Of course. But…

Not much point in replying to Spence. After all, he prefers to make up both sides of an argument, continue claiming that I said or was about to say things I don’t believe even after being corrected, announce his departure, then show up again barely a day later with more of the same nonsense.

In point of fact, not only is the Reform Party not an example of his strategy, neither are his other examples, since none of them did things that way.

That he has the support of resident troll Don Lake just digs his hold deeper.

It’s usually best to read what I wrote before responding to it. Here’s the short version:

- Spence cited the Reform Party as an example of a third party succeeding by starting at the lower level and moving up.

- I noted that contra his characterization, the Reform Party started at the top level and moved down, and that it managed a grand total of one significant electoral victory before disintegrating.

What about that is incorrect?

The Reform/ Deform Party

[You've gotta be kidding! Since the dual convention and Patrick [and sister Bay] Buchanan in Long Beach [2000] things have been an on going train wreck. You do any P2008 research ????? Did the LP rack up A TOTAL of under 500 votes nationally?]

[What has the current situation with the Reform movement have to do with paulie and Lib Grrl and Bob Milne's and their childish, illogical hit pieces ????????????? You are starting to slip again after months of improvement. ]

[I get it that paulie and Lib Grrl are personal friends but what about embracing honesty and ethics over personal feelings? Get real dude!]

Actually, the Reform Party started by unsuccessfully running presidential candidates, eventually elected a governor … and haven’t accomplished much since.

We saw how nominating the candidate managed by the Reform Party’s presidential campaign genius worked out last year — about par for the LP course.

Don’t make me laugh, Paulie. You’ve done it enough. I shoulda known not to debate an idiot like yourself- they always win with experience.

—— Spence, Since paulie came back from his latest journey into Petition Land, you might have noticed that lots of folks whom do not respond to Lib Grrl and Bob Millne also ignore resident genius paulie ……..

[quote]Give a new freedom party 10 years to perform. Let’s say they started in New England, elected a few people to state legislature, maybe AG. Then they got Governor. All of the sudden, other states have similar or affiliated parties. Now you have a credible party.

“Examples of this working?”[/quote]

[quote]This was exactly how the Progressives, Populists, and lately the Reform Party came about, although the last is not a perfect, conforming example. Meanwhile, I could ask you the same question. Where is your proof the opposite, broad-based, whack-a-mole strategy the current LP tries works?

“[b]Compared with…?[/b]“[/quote]

This demonstrates how Paulie failed to follow along and realize that I had already stated what I was comparing with: the current LP’s model (of failure) compared with the hypothetical new model for success.

Good job, fool.

I have always been consistent here. It is your failed reading comprehension that cannot decipher the simplest message that I started with.

If you really fucking think that throwing money down the sink to the current LP is so logical, despite its past failures, its mounting present failures, and guaranteed future failures, be my guest. Go right on being poofertarian.

http://www.nolanchart.com/author638.html

If you want to critique or criticize any of my observations, do so here.

—– as valuable as politics1.com, and thirdpartywatch.com/ independentpoliticalreport.com, and ballot-access.com are

they do lend them selves to being churchie and preachie ……..

the true believers believe that they must really push the cause, no matter how inappropriate ……..

and a whole of folks just can not win an argument so they ‘make it up as they go along’!

hang it there ………..

If you want to critique or criticize any of my observations, do so here. I’m tired of restating my argument in piecemeal fashion where it is clear you are more comfortable sliming it up.

All I have to say to this is that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Stop being so linear in your replies and maybe you’d get somewhere.

I’m fully willing to try it and dispel the common poofertarian fearmongering that you and others (like Tom Sipos and Walt Thiessen) spread to prevent things from changing and actually getting done.

You apparently belittle the significance of ’1 & 2′ even though it’s clear that there is a schism in the Libertarian Party. There are those that call themselves small L and Big L libertarians, presumably the ‘Big L’ group is referring to the party. That’s the problem right there.

You can’t ever, no matter how much you want to stomp your feet and laugh off opposing arguments to the contrary, declare that your party is the definition of libertarianism. Intentionally or not, that is what the LP has done and it’s the worse for it.

That will be no less true if you call it the Freedom Party, Gold Party, Porcupine Party, Zaxelbrax Party….anything.

Wrong again. What it says to call yourself something like the Libertarian Party versus something like the Democrats/Republicans – even the new Whigs makes all the difference in the world.

Now, I’m not suggesting that there won’t be any moderate/hardline factions but to suggest that these differences are impossible to overcome is shown up by the size and success of the two majors. Too often, Libertarians are in their own little bubble world, thinking they’re the only ones dealing with feuds between moderates and radicals over the future of the party. If they looked around, they would realize that other parties have answered this, by taking steps only both factions agree on.

For example, moderate Democrats may not want a public option. The flaming liberal Democrats want socialized healthcare. But they BOTH agree on the pragmatic step to reform the system and add more government to the mix. A libertarian party could borrow such a structure. The current one doesn’t allow for any of this debate and the radicals hate any mention of pragmatism. This is the holier-than-thou attitude that I mentioned, rearing its ugly head yet again.

Back to your charges that whatever the party is named would have complications, you go on to use madeup words and animals as party names. Such is an asinine attempt to make you look competent.

Practice some objectivism for once. A is A and B is B. You cannot define abstracts because objectivism only boils down absolutes. A porcupine party would not be construed to be anything aside from a porcupine party, and in any event, a porcupine would never be considered the right name for a party. (Mascot, maybe).

This is where naming parties after sound, philosophical ideals comes into play (Federalist, Democrat, Republican, etc).

I know that I would not. Since you prefer to ascribe opinions to me that I disagree with even after being corrected, I doubt we’ll get anywhere in a conversation.

Compared with…?

No.

Some of them get elected. When you have more people elected, or elected to higher office, we’ll have something to compare.

1) Affirm purist libertarian principles- affirm that there will be pragmatic steps to reach them.

LOL. As you try this, if you ever do, you’ll discover that there are endless disagreements on the particulars of what constitutes both 1 and 2.

2) Adopt a name that isn’t literally ideological in nature. How many parties by ideology do you see other than Socialist, Conservative, Green, Libertarian, etc? None of these are big or ever were big because they attempted to define an abstract that is different in the minds of separate people.

I don’t care what you call it. Invariably, people will join with their own idea of what “it” is, even if it’s a word you made up.

What you call libertarian might be different to me, and vice’a’versa.

That will be no less true if you call it the Freedom Party, Gold Party, Porcupine Party, Zaxelbrax Party….anything.

Also, the LP has long taken the holier-than-thou stance. This is not necessary.

As far as?

I’m arguing against your lack of comprehension and was pre-emptively striking down any idiotic statement you would have made that “all parties are in the business of educating voters” or some BS like that. You know you would have said some smart alecky thing like that if I hadn’t added that disclaimer.

When that’s your sole purpose, you’re not in the business of changing policy, you’re a debate club.

You seem to be arguing with your own strawman.