libertarian koch brothers support herman cain over libertarian ron paul

this is probably the only time ive done that - as ive said to you numerous times, i only come here one or two times a day. therefore, when im posting they tend to come in bunches like that. who cares? why is that such an issue to you?

as for my "salvo", im having alot of fun in this thread - all im doing is responding to other posters - would you prefer if i just grouped them all into one post instead of responding to them separately? again, why is it such an issue to you? why do you care? you have said multiple times that this thread is not very interesting.

notice that you are not even discussing the thread anymore, instead trying to play "internets bandwith conservation officer" with me. im sure clutch appreciates the effort, but remember mr. 10.5 posts/day, conservation starts at home!

ill again point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of someone who posts as much as you making an issue out of this.

maybe, samuel?

warpath, samuel???

you are the one who chases me around starting arguments - i never engage or respond to you unless you start with me. who is on the "warpath" again, samuel?

IT OBVIOUSLY MATTERS ALOT TO YOU OR YOU WOULDNT BE CHASING ME AROUND AND ARGUING WITH ME IN THREADS THAT YOU SAY YOU DONT CARE ABOUT.

 

he has discussed this several times. the way the system is set up it is almost impossible for 3rd party candidates to mount a proper national campaign, let alone even get their foot in the door.

its a 2 party monopoly and the two parties are happy keeping it that way.

see above...

and also...

 

pandering to social conservatives. its good political strategy.

im pro-life, but i respect his position on abortion. i am personally against repealing roe vs. wade and the whole "let the states" decide stance is kind of a cop-out, but its consistent w/ his overall philosophy.

ive yet to see glynch explain how he is trying to "make the state government pass laws that prohibit abortions among freely choosing adult citizens".

 

paul considers himself a social conservative and someone who is pro-life. he just doesnt believe in imposing his beliefs on others...like a true libertarian.

that commercial is very much inline w/ his personal beliefs, but ive yet to see your evidence that he is trying to force iowa to change their laws.

thank you for posting this though - it is further evidence of your ignorance regarding libertarian thought or ron paul.

 

ive only got four posts in a row. dont want to disappoint samuel so im going back over the thread for more stuff to respond to.

i overlooked this initially, but it is very telling about where you are coming from.

its not the content of the "blog" that makes it a P.O.S. - its the fact that its "right wing" that makes it a P.O.S.

you are more focused on labeling people and putting them in ideological boxes instead of actually addressing the content of what they are saying. basically, you are a massive tool.

and it also begs the question, why are you trolling around on right wing blogs? id never even heard of pink flamingos - i thought it was some gay democrat blog or something.

 

you are the one who is obsessed w/ others posting habits there munchkin. i only bring your 10.34 posts/day count up to point out what a giant hypocrite you are. and you say you arent chasing me around but you not only read, but have made several posts in a thread which you say is not very interesting. and all of your posts have been directed towards me. and most of them have nothing to do w/ the actual thread topic, rather some weird hang-up about my posting habits. have you really nothing better to do?

so in the very post which you say "I don't even address most of your silly nonsequiturs about post count" you now in the very next paragraph bring up my post count. haha. what a moran!

ahh, the good old "you're angry" card - generally the person who accuses the other of being "angry" is the one who is actually butt-hurt. im having fun in this thread - i always enjoy exposing you for who you are.

and your response to my question was to post a garbage article that you didnt even read. an article which made several totally off-base assertions and even contradicted itself in the first paragraph. and since then all you have been doing is playing some bizarre game of "internets bandwidth conservation officer". you have no interest in this thread - you have said so multiple times - so why are you still here? do you really go around reading and posting in every thread that you find uninteresting? personally, i have better things to do.

 

i dont see the irony - its already been explained to you by several other posters why paul runs as a republican.

as for the libertarian koch brothers, i question their libertarian credentials b/c they support a candidate who supported TARP, said the stimulus didnt go far enough, is against an audit of the federal reserve, opposes abortion in all cases, opposes the right for gays to marry or serve openly in the military, believes muslims should not be allowed to serve in government, supports the banning of building mosques, supports continuing the wars in afghanistan and iraq, unconditional support for israel and a disdain for the wall street protestors.

all of these positions are against the libertarian platform, so if the libertarian koch brothers were such libertarians how could they support such a candidate?

 

actually, they dont have "essentially the same economics" at all. the fact that you still think that shows how ignorant you are. the koch brothers support stimulus packages, TARP, bailouts, wall street, unchecked power of the federal reserve and regulations that benefit large corporations to name a few. these are things democrats support, but not libertarians.

when it comes to economics, republicans have alot more in common with democrats than they do w/ libertarians. the democrats and republicans also have alot in common w/ each other when it comes to endless wars, foreign interventionism, disregard for civil liberties and corporate whoreism, to name a few.

which libertarian candidates do the libertarian koch brothers support?

again, i will point out the hypocrisy of an obama supporter criticizing others for liking a politician for being "cool" or "sexy" (sexy?). obama was marketed as the "cool, black, youthful and sexy" candidate. as i already pointed out, many cited those things as criteria for voting for him. ive even seen some posters on here say the fact that he was cool and black was the main reason they voted for him.

as i said, support for paul sets one up for derision and slander - thats not cool. if i wanted to support the "cool, youthful, sexy candidate" i would be supporting obama.

 

eight posts in a thread that you find uninteresting. eight posts directed at me, but you are not "chasing me around". eight posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.

you go girl!