I apologize for making those two messages public, but that's what happens when our members demand 100% transparency. And - I would be accused of trying to hide something if I used private e-mails to discuss this topic with the Board. Scott Lieberman _____ From: Scott L. [mailto:scott73@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 1:58 PM To: 'lnc-business@lp.org' Subject: re: Ballot Access I assume the LNC controls the state chairs e-mail list. I can't move motions, but I suggest we have an e-mail ballot that warns both Dr Phillies and Mr. Weinman that insults like the ones below will not be tolerated on the State Chairs e-mail list, and that future offenses will result in their posting privileges being revoked. I hope this board is not so open minded that we are willing to permit the State Chairs e-mail list to degenerate into kindergarten-level name calling. Scott Lieberman _____ From: Statechairs [mailto:statechairs-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Jason Weinman Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 1:49 PM To: George Phillies Cc: statechairs@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Statechairs] Ballot Access George, if I am not now, and have never been, a member of the Republican party. If you have a problem with me on issues, please, I'd love to discuss it. I never supported Wayne Allen Root, and I bet that your views are closer to his than mine (branding people who disagree as "enemies," and mischaracterizing other people's views). I do think of you as a fascist, George. You seem not to think that private individuals can discriminate on any grounds that they want, or set any rules they like, as long as all parties agree. Not only is that ideologically unlibertarian, but it's bad for the party. We met at the National Convention, where you made clear that you would oppose any structure for the LP other than one focused on conventions and candidate recruitment, even if if it were more effective. You consider any other opinion "unlibertarian," because you don't know what the word means. Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with conventions. Your commitment to running as many candidates as possible is indefensible after 40 years of failure. I want to move public policy in a libertarian direction, and we're accomplishing that in Nevada. What are your goals, George? Ban GMOs and "investigate" chemtrails? You're supposed to be a "professor?" What exactly do you teach? At this point, if you still want to help, you should resign. If you want to simply maintain your "position" as the king of the Irrelevant Libertarian Discussion Club of Massachusetts, you should be drummed out of the party. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH On Saturday, December 27, 2014, George Phillies <phillies@4liberty.net> wrote: This is a general comment. We see discussions of "ballot access" and whether or not a state libertarian group has "ballot access". The phrase "ballot access" has so many meanings that it does not mean a great deal, or means different things to different people. We have to live with it, though some people are less polite about than others. Some people on the LNC use the phrase to mean only that they can get a Presidential candidate on the ballot without spending much money, sometimes by ignoring the issues that can get in the way. In other places, the question is what the ballot paper reads, even though what the press reports can be quite different. Thus, for example, one of our party's most successful US Senate candidates, in terms of recent press coverage, was Joe Kennedy, complete with his full-length covering article in the NY Times Sunday magazine. However, he actually ran as "Liberty", and was happy to agree that if he had petitioned as "Libertarian" he would not have gotten onto the ballot, due to our temporarily being stuck with major party status. However, he always said "Libertarian" when he spoke, and that was the message heard by the public. Having said that, we are a political party, and our objective is to advance our positions by electing people to office, and also the other important aspects of political action. People who oppose our party running candidates for office are enemies of our party. We already had this problem with the Nevada party before in 2012 when then LPNV member of the LNC endorsed the Republican fascists' candidate for President. (Fascist? Let's see: Launches wars of aggression. Loves to torture people. Sets up a national police surveillance state. Imprisons citizens without trial. Equips the local constabulary with machine guns, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles. Pays off the local plutocracy, the corporate bankster state. Reduces women to baby-hatching wombs that walk. Yes, Republicans are fascists, don't forget it. And Goddess bless the greatest living American Patriot, Edward Snowden, for tearing the veil off their misdeeds.) It's up to the good Libertarians of Nevada to cope with this issue as they see fit. However, people who say that we should not be running candidates for office are enemies of our party. And most of them are Republicans, sometimes in disguise.