Brad, thank you for the link.  I just finished watching the replay of the debate, and found it most interesting.  I thought Sean Haugh did an excellent job.  Since I'm not a North Carolina resident, and I'm also naturally biased in Sean's favor, it's really hard for me to evaluate the impact of the debate on the election.  But trying to be as objective as possible, here are my guesses/impressions:


Daniel Wiener


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Brad Hessel <bhessel@lpnc.org> wrote:

In case you missed the debate—or just want to see a replay of Sean Haugh, Libertarian for US Senate giving serious, thoughtful answers to WECT-TV moderator Jon Evans’ questions while the other two mostly recited prepared talking points and traded petty personal accusations—here is the replay:



Brad Hessel

Executive Director

execdir@lpnc.org

1-919-846-5227

www.lpnc.org



_______________________________________________
Statechairs mailing list
Statechairs@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org




--
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)