Skip to comments.
The Libertarian Menace
TAS ^
| 10/29/2004
| John Tabin
Posted on 10/29/2004 2:07:39 PM PDT by swilhelm73
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: swilhelm73
Bottom line:
The substantive issues the Libertarians raise are never
going to get a hearing, much less productive debate,
until the menace known as the Democrat Party is reduced
to its various warring constituent groups.
If the Dems ever get majority control of the US again,
elections will become 100% shams.
2
posted on
10/29/2004 2:11:46 PM PDT
by
Boundless
(Was your voter registration sabotaged by ACORN? Check today or Monday.)
To: swilhelm73
big-L Libertarians cannot expect my support. The Big Ls are targeting swing states. ....it's their only hope of "making a difference."
3
posted on
10/29/2004 2:12:16 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: swilhelm73
Have to doubt that the Libertarians will make much of a dent. The Libertarian party is siding with the Democrats on the war on terror, and that is why I left to become a Republican in 2002.
It is greatly annoying that Bush has tried to placate the left by over spending on social programs. But we are talking about putting the survival of this country in the hands of those who care more about trying to sucking up to the Socialist cliche at the U.N. then defending American lives.
4
posted on
10/29/2004 2:15:28 PM PDT
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: AndyTheBear
5
posted on
10/29/2004 2:16:22 PM PDT
by
swilhelm73
(We've found more WMDs in Iraq than we've found disenfranchised blacks in Florida. --Ann Coulter)
To: swilhelm73
Menace?
I would hardly consider a tiny irrelevant group of wack-jobs who cannot even garner 1/2 of 1% in an election a MENACE.
LOL!
6
posted on
10/29/2004 2:17:45 PM PDT
by
broadsword
(Weren't there a couple of giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? What happened to them?)
To: swilhelm73
I question the timing of this article. LOL
7
posted on
10/29/2004 2:30:19 PM PDT
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: swilhelm73
Kinda stupid article -- if everybody who'd voted Libertarian in losing states had voted for W, it would have been less than 1% -- not enough to swing the popular vote to Bush from Gore.
8
posted on
10/29/2004 2:32:22 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: All
There is no logical reason, much less any practical one, for a conservative to vote anything other than Republican. We should vote in the GOP primaries for the most conservative candidate, then vote for the Republican in the November elections. I don't try to convince the majority of posters on this this site, (gave up that hopeless task many moons ago), but rather rational folk out there.
Everyone with a functioning brain knows that all conservatives voting for the GOP and living with the results is the only workable option. Voting LP, voting Constitution Party, sitting on your buns on 11-2, etc, all sound wonderful, but are totally and completely counterproductive. For you flakes out there, this post is not for you--I'd be surprised if you've read this far--but is instead for those who want the most results we can achieve. For the rest of you, ignorance is certainly bliss.....
9
posted on
10/29/2004 2:48:13 PM PDT
by
Malcolm
(there is no substitute for good manners)
To: Malcolm
We should vote in the GOP primaries for the most conservative candidate The primaries are infomercials. The candidates, speakers and platforms are chosen before hand by party insiders and presented to the delegates for a politburo style, made for tv, show of approval.
Try making a peep outside the party line during a primary and you'll find yourself outside just as fast as security can grab your arm.
When this changes, get back to me. Until then... Badnarik.
10
posted on
10/29/2004 2:56:16 PM PDT
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: AndyTheBear
I suspect you and I can be considered "Ron Paul Republicans" - stomaching the less palatable acts of the Republican party in hopes that we can help the party its small-government ideals.
11
posted on
10/29/2004 2:59:06 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: freeeee
Try making a peep outside the party line during a primary and you'll find yourself outside just as fast as security can grab your arm. Uh...sounds like your talking about the conventions, not the primaries.
12
posted on
10/29/2004 3:09:27 PM PDT
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: mvpel
Aw shucks, I'm not sure the Bush wing of the Republican party really is for small government, though smaller the the Rat party to be sure. But none of it matters if we lose the war.
13
posted on
10/29/2004 3:12:55 PM PDT
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: Papatom
After 40 years of being abused and scammed by the GOPPretty broad brush you got there, did you just paint over Ronald Reagan?
15
posted on
10/29/2004 4:52:49 PM PDT
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: AndyTheBear
The Federal Budget as well as the budget deficit increased at a greater rate under President Reagan than it did in the previous decade.
Its far easier to talk the talk, than it is to walk the walk.
16
posted on
10/29/2004 5:07:49 PM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
(Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.)
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: Papatom
The only minor exceptions among Republican socialists in the 20th century were Taft and Coolidge.
If those two were minor exceptions, was Barry Goldwater a major exception?
Or would you classify him as a Republican socialist because he supported a military strong enough to destroy America's enemies?
18
posted on
10/29/2004 6:17:18 PM PDT
by
Mike Fieschko
(I'm not part of the problem. I'm a Republican.)
To: swilhelm73
The LP does NOT side with the democrats on the war on terror. They loathe the pacifism of the left and want to get the U.S. out of the UN as soon as possible. They believe in deterrance and direct strikes against terrorist groups. I happen to agree with them. I think the $200billion++ spent in Iraq would have been put to much better use by increasing the CIA and NSA budgets by 10,000%, creating the ultimate spying/espionage/counter-terrorism force on the planet. We could have infiltrated and destroyed them from within...This is the only way to defeat these people. We can't beat a worldwide network of terror cells by mounting a Normandy-esque invasion of a single country. I think most honest conservatives realize this now.
19
posted on
10/29/2004 8:06:38 PM PDT
by
Capitalism2003
(America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
To: Capitalism2003
Oh please. Did you read the article?
The LP = Dems on foreign affairs.
Sadly, more and more the LP = Dems overall.
20
posted on
10/29/2004 8:20:57 PM PDT
by
swilhelm73
(We've found more WMDs in Iraq than we've found disenfranchised blacks in Florida. --Ann Coulter)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson