100% Union Thuggery.
Posted on 08/09/2009 12:44:19 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
WASHINGTON - America's third largets party Friday called on Democrats to end what appears to be a budding campaign of union violence targeted at citizens who dissent with the White House at town hall meetings across the country. Libertarians oppose not only the White Houses's plan for government-run medicine, but the use of violence to achieve polirtical or social goals.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
Get it through your head, the Libertarian party is fighting to defeat conservative candidates and win the elections themselves which serves the democrat party beautifully.
That is not a coalition.
You betcha, people like me that fought to peel off the cover from the Libertarian party which leads people to vote for better candidates.
It is just like when I eagerly attended my first Libertarian party meeting in 1974, once I got past the great, initial sales pitch geared to my interests and started asking about areas of their platform that they did not want to expose to the uninitiated, I ended up laughing at them and mocking them as I walked out.
Sounds to me like the Libertarian Party is fighting against Obama. I have a novel idea for a better use of your rant time...why don’t you go over to DU or HuffPO and start ranting about Libertarians turning on their messiah,Obama.
You could try this rant on for size:
‘The Libertarians are not our friends..they are enemies of Barack Obama’s and are forming a coalition with conservatives....DON’T VOTE FOR THEM.’
or
‘Libertarian’s are going to destroy our plans for a single pay heathcare system..DON’T VOTE FOR THEM’
or you could just get it through your head that the libertarian party is not as strong as the GOP and hence poses to no real threat to them. They pose a bigger problem to the democrats.
I have absolutely no intention of joining the Libertarian Party or voting for one of their candidates. :-)
Oh shut the hell up will you? Your constant railing against anyone trying to fix our Nations problems is getting really friggin’ old.
Still spouting the same old lies...
“or you could just get it through your head that the libertarian party is not as strong as the GOP and hence poses to no real threat to them. They pose a bigger problem to the democrats.”
Copied text:
In U.S. Senate races, third party candidates played King Maker in 7 races from 1998 to 2006.
For instance, Washington State Democrat Maria Cantwell eked out a 2,229-vote victory over Republican incumbent Senator Slade Gorton in 2000 as Libertarian Jeff Jared siphoned off
nearly 65,000 votes.
A Republican incumbent was similarly burned by a Libertarian in Montana’s 2006 U.S. Senate: Democratic challenger Jon Tester upended Republican Conrad
Burns by 3,562 votes as the Libertarian Stan Jones won over 10,000 votes.
Third parties in fifty-five percent of U.S. Senate of elections from 1998 to 2006 cumulatively won at least 2 percent of the vote. The reality is that they are a persistent presence.
In the 2002 gubernatorial election in Oregon, Republican Kevin Mannix lost by less than 3 points to Democrat Ted Kulongoski while Libertarian candidate Tom Cox
received nearly 5 percent of the vote.
Although Libertarian
presidential candidates have not received more than 0.5 percent of the vote since 1980, they have
placed their candidate’s name on every presidential ballot since 1972, and have achieved ballot
access in at least 36 states in every year since 1980. The Party has won enough votes in
statewide races to contribute to the defeat of many Republicans (e.g. Democrat Jim Doyle’s 2002
Wisconsin Gubernatorial win and Democrat Tim Johnson’s 2002 South Dakota U.S. Senate
victory).
But now stop and think about what their Platform entails. Especially compared to either the GOP or the DNC.
End welfare? End the Alphabet agencies and Czars not explicitly authorized by the Constitution? Real Bill of Rights enforcement?
And yes, ending the drug war, allowing free people to peacefully immigrate here, and letting people associate with who they will as freely consenting adults, is all part of that.
It's called freedom. Sometimes, it's messy, not easy, and it'll piss the Nanny Stater's off to no end.
People like ashole21 would rather use hyperbole and their own spin to make things look as bad as possible to help prop up their own desire to keep the Government in CONTROL of you.
Tough cookies... It's still the right thing to do.
When their press release is on one of those topics, come back and see us. Until then, what you are doing by side-tracking the thread is called TROLLING.
Sounds like you are trying to produce the smallest Conservative group possible with your purist dogma -- gee, who would that benefit?
That's something that you should learn from the Libertarians --purist idealism gets you only a handful of members. It's why the Libertarians always come in third.
You want complete purism, go join the Amish. You want to win elections, loosen up and learn who your real friends and enemies are!
Or is that STILL too much to ask?
Yes..I understand your concerns. But right now, the biggest concern we have is stopping the Obama marxist machine and the first order of business to stop the Obama ‘Deathcare’ bill and Cap and Trade.
OK? Now get busy and help us!
"But I'm a conservative. That means I'm a social conservative, fiscal conservative, small government conservative, national defense conservative and traditional American heritage conservative. And I will support the conservative candidates who best represent my conservative principles and values. In the very least, my conservative candidate will have a strong pro-Life and Liberty record. And he will have an unblemished fiscally conservative, small government, pro-national security, and pro-national defense record!
Will I sit out the race if a socially liberal RINO is nominated? You betcha. I will not participate in the further destruction of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party continues moving left, it will have left me."
“America is still a capitalist society unwilling to accept thuggery”
Why is it that so many people who understand that the Bamtard’s notion of talking nicely to our enemies is lunacy think, nonetheless, that one can talk nicely to domestic thugs?
There is only one way to effectively refuse to accept thuggery.
As soon as you show your intent to refuse to accept thuggery, the thugs concerned deal you violence. That’s what makes them thugs.
At that point, you have two options, and two options only. One is to go down to defeat beneath their violence.
And that brings me back to my original premise: When one party to a dispute is willing to use violence, and the other is not, the first always — always — wins.
“You want complete purism, go join the Amish. You want to win elections, loosen up and learn who your real friends and enemies are!”
And that’s the difference between a politician and a decent person.
I don’t want *my party* to win elections; I want *the*right*people* to win elections. The right people do not promote unlimited abortion, unlimited immigration, unlimited homosexuality in the military, or sodomite marriage.
Anyone who does, even if he putatively a member of whatever party I am registered in, is the wrong person and should lose.
Turn one cheek. Then annihilate them. Works for me...
It made the difference in 2000. Bush ran on a fairly libertarian platform.
When the Rs put up sensible candidates or stuff like the Contract with America, I'm more than happy to vote for that. I don't see any point in either voting D or for a RINO. I'm very fed up with how both "major" parties have handled power when it has been granted to them.
I certainly do not agree with all of the planks in the Libertarian party platform. I'm against the War on (some) Drugs, but neither am I "pro drugs" and I think it is suicidal for a political party to make it a signature issue.
I'm for a sensible immigration policy - if you want live, obey the law and work in the US and are willing to adapt to the culture and speak English, fine. The McCain/Bush amnesty is insanity. In my opinion.
The abortion issue is much harder to cope with. As much as I despise abortion and the people who have them, I don't think it's constitutional for the federal government to be involved with it. I find it fascinating (and the only message of hope in what has so far been one of the most dismal years ever) that national polls show pro-lifers above 50% for the first time.
Lastly (and to counter another Libertarian myth), I've lived in the 3rd world (mostly) since 2003. I recognize that there are things that will never get done if government does not do them. I'm not for no government, just a whole lot less of it.
Zero is the Master Thug in Command.
100% Union Thuggery.
So you are going to drive away anyone and everyone who might help elect that "right person"? Good luck with that!
I am not suggesting that you or anyone else compromise your values by voting for a candidate who doesn't represent those values.
I am saying when the Libertarians join us in denouncing Obama and hit a home run -- then is NOT the time to start denouncing the Libertarians. To do so is just plain stupid.
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.