That's because they don't have anything in common with the DUmmies. If they went there, it would be only to troll.
They come here to attack social conservativism. Why? Because they hate social conservatives more than they hate statists.
Or maybe it's because they agree with conservatives on economic issues, but get attacked by YOU over social issues and respond in kind.
Your responses to me are a good example. All I did was point out that attacking libertarians wasn't a good idea, considering their common ground with conservatives on economic issues. You responded by attacking libertarians.
There is a common problem here: your behavior. When are you going to start accepting responsibility for it?
Liberaltarians rewriting history claim that Reagan supported abortion, gay marriage, and free dope. All the things they support today.
I haven't seen anyone claiming that Reagan supported these things. But, Reagan focused on economic issues. He wouldn't have made much progress on social issues anyway, since at least the House was always controlled by Democrats. He was able to build a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to enact legislation.
There aren't many conservative Democrats left. They were either replaced by liberal Democrats, replaced by Republicans, or switched to the Republican party. But, even with the changes, the Republicans still don't have a enough support to take the Oval Office and the Senate. They have to build a coalition.
And? You want to purge the Tea Party of social conservatives? You’re asserting that social conservatives aren’t economic conservatives? Neither is true.
Did I say that? I said that the Tea Party was founded and was driven by economic conservative principles. Social conservative issues took a back seat in 2010, and Tea Party candidates did very well. They didn't do so well in 2012, but we are finding there were external influences. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2014.
I’m spot on here.
Keep those blinders on. You'll go right over the cliff.
Have a nice day.
“Social conservative issues took a back seat in 2010”
Like I said. You have an agenda here. You have an enemy and that enemy is social conservatives.
“If only we ditched all that horrid social conservativism neanderthal principles, we might actually win us some elections!”
“They have to build a coalition.”
Only 50 percent of eligible folks actually vote. You’re right that we need to build a coalition. Of traditional marriage supporters, prolifers, 2nd amendment folks and border security. That along with cutting entitlement pork, and strong military will win elections.
We don’t need you, unless your willing to work with the coalition. You seem to believe that the party must change to you rather than you to the party.
“He wouldn’t have made much progress on social issues”
Right, because you can only win elections by ditching social conservativism and taking up the holy trinity of abortion, gay marriage, and free dope.
Or perhaps I should adopt a slogan of a simpler time, “Acid, abortion and amnesty”.