The Great Kansas (Libertarianism) Tea Party Disaster

[Derideo_Te]

Rolling Stone magazine lefty propaganda and a bunch of dupes applauding.
Look no further than this obama administration's economically stifling energy policy if you want answers to reasons for economic hardships.
And repubs already on the gov dole wanting a more fiscally involved state government? Oh my, how profound!

Yet another zero substance post from the RW that cannot refute the OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Your lack of

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Translation.

You are full of shit.

.

No. It means you didn't bring any facts to the table. Insults and ad hominems will get you nowhere.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Excude me Dingle Berry,

I am a Libertarian , I don't remember reading anywhere about a victory in Topeka, nor have been invited to one. The state is controlled by theocrats so it is very hard for me to believe that they welcome Libertarianism.

So shut the fuck up.


.

The answer to that is easy. You have no power to make me or anyone shut up and if you don't like it, well, tough fuck for you. Not only that, nasty attacks on members means that you have no real argument to present. Adults debate. Children scream and holler. Take your pick.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Listen fucktard, nasty attacks are necessary for emphasis.

.

Puerile!

 

[Contumacious]

I've not seen much difference between Libertarians and modern day Tea Party conservatives.

Shut the fuck up. Research before you post. Unless your intention is character assassination.


Let's see how Libertarians view the Koch/Brownback alliance.


Beltway Libertarian Money Men

Thomas DiLorenzo

Charles Koch and Steve Forbes have long been major funders of the Beltway libertarian crowd. So who are they supporting for president? Koch is just wild about Sam Brownback, while Forbes is a Giuliani supporter. A Christo-fascist and an ordinary, run-of-the-mill fascist, in other words. These phony baloney “libertarians” apparently never heard of Ron Paul (who one Cato nerd once stupidly dismissed as being “too white and too middle class”).

Maybe you should do some research yourself. Your link/source doesn't counter what I said.

Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000.
The Libertarian Vote Cato Institute

the broadly defined libertarian vote (folks interested in reducing the size, spending, and scope of government) has tended to vote for Republican candidates, ostensibly because of the GOP's limited-government rhetoric. Depending on the definition,

upwards of seven out of 10 libertarian-leaning voters go Republican in presidential races.
Study Who will Libertarians Vote for President in 2012

Here is part of my research, from the same article:


"But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It’s not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn’t like Bush’s record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn’t offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.


Unfortunately , Libertarians are forced to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - while admitting that BOTH candidates will do severe damage to our nation , we must then concluded which one will do less damage.

And so it fucking goes.

.

Libertarians voted for Governor Brownback. Just do the math.

22% of Americans self identify as Libertarians.

Poll 22 percent of Americans lean libertarian - The Washington Post

The poll also shows libertarians identify much more with the GOP (43 percent) than with the Democratic Party (5 percent), but half identify with neither party.

So if we look at the election results for Brownback compared to the Libertarian candidate this is what we find;

Sam Brownback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

View attachment 33334

Only 2.7% voted for the Libertarian candidate. That means that remaining 19.3% voted for someone else and since only 5% identify with Dems that means the overwhelming majority of Libertarians voted for Brownback.

Hardly surprising since he was campaigning as a Tea Party Libertarian with the backing of the Koch Brothers.

You own this economic disaster in KS even though you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it.

Excuse me fart blossom,

explain clearly and succinctly how Koch convince the Kansas Taliban to vote Libertarian?

Explain the reason neither the Libertarian Party website, nor the Libertarian bloggosphere make any mention of a "Libertarian" victory.

Only derideo-the parasite has made the connection.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Your lack of
Translation.

You are full of shit.

.

No. It means you didn't bring any facts to the table. Insults and ad hominems will get you nowhere.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Excude me Dingle Berry,

I am a Libertarian , I don't remember reading anywhere about a victory in Topeka, nor have been invited to one. The state is controlled by theocrats so it is very hard for me to believe that they welcome Libertarianism.

So shut the fuck up.


.

The answer to that is easy. You have no power to make me or anyone shut up and if you don't like it, well, tough fuck for you. Not only that, nasty attacks on members means that you have no real argument to present. Adults debate. Children scream and holler. Take your pick.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Listen fucktard, nasty attacks are necessary for emphasis.

.

Puerile!

mature and to the point.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is part of my research, from the same article:


"But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It’s not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn’t like Bush’s record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn’t offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.


Unfortunately , Libertarians are forced to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - while admitting that BOTH candidates will do severe damage to our nation , we must then concluded which one will do less damage.

And so it fucking goes.

.

It doesn't matter, idiot, why you vote for who you vote, you end up voting Republican, which is what I said initially. So, you shut the fuck up.

Again, cum swallower, the Republican candidate did not get 100% of the Libertarian Vote. Decisions must be made by individual Libertarians about damage control. So they did not vote republican because they love their platform.

You really are quite the nasty type, now aren't you....

Mertex is a woman. Calling her what you called her is truly inappropriate for any forum.

I accept that you are angry and want to be rude. If that's your game, so be it. It only weakens any argument you could have made and also makes you look totally ridiculous.

But to attack a female member like this, in zone 2, is unacceptable. You might want to re-read the rules of play for USMB, especially in zone 2.

Or, you can just keep doing what you are doing and it will be reported all over the place, I suspect, by many, many people.

Are you here to debate, or to be just plain old nasty? That appears to be the one solid question in your case.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Your lack of

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Translation.

You are full of shit.

.

No. It means you didn't bring any facts to the table. Insults and ad hominems will get you nowhere.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Excude me Dingle Berry,

I am a Libertarian , I don't remember reading anywhere about a victory in Topeka, nor have been invited to one. The state is controlled by theocrats so it is very hard for me to believe that they welcome Libertarianism.

So shut the fuck up.


.

The answer to that is easy. You have no power to make me or anyone shut up and if you don't like it, well, tough fuck for you. Not only that, nasty attacks on members means that you have no real argument to present. Adults debate. Children scream and holler. Take your pick.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Listen fucktard, nasty attacks are necessary for emphasis.

.

No, they are no. They only make you look ridiculous and cheap. But if that is how you want to look, hey, that is your thing, but you would do well to remember that we are in zone 2 here, and not in the FZ.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Kansas is proof of what I've said before. You can't really appreciate how bad conservatism is until you see it in action, i.e.,

until you see what happens when conservatives actually get enough power to actually implement their lunacy.

Brownback is going to be reelected.

I'll be saving this post for after Nov 4th...

Me, too, Nyvin


History is about to be made in Kansas, a very interesting history.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I've not seen much difference between Libertarians and modern day Tea Party conservatives.

Shut the fuck up. Research before you post. Unless your intention is character assassination.


Let's see how Libertarians view the Koch/Brownback alliance.


Beltway Libertarian Money Men

Thomas DiLorenzo

Charles Koch and Steve Forbes have long been major funders of the Beltway libertarian crowd. So who are they supporting for president? Koch is just wild about Sam Brownback, while Forbes is a Giuliani supporter. A Christo-fascist and an ordinary, run-of-the-mill fascist, in other words. These phony baloney “libertarians” apparently never heard of Ron Paul (who one Cato nerd once stupidly dismissed as being “too white and too middle class”).

Maybe you should do some research yourself. Your link/source doesn't counter what I said.

Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000.
The Libertarian Vote Cato Institute

the broadly defined libertarian vote (folks interested in reducing the size, spending, and scope of government) has tended to vote for Republican candidates, ostensibly because of the GOP's limited-government rhetoric. Depending on the definition,

upwards of seven out of 10 libertarian-leaning voters go Republican in presidential races.
Study Who will Libertarians Vote for President in 2012

Here is part of my research, from the same article:


"But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It’s not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn’t like Bush’s record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn’t offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.


Unfortunately , Libertarians are forced to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - while admitting that BOTH candidates will do severe damage to our nation , we must then concluded which one will do less damage.

And so it fucking goes.

.

Libertarians voted for Governor Brownback. Just do the math.

22% of Americans self identify as Libertarians.

Poll 22 percent of Americans lean libertarian - The Washington Post

The poll also shows libertarians identify much more with the GOP (43 percent) than with the Democratic Party (5 percent), but half identify with neither party.

So if we look at the election results for Brownback compared to the Libertarian candidate this is what we find;

Sam Brownback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

View attachment 33334

Only 2.7% voted for the Libertarian candidate. That means that remaining 19.3% voted for someone else and since only 5% identify with Dems that means the overwhelming majority of Libertarians voted for Brownback.

Hardly surprising since he was campaigning as a Tea Party Libertarian with the backing of the Koch Brothers.

You own this economic disaster in KS even though you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it.

It's really kind of funny.

Once Mitt Romney got his pasting in 2012, I saw many conservatives on a number of boards who were suddenly not willing to say that they were Republicans, they started bloviating all over the place about how they were actually Libertarians.....


....kind of funny.

 

[Mertex]

Go fuck yourself.

.

Apparently you don't like to be handed your ass on a platter? Epic Fail.....

The poster is premature at best. Since no one has handed my ass on a platter.

No one has shown me that Kansas Theocratic Conservatives decided to vote Libertarian - a party which favors the decriminalization of drugs, abortions and which does not support warmongering.

So , you are the one who banged his head on the hurdle.

.

You responded to my post where I said I didn't see much difference between Libertarian and Tea Party. You said I needed to do more research and you posted some link and article that didn't counter what I said, in fact it had no relevance to what I said. So, yes, you've been handed your ass on a platter because you still haven't disproven what I said but instead have rattled on about what is happening in Kansas.

So, unless you can disprove what I said, and provide a link/article defending your position, don't tell me to do more research. Apparently you are a Libertarian that doesn't know much about your party.


Many people on the left still dismiss the tea party as the same old religious right, but the evidence says they are wrong. The tea party has strong libertarian roots and is a functionally lib- ertarian influence on the Republican Party.

Compiling data from local and national polls, as well as dozens of original interviews with tea party members and leaders, we find that the tea party is united on economic issues, but split on the social issues it tends to avoid. Roughly half the tea party is socially conserva- tive, half libertarian—or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA705.pdf

 

[Mertex]

Here is part of my research, from the same article:


"But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It’s not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn’t like Bush’s record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn’t offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.


Unfortunately , Libertarians are forced to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - while admitting that BOTH candidates will do severe damage to our nation , we must then concluded which one will do less damage.

And so it fucking goes.

.

It doesn't matter, idiot, why you vote for who you vote, you end up voting Republican, which is what I said initially. So, you shut the fuck up.

Again, cum swallower, the Republican candidate did not get 100% of the Libertarian Vote. Decisions must be made by individual Libertarians about damage control. So they did not vote republican because they love their platform.

I didn't say that idiot. You have a problem reading and comprehending what I've said. All you can do is call names and insults because you are an immature asshole that doesn't know much about his own party, and is trying to defend it without providing facts with links/sources. And, if you don't love the Republican platform, why would you be stupid enough to vote for it? Because, when push comes to shove, you're no better than the extreme right-wing Tea Partiers, that's why.

 

[Contumacious]

I've not seen much difference between Libertarians and modern day Tea Party conservatives.

Shut the fuck up. Research before you post. Unless your intention is character assassination.


Let's see how Libertarians view the Koch/Brownback alliance.


Beltway Libertarian Money Men

Thomas DiLorenzo

Charles Koch and Steve Forbes have long been major funders of the Beltway libertarian crowd. So who are they supporting for president? Koch is just wild about Sam Brownback, while Forbes is a Giuliani supporter. A Christo-fascist and an ordinary, run-of-the-mill fascist, in other words. These phony baloney “libertarians” apparently never heard of Ron Paul (who one Cato nerd once stupidly dismissed as being “too white and too middle class”).

Maybe you should do some research yourself. Your link/source doesn't counter what I said.

Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000.
The Libertarian Vote Cato Institute

the broadly defined libertarian vote (folks interested in reducing the size, spending, and scope of government) has tended to vote for Republican candidates, ostensibly because of the GOP's limited-government rhetoric. Depending on the definition,

upwards of seven out of 10 libertarian-leaning voters go Republican in presidential races.
Study Who will Libertarians Vote for President in 2012

Here is part of my research, from the same article:


"But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It’s not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn’t like Bush’s record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn’t offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.


Unfortunately , Libertarians are forced to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS - while admitting that BOTH candidates will do severe damage to our nation , we must then concluded which one will do less damage.

And so it fucking goes.

.

Libertarians voted for Governor Brownback. Just do the math.

22% of Americans self identify as Libertarians.

Poll 22 percent of Americans lean libertarian - The Washington Post

The poll also shows libertarians identify much more with the GOP (43 percent) than with the Democratic Party (5 percent), but half identify with neither party.

So if we look at the election results for Brownback compared to the Libertarian candidate this is what we find;

Sam Brownback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

View attachment 33334

Only 2.7% voted for the Libertarian candidate. That means that remaining 19.3% voted for someone else and since only 5% identify with Dems that means the overwhelming majority of Libertarians voted for Brownback.

Hardly surprising since he was campaigning as a Tea Party Libertarian with the backing of the Koch Brothers.

You own this economic disaster in KS even though you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it.

It's really kind of funny.

Once Mitt Romney got his pasting in 2012, I saw many conservatives on a number of boards who were suddenly not willing to say that they were Republicans, they started bloviating all over the place about how they were actually Libertarians.....


....kind of funny.

Libertarians believe in - economic and civil - freedom. 100% freedom across the board , no ifs buts or however.

Conservatives, typically before 1935 , tended to agree with our economic freedom but disagree with our civil liberties platform.

Liberals tend to agree with our civil liberties platform but not with our economic principles.

So if an individual claims to be a Libertarian but flip flops on the other issues then he is not a Libertarian.

.

 

[Mertex]

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Your lack of

Your inability to provide a valid substantiation for your failed allegation on top of resorting to spurious vulgarities is a tacit admission that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this thread. Have a nice day.

Translation.

You are full of shit.

.

No. It means you didn't bring any facts to the table. Insults and ad hominems will get you nowhere.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Excude me Dingle Berry,

I am a Libertarian , I don't remember reading anywhere about a victory in Topeka, nor have been invited to one. The state is controlled by theocrats so it is very hard for me to believe that they welcome Libertarianism.

So shut the fuck up.


.

The answer to that is easy. You have no power to make me or anyone shut up and if you don't like it, well, tough fuck for you. Not only that, nasty attacks on members means that you have no real argument to present. Adults debate. Children scream and holler. Take your pick.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Listen fucktard, nasty attacks are necessary for emphasis.

.

Only when you don't have the facts supporting you.....that's what children do....they stick their tongue out and say nasty things when they are up against the corner and don't have the sense to be able to make a coherent comment. And, that's you. Your "fucktards and shut the fuck up" don't cover up your ignorance. It would be best if you would shut the fuck up because you don't have a case.

 

[Treeshepherd]

As Contu suggests ^^ , everyone is a selective libertarian. Pelosi is libertarian on reproductive rights. I'm guessing Brownback is libertarian on 2nd amendment.

Both major parties love to pass laws and build jails.

 

[Contumacious]

Go fuck yourself.

.

Apparently you don't like to be handed your ass on a platter? Epic Fail.....

The poster is premature at best. Since no one has handed my ass on a platter.

No one has shown me that Kansas Theocratic Conservatives decided to vote Libertarian - a party which favors the decriminalization of drugs, abortions and which does not support warmongering.

So , you are the one who banged his head on the hurdle.

.

You responded to my post where I said I didn't see much difference between Libertarian and Tea Party. You said I needed to do more research and you posted some link and article that didn't counter what I said, in fact it had no relevance to what I said. So, yes, you've been handed your ass on a platter because you still haven't disproven what I said but instead have rattled on about what is happening in Kansas.

So, unless you can disprove what I said, and provide a link/article defending your position, don't tell me to do more research. Apparently you are a Libertarian that doesn't know much about your party.


Many people on the left still dismiss the tea party as the same old religious right, but the evidence says they are wrong. The tea party has strong libertarian roots and is a functionally lib- ertarian influence on the Republican Party.

Compiling data from local and national polls, as well as dozens of original interviews with tea party members and leaders, we find that the tea party is united on economic issues, but split on the social issues it tends to avoid. Roughly half the tea party is socially conserva- tive, half libertarian—or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA705.pdf

Listen closely,dildo,

If someone claims that they agree with us on the gold standard and taxation issues but disagree that marihuana should be decriminalized then they are NOT a Libertarian.


We do not support freedom only when is convenient. Either you support freedom across the board or you are not a Libertarian.

Its as simple as that.


Now well, if the XYZ party begins a petition to abolish the "income tax" we would support that effort. Not because we are members of the XYZ Party but because the "income"tax should be abolished by any means necessary.

But it sounds as though you have an agenda to ignore the facts


.

.

 

[Mertex]

Go fuck yourself.

.

Apparently you don't like to be handed your ass on a platter? Epic Fail.....

The poster is premature at best. Since no one has handed my ass on a platter.

No one has shown me that Kansas Theocratic Conservatives decided to vote Libertarian - a party which favors the decriminalization of drugs, abortions and which does not support warmongering.

So , you are the one who banged his head on the hurdle.

.

You responded to my post where I said I didn't see much difference between Libertarian and Tea Party. You said I needed to do more research and you posted some link and article that didn't counter what I said, in fact it had no relevance to what I said. So, yes, you've been handed your ass on a platter because you still haven't disproven what I said but instead have rattled on about what is happening in Kansas.

So, unless you can disprove what I said, and provide a link/article defending your position, don't tell me to do more research. Apparently you are a Libertarian that doesn't know much about your party.


Many people on the left still dismiss the tea party as the same old religious right, but the evidence says they are wrong. The tea party has strong libertarian roots and is a functionally lib- ertarian influence on the Republican Party.

Compiling data from local and national polls, as well as dozens of original interviews with tea party members and leaders, we find that the tea party is united on economic issues, but split on the social issues it tends to avoid. Roughly half the tea party is socially conserva- tive, half libertarian—or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA705.pdf

Listen closely,dildo,

If someone claims that they agree with us on the gold standard and taxation issues but disagree that marihuana should be decriminalized then they are NOT a Libertarian.


We do not support freedom only when is convenient. Either you support freedom across the board or you are not a Libertarian.

Its as simple as that.


Now well, if the XYZ party begins a petition to abolish the "income tax" we would support that effort. Not because we are members of the XYZ Party but because the "income"tax should be abolished by any means necessary.

But it sounds as though you have an agenda to ignore the facts


.

.

Listen closely, immature idiot. If someone claims to be Libertarian and votes Republican they are not Libertarians. I have provided you with links and articles that support what I have said. So, half of your fucking party is obviously not Libertarian, but just claims to be Libertarian. I suspect you are not a true Libertarian if when push comes to shove you vote Republican.

So, idiot, if the Republican party begins a petition to abolish income tax, you claim you will support that and vote Republican? Why don't you have a Libertarian candidate that supports that so you can vote for your own party? Because you are not a Libertarian, but a flip-flopper, who uses the "Libertarian" label to hide when the Republican party totally loses, like in the 2012 election and Romney was handed his ass on a platter. Then all of a sudden you and others became Libertarians.

 

[Bfgrn]

Brownback's policies have been so unpopular, in fact, that a group of more than 100 moderate Republicans, nearly all of them former or current state officeholders, have publicly backed his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Paul Davis, who, until the race's recent tightening, had been leading consistently in polls. Calling themselves Republicans for Kansas Values, the moderates released a manifesto of sorts, which reads in part, "We are Republicans in the historical and traditional sense of the word. Yet in today's political climate in Kansas, traditional Republican values have been corrupted by extremists, claiming to be agents of change. It is a faction which hides behind the respected Republican brand in an effort to defund and dismantle our state's infrastructure. . . . The policies [they] espouse are radical departures. . . . They jeopardize the economy and endanger our children's future with reckless abandon. . . . We reject their extremist agenda."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-



"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Statistikhengst]

As Contu suggests ^^ , everyone is a selective libertarian. Pelosi is libertarian on reproductive rights. I'm guessing Brownback is libertarian on 2nd amendment.

Both major parties love to pass laws and build jails.

I find some validity in that statement, in a broad sense.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Brownback's policies have been so unpopular, in fact, that a group of more than 100 moderate Republicans, nearly all of them former or current state officeholders, have publicly backed his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Paul Davis, who, until the race's recent tightening, had been leading consistently in polls. Calling themselves Republicans for Kansas Values, the moderates released a manifesto of sorts, which reads in part, "We are Republicans in the historical and traditional sense of the word. Yet in today's political climate in Kansas, traditional Republican values have been corrupted by extremists, claiming to be agents of change. It is a faction which hides behind the respected Republican brand in an effort to defund and dismantle our state's infrastructure. . . . The policies [they] espouse are radical departures. . . . They jeopardize the economy and endanger our children's future with reckless abandon. . . . We reject their extremist agenda."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-



"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Plasmaball]

But wait a minute. Is extreme Conservative then the same as Libertarianism, with respect to the OP title?

Does it matter?

For clarification purposes there is classic conservatism that has all but become extinct amongst elected Republicans. It has been replaced by the Tea Party brand of extremist conservatism that is indistinguishable from Libertarianism when it comes to implementation.

In some ways, I think it does matter. Pure Libertarianism is definitely not hateful of gay people, because Libertarianism is for complete liberty and privacy in the bedroom.

But on social issues, Libertarianism pure is for the dismantling of as much gubbermint as possible. I think you are referring to this component of Libertarianism.

I am referring to extreme conservatives that embrace Libertarian economic principles that have been demonstrated to be an utter failure in KS.

they embrace it because they dont understand it. its just anti government so they hijacked it

 

[Plasmaball]

Talk about filth. Now we see a popular information source among pop-culture jerks which owes it's pop culture popularity in part for promoting drug abuse, refer to an apparent Christian politician in a derogatory way as "God's senator" and quoted by low information liberal A-holes who really think they aren't complete bigots?

you are a low information voter....shut up