Dear Libertarian Party: I want to break up -- Michelle L.

[WRellim]

Just read this online... like it or hate it, the writing style is good (and humorous).

Dear Libertarian Party: I want to break up
Posted on 05.28.08 by Michelle L

“IT’S NOT ME, IT’S YOU”

Please don’t act surprised, we both know it’s been over for a long time — it’s just that now, after Denver; I can’t pretend otherwise.

Some people are thrilled when their exes make fools of themselves — fortunately for you, I am not one of them. That was, until you decided to announce to the world that your new BFF is Bob Barr; that he is the one you’d rather been seen around town with and who is being marketed as the chosen one to finally put you into the mainstream of political parties. I mean, seriously … Bob Barr?? And to think, I put your signs in my yard for all the world to see.

I can’t honestly say that the warning signs weren’t there — the way you seemed to disregard my loyalty in favor of the prospect of national coverage; the way you looked at other parties when you thought I wasn’t looking, the way you were never there for our children; Liberty, Freedom and Values like you once were — just paying them enough lip service to make it appear that they (and I) were still important to you but really only using us for photo ops.

I felt betrayed because [... read the rest here]
​

 

[acroso]

That other candidate was an open borders nazi who wanted our income redistributed to illegal aliens.

Kinda pathetic.

Barr was the obvious choice.

 

[WRellim]

Kinda obvious.

Barr was the pathetic choice.

You had words in your sentences mixed up a bit... I fixed it for you.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

WRellim,

I can see you have no life. Spending allday attacking the LP? What a life. Don't blame us for finally nominating a serious candidate and finally becoming relevant, anyone that leaves the LP over this is a sore loser. Did the reformers leave after over two decades of nominating nutjob candidates? No, that's why we got our man nominated, I guess we know how to stick to something and not make temper tantrums when things don't go our way. gheeze. A neocon takeover? That's a joke. After 5-6 months the Barr campaign will be over and we will probably make some party history. Then what? We can still nominate our nutjobs in 2012, it isn't like 100,000 neocons joined and took over everything ha. That's a conspiracy theory that wingnuts think up. Bob Barr has been reformed for a long time and hey, you want protectionist Baldwin? You want his antigay bs? Then have it. The CP members are primarily comprised of former GOP members that were anti-illegal immigration and FOR protectionism! Yeah, anti-free trade. No, not just anti-NAFTA/CAFTA, I'm against them, too, but they were and are against FREE TRADE.

 

[Alex Libman]

Obama and McCain thank you.

 

[LibertyEagle]

WRellim,

I can see you have no life. Spending allday attacking the LP? What a life. Don't blame us for finally nominating a serious candidate and finally becoming relevant, anyone that leaves the LP over this is a sore loser. Did the reformers leave after over two decades of nominating nutjob candidates? No, that's why we got our man nominated, I guess we know how to stick to something and not make temper tantrums when things don't go our way. gheeze. A neocon takeover? That's a joke. After 5-6 months the Barr campaign will be over and we will probably make some party history. Then what? We can still nominate our nutjobs in 2012, it isn't like 100,000 neocons joined and took over everything ha. That's a conspiracy theory that wingnuts think up. Bob Barr has been reformed for a long time and hey, you want protectionist Baldwin? You want his antigay bs? Then have it. The CP members are primarily comprised of former GOP members that were anti-illegal immigration and FOR protectionism! Yeah, anti-free trade. No, not just anti-NAFTA/CAFTA, I'm against them, too, but they were and are against FREE TRADE.

Is it possible to defend/support your candidate without bashing the other?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Is it possible to defend/support your candidate without bashing the other?

I never see you asking Baldwin supporters that when they bash Bob Barr. Why is that? But what I say is true. He IS a protectionist and people have a right to know this. Abe Lincoln would love his ideas on trade.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Can the libertarians have their name back yet?

 

[WRellim]

I never see you asking Baldwin supporters that when they bash Bob Barr. Why is that? But what I say is true. He IS a protectionist and people have a right to know this. Abe Lincoln would love his ideas on trade.

Gee, Joey, why haven't you added "isolationist" to that list.

Your "preemptively" smearing and you know it (you've even admitted it in other posts).

You want people to support YOUR candidate -- because your party "picked" him and because YOU believe "he's a changed man" -- he really NOT a _______ as some people say, because -- despite what his past history is, his past character traits, and his past policy positions -- he's had an election year "epiphany" and is a truly changed man, a loyal _________ party candidate that "everyone can trust."

Hmmm, does that not sound at least a little familiar?

It even matches the campaign slogan this time around: "Change you HAVE to believe in... Or Else!"


Go ahead, vote for your "mini-McCain" candidate.

 

[familydog]

I never see you asking Baldwin supporters that when they bash Bob Barr. Why is that? But what I say is true. He IS a protectionist and people have a right to know this. Abe Lincoln would love his ideas on trade.

I don't see too many "Baldwin supporters" around. I just see a lot of Barr skeptics. Just because one doesn't like Barr doesn't mean that one is automatically a Baldwin supporter. But, we won't get the facts get in the way of anything now will we

 

[Alex Libman]

LP grew up and realized it could affect more change by selling voters on gradual bite-sized pieces of the libertarian philosophy one election at a time, which is what Bob Barr is doing. Even in the best case scenario, a gradual transition to an anarcho-capitalist society would require decades of stable shrinking of government size and power. By yelling "open the borders and destroy all government NOW", the libertarians didn't make many converts...

There are 15-20 million voters in this country who score libertarian on the Nolan Chart, but most don't even know what that word means. If united, they would be a powerful voting block that would accomplish a great deal. Someone like Mary Ruwart couldn't unite them, heck, the MSM would eat her alive! Bob Barr is the right man for the job in this election, especially if he can get Ron Paul's endorsement and have a few Ron Paul sized money-bombs, then get into the debates, and continue riding this momentum as McCain and Obama campaigns collapse from months of well-justified mud-slinging.

The "The Party of Principle" slogan was a mistake - principle is a philosophical concept, not a political one. Libertarians shouldn't confuse parties with think-tanks, and most are best suited for the latter. LP's slogan should be "way more libertarian than the other two socialist a$$h0les", and it should focus on results!

QFT

 

[Truth Warrior]

The "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron. AKA "contradiction in terms"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

 

[itshappening]

all this whining, please leave and dont come back!!

 

[qh4dotcom]

That other candidate was an open borders nazi who wanted our income redistributed to illegal aliens.

Kinda pathetic.

Barr was the obvious choice.

There are more important issues than immigration

When Ron Paul ran for president in 1988, he said

"As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

What do you have to say about this?

 

[qh4dotcom]

Bob Barr thread

Bump

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Gee, Joey, why haven't you added "isolationist" to that list.

Your "preemptively" smearing and you know it (you've even admitted it in other posts).

You want people to support YOUR candidate -- because your party "picked" him and because YOU believe "he's a changed man" -- he really NOT a _______ as some people say, because -- despite what his past history is, his past character traits, and his past policy positions -- he's had an election year "epiphany" and is a truly changed man, a loyal _________ party candidate that "everyone can trust."

Hmmm, does that not sound at least a little familiar?

It even matches the campaign slogan this time around: "Change you HAVE to believe in... Or Else!"


Go ahead, vote for your "mini-McCain" candidate.

I never tried to convert anyone, so I don't know what you're talking about. You're the one wth 3-4 new anti-Bob Barr threads a day, and I'm doing the smearing ha. Yes, protectionism = isolationism. You got it right. Alec (lol) Baldwin is an isolationist! There is no protectionist wing of the LP so I don't see how any purist could support him.

 

[Truth Warrior]

What is the URL of the Bob Barr forum?

 

[literatim]

Bob Barr is a protectionist. So clearly there is a protectionist wing of the Libertarian Party.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/

 

[familydog]

I never tried to convert anyone, so I don't know what you're talking about. You're the one wth 3-4 new anti-Bob Barr threads a day, and I'm doing the smearing ha. Yes, protectionism = isolationism. You got it right. Alec (lol) Baldwin is an isolationist! There is no protectionist wing of the LP so I don't see how any purist could support him.

If Chuck Baldwin supporting protective tariffs is the best you got against him, you might as well give up now

 

[Truth Warrior]

Bob Barr is a protectionist. So clearly there is a protectionist wing of the Libertarian Party.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/

OXYMORON!