Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
“Social conservative issues took a back seat in 2010”
Like I said. You have an agenda here. You have an enemy and that enemy is social conservatives.
“If only we ditched all that horrid social conservativism neanderthal principles, we might actually win us some elections!”
“They have to build a coalition.”
Only 50 percent of eligible folks actually vote. You’re right that we need to build a coalition. Of traditional marriage supporters, prolifers, 2nd amendment folks and border security. That along with cutting entitlement pork, and strong military will win elections.
We don’t need you, unless your willing to work with the coalition. You seem to believe that the party must change to you rather than you to the party.
“He wouldn’t have made much progress on social issues”
Right, because you can only win elections by ditching social conservativism and taking up the holy trinity of abortion, gay marriage, and free dope.
Or perhaps I should adopt a slogan of a simpler time, “Acid, abortion and amnesty”.
I don't have an agenda. I stated an observation. You are the one projecting that onto "social conservatives are my enemy".
I have no problem with social conservatives. I agree with them in many ways, and not in others. Ditto for economic conservatives.
I don't generally consider anyone that isn't shooting at me to be an enemy. But, if I were to consider anyone else to be an enemy, it would be you, personally. Not social conservatives, but YOU. Just you, simply because you seem to be completely unable to conduct yourself in a civil manner. I'd use a more succinct noun that accurately describes you, but that would justifiably get me banned.
Only 50 percent of eligible folks actually vote. You’re right that we need to build a coalition. Of traditional marriage supporters, prolifers, 2nd amendment folks and border security. That along with cutting entitlement pork, and strong military will win elections.
Have you considered why only 50% of people vote? A large portion of them are low-information citizens, who don't know or care about the issues enough to vote. Another large portion don't think their vote matters, perhaps because their state or Congressional district always goes for one particular kind of candidate.
The only additional voters you are going to bring in are the ones that have felt that no candidate or party adequately represents all of their views. They don't want to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. You aren't going to bring in those voters by doubling down on the same positions that are scaring them off.
We don’t need you, unless your willing to work with the coalition. You seem to believe that the party must change to you rather than you to the party.
Right back at you. Maybe if you were to stand in the mirror and say that to yourself over and over, you might finally understand the problem. It's you, not the libertarians.
You don't get it: the Republican Party is changing, and you are getting marginalized. And I suspect that's why you are getting so angry. You want to blame someone for your diminishing influence, and libertarians are only a convenient target.
“Republican Party is changing, and you are getting marginalized”
Oh. I see. So I should be happy that the republican party claims to be fiscally conservative, but at least they push dope, abortion and gay marriage, right?
That’s the direction you want to take us?
That is an asinine and groundless accusation. If you can't argue a point here without throwing out insults based on nothing, maybe you should just go back to lurking.
No, but that’s my point. Unless the libs get their way, they won’t help out anyone else who may be closer to them philosophically.
It’s been stated, “The republican party is in the process of changing”, and that “my distaste has to do with being pushed out.”
I daresay my instincts were spot on here, and the winging on the part of liberaltarians is that they’ve been noticed.
McCain is Democrat-lite, and it's especially apparent now. Apparently everyone but the Republican party leadership could see that.
So, explain to me how you expected libertarian-leaning voters to vote for a candidate that even conservatives despised?
*If you can’t see that libertarians and liberals aren’t the same, then you’re almost not worth arguing with.*
Hardly anyone here is even capable of debate...don’t bother.
*I haven’t seen any real Libertarian bashing for almost a decade, but it’s starting to creep up. They must really fear Rand Paul.*
The two crime gangs that run the country don’t like competition.
At least the Libertarians didn’t put up the likes of Mittens Romney on their ticket or try to howl down Cruz.
“The two crime gangs that run the country don’t like competition.”
That’s the money statement. Even a Republican like Cruz is finding he is hated, just like Reagan was hated by the eGOP.
That is a out and out lie, I didn't realize that you had posted that behind my back (which says a lot about your honesty).
I would like to see something that I have EVER posted that isn't true, and /or that I can't back up.
1) A single leftwing social position I am promoting.
2) A single social conservative position I am attacking.
3) Anything that backs up your assertion that the public didn’t know abortion meant the baby dies prior to Roe.
You can’t do any of the three. Not a one. Pitiful.
All over again.
So you won’t show me the posts you are attacking as false.
You accused me of promoting leftwing social positions on FR, and of attacking social conservative positions. For somewhere around the 10th time:
1) A single leftwing social position I am promoting.
2) A single social conservative position I am attacking.
3) Anything that backs up your assertion that the public didn’t know abortion meant the baby dies prior to Roe.
You can’t do any of the three. Not a one. Pitiful.
“All this as part of your reaction to conservative efforts to end abortion. Like I said, you are dedicated to your undefined, but never ending war against social conservatism.”
Your words, ansel12. Back them up, or admit you were wrong. You and I both know you are incapable of doing either.
Show me the posts.
“All this as part of your reaction to conservative efforts to end abortion. Like I said, you are dedicated to your undefined, but never ending war against social conservatism.”
If my “war against social conservatism” is truly “never ending” there must be some evidence of it somewhere. Or did you just shoot your mouth off?
“Republicans seem to like big government. Republicans seem to like illegal immigration. Republicans seem to like importing everything from Chinago”
All true. The GOP is mostly concerned with preserving their place at the table. They will do nothing to restore the constitutional republic. That is being left up to the good citizens of the country.
As enjoyable as it is to go back and forth about politics and upcoming elections the truth is that we have gone way past the ballot box.
If any erstwhile freepers can identify a probable candidate for president in 2016 that has been able to bring themselves to name even one unecessary government agency that they can bear to shutter please tell me now so I can voice my support for their campaign.
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.