User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 9:03:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. There is wisdom here |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 9:15:59 AM EDT
[#2]
WOW....this is why the Repubs lose and WILL Keep losing.
The attitude of many republican voters aka "sheep" is that they MUST vote for a piece of shit to avoid getting a bigger piece of shit. The problem with this mindset is that the republicans have LOST or alienated much of the conservative base by nominating "pieces of shit" that pander to the masses. When you have the so called "conservatives" here blaming libertarians....you have made the problem worse. Instead of focusing on nominating true conservatives...you blame libertarians. I have not seen a SINGLE conservative candidate with RNC support in Lord knows how many years. With the mindset here...the republicans will continue to lose, and you will have candidates such as Graham, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, (insert name of RINO here). I have given up on Republicans and for the matter our entire government. It is too far gone when the entitlement generation was bought off by BOTH parties...the failure was assured. Sitting this one out...the Repubs can suck my cock. Dems can too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 9:36:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WOW....this is why the Repubs lose and WILL Keep losing. The attitude of many republican voters aka "sheep" is that they MUST vote for a piece of shit to avoid getting a bigger piece of shit. The problem with this mindset is that the republicans have LOST or alienated much of the conservative base by nominating "pieces of shit" that pander to the masses. When you have the so called "conservatives" here blaming libertarians....you have made the problem worse. Instead of focusing on nominating true conservatives...you blame libertarians. I have not seen a SINGLE conservative candidate with RNC support in Lord knows how many years. With the mindset here...the republicans will continue to lose, and you will have candidates such as Graham, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, (insert name of RINO here). I have given up on Republicans and for the matter our entire government. It is too far gone when the entitlement generation was bought off by BOTH parties...the failure was assured. Sitting this one out...the Repubs can suck my cock. Dems can too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 10:53:39 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Unfortunately after this election cycle nominating conservatives will get more difficult. If the Republicans win control of the Senate the media stories will claim the win was due to the party nominating Chamber of Commerce backed moderate candidates who appealed to moderate voters. That will "prove" that the party must move further to the center left to appeal to "moderates" in order to win in '16. If the Republicans don't win control of the Senate the media stories will claim that the loss was due to the "TEA party" conservatives forcing the moderate Chamber of Commerce backed candidates too far to the right, making it impossible for them to appeal to moderate voters in the general election. (Some of us recall the stories that were written last spring claiming that the "TEA party" was winning even though the candidates supported by the "TEA party" were losing  , because it was forcing the winning candidates to be more conservative in order to get the nomination.)
This will "prove" that the party must move further to the center left to appeal to "moderates" in order to win in '16. Heads I win, tails you lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 12:29:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought you libertarians wanted social liberals? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snip/.....,,,,, A bunch of us are out here waiting and watching. Will you offer candidates who attract us or candidates who repel us? Unlike the Democrats, we will offer candidates who repel you, rather than socially progressive candidates you normally vote for and will continue to vote for. Stop lying to yourselves. This is what you will do: You will act like complete asses and drive away all independents and small-l libertarians and then offer up another lame-dick statist and borderline anti-liberty candidate such as McCain or Romney—both of whom were social progressives on many issues—and justify that choice to yourself with the untruth that "he was the most electable." Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. I thought you libertarians wanted social liberals? What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 12:30:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When Republicans offer strong conservative policies, the libertarians trash them. When Republicans offer socially progressive policies that are in line with the official Libertarian Party Platform, the libertarians trash them for being RINOS. Being Democratic Party Stalking Horses, they want to elect socially progressive liberals who are not Republicans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snip/.....,,,,, A bunch of us are out here waiting and watching. Will you offer candidates who attract us or candidates who repel us? Unlike the Democrats, we will offer candidates who repel you, rather than socially progressive candidates you normally vote for and will continue to vote for. Stop lying to yourselves. This is what you will do: You will act like complete asses and drive away all independents and small-l libertarians and then offer up another lame-dick statist and borderline anti-liberty candidate such as McCain or Romney—both of whom were social progressives on many issues—and justify that choice to yourself with the untruth that "he was the most electable." Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. I thought you libertarians wanted social liberals? When Republicans offer strong conservative policies, the libertarians trash them. When Republicans offer socially progressive policies that are in line with the official Libertarian Party Platform, the libertarians trash them for being RINOS. Being Democratic Party Stalking Horses, they want to elect socially progressive liberals who are not Republicans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 12:32:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Top priorities of the Libertarian party: 1. Legalize marijuana 2. Legalize marijuana 3. Legalize marijuana 4. Open borders 5. Legalize marijuana Top priorities of the republican party: 1-OMG GAY MARRIAGE OMG. 2-OMG WAR ON RELIGION OMG. 3-OMG ABORTIONS OMG. 4-OMG STOP THE LEGALIZATION OF THE DEMON REEFER OMG. 5-OMG OBAMA GOLFS TOO MUCH OMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 12:35:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Libertarian? You MUST vote Republican in November anyway. ... You're absolutely correct |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 1:00:55 PM EDT
[#9]
I stated back in 2012 after Romney lost that I was through voting for RINOs. I'm going to keep my promise to myself.
I don't think a RINO republican could do any more for this country other than prolong the decline. So if the GOP puts forward a Tea Party candidate they will get my vote. Any candidate who will be "bipartisan" and "reach across the aisle" will not get my vote. Fuck democrats, fuck socialists, and fuck republicans who cooperate with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 1:07:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 1:10:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before the shitstorm... but I agree... Better to have an R in there than a D, and if you vote L, you're probably gonna end up with the D. 
Shots fired! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 1:12:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Difficult to energize senior citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. I don't know about about that. I get excited every month when I pick up my prescription for Viagra. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 1:27:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Difficult to energize senior citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. AARP has no trouble getting out the vote for Republican planks like the half-trillion Medicare expansion, but the nature of the base is changing. The millennials who fall into the republican-base demographic are significantly more libertarian-inclined than their predecessors. "Strong values" that AARP upholds often turn them off completely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 3:33:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WOW....this is why the Repubs lose and WILL Keep losing. The attitude of many republican voters aka "sheep" is that they MUST vote for a piece of shit to avoid getting a bigger piece of shit. The problem with this mindset is that the republicans have LOST or alienated much of the conservative base by nominating "pieces of shit" that pander to the masses. When you have the so called "conservatives" here blaming libertarians....you have made the problem worse. Instead of focusing on nominating true conservatives...you blame libertarians. I have not seen a SINGLE conservative candidate with RNC support in Lord knows how many years. With the mindset here...the republicans will continue to lose, and you will have candidates such as Graham, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, (insert name of RINO here). I have given up on Republicans and for the matter our entire government. It is too far gone when the entitlement generation was bought off by BOTH parties...the failure was assured. Sitting this one out...the Repubs can suck my cock. Dems can too. Put up a conservative Libertarian, or less obnoxious, an Independent candidate that is electable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 3:40:49 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 4:30:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Who cares what libertarians do?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 5:15:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Difficult to energize senior citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 5:17:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 5:20:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Real Republican do. Who else can they blame for losing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? Wrong. Libertarians are insignificant. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 5:41:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. Libertarians are insignificant. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? Wrong. Libertarians are insignificant. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Now that I've said it, not paying attention to those knobs sounds sane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 6:06:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ain't been paying attention to all the butthurt from our gut-hooked Rs on this list, have you? Now that I've said it, not paying attention to those knobs sounds sane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? Wrong. Libertarians are insignificant. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Now that I've said it, not paying attention to those knobs sounds sane. Agreed. I don't know why they waste their time. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 6:15:44 PM EDT
[#22]
I think I'm going to vote for Kang, I like Kodos too but I don't think he has quite as much leadership experience yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:17:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. This is the best reply in the last 16 pages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:41:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Republican party hates us and will betray us. Fuck them and the Dems too. I won't for a candidate who is going to restrict my freedoms regardless of how bad the other party is. We will never peacefully break our enslavement to these parties unless we refuse to support them and build an alternate route to challenge them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:50:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The latter, for 100 percent sure. Liberty—true liberty—and the notion of the government actually sticking to the Constitution, frightens Republicans more than Democrats frighten them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gonna be Hillary, sure as shit. What do you think frightens these people more? Hillary, who will mostly maintain the status quo and keep spending, or a candidate a libertarian would approve of, who would freeze spending and veto unconstitutional bills? Ding, ding, ding |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:54:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ding, ding, ding Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gonna be Hillary, sure as shit. What do you think frightens these people more? Hillary, who will mostly maintain the status quo and keep spending, or a candidate a libertarian would approve of, who would freeze spending and veto unconstitutional bills? Ding, ding, ding I saw this demonstrated in an interview with Dick Cheney. I truly believe that if 2016 boils down to Rand Paul vs. Hillary, Cheney will vote for Clinton. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 2:09:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Huh odd that his press release was titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban,". At the damn bill's signing ceremony Romney stated that the "sole purpose of assault weapons is hunting down and killing people." So who is the one spreading misinformation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone will be along shortly to explain how Romneycare and his AWB were both good things that we are too stupid to see. When Democrats take your guns away, it's because they are trying to destroy America. When Republicans take your guns away, it's because they are looking out for you, or were tricked into signing the law. So Romney ran on universal health care and a new AWB? Did he run on banning blow jobs too? He implemented both of those laws in his state. He didn't just campaign on it, he stripped people of their rights. Should he get a clean slate just because of the R next to his name? Neither party is pro gun rights. Neither party is fiscally responsible. One claims to be both. Libertarians believe in Liberty, the Republican party does not. Lol.....Self-described "libertarians" here in GD believe in misinformation. MA had already passed an AWB signed by Governor Cellucci in 1998. The MA AWB that-unlike the federal ban, had no expiration date-was already law by the time Romney was sworn in as governor in 2003. Nice try, tovarishch. Huh odd that his press release was titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban,". At the damn bill's signing ceremony Romney stated that the "sole purpose of assault weapons is hunting down and killing people." So who is the one spreading misinformation? He specifically stated as a presidential candidate in 2012 when asked during the last debate with Obama, if he'd support a "new AWB". His answer was no, and that America already had enough gun laws. We already knew and know where radical leftist Obama stands on the issue. Did Romney "evolve" on the subject of the 2A as a national candidate? Who knows. All politicians are opportunists to some degree, but Romney didn't run on gun control because it's a toxic subject for conservatives, yet time and time again that's what he's criticized for here in GD as if he did. So yes, it's misinformation, and it isn't coming from those that held him as a better choice-imperfect as he was and is-than Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 4:08:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Real Republican do. Who else can they blame for losing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? In 2012 if you added the number of libertarians to the number of Republicans they still didn't match the number of Democrats who voted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 8:42:05 PM EDT
[#29]
I got e-mails from Mit Romney and Karl Rove this weekend, telling me that true conservatives ned to buck up and send them money. LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 8:43:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: ETA: To be clear, I identify with and consider myself a Libertarian. The majority of Republicans have abandoned us for special interests of their own, but they at least still align more with my core Libertarian / Conservative beliefs than Democrats do. Unfortunately, a vote for a Libertarian candidate in November is essentially a vote for the Democrats. I hate for establishment Republicans to remain seated, or gain more seats, but it's better than the alternative for now. Once Libertarian politicians start securing municipal or city positions and Americans start seeing that a 3 party system is viable, voting for them in state and national elections is a wasted vote at this point. Just my opinion. I'm very concerned with our gun rights, among other things, if Democrats retain control of the Senate and, God forbid, gain control of the House. There would be nothing to stand in their way to begin ramming even more of their agenda down our throats. Call me dramatic, but it's no secret that the direction our country is headed does not end well. Before you guys start saying the usual "Republicans are just as bad" mantra, think about what is important to you and how much of that is at stake with Democrats in control. Sure, establishment Republicans are almost as crooked as Democrats, but at least the up and comers seem to have grasped onto the core values that they once all believed in. Voting L anyway. R can go fix itself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 8:57:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? In 2012 if you added the number of libertarians to the number of Republicans they still didn't match the number of Democrats who voted. That statement is true only if you capitalize the "L" in "libertarian." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 9:00:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before the shitstorm... but I agree... Better to have an R in there than a D, and if you vote L, you're probably gonna end up with a D. Yup, big time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:03:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ahh, voting for the lesser of two evils. Either way you still end up with evil.  This. Yeah, because there's no difference whatsoever between your second grade teacher, and Hitler. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:44:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In 2012 if you added the number of libertarians to the number of Republicans they still didn't match the number of Democrats who voted. That statement is true only if you capitalize the "L" in "libertarian." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[div style='text-align: center;'] Quoted:
Quoted:
Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? In 2012 if you added the number of libertarians to the number of Republicans they still didn't match the number of Democrats who voted. That statement is true only if you capitalize the "L" in "libertarian." Not all libertarians are Libertarians |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 11:43:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip/.....,,,,, A bunch of us are out here waiting and watching. Will you offer candidates who attract us or candidates who repel us? Unlike the Democrats, we will offer candidates who repel you, rather than socially progressive candidates you normally vote for and will continue to vote for. Stop lying to yourselves. This is what you will do: You will act like complete asses and drive away all independents and small-l libertarians and then offer up another lame-dick statist and borderline anti-liberty candidate such as McCain or Romney—both of whom were social progressives on many issues—and justify that choice to yourself with the untruth that "he was the most electable." Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. I thought you libertarians wanted social liberals? What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 11:45:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Difficult to energize senior citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. Wrong. Most of them vote unlike you young ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:20:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Forker isn't twisting anything. In his first sentence, he said that he wants pro-liberty candidates. This would include 2A rights and free market capitalism. I want the same thing. You seem to object to individual liberty. Personally, I have socially conservative views. I attend church regularly and I try to live life as a good Christian. However, the concepts of freedom and liberty also should extend to those who choose to live life differently than I do. I happily try to bring sinners (like me) to church and help them see the light; I see this as my responsibility as a Christian. A government large enough and powerful enough to legislate the social issues which we commonly debate scares the heck out of me. That's why I can't stand Rick Santorum. He seeks to implement draconian laws which in my view are un-American. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:27:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not all libertarians are Libertarians Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who cares what libertarians do? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Who else can they blame for losing? In 2012 if you added the number of libertarians to the number of Republicans they still didn't match the number of Democrats who voted. That statement is true only if you capitalize the "L" in "libertarian." Not all libertarians are Libertarians [div]Tell me: How is it that you know how many small-l libertarians there are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:33:15 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LOL. You are right. I voted Romney in 2012. Romney is a progressive in many ways. His brand of prudery is the same that drove the progressive prohibitionist movement in the early 20th Century and is totally anti-freedom. For whom did you vote in 2012? Stop lying to yourselves. This is what you will do: You will act like complete asses and drive away all independents and small-l libertarians and then offer up another lame-dick statist and borderline anti-liberty candidate such as McCain or Romney—both of whom were social progressives on many issues—and justify that choice to yourself with the untruth that "he was the most electable." Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. I thought you libertarians wanted social liberals? What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. I voted Romney 2012 because I want social liberals in power? Did I get that right?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:37:18 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forker isn't twisting anything. In his first sentence, he said that he wants pro-liberty candidates. This would include 2A rights and free market capitalism. I want the same thing. You seem to object to individual liberty. Personally, I have socially conservative views. I attend church regularly and I try to live life as a good Christian. However, the concepts of freedom and liberty also should extend to those who choose to live life differently than I do. I happily try to bring sinners (like me) to church and help them see the light; I see this as my responsibility as a Christian. A government large enough and powerful enough to legislate the social issues which we commonly debate scares the heck out of me. That's why I can't stand Rick Santorum. He seeks to implement draconian laws which in my view are un-American. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Forker isn't twisting anything. In his first sentence, he said that he wants pro-liberty candidates. This would include 2A rights and free market capitalism. I want the same thing. You seem to object to individual liberty. Personally, I have socially conservative views. I attend church regularly and I try to live life as a good Christian. However, the concepts of freedom and liberty also should extend to those who choose to live life differently than I do. I happily try to bring sinners (like me) to church and help them see the light; I see this as my responsibility as a Christian. A government large enough and powerful enough to legislate the social issues which we commonly debate scares the heck out of me. That's why I can't stand Rick Santorum. He seeks to implement draconian laws which in my view are un-American. Matt33: Your kind is rarer than unicorn droppings. If your fellow Republicans have a lick of sense, they will follow your example as if it was Jesus's own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 12:57:02 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Finally! One sane Republican still inhabits GD. Matt33: Your kind is rarer than unicorn droppings. If your fellow Republicans have a lick of sense, they will follow your example as if it was Jesus's own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Forker isn't twisting anything. In his first sentence, he said that he wants pro-liberty candidates. This would include 2A rights and free market capitalism. I want the same thing. You seem to object to individual liberty. Personally, I have socially conservative views. I attend church regularly and I try to live life as a good Christian. However, the concepts of freedom and liberty also should extend to those who choose to live life differently than I do. I happily try to bring sinners (like me) to church and help them see the light; I see this as my responsibility as a Christian. A government large enough and powerful enough to legislate the social issues which we commonly debate scares the heck out of me. That's why I can't stand Rick Santorum. He seeks to implement draconian laws which in my view are un-American. Matt33: Your kind is rarer than unicorn droppings. If your fellow Republicans have a lick of sense, they will follow your example as if it was Jesus's own. I feel like my fellow republicans have driven me from the party. Whenever I questioned GWB, I was accused of being a closet liberal. Whenever I question R's legislating in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, I was accused of being a closet liberal. It's only Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz (usually), and Justin Amash who keep me as a registered R. I guess I have more in common with libertarians than I do with republicans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 1:07:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've made the assumption that I'm not a Libertarian myself. I look forward to the day that I CAN freely vote for a Libertarian candidate of my choice, but for the time being, their (our) reputation isn't proven yet on any level. At this point, anything "promised" by some great Libertarian minds is simply lip service. There's no track record to run on yet. They (we) need to start fixing local communities on a municipal and city level and then aim for state-level positions. Until that happens, you're going to end up with a powerful amount of votes that could make or break our country going in vain to a third party. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Never voted for a libertarian candidate before, but why do you, and so many republicans think they're entitled to the votes of libertarians? If the libertarians were republicans, they would be republicans, they are libertarians for a reason, they do not agree with the policies of the republican party, what makes you think you can tell people to vote for something they disagree with? I don't understand the sense of entitlement republicans have about libertarian votes... You've made the assumption that I'm not a Libertarian myself. I look forward to the day that I CAN freely vote for a Libertarian candidate of my choice, but for the time being, their (our) reputation isn't proven yet on any level. At this point, anything "promised" by some great Libertarian minds is simply lip service. There's no track record to run on yet. They (we) need to start fixing local communities on a municipal and city level and then aim for state-level positions. Until that happens, you're going to end up with a powerful amount of votes that could make or break our country going in vain to a third party. I have to agree with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 1:35:57 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I feel like my fellow republicans have driven me from the party. Whenever I questioned GWB, I was accused of being a closet liberal. Whenever I question R's legislating in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, I was accused of being a closet liberal. It's only Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz (usually), and Justin Amash who keep me as a registered R. I guess I have more in common with libertarians than I do with republicans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What you seem incapable of seeing is that what we want are pro-liberty candidates. You know . . . uh . . . pro-freedom and all that. All freedoms, not just those that are approved by the Loyal Order of Muskoxen that runs the R party. You appear to be not a pro-liberty guy, so this will make no sense to you. The R party is not a pro-liberty party, so us asking them to offer pro-liberty candidates is about as silly as the R party trying to maintain any illusion of being pro-liberty party. And so the cycle continues. I just wish all our gut-hooked Rs would admit that freedom is not what they really want. Control over people's lives is what you want, which is exactly what the Ds want. The control you want is just on different issues, but it is control. So, that leaves the pro-freedom folks with no party. In my case, I almost always vote for the R, unless his or her "vibe" is overtly fascist or authoritarian. I generally vote R DESPITE how I'm treated by all you Porcupine Republicans. And from a safe distance, I watch the clowns and mummers as they try to reconcile their hatred for so many things with their (apparently) minimal belief in the merits of true freedom. Twist it any way you want. What you want is social liberals in power and that is the most important thing to you guys, even before gun rights or conservative economics. Forker isn't twisting anything. In his first sentence, he said that he wants pro-liberty candidates. This would include 2A rights and free market capitalism. I want the same thing. You seem to object to individual liberty. Personally, I have socially conservative views. I attend church regularly and I try to live life as a good Christian. However, the concepts of freedom and liberty also should extend to those who choose to live life differently than I do. I happily try to bring sinners (like me) to church and help them see the light; I see this as my responsibility as a Christian. A government large enough and powerful enough to legislate the social issues which we commonly debate scares the heck out of me. That's why I can't stand Rick Santorum. He seeks to implement draconian laws which in my view are un-American. Matt33: Your kind is rarer than unicorn droppings. If your fellow Republicans have a lick of sense, they will follow your example as if it was Jesus's own. I feel like my fellow republicans have driven me from the party. Whenever I questioned GWB, I was accused of being a closet liberal. Whenever I question R's legislating in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, I was accused of being a closet liberal. It's only Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz (usually), and Justin Amash who keep me as a registered R. I guess I have more in common with libertarians than I do with republicans. Don't let the Porcupines get you down, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 3:42:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip/.....,,,,, A bunch of us are out here waiting and watching. Will you offer candidates who attract us or candidates who repel us? Unlike the Democrats, we will offer candidates who repel you, rather than socially progressive candidates you normally vote for and will continue to vote for. Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. Pretty much; want to know who is at fault for The R's loosing.........it's themselves. Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Your base isn't big enough to counter the Dems in a national election. Remember Romney's 47% slip, he was correct even though he back peddled on it afterwards. Platforms such as stopping gay marriage and continuing the war on drugs do not speak to young voters. At some point the GOP will be forced to evolve or face a slow painful death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 3:53:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your base isn't big enough to counter the Dems in a national election. Remember Romney's 47% slip, he was correct even though he back peddled on it afterwards. Platforms such as stopping gay marriage and continuing the war on drugs do not speak to young voters. At some point the GOP will be forced to evolve or face a slow painful death. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then, when we independents and small-l libertarians vote for your progressive-lite loser of a candidate ("Romney! In a LANDSLIDE!") anyway, you will drive us further away by accusing us of voting for "libtards" or "teh pot" or "progressives," when the truth is simply that we are lovers of liberty and put liberty foremost in our minds when casting our vote. And then, per SOP, you geniuses will blame us for having lost, yet again. This is the mating ritual of the Porcupine Republican. I stand agog while watching it from a safe distance. Pretty much; want to know who is at fault for The R's loosing.........it's themselves. Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Your base isn't big enough to counter the Dems in a national election. Remember Romney's 47% slip, he was correct even though he back peddled on it afterwards. Platforms such as stopping gay marriage and continuing the war on drugs do not speak to young voters. At some point the GOP will be forced to evolve or face a slow painful death. Do you love your freedoms enough to allow everyone else to have theirs, too? If not, why not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:19:48 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talk of expanding freedom is an easy sell to younger folk. If the youth were so impressed with liberty they would have pulled or Johnson or Romney. They didn't, They don't want liberty, they just want free shit or the promise of free shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:24:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the youth were so impressed with liberty they would have pulled or Johnson or Romney. They didn't, They don't want liberty, they just want free shit or the promise of free shit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Talk of expanding freedom is an easy sell to younger folk. If the youth were so impressed with liberty they would have pulled or Johnson or Romney. They didn't, They don't want liberty, they just want free shit or the promise of free shit. Surely, your guy will win if you keep doing that. It's "worked" for you for eight years, now, hasn't it? Look in the mirror, Republicans. Stop doing stupid shit. We libertarian-minded independents are begging you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:28:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget to keep telling the youth to "get off my lawn" as you slag them for not living up to your standards about what "liberty" is after you have pulled the lever for a non-pro-liberty guy such as Romney. Surely, your guy will win if you keep doing that. It's "worked" for you for eight years, now, hasn't it? Look in the mirror, Republicans. Stop doing stupid shit. We libertarian-minded independents are begging you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Talk of expanding freedom is an easy sell to younger folk. If the youth were so impressed with liberty they would have pulled or Johnson or Romney. They didn't, They don't want liberty, they just want free shit or the promise of free shit. Surely, your guy will win if you keep doing that. It's "worked" for you for eight years, now, hasn't it? Look in the mirror, Republicans. Stop doing stupid shit. We libertarian-minded independents are begging you. Throwing hippies and whack jobs up there has worked for the Libertarian party how many times? Oh that's right. It hasn't. Convince me to vote for your candidate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:28:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget to keep telling the youth to "get off my lawn" as you slag them for not living up to your standards about what "liberty" is after you have pulled the lever for a non-pro-liberty guy such as Romney. Romney never offered the message of "liberty." Neither did McCain. Surely, your guy will win if you keep doing that. It's "worked" for you for eight years, now, hasn't it? Look in the mirror, Republicans. Stop doing stupid shit. We libertarian-minded independents are begging you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Talk of expanding freedom is an easy sell to younger folk. If the youth were so impressed with liberty they would have pulled or Johnson or Romney. They didn't, They don't want liberty, they just want free shit or the promise of free shit. Surely, your guy will win if you keep doing that. It's "worked" for you for eight years, now, hasn't it? Look in the mirror, Republicans. Stop doing stupid shit. We libertarian-minded independents are begging you. Fuck the whiny ass "youth". They are what's wrong with this country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:32:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Difficult to energize senior citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely, we need to nominate candidates with strong conservative values that will appeal to the Republican Party Base, energize them, and get them to the polls; rather than to look to scrape up an insignificant handful of libertarian voters by pandering to liberals and social progressives. Difficult to energize senior citizens. Absolutely the most politically naive assertion of the century. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
