Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely winscores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, theres Hope.
Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, theyll have to be watched and held accountable.
The most optimistic change, then, hasnt really been these candidates. Its been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that theyve sat on their duffs long enough. Its time to get involved. Its time to stay involved.
The candidates arent perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. Theyre human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters will.
So, I read Doug Mataconis piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.
Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine ODonnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?
(Excerpt) Read more at libertypundits.net ...
Know what the difference between them and some of you posting on this thread?
It was our choice. Completely irrelevant to what government or anyone else thinks. We honored the tenets of our various religions without government coercion one way or another.
As it should be.
What kind of a morally crippled state does your faith need to be in to think that it needs government sanction for it to exist?
You just said in post 455 that this is a group discussion and now you're whining about her "yelling for help"? She just pinged the group who was having the discussion.
She's right. Your anecdotal *evidence* is totally meaningless. You chose to get married in a church. Big deal. That by no means invalidates what I said in my previous post and it does not tell anyone anything about your position on marriage or homosexual *rights*.
Don't confuse him with the facts.
Thanks, metmom. I missed that “calling for help” part of the post completely.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it. DC pinged Jim yesterday. Was he calling for help? LOL
Rules for thee but not for me.
The byline of the libertarian movement.
So who asked the other poster to come up with an inaccurate, libelous, statement about libertarians and their stance on marriage?
I wasn't aware I needed your prior approval to post. Who do you get your permission from?
I'm not the exception that proves the rule either. You'd know this if you were even remotely interested in the truth.
She gave her OPINION. That's what posters do on forums.
I wasn't aware I needed your prior approval to post. Who do you get your permission from?
Quite the statement in view of this previous one.
You need to make up your mind if you want to trumpet your private life on a public forum or you don't. While you're thinking, leave us out of it.
Quote mining is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
A lot of that going on here. On both sides.
I gave my opinion. She gave hers. As you say, that is what posters do on forums.
Rules for thee but not for me.
The byline of libertarianism.
Libertarians are really good at having two standards of behavior. One that let's them do what they wish without repercussions, and one that gives them control of what others do.
Hypocrisy abounds in libertarianism because their actions don't match their words.
Here's a clue to libertarians. We see what you do. We don't listen to what you say. There's a difference and we haven't fried our brains on the drugs you guys push and can till think clearly enough to see the difference. That's why we know what libertarianism is all about.
You debate chaotically and jump all over making wild statements that you cannot back up. You NEVER responded to 407. You have a lot of nerve judging other posters while ignoring your false statements.
Quite the opposite. One rule, applied to all. No exceptions.
No. Not even you...
The other poster brought it up and it fit perfectly with your other post to me which was little more than a collection of "quotes" you "mined".
I tried to back up a "wild statement" I made. You didn't want to hear the proof. I can't communicate with you if you put your fingers in your ears and shout at the top of your lungs, "I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!"
I'm calling BS on that one.
In virtually all the posts on this thread, people are posting complete sentences and more to respond to. That includes the complete thought that the poster expressed.
The fragment you pulled out of my post doesn't even mean anything on its own as you posted it. It's not even a clause.
Therefore your reply is meaningless.
You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact.
Therefore your reply is meaningless.
No. You just don't want to acknowledge the point. There's a difference.
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.