The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: May 12, 2008, 06:38:12 PM 
Started by Tck13 - Last post by JohnKOTR
I think the concept of race is difficult to define to begin with, and increased travel with greater voluntary associations amongst many different people make race less significant with each passing day. I believe anyone from anywhere in the world is capable of contributing to American culture. Variety is the spice of life, and racial identifications should not play a role in setting immigration policy.

There does need to be reasonable security at national borders in order for the federal government to fulfill its responsibilities. It would be fair that the reason for an applicant's desire to immigrate be determined. If someone is coming to sponge off the abundant social services provided in the US, has a history of committing criminal acts, is a member of known terrorist organizations or advocates the violent overthrow of government, perhaps we could ask them to wait for a while before entering the country.

If people want to come here to be with family, visit or work, that should not be a problem. It should be easier to enter the country legally than illegally, which is not the case now.

Mik Robertson




There IS indeed a difference between Mexicans and Americans. Look at Mexico! There is a reason that they're leaving by the millions. These people are the reason Mexico is in shambles. They won't lift a finger to change their conditions at home, but risk life and limb to cross the border and break our laws.

I don't know how you can sit there and tell me that race (and culture) is difficult to define. Have you ever been to southern California? Arizona? Texas? Have you been to Reading, Pa? Have you not noticed that it is like walking into a third world country? Are you not aware of rises in crime, drugs, any number of social ills by a factor of at least two? Have you noticed that there are a dozen or so hispanic street gangs (in Reading) that hold more sway over peoples lives that the government and law enforcement? It isn't any different along the border states. Every place that these people are the majority, it becomes a third world country. If you want to protect that, then so be it, but it will destroy this country in so many ways, and I will not be a part of supporting that.

 2 
 on: May 12, 2008, 06:27:05 PM 
Started by Mik - Last post by JohnKOTR
That's kind of funny, cause I was just thinking today that I'm going to have to get off my current work schedule onto a different shift before I can realistically hope to become active in the party. I work nights twelve hours and it is just killing me. On my days off, I can barely manage to get done those others things that need doing, much less spare time to do things that I WANT to do.

Unfortunately, nothing much is going to change for us and for this country. People are currently too well content to demand anything better. It is going to take a collapse of that comfort before they will act. (Laughs) A significant number of them will probably have to become unemployed.

 3 
 on: May 12, 2008, 01:54:37 PM 
Started by steverobison - Last post by bergie72
I think in Pennsylvania you have to be considered a "Major Party" (15% of the registered voters affiliated with your party) before you can have your party included in the primary process.  As of Nov 2006 (the last time 3rd party breakdowns are included), the LP has 0.44% of the total registered voters in PA.  For Nov 2007, the total under the "Other Parties" category amounts to 12%.

 4 
 on: May 12, 2008, 01:04:14 PM 
Started by steverobison - Last post by klapton
A candidate and their supporters should pay for their campaign expenses.

We do ourselves a terrible disservice by not having primary elections during "primary season".  Mainly because we get ZERO media coverage.  We also don't have the "whittling down" process that other parties have, which I think is useful.

People are thinking about their next President NOW.  If the Libertarian Party fails to put their name and their candidates names in the public media NOW, we will always be an after-thought.

I also believe the primary process should be reformed completely.  The nation should be divided into four or five regions, and ALL the primaries for those states should be done on the same day together, with a month or so between each one.  For each election cycle, the order in which the regions vote should be rotated.

For example:

Election 2012:

West Coast primary February
Western Plains March
Eastern Plains April
Southeast May
Northeast June

Election 2016:

Northeast February
West Coast March
Western Plains April
Eastern Plains May
Southeast June

etc...

 5 
 on: May 12, 2008, 11:04:30 AM 
Started by bergie72 - Last post by bergie72

Remember, if people voted in the primary, they cannot have their name placed directly on the November ballot by filing nomination papers. This is another way ballot choices are limited as once you are sucked into the system, you cannot oppose it. So when looking for candidates, try to find people who were not registered D or R as of 30 days before the primary publicly funded nomination process.


Sounds like another way the major parties screw everyone else over so they can keep themselves in power.  Well, since I registered as Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, I guess I can't petition to get myself on the ballot in November.  (I did switch back, but I'm still waiting for my new registration card to arrive from Luzerne County.)

On a somewhat related note, what is the signature requirements for this year?  Even if I can't petition for myself, I can at least collect some signatures locally for the state wide candidates.

Thanks!

 6 
 on: May 11, 2008, 09:03:39 PM 
Started by bergie72 - Last post by bdively
<<< I am relatively new here and have not completely switched over the the LP as of yet, but my district of 137 is not contested either.   I'd be open to run.  I'm trying to start networking on here.  I'd describe myself as hybrid of Republican and Libertarian. >>>

All I can say is "welcome home, nice to have you here."

Barry

 7 
 on: May 11, 2008, 09:02:06 AM 
Started by djahn - Last post by djahn

Verbatim '. . . moving to smaller government . . .'

Bob Barr, longtime Republican U.S. representative from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate - as a Libertarian. Some are worried he may siphon off conservative votes from Sen. John McCain. Barr, who rose to prominence during the vituperative 1990s, joined the Libertarian Party in 2006. Below are excerpts from an Inquirer Q&A with Barr about why he's running.


Inquirer: What do you hope to accomplish?

Barr: I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward . . . raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that's at the root of all the issues facing the American people. I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation . . . reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens, and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .


Inquirer: What caused you to suddenly switch parties two years ago? Did you have a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus conversion?

Barr: What laid the groundwork for my epiphany was the result of six years of the Bush administration. They claimed to be Republicans and for a smaller government. Instead, with a complicit Republican Congress, they moved to dramatically expand the size, power and scope of the federal government. I concluded that the party I had been associated with for decades was no longer the party I had joined and no longer had an interest in smaller...


Read the rest at this link

 8 
 on: May 11, 2008, 04:20:39 AM 
Started by bergie72 - Last post by Mik
Unfortunately PA election laws make it not uncommon that there is only one choice on the general election ballot. The idea is to make it so the only real choice people have is on the primary ballot, when only those who are members of one of the two major parties can participate. That way it can be claimed the two-party system works because almost everyone participates in it.

Remember, if people voted in the primary, they cannot have their name placed directly on the November ballot by filing nomination papers. This is another way ballot choices are limited as once you are sucked into the system, you cannot oppose it. So when looking for candidates, try to find people who were not registered D or R as of 30 days before the primary publicly funded nomination process.

Good Luck!

Mik Robertson

 9 
 on: May 11, 2008, 12:03:38 AM 
Started by caomhin10p - Last post by Tck13
Reading isn't too far...

 10 
 on: May 10, 2008, 03:04:44 PM 
Started by tweber78 - Last post by tweber78
I don't need the oath to define libertarian.  Dictinoary.com defines Libertarian as:

-noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).

–adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

That definition works for me.

Should I sign it? What does it really mean?  Should it be a requirement?  The debate goes on.  I can't be bothered.  I'm too busy out here trying to save a country by getting libertarians elected.

I hope that helps.


That does help actually.  & Thank You.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com