Shaffen www casino vacances caribbean poker casino online it coupons bonus casino sans depot holdem poker reglas

Obtenir roulette europea jeux poker salle poker online online poker für anfänger texas holdem poker 2007

thanks thats a great post maybe a little confused but i think it´s ok to start with it

playstation game cheats sudoku wordpad print free sudoku Ricky Smiley Prank Funny Smileys cheat codes myspace backgrounds msn messenger winks

I think the “major issues position difference” that has so far come to the forefront (to the extent that any have) is on immigration—an issue which Paulie has repeatedly brought up but which George doesn’t seem to want to discuss at length.

Kubby: “Immigration has been an unmitigated American success story.”

Phillies: “The low-cost workers we import into America pay less in taxes than the social services they receive, so a vote for open borders is also a vote for a tax increase on the rest of us.”

Setting aside the fact that Phillies is simply wrong in his claim, that’s a pretty big difference of opinion, and it’s widened by the fact that Kubby acknowledges the contributions of immigrations from, say, China and Mexico (“Throughout our history, from the transcontinental railroad to the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, immigrants have proven themselves indispensable to the American economic miracle”), while Phillies strongly (and ahistorically) implies that it was “[t]he huddled masses of Europe” who alone made America, and that now that they’re no longer living under “autocratic monarchies” (tell that to Putin’s serfs!), the situation has somehow magically changed.

Then we get to the prescription part: Kubby proposes a quick request to Congress for positive reform, and an immediate executive decision not to waste resources on enforcing bad laws, while Phillies throws out a “someday maybe we can have freedom” line, insists that “just [sic] laws be enforced,” and tries to characterize opening the labor market as “corporate welfare.”

I think well enough of George to not want to believe that he’s trying to pander to the Know-Nothings while simultaneously keeping one toe cautiously dipped in the libertarian view of immigration so that he can protest his relative “purity” when taken to task. But if that’s not the case, then it means that he actually believes the nonsense he’s advocating, which frankly disturbs me more. I’d rather he was taking a Machiavellian approach, albeit one that’s a political non-starter and that’s bound to cost him “integrity points,” than really be as dead wrong as his position implies.

From a “realpolitick” point of view, he’s taking the worst possible position:

Yes, a majority—but not a super-duper overwhelming majority—are, to one extent or another, in the Know-Nothing camp right now … but their votes aren’t available on the issue, because they’re already getting what they’re demanding from two tried-and-true vendors (Republicans and Democrats).

Yes, pro-freedom-on-immigration voters are a minority, but they’re a large minority and they’re not being served as an issue constituency. While the issue is hot, which it periodically is, it would serve the LP best to have a candidate who tries to bring that constituency in from out of the rain and under the Libertarian umbrella rather than chasing after a constituency which is already safe, dry and content under two umbrellas.

Furthermore, there’s the simple fact that the anti-immigration approach is detrimental to the national security, as Kubby states in his position paper on immigration (for comparison, here’s George’s).

Add to that the fact that the LP has always been pro-immigration and that it’s been right to be pro-immigration, and George’s immigration position stands out clearly as a liability rather than an asset—not just for the nomination, but for the general election. Kubby’s position, on the other hand, is not only “traditionally libertarian,” but it is especially germane during this particular period when Know-Nothingism is on the rise and there’s a non-Know-Nothing constituency up for possibly permanent grabs.

Ah, well—I guess I may have broken the “civility barrier” by laying out the problems with George’s immigration position. I don’t mean to do so. I still like and admire George, but this is a significant issue conflict between George and my candidate, and one I believe my candidate is correct on.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

From my vantage point looking in from the outside, there does not seem to be major differences in issue positions, and I only know about differences in approach because I’ve asked you privately about Kubby’s. As far as what is public right now, I’m with Matt. Personally, I think Kubby has more potential to wow me—and I have a little more faith in his “crew” —but it hasn’t happened yet. There is still plenty of time, though, and I don’t really expect to be wowed quite yet considering the convention is more than a year away.

I do hope there will be no enmity throughout the nomination campaign. And from what I’ve gathered from both Phillies and Kubby, we’re probably looking at a very civil race.

You write:

“I don’t think there are any major disputes between the two front-runners as of yet. Very different than 2004. I think they have two slightly different approaches, but I doubt either would be extremely unhappy about the other winning.”

There are major differences—of approach, of issues positions, etc.—but you’re right that there are no disputes so far, and hopefully we’ll make it all the way to the convention with a tone of “here’s what I bring to the party, here’s what my opponent’s offering,” honestly laid out and without enmity, prevailing.

I don’t even know if Steve and George know each other, but I’ve known, and worked with, George for years. I was one of his “Clean Slate” recruits for party office in 2000, and supported him twice for party chair (I was not on the floor to do so in 2004, and not at the convention at all in 2006, or I’d have supported him those times as well).

When we disagree, we do so agreeably, and I believe his campaign has already served a very useful purpose in terms of “raising the bar” ... there will be no coronations or “nominations in a walk,” because he entered the race early and started doing things instead of just making promises the keeping of which could not be measured.

I believe that Kubby will produce more positive media coverage, more new Libertarians, and more votes as the nominee than George would. I also believe that it’s essentially impossible for George to be nominated for reasons that don’t necessarily reflect on his fitness as a candidate (to wit, while he has a solid base of support, he also has a solid base of opposition which, in my opinion, is larger and probably large enough to preclude a majority for his nomination). Neither of those reasons are, or should be taken as, an attack on Phillies. They’re just an honest difference of opinion.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Both of these guys seem ok, and I’d be pleased to end up with either one. Now I’m just waiting for one of them to do or say something completely awesome and give me a reason why I must support them. Actually, I’m open to being overwhelmed by anyone in the race, it just hasn’t happened yet. Maybe it won’t until this year’s debate at the convention.

The only disputes I’ve seen have been between Phillies and Chapman (though I would hesitate to call this a dispute, since Chapman is crazy and Phillies pretty much ignores him as he should), and between Milnes and every other candidate (though he more or less just trashes them and everyone else ignores him as they should).

My assessment:

There are three tiers—
Tier 1: Kubby vs. Phillies

Kubby is in the lead, though Phillies has been impressing people with his organization and overall level-headedness.

Tier 2: Smith vs. McManigal

Smith is probably leading for third place due to sheer diligence with McManigal having the potential to surprise some with a decent showing. Although they are both long-shots for the nomination, remember that Badnarik was in this category up until the opening of the 2004 convention.

Tier 3: Milnes vs. Chapman

Neither has a chance in hell of getting the LP nomination. But in the battle for 5th place, unfortunately Chapman wins since he actually has a base (albeit small and crazy).

Things WILL change within the next 6 to 8 months. Nobody knows what the hell Stanhope is doing, and he could seriously shake up the race. As of now, though, I’d like to see him as Kubby’s VP.

You keep trying to play the marijuana card, but it’s a garbage hand with no face cards or aces.

Here are the facts:

Steve Kubby suffers from a medical condition which he treats with a prescription medication, and which he has kept under control with that medication for 30 years, during which time has built and sold successful businesses, published magazines, helped pass revolutionary legislation, and fought the federal government to a standoff on the issue he cares most about. That medication has never been established to have any significant deleterious mental or physical side effects—unlike many previous presidents and presidential candidates whose use of medications with psychotic side effects is well documented.

You, on the other hand, claim that suffer from a mental condition, that you have no intention of treating that condition, and that that condition has made it difficult for you to do much of anything productive, including campaign.

Even setting aside differences in actual policy positions—which we shouldn’t—remove the names from the above descriptions and ask yourself which is the description of the more credible candidate. Ask yourself which candidate you’d consider more trustworthy a few feet from the nuclear “football.” And ask yourself why one of those candidates seems to enjoy a high level of support amogn Libertarians for their party’s presidential nomination and the other does not.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

“if there’s no hope of winning, count me out”

OK Robert, then I will count you out. There is no hope of the LP nominee winning the 2008 election barring some miraculous event beyond the LP nominee’s control. Any candidate claiming otherwise is delusional and will not win my support.

The “50 state lists” are somewhat in disarray. If you’ve noticed over on my blog, my Yahoo userID disappeared yesterday … as did all Yahoo Groups associated with it which did not have additional “owners.”

The day before my userID and groups disappeared, Benjamin Todd’s did (Ben’s our national volunteer coordinator).

Guess which two people created all 50 Kubby groups? Right now, I’m trying to find out if Yahoo is just having a technical problem, or if we are under cyber-attack by someone who’s not a Kubby fan.

Some of the groups are still there because we had dual-ownered them, and they’re starting to draw a member here and there even in advance of the “official rollout.” We’ll get the others reconstructed, but I’m not sure we’ll use Yahoo for it after all, and it delays our “launch party” a little.

The reason you haven’t been “plugged in” to a volunteer job yet is that right now we’re appointing state volunteer coordinators … and you’re itinerant! I kind of had advance work in mind for you, once we reach the stage where we can pay full-time and/or traveling campaign workers.

The real volunteer action will probably start in February, when Steve begins attending the 2007 round of LP conventions (so far we look good for Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico and California to start with)—naturally we’ll be trying to either hook into, or create, non-LP events within and around that schedule.

Remember, right now it’s “the holidays.” We’re working to get things together—new web site, some video production matters, etc.—so that we’re ready to go for the new year. Just because it’s quiet doesn’t mean nothing’s going on. Kubby’s been taking advantage of the fact that he lives in California to attend various LP and non-LP events there while we do the less visible work of putting together a national campaign.

In the meantime, I’ve heard two rumors—one person called to congratulate me on being promoted to Kubby’s campaign manager, another called to tell me they’d heard I was “no longer with the campaign.” As far as I know, neither of those things is true

Regards,
Tom Knapp