I have no problem with how this article was referenced or handled by Paulie.

Lance Brown, why was former executive directrix Shane Cory forced to resign? I believe it was because he encouraged staff of the LP to show bias against one of the candidates prior to the nominating convention. Why was Cory paid $17,870.97 after leaving his job? Do you even care?

You have no problem with Bob Barr because everything he says is perfect. But, many people do. Many members of the LP aren’t leaving the LP, and are not supporting Bob Barr. Are they also cowards, deserters, and traitors, in your view? You’ve said despicable, disgusting, hateful things about me and the members of the Boston Tea Party.

I think you are a disgusting worm. What have you ever done for freedom that I should care?

*rolls eyes*

The situation is hardly comparable.

To reform the GOP or DP in 1971 would have been an impossible task. Both parties were massive, had thousands of anti-liberty elected officials, and had a message which was anti-liberty at the core.

To reform the LP of 2008 seems easy by comparison. The core message of the LP, even if it has become less pure over the years, is still a lot closer to pure libertarian than the GOP/DP of 1971. The party is smaller and less entrenched in politics than the GOP/DP. It doesn’t have thousands of elected officials who are — at their core — the anti-theses of liberty. The LP — unlike the GOP/DP of 1971 — has a significant proportion of the party that adheres to pure libertarianism.

If pure libertarianism is to have a home anywhere, it’ll be the LP.

On the other hand, turd potty watch copies other people’s work without citing the author, doesn’t fix it when the problem is pointed out to them,
censors links to IPR in the comments, falsely attributes articles to people who did not write them (separate problem from the plagiarism), and otherwise continues to be a continuing textbook example of disgraceful perfidy in action.

WTF?

An internet-based political party is naturally going to get more coverage on the Internet than in print media.

Saying otherwise shows a complete lack of common sense on your part.

We cover news that’s sent to us, almost without fail. If some other central-planning Nazi would like to “correctly” proportion coverage, they can start their own sites.

“At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention…”

“I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri. ”

Tom, you already have chosen between the two slates. You’ve disavowed one, and you’re on the other one. You are actively promoting another party’s presidential slate (from the LP perspective). I realize that you haven’t necessarily yet bumped into an official, rules-based conflict between your two conflicting sides, but you yourself acknowledge that it’s just a matter of time. The conflict is already there, whether it manifests in something that makes you resign a position or not.

Pretending to be an LP loyalist while also being the guy who started the anti-LP sour grapes party is not something you are going to be able to maintain very well, I suspect. I find most of what you have to say on the subject very hard to swallow.

NOTA finished quite well in the presidential nomination vote this year. I would bet that if the LP nominated a more acceptable candidate, NOTA would have won the BTP nomination, and the BTP’s National Committee might be debating the nomination of the LP’s presidential nominee.

Nice catch, but look a little more carefully. You write:

“It seems like you were saying that if the BTP and LP nominated opposing presidential slates, you would no longer ‘be free to serve and support my state LP’.”

Only if you leave out an entire, very specific, clause. What I wrote was:

“I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as … the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. [emphasis mine]

I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri.

When the Boston Tea Party forms an affiliate in Missouri, I will of course join it (I may even help organize it). When and if the Missouri BTP affiliate enters into competition with the Missouri LP (by, for example, seeking ballot access for its own slate of candidates), I will resign any offices of trust I hold in the Missouri LP. At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention to seek such an office of trust next month with precisely that potential conflict in mind.

If TPW did the same for the articles it copies, I don’t think we would have much of a problem. Even if all they did was credit us, with or without a link, that would be a major improvement.

- copied in whole from another blog
- did not link back

but did not

- fail to mention the author’s name

what you did has ZERO resemblance whatsoever to what you reamed TPW for doing.

Is that what you want to hear?

You got 2/3. That’s pretty close. In any case, what distinguishes you is you made it right.

So relax.

I’m on your side, generally speaking, so no reason to get your dander up.