The Paulbearer Kookery factor for this thread is
Tropical Punch
Posted on 07/27/2007 5:39:58 PM PDT by neverdem
I can't think of a better final response on FR than this! Bye Republicans.
See Ya!
Ron Paul ping.
And yet still Ron Paul isn't good enough. His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook. And, of course, libertarians are confronted with the most significant and impactful national libertarian campaign ever conducted and have the gall to turn their back on it and say, "But his position on ------- isn't libertarian enough."
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
Ron Paul will forever wear the stench of Alex Jones.
I have nothing against Ron Paul but it’s a little disingenuous for a libertarian to run as a republican and have his supporters preach to us about his qualifications. If he were being honest he would be running to get the libertarian nomination. But then he wouldn’t be on national TV would he.
If Paul is disingenuous to run as a Republican, so are Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson. And Bush, for that matter.
Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian, meaning he doesn’t think of himself as a Republican, until it is convienant to him. Those other guys are Republicans. They are not the best conservatives in the world but they campaign for and raise money for other Republicans. Ron Paul does not he shows up during election time and plays like he’s a Republican to get the exposer, that is simply the truth.
While the Libertarian Party never seems to get more than a few percent in national elections, small 'l' libertarians are not insignificant. The GOP won't do well without most of them, IMHO. In an exit poll last November there were only 32 % conservative. The remainder was 47 % moderate and 21 % liberal.
I know of nothing that confirms that Libertarians support the Republican party. I assume the majority support the Libertarian party. Most Libertarians I know tell me there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. While I would like to agree with your reasoning I don’t think it holds water.
Take the Pick Your Candidate Quiz >>> http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook."Pro-occupation conservatives"?
How about patriotic Americans backing our troops as they man the front lines of WWIII, you crazy, demented kook.
I see you are using your very best debating technique.;^)
When the facts aren't on your side, start the name calling.
Libertarian Party members usually support their party. Small 'l' libertarians understand that they don't want to throw their vote away, therefore they go with one of the major parties.
Most Libertarians I know tell me there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Between a big spending GOP and the neoCOMs, about the only differences are taxes and foreign policy.
While I would like to agree with your reasoning I don’t think it holds water.
How many folks who are both social and economic conservatives do you think there are?
How do you explain how the GOP held the House and mostly held the Senate from 1994 to 2006? The margin of votes that Libertarian Party candidates received in Montana and Virginia explains how the neoCOMs picked up those Senate seats. Thank Jim Leach of the House for sponsoring the bill to ban online gambling. That idiot, I'm glad he lost, and he was a RINO.
If Iraq is the front line of WWIII, by which of course you mean the war between the West and militant Islam, why are we not also in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan? Are there not more militant Islamists there than were ever in Iraq? Why Iraq? If we're in Iraq to fight the terrorists there instead of here, which I hear frequently from the war's supporters, why have we yet to close our borders and reform our immigration system to the extent necessary to prevent the terrorists from coming and staying here in the first place? Is occupying Iraq the most efficient long term investment of our resources, attention, and political capital in the war on radical Islam? Is landing an occupying force in Islamic territory, removing governments, and killing Muslims an effective way to prevent Muslims from bombing us? Is it reasonable to expect the government we have erected in Iraq to be a stable and long term ally of ours against radical Islam? Is handing Congress and likely the White House to the Democrats on a silver platter a reasonable sacrifice for what has been achieved in Iraq?
The leftists and Democrats oppose the war in Iraq for reasons that are typical of leftists and Democrats. But there are many Americans, Ron Paul and myself included, who oppose the war in Iraq for different reasons; namely, that the war was and is not in the best interest of the United States.
This is the problem at best all we get is a wash. If they want to support us it’s their prerogative. I see no reason to treat them as anything other than a moderate. The last thing we need is to be thought of as sucking up to group that at best is 1-2% of the vote and we would only get about half of that. We give Libertarians respect for their positions and welcome them into our fold they give us precious little in return. They are ridiculed in the democratic party yet they often either sit at home or vote for the dems.
One at a time - Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
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.