User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:13:50 AM EDT
[#1]
If the GOP drives away libertarian voters, that's the GOP's problem, not the voters'. While not nearly as bad as the Dems, the national GOP leadership is still full of corrupt old farts busy milking the status quo, thinking they're playing some sort of game with the Dems.
There are quite a few libertarians that think the sooner the Dems wreck everything, the sooner we'll get done with the unpleasantness that is going to follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:14:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. The Federation of Natives endorsed him. The native corporations are largely ran by whites. The native shareholders will vote along with the Federation. I have been in business here for 38 years. I have worked all over the state, I have had native employees and married a 50% model at one time. I know this state and the people from Juneau to the Aleutian islands to Barrow. Don't try to give me lessons on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Paint with a wide brush much? They? Who is they? EVERY native endorsed him? Weird. Native corporations do not represent the view point of natives. Native corporations endorse Native corporations interest PERIOD. To say ALL natives are FSA is bull shit. That would be the same as me saying all white males are racist pieces of shit. I have been in business here for 38 years. I have worked all over the state, I have had native employees and married a 50% model at one time. I know this state and the people from Juneau to the Aleutian islands to Barrow. Don't try to give me lessons on it. Lol I am married to a Native. Her entire family is conservative as can be and vote R. You have zero credibility. When you try to say ALL (any group for that matter) does something. The majority sure. But you sound like an ass hat when you say all natives are FSA or all natives will follow the Federation. Credibility you don't have it no matter how you try to justify it or claim you have been around X number of years it doesn't matter. You like to paint with a broad brush on multiple issues but in reality you don't know shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:18:05 AM EDT
[#3]
I watched Sean Hannity get booed off the stage at a tea party rally in 2008.
I believe that was the moment the establishment decided they needed to coopt it. A year later Hannity was headlining and very few of the original tea party folks were involved anymore, the movement no longer reflected their values. There have really been two, maybe three, different tea party movements, the one that began after Obama was elected was reactionary and included everybody with a gripe. It was much larger but much less coherent. Before that is was entirely focused on the size and expense of government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:20:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ron Paul ran all of the Tea party events "money bomb"fund raising events to dupethe gullible for about 2 years until the GOP establishment sent Palin and Bachman in to co-op it and be "Tea Party." At that point, it quit being about what it was founded on and became "anti Obama." Seriously, this is not hard to research, there's dozens of political website that peple can read up on the history of the Tea Party. It's not what Sean Hannity told everyone it was. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. The Santelli comment was made in 2009. Ron Paul started the tea party via a money bomb event in 2007, a full 2 years earlier. Look it up. The tea party wasn't start by Rick Santelli, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or any of the other darlings. It was co-opted by them, however. Is that why Ron Paul showed up at all the major TP events?  Ron Paul ran all of the Tea party events "money bomb"fund raising events to dupethe gullible for about 2 years until the GOP establishment sent Palin and Bachman in to co-op it and be "Tea Party." At that point, it quit being about what it was founded on and became "anti Obama." Seriously, this is not hard to research, there's dozens of political website that peple can read up on the history of the Tea Party. It's not what Sean Hannity told everyone it was. Fixed. Ron Paul never did anything save raise money--which he did NOT spend on campaigning--for his own benefit. He was NOT fighting the takeover of health care (ACA or "Obamacare"), which is the real impetus behind the latest "TEA Party Movement" begun by Santelli. Hell, I was talking about the country "needing another tea party event" back in the early 1990s when impeached ex-President William Jefferson Blythe-Clinton massively raised taxes. Am *I* the real founder of the Tea Party Movement? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:22:47 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The GOP is gearing up to run Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush. I think they **might** bear some responsibility for losing. Bush or Christie after Romney and McCain. Yes, clearly, Libertarians are the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:22:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The origins of the current Tea Party movement can be traced back to circa 2007. The movement's beginnings were kick-started by Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in 2007. His GOP presidential campaign received a 24 hour, record breaking, money bomb on December 16, 2007;[24] which is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This event directly contributed to creating a libertarian revival and divide in the Republican Party.[25][26][27] Ron Paul continues to be a prominent force in the Tea Party movement, such as endorsing Tea party candidates,[28] and also giving talks and speeches alongside prominent Tea party activist, and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.[29][30] Sarah Palin has at times disagreed with Paul on foreign policy,[31] but eventually Sarah Palin changed her views on foreign policy and interventionism because of Ron Paul's inspiration and stance on limited government.[32] In 2012 she defended him against critics by saying, "[Paul's] the only one doing something about reining in government growth."[33] Ron Paul had a direct affect on changing other prominent Republican's beliefs on the Federal Reserve. Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and many others changed their views about the Federal Reserve after hearing Paul's opinions on the matter.[34] And then he left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. His only influence on anything was as a Republican. Imagine that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:25:05 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And then he left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. His only influence on anything was as a Republican. Imagine that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The origins of the current Tea Party movement can be traced back to circa 2007. The movement's beginnings were kick-started by Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in 2007. His GOP presidential campaign received a 24 hour, record breaking, money bomb on December 16, 2007;[24] which is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This event directly contributed to creating a libertarian revival and divide in the Republican Party.[25][26][27] Ron Paul continues to be a prominent force in the Tea Party movement, such as endorsing Tea party candidates,[28] and also giving talks and speeches alongside prominent Tea party activist, and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.[29][30] Sarah Palin has at times disagreed with Paul on foreign policy,[31] but eventually Sarah Palin changed her views on foreign policy and interventionism because of Ron Paul's inspiration and stance on limited government.[32] In 2012 she defended him against critics by saying, "[Paul's] the only one doing something about reining in government growth."[33] Ron Paul had a direct affect on changing other prominent Republican's beliefs on the Federal Reserve. Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and many others changed their views about the Federal Reserve after hearing Paul's opinions on the matter.[34] And then he left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. His only influence on anything was as a Republican. Imagine that. Therefore, all Republicans should lean more libertarian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:25:43 AM EDT
[#8]
Ya gotta think about it... why can a libertarian candidate make enough of a dent in R votes for the D to win?
How do you get the L votes to go R? It's social issues. Rs could win every fucking election if they dropped social issues. No one is saying "stop believing gay marriage is bad"... I'm saying "using anti-gay marriage as a platform will likely cost you the election." The economy is far more important. Let's get that shit squared away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:26:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Wait, let me see if I get this right
step 1: GOP tells libertarians that they suck, are unimportant, and should STFU step2: Libertarians go with their own candidate that reflects their views unlike the big government GOP step 3: GOP bitches that Libertarians won't vote for the GOP that hates them That about right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:27:46 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you want to hash this out for millionth time on here? People like you and Beekeeper just can't seem to wrap your head around facts. You like to whine and cry and bitch on the internet about the evil libertarians ruining everything for your precious GOP, and refuse to ever acknowledge ACTUAL FACTS. His own party tanked his campaign because of bullshit infighting due to the way he won the nomination. This has only been discussed on here, oh I don't know, about 75 fucking times. And yet the same GOP ball washers literally take liberal logic to a whole new level. It's like just the word libertarian puts you guys into to irrational rage, where you defend your arguments with contradiction after contradiction, completely fail to ever acknowledge actual facts, and base all of your assumptions on emotional drivel and knee jerk reactions. And just FYI....I am not a libertarian. I vote for your precious GOP but just because I hate them a little less than the D's. I am just sick of seeing the same frothing idiots spewing the same illogical and factually incorrect bullshit in thread after thread. lol Me and Beekeeper? You need to pay attention. I'm not who you think I am. Assumptions like the one you made do not help your status. Have you ever seen me in one of these threads? I didn't think so. But, do continue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:28:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ya gotta think about it... why can a libertarian candidate make enough of a dent in R votes for the D to win? How do you get the L votes to go R? It's social issues. Rs could win every fucking election if they dropped social issues. No one is saying "stop believing gay marriage is bad"... I'm saying "using anti-gay marriage as a platform will likely cost you the election." The economy is far more important. Let's get that shit squared away. I've been saying this for years, but the GOP lovers are obsessed with homo sex and quoting the bible. I'm not a big fag lover and I'm as Christian as the next guy, but maybe when you don't have a fucking job and the economy is imploding, maybe you don't focus on homo sex all day and talk about the bible on tv constantly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:28:28 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. First post to mention weed in this thread: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just look around this thread. The L's are the one's discussing weed. You can blindly ignore it, but it's what they always talk about. Sorry you're offended by the company you keep. LOL. First post to mention weed in this thread: Quoted:
Liberaltarians boosting national socialists? They've been doing that all along. It's all about the weed, man. He wasn't the last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:32:04 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He wasn't the last. No shit? If I pop into a handgun thread and say something stupid about X brand, guess what happens? People respond to my comment and talk about X brand for the rest of the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:32:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every time some fucking "republican" wants to paint me as pandering to the weed vote, because I believe in small government, personal liberty, and personal responsibility, it drives me further and further from the republican party and ensures that they will never receive my support except in cases where there is no Libertarian alternative. Same here. It's part of why I rarely engage in the conversation anymore. It's also evidence of the mindset of being an "issue voter" vs being a "principals voter". It allows people to look the other way when their candidate or party takes stances they disagree with as long as they see eye to eye on their pet issue, hence the lesser of two evils mindset. Evil is ok as long as it's not the other guy's version of it. Right? That's why some will vote for McCains, Romneys and Christies. And yes, pot is the issue that drives some to vote L and that's just as shallow. Cheers! -JC |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:35:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit? If I pop into a handgun thread and say something stupid about X brand, guess what happens? People respond to my comment and talk about X brand for the rest of the thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He wasn't the last. No shit? If I pop into a handgun thread and say something stupid about X brand, guess what happens? People respond to my comment and talk about X brand for the rest of the thread. lol Re-read the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:45:43 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ya gotta think about it... why can a libertarian candidate make enough of a dent in R votes for the D to win? How do you get the L votes to go R? It's social issues. Rs could win every fucking election if they dropped social issues. No one is saying "stop believing gay marriage is bad"... I'm saying "using anti-gay marriage as a platform will likely cost you the election." The economy is far more important. Let's get that shit squared away. The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:52:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every time some fucking "republican" wants to paint me as pandering to the weed vote, because I believe in small government, personal liberty, and personal responsibility, it drives me further and further from the republican party and ensures that they will never receive my support except in cases where there is no Libertarian alternative. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get your house in order before blaming someone else, then I'd imagine these sentiments would have no basis for existence. Liberaltarians boosting national socialists? They've been doing that all along. It's all about the weed, man. Every time some fucking "republican" wants to paint me as pandering to the weed vote, because I believe in small government, personal liberty, and personal responsibility, it drives me further and further from the republican party and ensures that they will never receive my support except in cases where there is no Libertarian alternative. Meh, I'm not a Republican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:54:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Recently, Begich’s campaign has even run radio commercials touting Fish’s candidacy alongside his own -- meaning that since Fish hasn’t spent any money to advertise his own campaign, Begich has now spent more money promoting Fish than Fish has himself. "He likes my positions so well, I’m looking forward to an endorsement,” Fish said in an interview Tuesday. Begich’s official position is that he wants third-party candidates like Fish to be heard. "Since many of the debate hosts won’t include Mr. Fish, Sen. Begich believes it is only fair to give Alaska voters all the information,” Max Croes, Begich’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. But several observers say Begich’s effort to boost Fish’s profile is actually a shrewd act of electioneering -- one likely designed to drive shaky Sullivan supporters into Fish’s column, and shaky Fish voters to Begich. The number of voters in the pool is small, but in a tight and costly election, the strategy makes sense, one local pollster said. Libertarian candidates continue to be the Democrats' best allies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:56:56 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ya gotta think about it... why can a libertarian candidate make enough of a dent in R votes for the D to win? How do you get the L votes to go R? It's social issues. Rs could win every fucking election if they dropped social issues. No one is saying "stop believing gay marriage is bad"... I'm saying "using anti-gay marriage as a platform will likely cost you the election." The economy is far more important. Let's get that shit squared away. The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:59:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"He likes my positions so well, I’m looking forward to an endorsement,” Fish said in an interview Tuesday. Begich’s official position is that he wants third-party candidates like Fish to be heard. "Since many of the debate hosts won’t include Mr. Fish, Sen. Begich believes it is only fair to give Alaska voters all the information,” Max Croes, Begich’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. But several observers say Begich’s effort to boost Fish’s profile is actually a shrewd act of electioneering -- one likely designed to drive shaky Sullivan supporters into Fish’s column, and shaky Fish voters to Begich. The number of voters in the pool is small, but in a tight and costly election, the strategy makes sense, one local pollster said. http://www.adn.com/article/20141028/tight-us-senate-race-enemy-begichs-enemy-his-friend Libertarian Establishment Republican candidates continue to be the Democrats' best allies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Recently, Begich’s campaign has even run radio commercials touting Fish’s candidacy alongside his own -- meaning that since Fish hasn’t spent any money to advertise his own campaign, Begich has now spent more money promoting Fish than Fish has himself. "He likes my positions so well, I’m looking forward to an endorsement,” Fish said in an interview Tuesday. Begich’s official position is that he wants third-party candidates like Fish to be heard. "Since many of the debate hosts won’t include Mr. Fish, Sen. Begich believes it is only fair to give Alaska voters all the information,” Max Croes, Begich’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. But several observers say Begich’s effort to boost Fish’s profile is actually a shrewd act of electioneering -- one likely designed to drive shaky Sullivan supporters into Fish’s column, and shaky Fish voters to Begich. The number of voters in the pool is small, but in a tight and costly election, the strategy makes sense, one local pollster said. http://www.adn.com/article/20141028/tight-us-senate-race-enemy-begichs-enemy-his-friend Libertarian Establishment Republican candidates continue to be the Democrats' best allies. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:00:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WRONG!!! And I know I have disproved you on this numerous times. No. No you haven't. You keep saying you have though, as if that makes it the truth. It's kind of sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:04:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." No matter how many times you people repeat that it will never be true. The only thing said is "Vote for whoever most closely represents your views, but the one who also has a chance to win." Voting for someone (Gary Johnson for instance) you KNOW is only going to get 1% of the vote is just silly. But you choose silly. It's as someone said above--"I'd rather burn the house down than only get 70% of what I want." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:08:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ya gotta think about it... why can a libertarian candidate make enough of a dent in R votes for the D to win? How do you get the L votes to go R? It's social issues. Rs could win every fucking election if they dropped social issues. No one is saying "stop believing gay marriage is bad"... I'm saying "using anti-gay marriage as a platform will likely cost you the election." The economy is far more important. Let's get that shit squared away. The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." lol Context: Bush was talking to all parties in the middle east when he said that. It was true, it's still true today. As for the first part, I dunno, and don't care what you do. This country is fucked regardless. So, toke up, I guess. Or make a lot of money, or both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:09:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Maybe if the GOP put up better candidates (or god forbid, lived up to their own rhetoric) people would not feel compelled to vote Libertarian or Independent. People are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:09:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No matter how many times you people repeat that it will never be true. The only thing said is "Vote for whoever most closely represents your views, but the one who also has a chance to win." Voting for someone (Gary Johnson for instance) you KNOW is only going to get 1% of the vote is just silly. But you choose silly. It's as someone said above--"I'd rather burn the house down than only get 70% of what I want." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." No matter how many times you people repeat that it will never be true. The only thing said is "Vote for whoever most closely represents your views, but the one who also has a chance to win." Voting for someone (Gary Johnson for instance) you KNOW is only going to get 1% of the vote is just silly. But you choose silly. It's as someone said above--"I'd rather burn the house down than only get 70% of what I want." Let me rephrase that to make it reflect what libertarians (at least this one) actually think. We're going to get ass raped by authoritarian socialists, no matter which set of them wins. Why the fuck should we pretend we like it by actually voting to get ass raped by the one with a dick that's half a millimeter shorter when there's a chance that if people just voted to NOT get ass raped we could avoid it? No thanks. I'm not voting for your favorite rapist. No matter how much better you like his cock than the other one. I'm voting to not get ass raped and that's not negotiable. If you want your guy in charge, tell him to quit ass raping and maybe I'll vote for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:10:18 PM EDT
[#26]
The thing about prohibition and social issues and such is those are the GOP's most obvious disconnects with limited government.
It isn't all about the weed, it's all about the role of the state. The political party opposing the progressives needs to be credible, and it isn't so long as its belief in "limited government" doesn't extend any deeper than not wanting their donors to have to pay taxes. ETA- the difficult issue with the lesser evil for libertarians is liberal/conservative ideology claims the democratic process lends legitimacy to powers we believe are illegitimate. I vote for the lesser evil when it matters, but I understand those who don't. Nothing is going to get fixed so long as the political process is only determining who gets to hold the gun to our heads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:11:44 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> If you want your guy in charge, tell him to quit ass raping and maybe I'll vote for him. No. You will change your definition of "ass raping" and continue with the trite platitudes and idiotic untrue memes. It's what you (and yours) do. It's who you are. It's how you amuse yourself on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:12:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! Arfcom libertarians are "obsessed" by social issues because that's the primary issue that divides R and l. If we agreed with you on both fronts, we wouldn't have our own political party, would we? 
I don't know why you put libertarian in quotation marks. Seen it here before, never got a good explanation as to how we're not "true" libertarians? I don't try to single out the idiotic statements. D's make dumbass statements (30 caliber magazine clips, bullets that implode, etc) all the time. R's do (Gays wear diapers, etc) l's do (Ron Paul went off the deep derp end several times). I try to focus on the core issues. The fact of the matter is that the R party DOES need to become more socially lenient. I refuse to use the "liberal" word that you do, because oftentimes libertarian beliefs are far from liberal. Do I want gay marriage legalized? Nope. I want gov't OUT of marriage. Do I want amnesty? Hell no! Look at the polls for young people - there are literally 30% toeing the line between D and R!! There's real potential there. Either the Dems will take it, we will, or nobody will, and the Dems win by default (35%D, 30% I, 25% R) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:14:22 PM EDT
[#29]
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:16:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom libertarians are "obsessed" by social issues because that's the primary issue that divides R and l. If we agreed with you on both fronts, we wouldn't have our own political party, would we?
I don't know why you put libertarian in quotation marks. Seen it here before, never got a good explanation as to how we're not "true" libertarians? I don't try to single out the idiotic statements. D's make dumbass statements (30 caliber magazine clips, bullets that implode, etc) all the time. R's do (Gays wear diapers, etc) l's do (Ron Paul went off the deep derp end several times). I try to focus on the core issues. The fact of the matter is that the R party DOES need to become more socially lenient. I refuse to use the "liberal" word that you do, because oftentimes libertarian beliefs are far from liberal. Do I want gay marriage legalized? Nope. I want gov't OUT of marriage. Do I want amnesty? Hell no! Look at the polls for young people - there are literally 30% toeing the line between D and R!! There's real potential there. Either the Dems will take it, we will, or nobody will, and the Dems win by default (35%D, 30% I, 25% R) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! Arfcom libertarians are "obsessed" by social issues because that's the primary issue that divides R and l. If we agreed with you on both fronts, we wouldn't have our own political party, would we?
I don't know why you put libertarian in quotation marks. Seen it here before, never got a good explanation as to how we're not "true" libertarians? I don't try to single out the idiotic statements. D's make dumbass statements (30 caliber magazine clips, bullets that implode, etc) all the time. R's do (Gays wear diapers, etc) l's do (Ron Paul went off the deep derp end several times). I try to focus on the core issues. The fact of the matter is that the R party DOES need to become more socially lenient. I refuse to use the "liberal" word that you do, because oftentimes libertarian beliefs are far from liberal. Do I want gay marriage legalized? Nope. I want gov't OUT of marriage. Do I want amnesty? Hell no! Look at the polls for young people - there are literally 30% toeing the line between D and R!! There's real potential there. Either the Dems will take it, we will, or nobody will, and the Dems win by default (35%D, 30% I, 25% R) As your post is rational and reasonable (not typical of those I refer to as "libertarians"), I will answer your question as best I can: I use the quote marks because I know a number of what I would call "real" libertarians in real life. NONE conduct themselves remotely like the Moby version found on this site. There is a history of Dem plants being sent out (some even get paid) to do EXACTLY what the ARF version of "libertarians" do. Two plus two equal four. You seem unaware of this, so you likely fall into the camp of those I know in real life. I have no beef with you. 
The "Paulbot" type of Mobys, however . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:16:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:18:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, let me see if I get this right step 1: GOP tells libertarians that they suck, are unimportant, and should STFU step2: Libertarians go with their own candidate that reflects their views unlike the big government GOP step 3: GOP bitches that Libertarians won't vote for the GOP that hates them That about right? That's about the sum of it, with the added bonus of we hate America because we're why the dems are gonna win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:20:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such as? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? Legalizing weed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:20:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such as? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? Whatever is causing these republican voters to jump ship and vote L. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:21:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well before Tea Party was even a "thing," Republicans did a fantastic job of being fiscally conservative. To my knowledge, they still are. Tea Partiers were campaigning under the "Taxed enough already" idea. Which is true, to a degree, but cutting spending is what we need. And not what we got under Bush. (Not that Fuckface himself Obama has helped, lol) Not only did we not get that under Bush 41 but Bush 39 and Reagan missed that boat big time. The government grew in size and increased debt under all three of those recent Republican Presidents with significant Congressional support. Reagan and Bush 39 raised taxes on us. Reagan cut back on income taxes but raised about every other tax to the point where the largest tax increase in history at that time was due to his administration. He knew how to stimulate the economy but he spent every additional income on the government due to increased government revenues and still went to debt two trillion dollars. The Republican Party after 2010 gave Obama the more debt that he wanted in addition to raising taxes. You are correct, Republicans wouldn't know what fiscal responsibility was if it bit them in the ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:21:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever is causing these republican voters to jump ship and vote L. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? Whatever is causing these republican voters to jump ship and vote L. Obviously you've given this a great deal of thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:21:59 PM EDT
[#37]
You mad bro?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:22:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such as? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? Social stuff. That's what it's all about. The beliefs of what conservatism are and has been has changed. So has the demographic which seems to want to shed itself of those previous stereotypes while new stereotypes are formed. At the same time the viewpoint that candidates must conform to these new viewpoints clashes with the candidates and viewpoints from the past. All or nothing mentality has come about because of previous compromises although that mentality has always been present from all sides. Anger from lack of action and success has led to disillusions with the traditional party and people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:23:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Social stuff. That's what it's all about. The beliefs of what conservatism are and has been has changed. So has the demographic which seems to want to shed itself of those previous stereotypes while new stereotypes are formed. At the same time the viewpoint that candidates must conform to these new viewpoints clashes with the candidates and viewpoints from the past. All or nothing mentality has come about because of previous compromises although that mentality has always been present from all sides. Anger from lack of action and success has led to disillusions with the traditional party and people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this is such a big deal, then why don't GOP candidates accept more libertarian positions? Such as? Social stuff. That's what it's all about. The beliefs of what conservatism are and has been has changed. So has the demographic which seems to want to shed itself of those previous stereotypes while new stereotypes are formed. At the same time the viewpoint that candidates must conform to these new viewpoints clashes with the candidates and viewpoints from the past. All or nothing mentality has come about because of previous compromises although that mentality has always been present from all sides. Anger from lack of action and success has led to disillusions with the traditional party and people. Ah, so if the Republican Party adopted the Democrat positions, then they would be different than the Democrats, and you would then vote for them? That about right? Edit: And what exactly do you mean by "Social stuff"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:23:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Libertarians candidates continue to be the Democrats' best allies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Recently, Begich’s campaign has even run radio commercials touting Fish’s candidacy alongside his own -- meaning that since Fish hasn’t spent any money to advertise his own campaign, Begich has now spent more money promoting Fish than Fish has himself. "He likes my positions so well, I’m looking forward to an endorsement,” Fish said in an interview Tuesday. Begich’s official position is that he wants third-party candidates like Fish to be heard. "Since many of the debate hosts won’t include Mr. Fish, Sen. Begich believes it is only fair to give Alaska voters all the information,” Max Croes, Begich’s communications director, said in an emailed statement. But several observers say Begich’s effort to boost Fish’s profile is actually a shrewd act of electioneering -- one likely designed to drive shaky Sullivan supporters into Fish’s column, and shaky Fish voters to Begich. The number of voters in the pool is small, but in a tight and costly election, the strategy makes sense, one local pollster said. http://www.adn.com/article/20141028/tight-us-senate-race-enemy-begichs-enemy-his-friend Libertarians candidates continue to be the Democrats' best allies. Yup and "libertarian" internet progressive blogger shills. Just look at this thread on a gun forum with one week left of early voting before midterms. Obviously trying to influence other people's votes away from NRA endorsed Republicans so Reid, Obama and dems stay in power. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:25:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As your post is rational and reasonable (not typical of those I refer to as "libertarians"), I will answer your question as best I can: I use the quote marks because I know a number of what I would call "real" libertarians in real life. NONE conduct themselves remotely like the Moby version found on this site. There is a history of Dem plants being sent out (some even get paid) to do EXACTLY what the ARF version of "libertarians" do. Two plus two equal four. You seem unaware of this, so you likely fall into the camp of those I know in real life. I have no beef with you.
The "Paulbot" type of Mobys, however . . . Gotcha, gotcha. Since you rarely respond to my posts on these types of threads, I assumed either 1) I was on ignore or 2) You agreed with me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:28:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotcha, gotcha. Since you rarely respond to my posts on these types of threads, I assumed either 1) I was on ignore or 2) You agreed with me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. Gotcha, gotcha. Since you rarely respond to my posts on these types of threads, I assumed either 1) I was on ignore or 2) You agreed with me. Not intentional, I've frankly not noticed your screen name until today. Nothing personal, for sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:30:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only did we not get that under Bush 41 but Bush 39 and Reagan missed that boat big time. The government grew in size and increased debt under all three of those recent Republican Presidents with significant Congressional support. Reagan and Bush 39 raised taxes on us. Reagan cut back on income taxes but raised about every other tax to the point where the largest tax increase in history at that time was due to his administration. He knew how to stimulate the economy but he spent every additional income on the government due to increased government revenues and still went to debt two trillion dollars. The Republican Party after 2010 gave Obama the more debt that he wanted in addition to raising taxes. You are correct, Republicans wouldn't know what fiscal responsibility was if it bit them in the ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well before Tea Party was even a "thing," Republicans did a fantastic job of being fiscally conservative. To my knowledge, they still are. Tea Partiers were campaigning under the "Taxed enough already" idea. Which is true, to a degree, but cutting spending is what we need. And not what we got under Bush. (Not that Fuckface himself Obama has helped, lol) Not only did we not get that under Bush 41 but Bush 39 and Reagan missed that boat big time. The government grew in size and increased debt under all three of those recent Republican Presidents with significant Congressional support. Reagan and Bush 39 raised taxes on us. Reagan cut back on income taxes but raised about every other tax to the point where the largest tax increase in history at that time was due to his administration. He knew how to stimulate the economy but he spent every additional income on the government due to increased government revenues and still went to debt two trillion dollars. The Republican Party after 2010 gave Obama the more debt that he wanted in addition to raising taxes. You are correct, Republicans wouldn't know what fiscal responsibility was if it bit them in the ass. Annual Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored by Typical Congressman (in billions) 07-08 05-06 03-04 01-02 99-00 House Democrats $625 $766 $521 $418 $60 Senate Democrats $193 $118 $158 $151 $53 House Republicans $27 $22 $35 $32 $8 Senate Republicans $118 $21 $34 $34 $14 Source: http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp#politics I stand by my belief that Republicans have still done pretty well, being financially conservative. I dunno. Could be wrong. ETA: Spending is largely determined by Congress, not President. And Congress is often politically opposite of the President. The fact that spending went UP during a Republican's term doesn't mean Republican Presidents spent too much - often, it means that DEMOCRATS in control spent too much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:35:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Derpage redacted for brevity So you're disagreeing with me on what I think. That's interesting. I wonder. is there anyone who knows what YOU think better than you do? Who might that be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:36:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom libertarians are "obsessed" by social issues FREEDOM.because that's the primary issue that divides R and l. If we agreed with you on both fronts, we wouldn't have our own political party, would we?
I don't know why you put libertarian in quotation marks. Seen it here before, never got a good explanation as to how we're not "true" libertarians? I don't try to single out the idiotic statements. D's make dumbass statements (30 caliber magazine clips, bullets that implode, etc) all the time. R's do (Gays wear diapers, etc) l's do (Ron Paul went off the deep derp end several times). I try to focus on the core issues. The fact of the matter is that the R party DOES need to become more socially lenient. I refuse to use the "liberal" word that you do, because oftentimes libertarian beliefs are far from liberal. Do I want gay marriage legalized? Nope. I want gov't OUT of marriage. Do I want amnesty? Hell no! Look at the polls for young people - there are literally 30% toeing the line between D and R!! There's real potential there. Either the Dems will take it, we will, or nobody will, and the Dems win by default (35%D, 30% I, 25% R) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The simple fact is, only the ARFCOM version of "libertarians" are obsessed over social issues. The Republicans don't give a crap, but are always pressed by the media, somewhere in the country, into making an idiotic statement (usually taken out of context), and then the press and "libertarians" run with it and paint all Republicans with the broad brush. The "legitimate rape" quote was a good example--only difference is, here we call it "real rape" as opposed to "I wish I hadn't done that, so he raped me" non-rape. The ARF version of "libertarians" scream for the Republican party to become more palatable by becoming more liberal ("adopt our stuff"), then rail because both parties are "the same." Appeal to the "libertarians" by becoming more liberal by adopting liberal social policy. Then get excoriated when you do. Sure path to victory! Arfcom libertarians are "obsessed" by social issues FREEDOM.because that's the primary issue that divides R and l. If we agreed with you on both fronts, we wouldn't have our own political party, would we?
I don't know why you put libertarian in quotation marks. Seen it here before, never got a good explanation as to how we're not "true" libertarians? I don't try to single out the idiotic statements. D's make dumbass statements (30 caliber magazine clips, bullets that implode, etc) all the time. R's do (Gays wear diapers, etc) l's do (Ron Paul went off the deep derp end several times). I try to focus on the core issues. The fact of the matter is that the R party DOES need to become more socially lenient. I refuse to use the "liberal" word that you do, because oftentimes libertarian beliefs are far from liberal. Do I want gay marriage legalized? Nope. I want gov't OUT of marriage. Do I want amnesty? Hell no! Look at the polls for young people - there are literally 30% toeing the line between D and R!! There's real potential there. Either the Dems will take it, we will, or nobody will, and the Dems win by default (35%D, 30% I, 25% R) FIFY.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:39:18 PM EDT
[#46]
I've heard that timid men prefer the calm seas of despotism. Wouldn't want to disturb their two party system and all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:40:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm donating heavily to the green party before the next prez election. Two can play at this game. Yes. This is nothing new. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:40:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've heard that timid men prefer the calm seas of despotism. Wouldn't want to disturb their two party system and all. Sheeple. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:43:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No matter how many times you people repeat that it will never be true. The only thing said is "Vote for whoever most closely represents your views, but the one who also has a chance to win." Voting for someone (Gary Johnson for instance) you KNOW is only going to get 1% of the vote is just silly. But you choose silly. It's as someone said above--"I'd rather burn the house down than only get 70% of what I want." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. ARFCOM GOP: "Vote GOP or you are stupid and hate America." It's ARFCOM's version of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." No matter how many times you people repeat that it will never be true. The only thing said is "Vote for whoever most closely represents your views, but the one who also has a chance to win." Voting for someone (Gary Johnson for instance) you KNOW is only going to get 1% of the vote is just silly. But you choose silly. It's as someone said above--"I'd rather burn the house down than only get 70% of what I want." You two never fail to entertain. I haven't laughed this hard since the last thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:59:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wish the Republicans would get out of the morality business and stick to a smaller-governemtn-with-a-balanced-budget platform. Yep,like they are supposed to.There is only so long someone can buy their bullshit without walking away. |
|
|
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.
