[cynwoody]

Not interesting at all, I didn’t say anything about each individual candidate being perfectly libertarian, remember that even Ron Paul was anti-abortion, yet the libertarians still nominated him.

Two things:

1. Sarvis was exceptionally imperfect as a libertarian candidate. Actually, in terms of positions, he was just another 'Rat candidate, albeit without McAuliffe's history. No way was he libertarian.
2. There is evidence that 'Rat operatives helped him get on the ballot. Why? Duh!

Try not to turn personally nasty if you have any self control.

You seem to have an obsession about libertarians, even to the extent that you would misidentify the Sarvis kid as the genuine article. (Kuccinelli is a far better approximation of a libertarian. But he keeps the good parts while leaving out the bad.)

You resemble certain Freepers who have a thing about Mormons. Or the drooling birfers, who have recently acquired a bad odor over their mindless 17th century consistency about the definition of Natural Born.

[ansel12]

You seem to have an obsession about libertarians, even to the extent that you would misidentify the Sarvis kid as the genuine article. (Kuccinelli is a far better approximation of a libertarian. But he keeps the good parts while leaving out the bad.)

LOL, yeah, the actual libertarian candidate is the fake, and the pro-life, anti-libertarian, social conservative republican is more of the libertarian.

Sarvis is without question the actual libertarian, and he is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-states rights on gas tax issues. Cuccinelli is what you people call a statist, a conservative, an anti-liberty guy.