[Lnc-business] Cuban Prisoner Resolution - Take 2- request for co-sponsors

Tue Feb 28 16:29:55 EST 2017

I'm down with that.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
wrote:

> How about "dismantle the evil empire"?
>
> Oops - let my emotions get carried away with the moment. 😃
>
> On Feb 28, 2017 2:06 PM, "Whitney Bilyeu" <whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HELL, YES!
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <I can't help myself>
>>>
>>> My favour action verb of that type is ABOLISH!!!!
>>>
>>> Okay I said.
>>>
>>> I feel better.
>>>
>>> - Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with the shock and concern as part of a press release, public
>>>> statement, immediate reaction, informal comment, etc...and I don't think
>>>> such a response should be downplayed at all.
>>>>
>>>> However, as a standing formal resolution, I just prefer something less
>>>> dramatic.
>>>>
>>>> And....I totally agree with your very last statement...a great deal of
>>>> what I want to say about many things is NSFW!!!
>>>>
>>>> It is true that we (LP) could do better at having/showing feelings ;).
>>>>
>>>> However, I, personally, find emotionally charged statements off-putting
>>>> as an initial engagement piece.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I hope that an even-tempered, objective statement opens the
>>>> door to the more emotional discussions that need to occur...
>>>>
>>>> 'Strongly opposed to...' has more meaning/bite than 'angry about...' or
>>>> 'abhor...' (examples) to a left-brainer, like myself, at least :/.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to use:
>>>> oppose
>>>> resist
>>>> reject
>>>> etc...
>>>> (imply action is to be taken, or would be taken)
>>>>
>>>> I will probably reject the use of:
>>>> am angry about
>>>> am shocked by
>>>> am saddened over
>>>> etc...
>>>> (mere feelings without action, passive-aggressive implications)
>>>>
>>>> I will consider:
>>>> regret
>>>> etc...
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I don't wholly reject emotion or emotional language
>>>> when it comes to making political statements...and I concede that there are
>>>> gray areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Part of our problem in Party image is that we don't use strong emotion
>>>>> enough.  Emotion is human and connects to people.  Our lack of it leads to
>>>>> the perjorative cartoon of Libertarians as having political autism.
>>>>>
>>>>> When people are seized and thrown into a Cuban gulag - particularly
>>>>> our ideological brethren - in violation of basic principles - shock and
>>>>> concern is a mild form of what I would say.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I personally would say would be NSFW.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:04 AM Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Shock' and 'concern' are not words I want to use - subjective,
>>>>> emotional...
>>>>>
>>>>> When I vote on a resolution, I cannot merely consider the spirit of
>>>>> the message.  I consider the depth of the language, the meaning behind each
>>>>> word, possible interpretations, pitfalls, and potential fallout.  I never
>>>>> want to publish something that winds up being a waste of words or that
>>>>> requires retraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also have to consider whether or not the statement sounds like
>>>>> something I would say, or something I could justify ever saying...I admit I
>>>>> struggle to adopt the words of others as my own....which is basically what
>>>>> we are being asked to do when we vote on resolutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the fourth sentence has an extra "that" that doesn't belong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Hagan
>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad <https://yho.com/footer0>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, February 27, 2017, 9:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The agreed to change is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> I took Joshua's new resolution to the author of the Nevada resolution
>>>>> for input.  He suggested some changes and agreed that the last paragraph
>>>>> should not be a part (in his non-LNC opinion).  IF this passes, specific
>>>>> direction we can give to the staff can be part of a separate motion (and
>>>>> one that does not require 3/4 btw).
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to offer this as a new resolution and ask for co-sponsors:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Libertarian National Committee expresses shock and concern for
>>>>> the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel
>>>>> Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose
>>>>> unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were
>>>>> targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free
>>>>> markets. **The two men are believed to be political prisoners
>>>>> imprisoned in the infamous Melena II facility, known for appalling living
>>>>> and working conditions. * *We further ask for an inquiry and response
>>>>> from** the Castro regime for information related to their detention,
>>>>> an accurate and complete register of charges, and and for assurances that
>>>>> they will receive fair and open trials on any legitimate charges.  We
>>>>> further ask that the Cuban government for their immediate release should
>>>>> such information and assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage
>>>>> Libertarian Party members and supporters to contact their elected officials
>>>>> toward that end, and further ask that the International Alliance of
>>>>> Libertarian Parties join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro
>>>>> regime to release information related to their detention and call upon the
>>>>> national and international media to join us in these efforts.*
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Starchild or anyone else, will you co-sponsor this amended resolution?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:20 PM, David Demarest <
>>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Tim. I have no objection to the change you suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ~David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Dec 10-13 2017 <10-13%202017> Omaha Libertarian Strategy
>>>>> Un-Convention*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC Region 6 Representative
>>>>>
>>>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>>>
>>>>> Cell:      402-981-6469
>>>>>
>>>>> Home: 402-493-0873
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at h q.lp.org
>>>>> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2017 5:45 PM
>>>>> *To:* Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com>; Libertarian National
>>>>> Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Cuban Prisoner Resolution - Take 2-
>>>>> request for co-sponsors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no objection - Joshua and David???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim will you co-sponsor with that change?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Tim Hagan <timhagan-tyr at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because e-mail ballots have no provision for amendment, I ask the
>>>>> sponsors to modify the resolution before it goes to a vote by spelling out
>>>>> instead of using the acronym IALP, so readers won't think the LNC is making
>>>>> a request to the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Hagan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2017 10:34 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Cuban Prisoner Resolution - Take 2-
>>>>> request for co-sponsors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I voted no because it made, in my view, unfounded accusations against
>>>>> a foreign government, and because it contained no action other than
>>>>> 'calling up' and 'demanding.'  I suspect others may have voted no for the
>>>>> same reasons I did.  This alternative, in my mind, addresses the first
>>>>> concern, and at least contains some hints about the second.  I can't say
>>>>> I'm terribly enthusiastic, but since email ballots have no provision for
>>>>> amendment, I don't think it's unreasonable for a second motion to try to
>>>>> address concerns of those who voted no on the first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Sam Goldstein <
>>>>> goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the first motion fail?  Why are we wasting more time on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2017 1:19 PM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will cosponsor.  I fail, however, to understand the following clause:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *We further ask for an inquiry and response from the Castro regime for
>>>>> information related to their detention,*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we asking the Cuban government, which is holding the people, to
>>>>> look into it?  Wouldn't they, presumably, already know the answer?  It's
>>>>> fully possible that I'm missing something, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I took Joshua's new resolution to the author of the Nevada resolution
>>>>> for input.  He suggested some changes and agreed that the last paragraph
>>>>> should not be a part (in his non-LNC opinion).  IF this passes, specific
>>>>> direction we can give to the staff can be part of a separate motion (and
>>>>> one that does not require 3/4 btw).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to offer this as a new resolution and ask for co-sponsors:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Libertarian National Committee expresses shock and concern for
>>>>> the detention of libertarian activists Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel
>>>>> Velasquez by agents of the Castro regime in Cuba on February 2, whose
>>>>> unexplained detention raises suspicions that these political prisoners were
>>>>> targeted for their peaceful activism promoting limited government and free
>>>>> markets. The two men are believed to be political prisoners imprisoned in
>>>>> the infamous Melena II facility, known for appalling living and working
>>>>> conditions. * *We further ask for an inquiry and response from the
>>>>> Castro regime for information related to their detention, an accurate and
>>>>> complete register of charges, and and for assurances that they will receive
>>>>> fair and open trials on any legitimate charges.  We further ask that the
>>>>> Cuban government for their immediate release should such information and
>>>>> assurances not be forthcoming. We encourage Libertarian Party members and
>>>>> supporters to contact their elected officials toward that end, and further
>>>>> ask that the IALP join us in applying diplomatic pressure for the Castro
>>>>> regime to release information related to their detention and call upon the
>>>>> national and international media to join us in these efforts.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>
>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/ listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp. org
>>>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>> ...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170228/a0c9c107/attachment-0002.html>