Yawnnnnnnn....losertarians don't listen to anything other than the radio beams broadcasted into their heads. Trust me...insults work better than reason with these nut jobs.
Posted on 04/06/2008 10:57:13 AM PDT by FocusNexus
From the Phillies 2008 campaign:
Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies today condemned claims that the Libertarian Party is a right-wing conservative Party. "Libertarians are not conservatives," Phillies said. "It is an act of fraud, a violation of our party's statement of principles, to lure conservatives to join by lying to them. Claiming our party is 'true conservative' is dishonest, and will wreck our party.
"Yes," Phillies continued, "there are issues where we agree with conservatives. There are also issues where we agree with progressive liberals. For voters: If you agree with us on issues you care about, please vote for us. If you think you trust our candidate, please vote for him. No matter if you're liberal or conservative or populist, we'd love to have your vote. But I'm not going to lie, just to get your vote."
"We real libertarians have a challenge," Phillies said. "Some conservatives pretend to be Libertarians. Fifty years ago, conservatives claimed states had a right to keep persons of color from voting. Conservatives were wrong. Now, conservatives claim states have a right to keep women from having abortions. That claim is the same old racist Jim-Crow states' rights doctrine. It's still wrong. Our Constitution's 14th Amendment makes things crystal clear. If Congress isn't allowed to do it, neither are individual states.
Phillies urged fellow Libertarians to be prepared. "Yes, we have challenges. But we're up against the Bush Republican War Party, and that's a huge advantage. Just don't let conservatives take over our party. America already has two conservative parties, Republican and Constitution. We shouldn't become the third."
Well DUH!!
I have no intention of voting for the libers, but...
If you think you trust our candidate, please vote for him. No matter if you're liberal or conservative or populist, we'd love to have your vote.
But I'm not going to lie, just to get your vote.”
I agree with that statement 100%.
If all politicians were of like mind, the country would be fine.
Sadly, they are not. far from it.
Waiting for some conservatives to start insulting libertarians as dope smokers and the like... Reasonable people should be able to figure out that you might not want to insult someone whose vote you want. Of course that won’t stop the true believers.
Life is such that you aren’t going to get 100% of what you want. It is rational to make common cause with others to get more of what you want than you would otherwise. You want to give people reasons to change their minds, then that might work, but without respect, it’s never going to happen.
Flame on.
Phillies suck!!!
Mets in 2008!!!!
Better to vote for a libertarian who believe in smaller Gov’t than a Fabianist.
More is the pity. Most little “l” libertarians could live with that better than big government RINOs in charge as is now the case.
For me, it's the Supreme Court that matters, and because of that Obama/Hillary must lose.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has been quoted that he is a libertarian:
“Sure. I am a libertarian. I’ve taken the libertarian exam and scored perfect on it. There’s this 10 question quiz that the Libertarian Party puts out. They give you 30, 20, or 10 points depending on how you answer the questions. I’ve gotten all 30’s.”
— Reason Magazine April 1999, page 44.
“How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?” asked Ventura. “Never before in the annals of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did.”
— Jesse Ventura, April 2008, Alex Jones Show
Excellent post! It’s ashame there aren’t more here who think like that.
That is the hopeful position. Then of course Bush Sr. gave us Souter.
Yea, DUH!!!!
They are not conservatives, but they are whack jobs.....
Same approach can work with some reasonable Democrats too. Like Reagan did. Demonstrate why policies are in their own enlightened self interest and you might gain some allies. Not all to be sure. Hopefully enough.
That’s going to convince a lot of libertarians to support us. Yeah, insulting people you disagree with is going to help. The RATs that is.
Yawnnnnnnn....losertarians don't listen to anything other than the radio beams broadcasted into their heads. Trust me...insults work better than reason with these nut jobs.
See my new tagline
I trust you to help the RATs with that approach. And that is all.
When I think Libertarian I think Jessie Ventura.
Jesse Ventura was on the Phil Hendrie show and Phil demolished him. Some of the best confrontational radio I ever heard
Phil had Jesse’s number!
If GW Bush is a conservative, then certainly not.
Got to give the guy credit for being honest. Not many politicians will tell the truth, hardly any actually. This guy is actually stating a fact and letting conservatives know that their platforms do not match conservative platforms in a lot of areas.
I don't care what the name of the candidate's party is, nor what the name of a national party is...
if they espouse the ideals of a limited federal government, they're getting my vote.
(And if they take the philosophy to illogical extremes, like some of the national-level Libertarian's anti-military positions, etc, then they lose that vote.)
This forum is over run with them, pretending to be Conservative. Ayn Rand is quoted here more often than Jesus.
For the Libertarians to succeed, they need something like the Contract With America, stating 10 simple platform ideas with the most popularity among the American people.
Since many of their ideas *aren’t* popular, it doesn’t mean that they change their minds about them or act in a hypocritical manner about them. Just that they agree to “back burner those ideas for the time being” and concentrate on what the public really wants.
It’s called compromise, not capitulation.
In real terms, the Libertarians could set realistic election goals for themselves with what they advocate. For their first major election with the new idea, they should set a minimum percent of the American voting population for an issue. As examples:
1) Advocate the individual right to bear arms, as well as many of the campaign ideas of the NRA. At 67% popularity (for example) this is their #1 of 10 platform items on their Contract With America. It is a winning issue.
2) A 5% reduction in the size of the US federal government. With 62% public approval (again, just guessing), this is a great, easy to understand and popular platform item.
3) A 10% reduction in the amount of federal regulation of private business. A 57% public approval.
4) A 20% reduction in the federal income tax. 55% approval.
etc. But importantly, every single entry in their platform has at least, say 55% popularity with the American public. In most cases, this means that it appeals to conservatives and some liberals; or to liberals and some conservatives.
As such, the Libertarians would become the de facto centrist party. And it agrees that for a least a few elections, to *only* work on issues that are very popular with the American people, that the Democrats and Republicans refuse to address.
Only when they have built up their numbers, and become a major player in US politics, do they introduce some of their other platforms, starting with the most publicly popular. This would put them in the “cat bird’s seat”, to wheel and deal with the Democrats and Republicans to get what they want that is less popular than 50% or so.
Bingo! Larry Craig should have done the honorable thing and resigned, allowing a Republican to run for his seat as an incumbent. If the Republican Leadership in the Senate were conservative that would have happened.
Santana and Maine and pray for rain. How’s your old pitchers
on the DL doing?
The Archbishop of Canterbury said a few weeks ago that not believing in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, should not be an impediment to becoming a Christian, where do you suppose that leads the Church? After all it is only a small matter, hmnn, maybe only one percent different?
isn’t Clint Eastwood a libertarian too?
Correct, and I suspect all Phillies is about in this article is the justification of abortion. Not all members of the Libertarian party support abortion because many take the the term “right to life, liberty, and property” fully and literally.
“Fifty years ago, conservatives claimed states had a right to keep persons of color from voting.”
Actually, 50 years ago we didn’t call those people “Conservatives.”
We called them “Democrats.”
Exactly.
No flames from me.
Strawman argument in this case.
He is having a delusion. When have conservatives ever been lured into the libertarian party? It's the other way around. Libertarians tend to vote conservative - or at least they have tended to do so between wars.
She wasn't a Libertarian. She despised Libertarians - mainly because most of the people she lured into her objectivist movement soon left and moved on to the libertarianism.
Are you a Phillies Phanatic?
Should rape be legal?
Phillies is correct. If the Bill of Rights doesnt apply to the states then the 2nd Amendment doesnt either. And theres only two or three state constitutions where the RKBA is considered an individual right.
“I consider anyone who is conservative economically a true conservative. Anyone who wants to legislate on social issues, be they socially conservative or liberal, is a socialist and should be kept out of office.”
This is from the FR mission statement.
“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.”
Here is a thread that you should take a look at (again, posted by FR’s founder).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.