's less
  homophobic and way more libertarian than most.
  Love & Liberty,<<< starchild >>>

    A great deal of this discussion underscores why
    Libertarian Party candidates, despite having the
    stances on the issues, aren't making inroads
into the
    general electorate.

    We've got white guys "explaining" why racist
    aren't racist, we have gay men "explaining" why
    declaring a woman's uterus to be government
    isn't so bad, we've got basically the diametric
    opposite of every constituency we need to reach
out to
    "explaining" why they're wrong and we're right.

    Until we learn to listen and build a broader
    movement that solidly embraces our principles
    than the phantoms of quick-n-easy victory),
    going to continue spinning our wheels.

    Ron Paul is no different. After his campaign
    and the GOP nomination goes to someone else,
    will be no real momentum to grow the LP coming
    many of its traditional supporters. Then they'll
    wonder why we're marginalized -- yet again --
when the
    reality is that we're fundamentally unwilling to
    invest our energy in the hard work of growth. .
. and
    are unwilling to consider that perhaps we
shouldn't be
    "explaining" to people what the proper view is,
    rather listening to them and helping them apply
    libertarian principles to their own situations.

    I am frustrated with the Ron Paul thing

    If I boil the contents of much of the discussion
    his gay rights record down to its core essence,
    supporters are essentially saying "shut the hell
    faggot, you're screwing everything up."

    I know that women and racial minorities are
    the same message too. And that's not going to
    the party" in the slightest.



    --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>

    > If you abort one after 6 or 7 months, with
    > medical technology, you have to cut open its
    > and suck out its brains, else evicting the
    > trespasser from the womb results in the birth
of a
    > live preemie. Since that would mean the
    > pregnant woman, and her sire, would have to
make a
    > conscious decision to sign away parental
    > liberals, feminists and some libertarians have
    > the position that society has the right to
    > a fetus that would be viable if evicting from
    > maternal womb, as opposed to the position that
    > woman own's her body and has the right to
    > trespassers.
    > "Abortion" is not a unitary or an unchanging
    > as technology changes.
    > Try honesty.
    > From: eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...>
    > To:
    > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:32:28 PM
    > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
    > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
    > Should gov force or keep a person from a
person to
    > get a medical procedure.
    > We have no right to a women/person' s body.
    > An unborn child has no rights in regards to
    > women's body. The chicken before the egg. Life
    > rights before proposed life.
    > Parents have little or no right to their
    > pregnat body.
    > I do hope for a day when more can be done to
    > aborted fetuses.
    > From: "Philip Berg"
    > To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
    > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [ca-liberty]
    > Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to
    > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:40:24 -0700
    > Did you listen to his talk at Google and his
    > to very tough questions from Google's
    > employees.?
    > I do not think your characterizations are fair
    > we agreee to disagree. The right to choose has
    > legitimate counterpoint in the rights of the
    > to be to life. At some point there is a
    > between the two. Some put it at conception,
some at
    > the end of the first trimester, and some it
    > moment of birth. Nearly all agree that once

=== message truncated ===