(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:26 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

What a convincing argument. But, for the sake of the discussion, I will concede that, as Rand Paul is more libertarian than you in your mind, and for the purposes of this discussion, he is a libertarian.
Now please explain how Rand Paul winning a Senate seat in 2010 is siphoning votes away from the Republican candidate for Senate from Kansas in 2014. Or any other Republican candidate. Or contributing to the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate in any meaningful way.

Hey, didn't his Dad also run as a Republican? What about Mike Lee or Thomas Massie? How about Mark Sanford and Trey Radel?
and what do you know? Libertarians are suing the Republicans in Nebraska. Now call me crazy, but most kids these days normally don't sue the person giving them a ride to school in the morning.

I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.

But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

(09-18-2014 04:06 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:54 PM)gdunn Wrote:  That last question is a doozy ain't it?

The funnier part is that liberal guys are probably agreeing with that part and don't get why that's an issue.

They also think it's perfectly normal to make eye contact with a stranger while eating said banana.

(09-18-2014 03:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Any support for free booze?

Needs to be a mandated part of healthcare. You can choose birth control or booze...up to $20/month.

I'm in.

(09-18-2014 04:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:26 PM)jh Wrote:  What a convincing argument. But, for the sake of the discussion, I will concede that, as Rand Paul is more libertarian than you in your mind, and for the purposes of this discussion, he is a libertarian.
Now please explain how Rand Paul winning a Senate seat in 2010 is siphoning votes away from the Republican candidate for Senate from Kansas in 2014. Or any other Republican candidate. Or contributing to the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate in any meaningful way.

Hey, didn't his Dad also run as a Republican? What about Mike Lee or Thomas Massie? How about Mark Sanford and Trey Radel?
and what do you know? Libertarians are suing the Republicans in Nebraska. Now call me crazy, but most kids these days normally don't sue the person giving them a ride to school in the morning.

I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.

But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

Because, the constant and relentless hatred directed towards the GOP from libertarians has actually changed the landscape. In some cases in the favor of Democrats. Kansas is a prime example. Then you have libertarians trying to unseat people like Mitch McConnell by actually voting for his Democratic challenger.

Libertarians are a traitorous group, with a broken platform. If you are going to run as a Republican, you support the Republican candidate.

(09-18-2014 03:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Any support for free booze?

Needs to be a mandated part of healthcare. You can choose birth control or booze...up to $20/month.

LOL.. so contraceptive medicine or reproductive medicine? :)

(09-18-2014 02:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  That's true, Libertarians shouldn't be running off the Republican Party shirttail. Create your own separate party and live or die from it and not by taking votes away from the Reps because Libertarians are not liked by Moderates that will vote Dim because of this.

Last time I checked....two things are clear. 1. The LP is a party that stands on its own and has been in existence since the 70's. 2. The LP and ANY other party are excluded from the debates in a system that the 2 gangs set up after Perot showed his strength. The fact is that ONLY the Dems and GOP are allowed in the process...by their own fcking rules. The fix is in. The only way anyone can get into the process is by running as a conventional gang member...like Ron Paul did. Open the process if you want Libertarian minded candidates to not run on GOP tickets. What are you scared of?

(09-18-2014 04:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

Quote:Why Are Conservative Men So Mean?

How exactly is a rainbow made?
How exactly does a sun set?
How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work?
Why do liberal men have to put their hand on the back of their head to eat a banana?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!



But to answer the original question. Conservative men don't tiptoe on eggshells to keep from offending some effeminate sensitive liberal male or female. That's why we're so mean.

Who do we know in the arts, movies, politics that would/could be called a conservative?

List here:

(09-18-2014 04:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Hey, didn't his Dad also run as a Republican? What about Mike Lee or Thomas Massie? How about Mark Sanford and Trey Radel?
and what do you know? Libertarians are suing the Republicans in Nebraska. Now call me crazy, but most kids these days normally don't sue the person giving them a ride to school in the morning.

I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.

But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

Because, the constant and relentless hatred directed towards the GOP from libertarians has actually changed the landscape. In some cases in the favor of Democrats. Kansas is a prime example. Then you have libertarians trying to unseat people like Mitch McConnell by actually voting for his Democratic challenger.

Libertarians are a traitorous group, with a broken platform. If you are going to run as a Republican, you support the Republican candidate.

Open the process for any and all gangs to have voice... or STFU when someone from one of them runs on another ticket because there is not other alternative. What are you scared of Okie?

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:26 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

What a convincing argument. But, for the sake of the discussion, I will concede that, as Rand Paul is more libertarian than you in your mind, and for the purposes of this discussion, he is a libertarian.
Now please explain how Rand Paul winning a Senate seat in 2010 is siphoning votes away from the Republican candidate for Senate from Kansas in 2014. Or any other Republican candidate. Or contributing to the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate in any meaningful way.

Hey, didn't his Dad also run as a Republican? What about Mike Lee or Thomas Massie? How about Mark Sanford and Trey Radel?
and what do you know? Libertarians are suing the Republicans in Nebraska. Now call me crazy, but most kids these days normally don't sue the person giving them a ride to school in the morning.

I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.

And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.

But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.

If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

They don't have to do GD thing.

(09-18-2014 03:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:09 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 02:59 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 02:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Libertarian are not Republicans. Why do you run as Republicans?

Who is running as a Republican and what does that have to do with this thread?

Is Rand Paul a libertarian?

No, but at least he's the kind of Republican I would consider voting for.

Plus, I'm pretty sure he's not running this year so I don't see how he could take votes away from anyone else and allow the Democrats to retain control of the Senate.

yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

One that your unprincipled ass will vote for if nominated. Hypocrite.

(09-18-2014 04:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.

But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

Because, the constant and relentless hatred directed towards the GOP from libertarians has actually changed the landscape. In some cases in the favor of Democrats. Kansas is a prime example. Then you have libertarians trying to unseat people like Mitch McConnell by actually voting for his Democratic challenger.

Libertarians are a traitorous group, with a broken platform. If you are going to run as a Republican, you support the Republican candidate.

Open the process for any and all gangs to have voice... or STFU when someone from one of them runs on another ticket because there is not other alternative. What are you scared of Okie?

We are party with a platform. Read it. It not up for debate and it doesn't include your socially liberal alternative. So you don't have a voice.

Garner a base of your own and run as a third party. Get off our nuts.

(09-18-2014 04:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Hey, didn't his Dad also run as a Republican? What about Mike Lee or Thomas Massie? How about Mark Sanford and Trey Radel?
and what do you know? Libertarians are suing the Republicans in Nebraska. Now call me crazy, but most kids these days normally don't sue the person giving them a ride to school in the morning.

I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?
And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

Because, the constant and relentless hatred directed towards the GOP from libertarians has actually changed the landscape. In some cases in the favor of Democrats. Kansas is a prime example. Then you have libertarians trying to unseat people like Mitch McConnell by actually voting for his Democratic challenger.
Libertarians are a traitorous group, with a broken platform. If you are going to run as a Republican, you support the Republican candidate.

How have you still not got it through your head that this thread is about people voting for candidates running as Libertarians? That's big L Libertarian. Members of the Libertarian Party. So your whining about what people who run as Republicans should do is completely nonsensical. Not that I should have expected anything else.

(09-18-2014 04:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Open the process for any and all gangs to have voice... or STFU when someone from one of them runs on another ticket because there is not other alternative. What are you scared of Okie?

He found out about the secret Libertarian plot to have soccer officially named the national pastime.

(09-18-2014 04:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  We are party with a platform. Read it. It not up for debate and it doesn't include your socially liberal alternative. So you don't have a voice.
Garner a base of your own and run as a third party. Get off our nuts.

I'm curious how all of these alleged "libertarians" won their primaries if they aren't true Republicans. If true, that doesn't speak highly of the Republican Party.

(09-18-2014 03:48 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I saw these people at a Romney rally when he was the nominee trying to steal votes for a candidate that had zero chance of winning. When their folk hero Ron Paul ran as a Republican over the years, they voted for Ron...not the GOP. AS soon as Ron lost, neither he nor his followers stuck around to help the nominee.

Pharaoh, I think this is where we have to make sure we differentiate between the two, Libertarians and libertarians. (sort of like how conservatives go out of their way to differentiate themselves from Republicans).

The "libertarians" I don't see the issue with. the Libertarians are where I do see the problem, particularly in the last two Presidential elections.

(09-18-2014 04:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The LP and ANY other party are excluded from the debates in a system that the 2 gangs set up after Perot showed his strength. The fact is that ONLY the Dems and GOP are allowed in the process...by their own fcking rules. The fix is in. The only way anyone can get into the process is by running as a conventional gang member...like Ron Paul did. Open the process if you want Libertarian minded candidates to not run on GOP tickets. What are you scared of?

Fo, this is the part I don't think anyone has an issue with on the Libertarian stance, but one of the things I've noticed and Libertarians (again, BIG L) refuse to answer on: How many Mayoral candidates, Governor candidates, State House, city councilmen, candidates do Libertarians run?

Want to see a Libertarian make some serious noise?

Run an electable candidate (and I dont just mean the housewife from down the street to "run" or the guy who has a criminal past) for a Mayor of mid to large size city (El Paso TX, New Orleans LA, hell, Boise, Idaho!, or Juneau, Alaska.. or even better yet, hit Philadelphia or St. Louis, Liberal BASTIONS!).. PROVE that big "L" policies work there.

I noticed this at LP national convention (yes, I went to one) and asked that question. And the response was "we can't make a splash on the local level". In fact, I had gone home to watch the nomination process for their Pres. Candidate that year, and only ONE delegate mentioned they had a Libertarian mayor in their state. ONE. ( I want to say Minnesota).

(09-18-2014 04:28 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm sure that in your mind all of those people are died-in-the-wool Libertarians.
And I'm not sure why you are upset about the Libertarian Party suing to stop Republicans from violating Nebraska's election laws. That seems to be exactly what you asked them to do. Stand on their own two feet and develop their own brand. Forcing the major parties to abide by the same rules they have to live by is an important part of that effort.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?

If libertarians want to run as Republicans, they need to support the party and the platform. Not use the party to catapult their candidate that not only doesn't share the platform, but dogs on it when the establishment is poised to take control of an election cycle. It's clearly opportunistic.
If you read the GOP platform, you will clearly see it does not share the socially liberal view that libertarians pride themselves on.

I repeat myself.
But none of this has anything to do with what is being discussed. How is any of this making it more likely that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate?
And are you for or against libertarians voting for Libertarians?

Because, the constant and relentless hatred directed towards the GOP from libertarians has actually changed the landscape. In some cases in the favor of Democrats. Kansas is a prime example. Then you have libertarians trying to unseat people like Mitch McConnell by actually voting for his Democratic challenger.
Libertarians are a traitorous group, with a broken platform. If you are going to run as a Republican, you support the Republican candidate.

How have you still not got it through your head that this thread is about people voting for candidates running as Libertarians? That's big L Libertarian. Members of the Libertarian Party. So your whining about what people who run as Republicans should do is completely nonsensical. Not that I should have expected anything else.

Uh no it's not.

Name the candidates she's talking about...

Go.

(09-18-2014 03:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:09 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 02:59 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 02:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Libertarian are not Republicans. Why do you run as Republicans?

Who is running as a Republican and what does that have to do with this thread?

Is Rand Paul a libertarian?

No, but at least he's the kind of Republican I would consider voting for.

Plus, I'm pretty sure he's not running this year so I don't see how he could take votes away from anyone else and allow the Democrats to retain control of the Senate.

yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

No, he's a Republican because that's what he's running as. Until he stops pretending to be a Republican, he'll never see a vote from me. He needs to declare one or the other.

(09-18-2014 04:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:09 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 02:59 PM)jh Wrote:  Who is running as a Republican and what does that have to do with this thread?

Is Rand Paul a libertarian?

No, but at least he's the kind of Republican I would consider voting for.

Plus, I'm pretty sure he's not running this year so I don't see how he could take votes away from anyone else and allow the Democrats to retain control of the Senate.

yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

No, he's a Republican because that's what he's running as. Until he stops pretending to be a Republican, he'll never see a vote from me. He needs to declare one or the other.

No, He's a libertarian running as a Republican.

I will vote for Rand Paul

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-18-2014 04:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:yes, Rand Paul is a libertarian.

No, he's a Republican because that's what he's running as. Until he stops pretending to be a Republican, he'll never see a vote from me. He needs to declare one or the other.

Tom if there was one guy that is a libertarian candidate, it's Paul. he may make some weird gaffes at times, but he is a libertarian type candidate.

Turn off the ideological blinders in that case, and look past the "R" and "D" labels in this case (and there are only a few candidates on either side of the spectrum you can literally say that about).