1 posted on
11/14/2002 10:23:51 AM PST by
arual
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: arual
To: arual
Imagine if a third--only one third!--of Kurt Evans' voters had thought seriously enough about the importance of the election to cast their votes for Republican Thune. Then the reservations would have come up with another 1000 votes for the democrat. That's the nice thing about waiting until all the other votes are counted!
To: arual; babylonian
Meet the Losertarians! Well, where are the pics? Here, I'll help:
![](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/Central/10/02/candidate.blue.skin.ap/story.blue.canidate.ap.jpg)
Stan Jones, Montana's Libertarian candidate for Senate
Candidate Turns Himself Blue
To: arual
Some GOP candidates' chances in state races here in California were DESTROYED by the losertarians. The Libertarians can kiss my REAR END! GET OUT OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS ALREADY!
To: arual
Man, it's a b!tch to have a political party that consistently stands for a set of clearly articulated ideas instead of competing on the contents of the menu like some Burger King vs McDonalds. Long live the Incumbent Party!
(The cat's no Libertarian!)
To: arual
It ought to be obvious that you can only change a major party by participating in it and joining its internal struggles, and that you can't influence a political organization by walking away from it.
Does Michael Medved actually practice the platitudes he preaches? Do any of the rest of the crowd of 'can't wait to bash the libertarians' around here? Are all of you members of PETA, GreenPeace, Democratic Underground, StormFront, the U.N. --- active members, valiantly struggling to change them from within?
If not, you're either hypocrites, or you need to stop using this tired canard with zero validity.
59 posted on
11/14/2002 10:59:13 AM PST by
Le-Roy
To: arual
This might all be amusing were it not so irresponsibleRight On Michael!
Get a life, losertarians!
To: arual
Ridiculous. Where does it say that there should only be 2 parties in politics.
Fact is, here in PA I voted for Fisher for gov, (Repub), but specifically voted Constitution Party vs. Republican in the other races. WHY? Because the Repub. state candidate supports the destruction of property rights in the form of "farmland preservation" and other socialist crap.
Another house repub sent out a mailer about how "we are protecting Social Security for seniors" and similar crap.
Why should I vote Repub in cases where they are indistinguishable from Demoncrats?
65 posted on
11/14/2002 11:01:18 AM PST by
ikka
To: arual
I find it pitiful when a major party whines about how if all the people who voted for third party candidates, or even a portion of them, had voted for them they would have won. As if the power and number of seats they have in Congress isn't enough compared to that of third parties.
The answer, of course, is for major parties to speak to the issues that third-party voters care about in order to convince these voters that the major parties have earned their votes. If the major parties don't want to do that because of various political concerns of their own, that's fine, but then they shouldn't complain when they haven't earned the votes they want.
70 posted on
11/14/2002 11:06:25 AM PST by
BikerNYC
To: arual
Medved's articles are not very useful as toilet paper as the ink and/or toner can leave stains.
His intellectual abilities and level of honesty are somewhat lower than what's left on used toilet paper.
84 posted on
11/14/2002 11:12:44 AM PST by
jimt
To: arual
Libertarians always ignore the fact that they can be very effective as a Republican candidate.
Libertarians also ignore the fact that they can be appointed to office. Dubya appointed the libertarians Gayle Norton at Interior and James Ziglar at INS. These two have hired other libertarians. In the case of Norton, she hired bigwig libertarian Lynne Scarlet, aka "LINO".
Bush has also recently hired Allan Fitzsimmons to head up the "Healthy Forests Initiative". He is best known as a writer at Cato and also served both Reagan and Bush the Elder.
By appointing these libertarians, Bush has lost some support from other groups. The Property Rights people fear the libertarians at Interior. The anti- immigration groups hated Ziglar. After Fitzsimmons gets thru negotiating with the Sierra Club, ...............
There is a place in the Republican party for Libertarians.
To: arual
I like much of what the Libertarians have to say. Having said that, I think many if not most libertarians support the party because they want drugs and prostitution. If you support true Libertarian principles (right to bear arms, free speech, right to privacy NOT ABORTION, minimum regulation of the economy) join the RLC. Drugs and prostitution are not a real Libertarian's biggest issues. If all you want is drugs and prostitution, you are a LIBERALtarian. There is a difference.
108 posted on
11/14/2002 11:30:12 AM PST by
Sparta
To: arual
Once Republican politicians start voting conservatively, I'll start voting Republican.
To: arual
This might all be amusing were it not so irresponsible. There can be only one proper solution to this problem: since the libertarians aren't going to exercise their right to vote in the way that Republicans want them to, then the Republicans should immediately set about passing laws that will see to it that libertarian voters be denied that right to vote altogether.
Right?
And God Bless America.
To: arual
Pat Buchanan is a libvertarian.
Justin Raimondo is a libertarian.
That should tell you all you need to know.
To: arual
It ought to be obvious that you can only change a major party by participating in it and joining its internal struggles, and that you can't influence a political organization by walking away from it.Case in point. Democrats in '68 and '72. They didn't have anything to show for being hijacked by the far-Left for years. But they do now.
And now after the '02 elections, they will move even farther to the Left. I would think that every American who truly doesn't want any more of a Leftist slide in the nation would band together so that this Leftist strain, which is severely weakened, can be knocked out indefinitely.
It begs the question as to why this is not the case. Ideology is fine, but it doesn't pay the bills.
182 posted on
11/14/2002 12:31:32 PM PST by
rdb3
To: arual
I love it when Medved trashes the Losertarians. The Losertarians are comparable to the guy who called in to Medved's show yesterday to say that he used to wear a dress to high school just because it ticked off his dad. Some people grow up, and those who don't vote Libertarian.
To: arual
I think I'll become a libertarian.
Whoops. I forgot. I'm not a pot-head.
To: arual
Man, Medved is saying EXACTLY what hundreds of us at FR have been saying for several years....The Losertarians will froth at the mouth over this one.
To: arual
while medved acquits himself poorly with the harry "clowne" and "losertarian" remarks, it's true that libertarians would serve themselves and their ideals better if they just joined the republican liberty caucus
you can find out what RLC is all about on their FR board or their national and state websites
265 posted on
11/14/2002 1:19:56 PM PST by
dwills
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson