Posted on 11/12/2006 12:59:06 PM PST by grundle
Repubs can keep losing or listen up. Even 2% would have made a difference, maybe even allowed the Repubs to keep the Senate. Yep, it would mean some concessions in policy terms. Is a majority in the Senate worth that? I would say so.
"I said I got no use for 'em, never said I couldn't use 'em"
Compared to spending in your state, I would call the most of it justified in time of war. President Bush is not the one who puts earmarks for their home state in DEFENSE spending bills, but your representatives do it regularly.
However, your state continues to send big spending socialists to DC. When that changes, get back to me.
I just call them LIBELtarians.
Gee, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to elect YOUR candidate!
Keep slandering and calling people names, and you'll certainly pick up a lot of support for your views.
I find my views pretty much in line with those of Dr. Walter Williams, just maybe not so "hard core." He considers himself a "Jeffersonian Liberal." Maybe that's me too. But I'll continue to go by the lable "small 'l' libertarian," if for no other reason than it gets people like you to foam at the mouth with hatred. And show what a damned fool you are.
Oh, BTW... I voted for Talent in the MO senatorial race, and against Amendment 2 for embryonic stem cell research protection. Alienate me, and you've lost yet another vote.
Mark
2% spread around properly would have made an entirely different result.
But, I'm not sure how that fits in with the fecklessness of voting "L".
I'm listening evad! If it wasn't for the Libertarian vote the Republicans might have held onto a few of the seats, so what good do they do the country? Thanks, guys.
In keeping with your thoughts here's my name on it.
9fluwoeb
He'd make a good choice for Howard Rourke in a movie version of Atlas Shrugged.
You certainly don't win by SURRENDERING the field to the opposition, taking your ball and going home. That's the same CUT & RUN policy the DUmocrats propose for Iraq.
The DUmocrats won by a 6-year slander campaign provided by the DNC media. They won on NOTHING except Bush hate, not on principles, not on ideas, and most certainly was not a route or a WIPEOUT (as Lardballs Prissy Matthews says).
This was a victory for the PROPAGANDISTS, with the help of those claiming to be on our side. The talking heads endless sniping (at something they can never be - a leader) certainly helped the DUmocrats. Throw in thousands of illegal voters and DUmocrats squeak in a win for Al Queda.
Ain't a dimes worth of difference between an authoritarian conservative and a Democrat. Not all social conservatives are authoritiarian conservatives in my book. It really comes down to how much control the government gets to have over the lives, rights and property of citizens, when the actions of the citizens have no or limited effect on the lives, rights and property of other citizens. For instance, when authoritiarian conservatives talk about the Second Amendment, they generally don't see a Federal right which limits both the states and the feds from legislating posession or carry of arms. Typically, they look to state constitutions to define that right, rather than treating the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. What this comes down to in practice, is that it voids the Second Amendement - and is often done so to allow majorities to oppress minorities.
The California state budget is in balance. The Federal budget is not. Get back to me when that changes.
I disagree with the idea of the "wasted vote," because every vote is an expression of an individual's political desire. A massive libertarian vote, even if it didn't get any candidates into office, would signal to the two parties that they should adopt some libertarian ideas. It was the fringe left, including Mr. Nader and the Green Party, that turned the Democrats away from Clintonian triangulation to the disorganized but implicitly anti-war mob we see today. A similar libertarian groundswell might turn the GOP away from the NCLB/pork/Medicare drug entitlement binge it's been on.
Regardless of the above, are there any studies proving that libertarians do, in fact, "waste" their votes on libertarian (I assume you mean Libertarian Party) candidates?
I'll tell you how it would work. It's a negotiation. Some nanny state conservatives would give up on their desire to regulate the behavior of libertarians and libertarians would vote Republican. Simple, eh?
My screen name is the name of the green dragon from the video game Adventure on the Atari 2600.
Well, it sounds to me that you "good" republicans need to get off your collective asses in gear and clean house.
The voters of RI finally did you guys a favor by voting Chafee out... Maybe some of you will actually do something for conservative republicans, and then maybe, MAYBE, I might come back. That's right. I didn't leave the republican party... They left me.
I'm not a single issue voter, but there are certain issues that I take a very hard look at. They include 2nd Amendment, reduced government spending and control, defense and national security, and abortion.
I vote on the issues, and whoever supports the greatest number of issues I agree with. It doesn't matter what letter follows that candidate's name. It used to be that the candidate with the "R" following typically mirrored my values. But I haven't been able to rely on that for a while now.
Mark
Great! You get to pay a higher percentage of your income to pay for welfare brats, your gun rights have been stripped, your property rights are NON-EXISTANT....and a RINO governor who makes life "better" by appeasing the LIBERALS. You also get the added bonus of surrending to illegals and gangs....JOY!
That's a model we DON'T need to follow.
Oklahoma did...I take it your state didn't.
MO, and the US Senate, lost a good man in Jim Talent. What we got was a shrill, corrupt, idiot in Claire McCaskil.
Mark
You know, things can get worse. I am just tired of voting for the least worst candidate. When the Repubs give me someone to vote for, I'll be happy to do so. Right now, Hastert, Frist and Bush are not high on my list. Hastert for backing up that criminal William Jefferson. Frist for not dealing with the Gang of 14. Bush for pandering to illegals and their employers. At least with the RATs, the enemy is in FRONT. I don't have to watch for the knife from behind.
She won by the voter fraud in St. Louis, the POS Canadian who interfered and LIEbertarians who sat on their hands rather than vote.
Its been known for years that Selleck, Eastwood, Willis, Drew Carey and many other Hollyweird folks are political libertarians. The vast majority remain liberal to the core. A few real conservatives can be found, here and there.
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.