[NittanyLion]

We can only be certain of three things as it relates to Libertarians:

1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything
2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians")
3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election

See any flaws in that logic?

[RedStateRocker]

Can't see any flaws in you post as it does not even slightly resemble 'logic'.

1- Montana. If the are insignificant then why is Burns on the way out?

2-The Republican party and small 'l' libertarians used to have a lot in common, the Republican party has become more a creature of the evangelical Christians at the same time as the 'L' ibertartin party has, unfortunately, been taken over by those for whom marijuana is as important an issue as abortion is for Christians

3. Use of the word 'stole' is stupid. Prove that those votes'belonged' to the Republican party. The GOP is not 'owed' anything and making it sound like it is 'entitled' to any votes makes you sound just like all the other 'entitlement' people.

[steve-b]

We can only be certain of three things as it relates to Libertarians:
1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything
2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians")
3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election

ROFL -- quidnunc and Echo Talon remind me of the lawyer who advanced the following defense for a client sued for damaging a rental car:

1. My client never touched this car.
2. This car was already damaged when my client drove it off the lot.
3. This car was in perfect condition when my client returned it.

[DesScorp]

"2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians")"

Libertarians are nothing but cheap Democrats that don't want to pay their taxes. Fire up that Ganja, Losertarians, you helped put the Democrats in power. Like that idiot Lew Rockwell, do you actually think your "free market reforms" are going to get much support from Democrats?

[Jack Black]

You wrote: We can only be certain of three things as it relates to Libertarians:
1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything 2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians") 3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election See any flaws in that logic?

Yes!. #1 and #3 contradict each other. #3 is true (except why say stole, they earned them) The article is about the number of votes for Libertarian candidates far exceeding the difference in close elections. 3rd party candidates can be spoilers. Gore would have won if Nader had not run. Bush Sr. would have won if Perot had not run.

The Libertarians are *NOT* aligned with the Democrats. That is absurd. Do you know anything about Libertarians? Their institute, the Cato institute, is frequently used as a "think tank" by Republicans. They are the strongest advocates for small government and low taxes out there. The are strongly anti-socialist. They are not "progressive". There are many Republicans who are also libertarian leaning. Dick Armey and Ron Paul are two who have got elected that come to mind but there are many others.

[umbagi]

We can only be certain of three things as it relates to Libertarians:

1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything
2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians")
3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election

See any flaws in that logic?

Yes. It's incomplete.

4. They've almost destroyed FreeRepublic as a significant factor in the politics of the United States.

[Brucifer]

I agree. Those are some mutually exclusive conclusions. I'm a libertarian, but I vote Republican because otherwise I'd get stuck with Rats all the time. I did vote for Kinky, but it's not as if Perry was ever in any trouble.

[meandog]

We can only be certain of three things as it relates to Libertarians:
1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything 2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians") 3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election

See any flaws in that logic?

Yup, without Libertarians the GOP will go the way of the Whig party...

The difference between liberals, conservatives and libertarians. An anology:

A conservative meets a homeless alcholic on the street who asks him for a dollar; he yells a few obsentities at the man for being a bum and a drunk then passes him by, ignoring the principles of the Christianity he wears on his sleeve.
A liberal meets the same man, grabs him against his will, stuffs him in his vehicle and takes him to a AA shelter which is supported by tax dollars (none of which the drunk wants) then forgets about him and tells himself he's done a good deed. Suffering from the DTs, the drunk later dies.
A libertarian meets the man and gives him a dollar to help buy a bottle of Thunderbird.

And when you hard-right Bible-thumping neocons understand you're only a bit more tolerable than the hard-left perhaps we'll have a great country again.