Libertarian seeks tax-raising Republican's Oregon House seat

www.lp.org ^ | 3 28 04 | www.lp.org

[Sweet Land]

I wish they(Libertarins) had given names and party affiliations.

They didn't.

As I said, and you deleted (Washington Post tactics?), "That doesn't change my expectation that Rats would support their own candidate."

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I actually had a good impression of them "before" I read what they were about and what their members thought.

Like you, I used to have a favorable opinion of republicans until I started paying attention to what they did once they actually were elected. Just look at what these republican tried to do to their constituents who elected them thinking they were electing an advocate to fight for them in the legislature.

Imagine the constituents' surprise when they found the names of their so-called small-government republicans supporting a $1.1 billion tax increase.

[xrp]

Go back to the 2000 election and you have numerous examples of Libertarians voting for Democrats because they might further their drug and other agenda.

The logical alternative to the 40-70 year Prohibition on some Drugs would be to return to decriminalization (prior to the 1930s era) of drugs and instead focus on rehabilitation and treatment. It is amazing that this logical conclusion soars over the heads of Republicans, who in this matter are thinking emotionally (drugs are bad, MMMMKAY, we tell YOU the populace what you can and cannot do with your body). Emotion in politics is very bad (Mediscare, Social Insecurity, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, No Child Left Behind, etc).

[A CA Guy]

Granted I should not have, but I thought libertarians were some kind of super conservative.

Instead, they ended up being the crazy relative you "leave" in the closet and feed by sliding a dish under the door.

[headsonpikes]

Harry Browne is a fatuous non-entity - what has that to do with this obviously special-case situation in Oregon?

Are you not at all encouraged by the thought that an anti-tax crusader can become popular in a supposedly liberal lala-land state?

Good Lord, Dane, stand up on your hind legs for a change!

[Sweet Land]

Go back to the 2000 election and you have numerous examples of Libertarians voting for Democrats [...] If this website goes back 4 years, go back and read them all

You make the claims and I do the work? Forget it. Post proof or shut up.

[A CA Guy]

Republicans have been pushed left more so with the social spending due to the massive give away by Democrats of the whole treasury of the vote.

Who will the people like more. The one who gives them money or the one who says budget?

I think the Republicans are looking to put a stake in the heart of the Democrat party for good and I see signs more kids are getting more access than before to conservative ideas.

[Sweet Land]

Republicans have been pushed left more so with the social spending due to the massive give away by Democrats [...] I think the Republicans are looking to put a stake in the heart of the Democrat party for good

By becoming them?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Go back to the 2000 election and you have numerous examples of Libertarians voting for Democrats because they might further their drug and other agenda.

Like Dane, you attempt to remove the mote in the eye of the libertarians while overlooking the beam in your own.

What do you think of Measure 30?

Do you support the 11 republicans who tried to get it passed?

[A CA Guy]

Again, those wanting to push all these drugs should hopefully self overdose and die real quickly so they can't continue to ruin children and our culture.

It is evil, does not get people growing in their lives, it kills them and does nothing to better anyone.

Build a new business, perhaps go find God, but don't dare push, deliver or use drugs.

[A CA Guy]

I won't have to shut up at all, an election is coming this 2004 and Libertarians will be at it again to provide you with current continuing proof. They never change for the better.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Republicans have been pushed left more so with the social spending due to the massive give away by Democrats of the whole treasury of the vote.

Who will the people like more. The one who gives them money or the one who says budget?

Like I wrote, republicans are weak, not strong.

If they were strong, they would've stood their ground and called the democrats on their actions.

Historically, this has not happened and I suspect it will not happen in the future.

Since the republicans want so desperately want to be liked, they will abandon all their principles in order to be elected. In return, they will dole out the monies of others.

Great principles you support, there, CA Guy.

We do not elect people to office to be liked. We supposed to be electing them to pridently manage our government.

Since the 11 republicans didn't provide this to their constituency, they deserve to be unelected.

Just because you're not brave enough to say so, doesn't give you the right to criticize those that are.

[A CA Guy]

No, they are going a bit that way for a while to grab the vote.
This has made Democrats more shrill and desperate.

I think the end result is the longer conservatives are in power, the more young people seeing conservatives and are growing up to think the conservative in power is normal.

That is a good thing.

[xrp]

Granted I should not have, but I thought libertarians were some kind of super conservative.

No. Just like the Democrats and Republicans, there are liberals, conservatives and moderates.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I won't have to shut up at all, an election is coming this 2004 and Libertarians will be at it again to provide you with current continuing proof. They never change for the better.

Winning elections isn't proof of principles. The 11 republicans who voted for the $1.1 billion tax increase proved that.

[Sweet Land]

an election is coming this 2004 and Libertarians will be at it again to provide you with current continuing proof.

I won't hold my breath.

[xrp]

Again, those wanting to push all these drugs should hopefully self overdose and die real quickly so they can't continue to ruin children and our culture.

I guess it depends on your personal confidence levels or something...I have several friends who have smoked marijuana before, yet it hasn't knocked my rock solid morals.

[A CA Guy]

Republicans are one of two viable parties.

They are grabbing the people and they will make more people conservative.

Once in power long enough, they could change the culture enough to get away from all the social spending.

It is human nature that is weak. The vote is easily swayed by giving things away and that is the people's fault.

If Republicans tried to stay true to their conservative beliefs about never growing anything socially, then they would not see power again ever the way people are right now.

Taking themselves out of the game but being 100% real conservative does us no good in the end.

These are necessary evils at this time that need to be shaved back later.

[Sweet Land]

No, they are going a bit that way for a while to grab the vote. [...] the longer conservatives are in power

By "conservatives" you mean big-spending vote-grabbers?

[Dane]

Do you support the 11 republicans who tried to get it passed?

And do you support the appx. 25 democrats who also did.

Let's do some simple arithimitic here.

1/3rd of the Oregon Pubbies supported while probably 95% of the Oregon demos supported the tax increase.

And who do the Libertarians go after, the Pubbies.

Excuse me , but it seems the Libertarians are going after Winston Churchhill while letting Hitler have no blame.

Kinda of like modern day demos, IMO.