You claimed that voting LP, would make others do so, when the Dems are in power. That's delusional; not to mention juvenile and silly.
I'm happy that you voted straight GOP, today ; however, that wasn't what I was responding to. Oh, but what happened to your " principles " ? Why didn't you vote for the LP ? Could it be, perchance, that deep down, you know that's NOT going to ever get you what you imagine you want ? :-)
And, dear , don't assume that you are older and wiser than I am. I doubt that you're older ( though you could be...physically )and you , most assuredly , aren't wiser.
The LP platform is juvenile. When supposed adults write / believe in so much drivel, they have to be cases of arrested developement , Only children and those who haven't ever reached any level of maturity, could believe that there should be no age limit ( but a " height " limit ) to vote, that pornography ( even kiddie porn ) is okay, that legalizing all forms of dope is fine, and on and on, and on.
Nothing, absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G, not even posts at DU, top the lonny level, of Libertarian posters. I guess that you missed the threads where KIDDIE PORN was called " art " and the age of consent ( for sexual congress ) was set as 10, by a couple of Libertarians.
Speaking about shoes, how do both of them taste to you ? :-)
No need, I wrote it, I know what it says.
You seem to have forgotten what you've written. That's only to be expected, though. LOL
Wow, more gratuitous insults. I'm impressed by your perspicacity and maturity. Oh, wait, no I'm not.
You claimed that voting LP, would make others do so, when the Dems are in power. That's delusional; not to mention juvenile and silly.
It would be if that were what I actually wrote. But since it's not, WHICH I ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU, perhaps you're the one being "delusional, not to mention juvenile and silly".
Since this is the SECOND TIME you've had major problems with your reading comprehension, let's revisit what I actually wrote (instead of what you hallucinate I wrote):
*Their* goal, on the other hand, is to push American politics more towards libertarian policies. And winning is not the only way they can accomplish that. They can also accomplish that by sucking enough disaffected voters to their candidates to start affecting the election results. At that point, both major parties are going to have to start thinking about how to change their platforms to be more attractive to libertarian-leaning voters, in order to get those votes back next time around.If you can quote the passage which supports your fantasy that I said anything about making people "want to... vote libertarian", feel free to quote it now.
I'll wait.
<crickets chirping>
One more time, since you missed it the first TWO times around: Their plan is not, as you repeatedly misstate, "that voting LP, would make others do so", it's to influence the two major parties to fight to GET BACK THE VOTES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY GOING TO LIBERTARIANS. This is, in fact, the *opposite* of the words you keep trying unsuccessfully to put into my mouth.
Is that clear enough now, or am I going to have to explain it to you a fourth time?
And note that whether or not you agree with that analysis, and whether or not you think it's a viable strategy, the fact remains that you've managed to repeatedly totally misunderstand it in the first place and accuse me of things I never actually said. My patience with you is rapidly coming to an end.
For pete's sake, being able to actually READ something correctly is the first step to being able to discuss it intelligently, and so far you've utterly failed that minimum requirement. You failed to understand *what* I wrote (in fact, you presumed the *opposite* of what I wrote), and you failed in your attempt to guess *why* I wrote it. Pretty sad.
I'm happy that you voted straight GOP, today ; however, that wasn't what I was responding to.
Sure it was. You were under the delusion that I voted libertarian, which is why you wrote, "Frankly, it makes you guys a hated, reviled, and laothsome group." Oh, and it's spelled "loathsome" -- misspelled denunciations lose a lot of their force. If you're going to denounce someone as a worthless human being, use your spellchecker.
Oh, but what happened to your " principles " ? Why didn't you vote for the LP ? Could it be, perchance, that deep down, you know that's NOT going to ever get you what you imagine you want ? :-)
Or maybe it's because I'm a Republican, YOU FREAKING MORON.
There. Are the brain cells starting to fire *NOW*?
I would have thought it would have been obvious after my last THREE posts clarifying that issue, but no, as a card-carrying libertarian-basher, your brain locks up and acts purely on reflex whenever it sees a post which happens to mention libertarians.
I dared to explain why libertarians do something, and thus I *must* be one of those evil bastards, right? See knee. See knee jerk. Jerk, knee, jerk.
It makes you incapable of actually noticing what someone has written, for example you should have gotten a clue when you saw me write this:
As opposed to those conservatives who call names, go on rants, boldface everything (and capitalize the rest), and attack people just for explaining why some people choose to vote differently than we do?"WE". We conservatives. We voters-for-Republicans.
Where, in your feverishly libertarian-hating brain, did you ever see me say *I* was a libertarian? Go ahead, point it out. I'll wait. <more crickets>
And, dear , don't assume that you are older and wiser than I am. I doubt that you're older ( though you could be...physically )and you , most assuredly , aren't wiser.
I'll take that bet. For example I, at least, have good reading comprehension. And I, at least, am capable of discussing why third political parties do something without losing all my higher brain functions.
The LP platform is juvenile.
That's another topic entirely. I wrote nothing for or against their platform, ideals, etc. etc. I simply wrote an explanation for why it's not "idiotic" (as someone termed it) for third-party people to actually vote third-party and not "settle for" one of the two major candidates. There are practical political reasons for them to do so. And, I might add, understanding their reasons is a prerequisite for knowing how to win back those votes, which I presume you would like to do.
For this, I get accused of caring "only" about getting drugs and kiddy porn (by Cherry) and get told that I'm "not Conservative, don't understand politics [...] revel in being miserable and want everyone else to be too" (by you).
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the level of political discussion. In fact, it appears I've wandered into the daycare center by accident. "You're a poopy-head", they reply to my discourse on political dynamics. Ooookay.
When supposed adults write / believe in so much drivel,
See above... Let those who are without sin, etc.
Speaking about shoes, how do both of them taste to you ? :-)
As soon as you're done chewing on them, hand them over, and I'll take an experimental taste and let you know.
Until then, I expect an apology for your personal attacks and insults, which were based on nothing I actually wrote. Are you honorable and "wise" enough to admit when you were wrong?
I'll wait. (Do I need to get out the crickets again?)
I would reckon his principles are to be found very near those of Theodore Roosevelt's, who in 1912 backed away from supporting Republican Taft and instead accepted the nomination of the Progressive *Bull Moose* party. As a result, T.R. came in second, behind Wilson, with Taft taking a very losing third place.
Of course Wilson, who promised to keep American sons from dying in a Europeans' war, took the U.S. to our entry in that war just a few years later. So then would you find Teddy Roosevelt's actions in standing his own political ground when Taft had placed the Republican Party on what proved to be a suicidal course to be better, or less so than pragmetism and a vote for the lesser of two weasels? [Of course Teddy's actions probably also prevented the chance that Russian Communism had any chance of gaining anything more than the slightest toehold here....]
Answer carefully, remembering that Bush I's abandonment of NRA members and shooters with his *assault weapons* import ban drove many right to the Perot camp...and gave us eight years of Bill Clinton....
By abandoning Republicans who find constitutional comprimise and unconstititional *shortcuts* acceptable, we may indeed have to accept some Democratic victories; I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope Bush II learned from Bush I's mistakes, including the one that cost him the support of many of those who loathed Clinton. But it's beginning to appear that he hasn't... and it looks as if Bush II's own *Ruby Ridge* incident may now be under way.
-archy-/-