You didn't say that you aren't a Libertarian, in the post I replied to. You left it quite open, so that I and others assumed that you are one. At the very least, you were their champion and not a very good one. That you don't like the responses, that you engendered, is your problem.
As to my one, tiny , misspelling, late at night, after an exciting election, is what makes my entire response incorrect / objectionable to you ? How adult . LOL
No, I don't want to recapture the Libertarians, if it means that the GOP have to cave in and take on enough of their positions, to woo them into the fold. What you fail to realize, is that by doing so, the GOP would lose the majoprity of its REPUBLICAN base. If they wanted to be Libertainas, they would be; not Republicans. That you can't see / understand that concept, proves that you haven't a clue. So much for your smary, and yes, juvenile claims to be so enlightened. LOL
It wasn't a rant at all. I'm perfectly calm. It was a point-by-point deconstruction of your errors and your gratuitous insults. I'm not surprised, however, that you've managed to have the actual essence of yet another post bounce off your forehead with a sharp "ping".
Actually, I doubt you're truly that dense. I think you're playing dumb in order to try to pretend that my public exposure of your mistakes and abominable behavior didn't hit home. You're hoping that by saying in effect, "nyah nyah, missed me!", you'll divert attention from how poorly you've behaved here.
If so, the only person you're fooling here is yourself. An honorable person would have apologized for such attacks as you've indulged in for no damned good reason. But since you have dodged my specific invitation for you to tender an apology, I now know that you have no honor.
So now I'll know how to consider you in the future.
If you want to see what a "pathetic little rant" actually looks like, consider this incredibly hyperemotional post:
One can just feel the screeching rage bleeding out through the excessive boldfacing and capitalizations.This is precisely WHY Libertarians will NEVER win anything, get what they want, and are THE ENEMY WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT " . You aren't Conservative, don't understand politics, and are dogs in the manger, who revel in being miserable and want everyone else to be too.
In a nutshell, when Dems win, that only energizes Republicans; it doesn't make us want to go over to the ENEMY WITHIN and vote Libertarian. Frankly, it makes you guys a hated, reviled, and laothsome group. This is no way to win friends and influence anyone.The Libertarian Party is the home for juveneiles, cases of arrested developement, pro dopers, who couldn't survive two months, under a real LP run nation.
Oh, wait, that was one of yours, wasn't it? That was your childish rant in response to my simply explaining the political dynamics of why third party voters choose to vote for third parties.
You didn't say that you aren't a Libertarian, in the post I replied to. You left it quite open, so that I and others assumed that you are one.
Nor did I give any reason for you to presume that I was one. My writing about libertarians (which I clearly described as "they" -- that alone should have been clear enough) and why they vote as they do hardly counts as even the flimsiest pretext for your disgusting personal attacks against me.
If I wrote about why the Nazis made certainly political choices, would you presume I was "championing" the Nazis, and that I must be one, and go off on a rant about how "Nazis like me" are subhuman? Yeah, I guess you would after all.
An honorable person would... Oh, wait, I forgot to whom I was speaking, never mind.
At the very least, you were their champion and not a very good one. That you don't like the responses, that you engendered, is your problem.
Oh, please. No one could possibly be as dense as you are pretending to be here.
I didn't "champion" anything, I was explaining why third-party voters don't feel that they are "wasting their vote" if they vote for someone other than the two major parties.
I "didn't like the response" because I got in response three childishly vicious attack screeds, one of which being yours, all of which exposed their authors' various emotional problems and were based on nothing I actually wrote.
My huge sin, apparently, was daring to write about libertarian motivations in a neutral manner (gasp!), without in the process rabidly denouncing them strongly enough for your tastes.
As to my one, tiny , misspelling, late at night,
In the interests of accuracy, you made three.
after an exciting election, is what makes my entire response incorrect / objectionable to you ? How adult . LOL
Ah, yet another point which zoomed over your head entirely. I take it back -- maybe you *are* as slow-witted as you appear to be.
Hint #1: Nowhere did I claim that it "made your entire response incorrect / objectionable". You're hallucinating things into my posts. Again.
Hint #2: You were taking snotty potshots at me and snootily proclaiming superiority from them, so I returned the favor in kind to see how you liked it. Did you take the hint and tone down your own impertinence? No, of course you didn't.
I notice that your ego (not to mention your double-standard) didn't allow you to let it slide, you had to play the wounded victim.
Score for me.
No, I don't want to recapture the Libertarians, if it means that the GOP have to cave in and take on enough of their positions, to woo them into the fold. What you fail to realize, is that by doing so, the GOP would lose the majoprity of its REPUBLICAN base.
Nonsense. There are plenty of things the Republicans can do to be more attractive to those who currently vote libertarian, without taking on the entire libertarian platform, *and* be more supported by its "REPUBLICAN base" at the same time. For just one example, a more serious commitment to reducing the bloated size of the federal government (especially where it currently exceeds its constitutional bounds). Republicans in power talk a lot about doing this, but seldom act on it as much as they could.
Libertarians aren't just about drug legalization, you know. Well, *you* may not know that...
At this point I'm tempted to say "I'm sure you could think of more if you bothered to try", but then, perhaps you couldn't.
Fine -- you go ahead and refuse to think of ways that we could draw more votes to the Republicans because you don't want "those people's" votes. There's no harm in you being so shortsighted and self-destructive to your own party, your misguided opinion matters not. But thankfully President Bush and the grown-ups running the Republican party are a lot more savvy than that, and are constantly on the lookout for ways to attract more voters. They know the wisdom of that approach even if you'll never grasp it.
If they wanted to be Libertainas, they would be; not Republicans. That you can't see / understand that concept, proves that you haven't a clue.
Your declaring such an absurdity doesn't make it true -- not even with your now traditional gratuitous insult.
There are plenty of swing voters in any voting block, who can be persuaded to vote for your party if you just make the effort to understand what's important to them, and take the time to reach out in the right way.
It's ludicrous for you to declare that they're all unobtainable votes, forever beyond our grasp. The same (faulty) argument could be applied to declare that it's useless to try to turn any of today's Democratic voters into next election's Republican voters.
And you say *I* don't have "a clue"?
So much for your smary, and yes, juvenile claims to be so enlightened. LOL
Your record is stuck in a groove. Are you really so short of actual argument that you have to keep repeating the same silly insults in the hopes that you can "win" by being condescending heavily enough?
If so, I regret to inform you that it's not working. It sure makes you sound like a Democrat, though.
Okay, enough dodging. Here are the points you failed to address from my last post:
1. Several times, you mistakenly accused me of holding a "delusional, juvenile, and silly" position that I in fact did not make (to wit, that I had claimed "that voting LP, would make others do so"). You were flat wrong, you were grossly misrepresenting (and/or misunderstanding) my actual point. I challenged you to admit your error, and retract it (for bonus points, retract all the insults you flung at me based on your false accusations about my position). You made a mistake, and repeated it after I already clearly corrected you on it. I want to see you admit for once that you made a mistake. I'm still waiting.
2. Point out the place where I claimed to be a libertarian, or, alternately, admit that you flew off the handle for no good reason and insulted me repeatedly in error. I'm still waiting on that one too. I'm afraid your lame "well you didn't say you *weren't*" mumble simply isn't adequate. Come on, just once I want to see if you're capable of admitting that you made a mistake -- so far you seem entirely incapable of doing so, even when its grossly manifest. Instead, you try to change the subject, or fling more insults to cover your screw-up, or lamely try to claim that it's somehow my fault that you repeatedly jumped to wild conclusions which "made" you spew long strings of insults.
3. Apologize for your grossly uncalled-for insults. They were based on your several errors (see above), which makes them even more inexcusable and worthy of apology. If I mistakenly insulted someone repeatedly based on my own misconception, I'd very quickly tender my apologies. But then, I have a sense of honor. I again ask the question you have failed to address: "Are you honorable and "wise" enough to admit when you were wrong?"
I think you've made the answer to that question *quite* clear, but I'm willing to give you one more chance to behave honorably after your abysmal behavior. I would advise you not to squander it.