(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Taking Democrat Taylor out of the race gives the independent the edge. If the race were between only Orman and Roberts, voters pick the independent over the three-term GOP incumbent by 48-42 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/...out-other/
Tell me again how this is the Libertarians' fault and not the result of the GOP establishment throwing all of their weight behind an unpopular candidate in the primaries.

Because libertarians basically work for the DNC.
Ever notice how they come out of the woodwork whenever the GOP begins to make gains...ready to attack the GOP and demoralize the base?

No.

(09-18-2014 12:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Taking Democrat Taylor out of the race gives the independent the edge. If the race were between only Orman and Roberts, voters pick the independent over the three-term GOP incumbent by 48-42 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/...out-other/
Tell me again how this is the Libertarians' fault and not the result of the GOP establishment throwing all of their weight behind an unpopular candidate in the primaries.

Because libertarians basically work for the DNC.
Ever notice how they come out of the woodwork whenever the GOP begins to make gains...ready to attack the GOP and demoralize the base?

No.

yes. Every time. Here we are on the verge of winning the Senate and here are the libertarians once again to tell us all that is wrong with the GOP.

It's pretty clear who you want winning elections.

(09-18-2014 12:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:57 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that Libertarians don't give a schit what that twat says.

Nope. Not one given.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Well, here's a thought. How about the Libertarians worry about making their own party an actual competitor instead of worrying about the GOP?

Just so we're clear, you posted this in a thread where Republicans are whining about libertarians not voting for Republican candidates.

(09-18-2014 12:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Taking Democrat Taylor out of the race gives the independent the edge. If the race were between only Orman and Roberts, voters pick the independent over the three-term GOP incumbent by 48-42 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/...out-other/
Tell me again how this is the Libertarians' fault and not the result of the GOP establishment throwing all of their weight behind an unpopular candidate in the primaries.

Because libertarians basically work for the DNC.
Ever notice how they come out of the woodwork whenever the GOP begins to make gains...ready to attack the GOP and demoralize the base?

No.

yes. Every time. Here we are on the verge of winning the Senate and here are the libertarians once again to tell us all that is wrong with the GOP.
It's pretty clear who you want winning elections.

Libertarians have been happy to tell y'all what was wrong with the Republican party all along. And the Democrats too.

So, Okie, you are simultaneously telling libertarians to stop trying to change the republican party and also complaining because libertarians don't vote republican?

Here's the deal. You want our vote, fine, change. You don't want to change, fine, do without our vote.

Libertarians should change their name. It sounds cultish and communist at the same time.

(09-18-2014 12:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/...out-other/
Tell me again how this is the Libertarians' fault and not the result of the GOP establishment throwing all of their weight behind an unpopular candidate in the primaries.

Because libertarians basically work for the DNC.
Ever notice how they come out of the woodwork whenever the GOP begins to make gains...ready to attack the GOP and demoralize the base?

No.

yes. Every time. Here we are on the verge of winning the Senate and here are the libertarians once again to tell us all that is wrong with the GOP.
It's pretty clear who you want winning elections.

Libertarians have been happy to tell y'all what was wrong with the Republican party all along. And the Democrats too.

We don't need you telling us. Figure out what is wrong with your party and why it attracts less than 5% of the electorate.

(09-18-2014 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Okie, you are simultaneously telling libertarians to stop trying to change the republican party and also complaining because libertarians don't vote republican?

Here's the deal. You want our vote, fine, change. You don't want to change, fine, do without our vote.

You run under GOP tickets. You pretend you are an arm of the GOP. You show up at CPAC. Yet you claim to be your own party.

I'll vote for just about anybody over many of the Democrats I know. I will gladly take the lesser of two evils but I still think it's a shame.

(09-18-2014 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll vote for just about anybody over many of the Democrats I know. I will gladly take the lesser of two evils but I still think it's a shame.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you're options will always be evil. I reject that paradigm. I'd rather "throw my vote away" voting for something that isn't evil.

(09-18-2014 12:46 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll vote for just about anybody over many of the Democrats I know. I will gladly take the lesser of two evils but I still think it's a shame.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you're options will always be evil. I reject that paradigm. I'd rather "throw my vote away" voting for something that isn't evil.

I agree in theory with you entirely.

But, when one group is more likely to push to steal a greater chunk of my paycheck away and make it more difficult for me to do business I'll take the lesser of the two evils every time.

The lesser works for me on those two things.

(09-18-2014 12:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:02 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:50 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Because libertarians basically work for the DNC.
Ever notice how they come out of the woodwork whenever the GOP begins to make gains...ready to attack the GOP and demoralize the base?

No.

yes. Every time. Here we are on the verge of winning the Senate and here are the libertarians once again to tell us all that is wrong with the GOP.
It's pretty clear who you want winning elections.

Libertarians have been happy to tell y'all what was wrong with the Republican party all along. And the Democrats too.

We don't need you telling us. Figure out what is wrong with your party and why it attracts less than 5% of the electorate.

So you admit you are wrong and that libertarians don't just come out of the woodwork when it looks like Republicans are making gains. That's progress.

Of course, this thread isn't about libertarians telling Republicans what's wrong with their party. It's about Republicans whining about libertarians not voting for Republicans. How would libertarians fixing the Libertarian party help the Republicans? Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Coulter is correct (even a blind squirrel and all that), if the libertarians fixed the Libertarian Party things would get worse for the Republicans, not better. So really it is you who is trying to sabotage the Republican party--have you just outed yourself as a deep-cover liberal operative?

And while there are a number of issues with the Libertarian Party, by far the biggest issue is an intractable one. The American system, first past the post winner takes all, is predisposed to support two major parties. That's why you get these kinds of fear mongering articles. And there is no issue as egregious as slavery on the horizon, so the prospects of replacing one of the major parties in the foreseeable future are dim. But they are slightly better if there is an existing party with existing infrastructure should such an issue arise.

(09-18-2014 12:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:46 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll vote for just about anybody over many of the Democrats I know. I will gladly take the lesser of two evils but I still think it's a shame.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you're options will always be evil. I reject that paradigm. I'd rather "throw my vote away" voting for something that isn't evil.

I agree in theory with you entirely.

But, when one group is more likely to push to steal a greater chunk of my paycheck away and make it more difficult for me to do business I'll take the lesser of the two evils every time.

The lesser works for me on those two things.

I don't always agree with the GOP, but I know I don't need any more tax and spend liberals that trample on my rights and the Constitution.

(09-18-2014 12:51 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:06 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:02 PM)jh Wrote:  No.

yes. Every time. Here we are on the verge of winning the Senate and here are the libertarians once again to tell us all that is wrong with the GOP.
It's pretty clear who you want winning elections.

Libertarians have been happy to tell y'all what was wrong with the Republican party all along. And the Democrats too.

We don't need you telling us. Figure out what is wrong with your party and why it attracts less than 5% of the electorate.

So you admit you are wrong and that libertarians don't just come out of the woodwork when it looks like Republicans are making gains. That's progress.

Of course, this thread isn't about libertarians telling Republicans what's wrong with their party. It's about Republicans whining about libertarians not voting for Republicans. How would libertarians fixing the Libertarian party help the Republicans? Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Coulter is correct (even a blind squirrel and all that), if the libertarians fixed the Libertarian Party things would get worse for the Republicans, not better. So really it is you who is trying to sabotage the Republican party--have you just outed yourself as a deep-cover liberal operative?

And while there are a number of issues with the Libertarian Party, by far the biggest issue is an intractable one. The American system, first past the post winner takes all, is predisposed to support two major parties. That's why you get these kinds of fear mongering articles. And there is no issue as egregious as slavery on the horizon, so the prospects of replacing one of the major parties in the foreseeable future are dim. But they are slightly better if there is an existing party with existing infrastructure should such an issue arise.

WTF are you taking about? I admitted nothing.

Again, you run under GOP tickets. You wouldn't even have a chance to run a candidate without the GOP ticket. Vote for who you wish, but don't try to change the GOP into something you want it to be when you can't even garner a significant amount of the electorate on your own.

You guys are great. You work hard and making the GOP more like the Democrats and then wonder why Republicans have a problem with you.

You are liberals. You can put lipstick on a pig by calling it "liberty" but the outcome always mirror what the progressives want.

(09-18-2014 12:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  WTF are you taking about? I admitted nothing.

You made an assertion, I disagreed, and you responded with an entirely unrelated assertion. In your future conversations, you should know that when someone makes an assertion and you respond with something entirely unrelated, that makes it look like you have conceded the point.

Quote:Again, you run under GOP tickets. You wouldn't even have a chance to run a candidate without the GOP ticket. Vote for who you wish, but don't try to change the GOP into something you want it to be when you can't even garner a significant amount of the electorate on your own.

What does this even mean? If the libertarians are only running under the Republican ticket, why is Coulter whining about libertarians stealing votes from Republicans? That pretty much requires them to be running on separate tickets.

Quote:You guys are great. You work hard and making the GOP more like the Democrats and then wonder why Republicans have a problem with you.

No, the Republicans are already far too much like the Democrats for libertarians.

Quote:You are liberals. You can put lipstick on a pig by calling it "liberty" but the outcome always mirror what the progressives want.

I have no problem admitting I'm socially liberal. But I'm more fiscally conservative than you.

*** Added the only

(09-18-2014 12:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Okie, you are simultaneously telling libertarians to stop trying to change the republican party and also complaining because libertarians don't vote republican?

Here's the deal. You want our vote, fine, change. You don't want to change, fine, do without our vote.

You run under GOP tickets. You pretend you are an arm of the GOP. You show up at CPAC. Yet you claim to be your own party.

That's because we are trying to change you. When you refuse to change, we don't vote for you. What part of that can you not comprehend?

If you change, then we will vote for you. If not, we won't. If we thought we could change the democrats, that's whom we would be trying to change. As long as the choice is a GWB clone against an Obama clone, we are all f-d no matter who wins.

(09-18-2014 12:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:46 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll vote for just about anybody over many of the Democrats I know. I will gladly take the lesser of two evils but I still think it's a shame.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you're options will always be evil. I reject that paradigm. I'd rather "throw my vote away" voting for something that isn't evil.

I agree in theory with you entirely.

But, when one group is more likely to push to steal a greater chunk of my paycheck away and make it more difficult for me to do business I'll take the lesser of the two evils every time.

The lesser works for me on those two things.

I don't always agree with the GOP, but I know I don't need any more tax and spend liberals that trample on my rights and the Constitution.

Here's the thing... I don't always agree with GOP candidates. There were more than a few items I disagreed with Romney on in the presidential election. But there weren't enough items for me to say "I want Romney to lose, so I'm going to make a protest vote and vote for the Constitution Party candidate..."

And yes, I consider myself more in line with the CP party than the GOP (again, except for that foreign policy isolationist platform.).

Here's one for you. You do know who the Democratics "libertarian" party is? It's the Green party (and to a lesser extent the Communist USA party). But then go look at who those Green Party supporters put their votes behind when an election comes up. It's not the Green party, they'll vote Democratic, because there's enough similarities between the two, and then they push to try to get the Democrats to see along their lines.

If Libertarian/Constitution voters took the same look, the Republican party would be that much stronger, but Libertarian voters for the most part and seeing themselves as the "prinicpled" rejection vote.

Why do you think the Log Cabin Republicans NEVER jumped to the Libertarian party? There were stories galore where their leadership said, We see ourselves as Libertarians more than Republicans, but we know we can do more good for ourselves _and_ the Republican party by strengthening the party from within.

(09-18-2014 01:23 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Here's one for you. You do know who the Democratics "libertarian" party is? It's the Green party (and to a lesser extent the Communist USA party). But then go look at who those Green Party supporters put their votes behind when an election comes up. It's not the Green party, they'll vote Democratic, because there's enough similarities between the two, and then they push to try to get the Democrats to see along their lines.

The presidential election results do not back this up. 2012 was the first time that there were more votes for conservative-aligned third parties since at least 2000 (as far as I went back).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2012

(09-18-2014 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Okie, you are simultaneously telling libertarians to stop trying to change the republican party and also complaining because libertarians don't vote republican?

Here's the deal. You want our vote, fine, change. You don't want to change, fine, do without our vote.

You run under GOP tickets. You pretend you are an arm of the GOP. You show up at CPAC. Yet you claim to be your own party.

That's because we are trying to change you. When you refuse to change, we don't vote for you. What part of that can you not comprehend?

If you change, then we will vote for you. If not, we won't. If we thought we could change the democrats, that's whom we would be trying to change. As long as the choice is a GWB clone against an Obama clone, we are all f-d no matter who wins.

Right, you are trying to change the GOP to be more in line with Democrats.

Vote for who you wish, but it is not your place to change us when you can't win an election on your own platform.