home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.bi
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!leecr
- From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
- Subject: Re: A question about Stephen M. Conley
- Message-ID: <1992Dec19.005456.23357@microsoft.com>
- Date: 19 Dec 92 00:54:56 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <Bz1wG5.6FL@cck.coventry.ac.uk> <1992Dec12.035216.25352@thelema.uucp> <1992Dec15.165724.27537@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
- Lines: 30
-
- >>>Sorry, I *still* don't believe in the existence of political parties
- >>>with any principles other than "We want to be in power". Alice
- >>>Cooper was right.
- >>
- >>Well, if you'd watched Andre Marrou doing the talk shows, you'd
- >>understand that the Libs MUST have been going on principle rather than
- >>political expediency. _I_ would do a better job on talk shows than he
- >>did (and frankly, have more fun doing so) -- if they'd been after
- >>power, I'd imagine they'd have used someone who could think on his
- >>feet.
-
- Alas, to my great disappointment, even the Libertarians are getting
- soft. Last week, the National Commmittee finally voted to eliminate
- the oath, to allow candidates to use matching funds, and to support
- "practical interim legislation consistent with libertarian goals",
- even if that means voting for tax reform instead of elimination.
-
- I threw away my "Libertarians: The Party of Principle" button. I'll
- probably still vote LP, but I'll be more vocal about holding to true
- principles over political expediency, and I will certainly not vote
- for any candidate who takes matching funds or invokes FCC "equal time"
- rules to get coverage.
-
- For you non-libs out there, the "oath" I refer to was the stateent
- that one previously had to sign to be a member of the party: "I do
- not believe in or advocate the initiation of force to achieve political
- or social goals."
-
- --
- Lee Daniel Crocker | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
- leecr@microsoft.com | Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
-