Posted on 03/29/2004 5:25:31 AM PST by freepatriot32
Why would that be less likely if the incumbents are Republicans?
Uh because it isn't mentioned in the LP press release.
That makes no sense at all.
Nah man, because the Nazis aren't embracing your ideals. But the Free Czech resistance is, so you might end up fighting with them.
In retrospect, those 6 players that you loved didn't get picked up by the Yankees, but rather the Boston Red Sox. So, the Red Sox now have the 6 main players (issues/reasons) that you are a fan of baseball. Sure, they play against the Mets (interleague play) but they also play against the Yankees more.
So, I guess the point is that this particular person is more loyal to players (ideals) than he/she is to the team (political party) since the player transcends the team. Just like conservative ideals, freedom and liberty transcend (and are ignored by) the Republican Party.
Uh sweetness, read the article posted for this thread, you will notice that the political affiliation of the three "incumbants" from this LP press release is not mentioned.
But what they you probably give the Wash Compost and CBS, the same benefit of the doubt.
How dare I question the veracity of a LP press release. Correct?
Sounds to me like the Republican Party needs to do more to attract the L/libertarian vote then!
Nader didn't defeat Gore in Florida, Gore defeated Gore in Florida. Likewise, L/libertarians don't cost Republicans elections, Republicans cost Republicans elections.
Whoops sweeteness, sorry about the typos, the above should read.
But what the hey you(sweet land) probably give the Wash Compost and CBS, the same benefit of the doubt
Sorry about that, but what the hey I know that I am not some sort of "god" as strident Libertarians think they are, IMO.
That is irrelevant to your claim that "if those three "incumbant" persons [...] are democrats, they certainly would give private support to Mr. Cox" and your apparent implication that if if those three incumbent persons were Republicans it is less than certain that they would give private support to Mr. Cox.
Maybe you should just say plainly what point you were trying to make.
Huh? What are you talking about. The Libertarians seem intent on electing democrats.
Kinda of going after a lost cause, IMO.
No...I think actually Libertarians are trying to elect Libertarians. You?
The onus is not on me. The onus is on the LP.
I can't help it if they decide to not to disclose what the political affiliation of the three incumbants are.
JMO, using common sense, the three "incumbants" are demos, since the LP press release which this thread is based on is anti-Republican.
Libertarians are trying to elect themselves by attacking their political enemies.
The democrats do the same thing.
Looks like the Libertarians and the democrats have the same political enemy.
That's a poor excuse for common sense. I would expect demos to support their own candidate.
No, I fully expect this type of 'logic' from a republican.
Republicans can only fight one battle at a time or can only run against one candidate. If there's two or more, expect the republican to lose. (Or break down and cry)
This is why Bush lost to Clinton and why Dole lost to Clinton.
If Perot hadn't run in 1992, Bush would've beat Clinton. If Perot hadn't run in 1996, Dole would've beat Clinton.
See how this works?
Since the Republican has two opponents, (count them, 2) they will break down and start whining about how unfair life is.
Just look at Dane. Judging from his posts on this thread, it's clear he's a classic republican crybaby. (A libertarian is criticizing a tax-raising republican and not criticizing a democrat Oh, the humanity.)
Republicans aren't strong. They're weak. This is why they start whining everytime someone criticizes 'their' guy and not the 'other' guy.
You tell me. It was the LP press release that decided not to disclose the political affiliation of the three "incumbants" the press release mentioned.
Why is the LP afraid of full disclosure?
Like I wrote, republicans are weak, not strong.
I think Harry Browne must have run over his dog
Please Harry Browne ran over America when he said that 9/11 was America's fault. he and Richard Vlarke are smoking doobies in the same car, IMO.
But what the hey, no one is stopping you from agreeing with Harry Browne.
JMO, thank God we don't we have a Libertarian President Harry Browne who would be on his knees in Mecca begging for forgiveness about America's sins.
Oh yeah, Mr. Libertarian Harry Browne would pobably have Oldsmobile ted kennedy right by his side.
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.