Fighting Back Agains the Wealthy Patrons of Libeertarian.Conservative Politics

im just following the money little man. it sure aint going to libertarians or libertarian causes. but if you want me to "cut to the chase" i would say my criteria for labeling one as a libertarian would be someone who is actually a member of the libertarian party and supports libertarian candidates. just like my criteria for a democrat is someone who is in the democratic party and supports democratic candidates. its actually a pretty simple concept.

not sure what a "t-shirt libertarian" is, but if anyone is its the dastardly koch brothers, who may claim some allegiance to libertarians, but pour 83% of their money into republican/neocon coffers. do any of those think-tanks, foundations or magazines they set up support libertarian candidates?

seems like if they were really interested in promoting the libertarian agenda they would be supporting libertarian candidates, not establishment republican/neocons. from the link i provided, it seems that they give zero/zilch/nada to libertarians.

 

You must have hit a nerve. Usually it takes at least three posts he doesn't agree with to start name calling.

/present

 

LOL, so under the joseph rule unless you openly support the kooks who form the national capital L- Libertarian party - and refrain from any gesture of political support with Republicans who may support libertarian ideals - you can't describe yourself as a small-l libertarian, even if you

*happen to have run for President as a libertarian party nominee and
* have devoted millions of dollars to funding libertarian causes, think tanks and magazines, and
*have preached the gospel of libertarianism for their entire adult lives and are self-avowed libertarians.


Look at weslinder - he claimis to be a libertarian, yet IIRC he is a state GOP delegate. Under your definition, of course, he is a fraudster and is unworthy of the appellation. That is ridiculous of course.

Why are you so embarrassed that the libertarian Koch brothers are libertarians?

I don't think most libertarians, or Libertarians, even, would be as quick as you to bite the hand of the libertarian Kochs that have funneled millions to their causes.

 

Samuel sure told Joseph off. Donald approves. What do you think, David?

 

Looking Good, Billy Ray. Feeling Good, Lewis.

 

Democrats Complain That The GOP Is Owned By The Rich Yet 9 Of The 15 Richest Members Of Congress Are Democrats

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39287818?slide=1

 

Newflash: "the rich" isn't referring to the elected officials themselves, they're *all* rich (richer than most, anyway)

 

whats up stalker?

 

people can call themselves whatever they want. again, glenn beck calls himself a libertarian but it should be obvious to all that he is a foxnews republican/neocon. you and glynch might have a little more credibility if those henious koch brothers were not sending 83% of their donations to republicans. again, do any of those think-tanks, foundations or magazines they set up support libertarian candidates?

of course republicans can have libertarian leanings, but that doesnt make them libertarians. just like some democrats have socialist leanings, but that doesnt make the socialists.

if someone tells you they are a democrat, but votes republican every time and donates money to republican candidates are they really democrats?

it would be ridiculous if i had actually said such a thing, which i didnt. and if weslinder is a GOP delegate than he probably isnt a member of the libertarian party.

you are obviously still upset over the epic d&d smackdown you suffered at my hands last year - you lost...just let it go.

 

That's the stupidest **** I've ever read. Of course both sides are trying to impose their preferences on others and use their money to buy media cover for their activities.

The difference is that Soros' views are more mainstream and align with mainstream media interests. Quit moralizing over politics. That you think Soros has the moral high ground is you trolling yourself.

 

Pish posh. It appears the joseph theory is as I've feared, now being ham-fistedly reconstructed on incredibly shaky ground, wherein any show of fealty to the Republican Party of any type, for any purpose, however much such purpose is small l libertarian, rather than the capital L Libertarian party, results in joseph e-drumming them (them being the libertarian Koch brothers) out of the cool kids libertarian club, no doubt filing a notice of pendency on their libertarian secret decoder ring.

This is uninteresting and boring. Getting somebody to say somethign dumb on the internet is fairly easy. Getting them to repeatedly smack themselves in the face with it is actually even easier; we've all been there. The best course for you now is merely repetition, which would ostensibly serve my purpose as well but really wouldn't because, as stated above, it's boring.

Yes, but that's not what we're discussing when we're applying the joseph theory in this case is it? This is more like somebody telling you they're an environmentalist, but then voting Democrat every time instead of the Green party, specifically targeting those democrats that supported his cause, and - all in the course of expending millions of dollars and time on behalf of Green/environmentalist causes, etc ad nauseum......under the joseph theory, they're not an environmentalist. (see e.g. Albert in 2000, who ran against the Green party nominee Ralph. Only a fool would insist that it would be improper to describe Albert as a small g-Green due to his running "against" Ralph.


Again, this is all uninteresting and boring to go over - what's more interesting is why you had to resort to the clumsy devices of the joseph theory in the first instance.

I posit 2 possible explanations:

1. Some sort of e-fight with the glynch

A definite possibility. The glynch is an old-school Abbie Hoffman meets Democracy Now! type of liberal, perhaps a bit too much for my liking and tending to gravitate to conspiracy theories too willingly.

The puzzling part about this possible explanation is that, while there's generally plenty that the glynch says that is questionable, calling the libertarian Koch brothers libertarian, as any rational person would, given their lifelong pattern of words and deeds is not one of them.

I would advise you to choose a juicier target, for example if you can back him into formulating something as plainly unworkable as the joseph theory, you may be rewarded.


2. Some sort of distaste for the words/actions of the libertarian Koch brothers.

As we know, you are a self-professed libertarian. I hesitate to apply the joseph theory to you for fear of getting side-tracked. The question I have thusly then is what - precisely - about the libertarian Koch brothers' activities that you find so distasteful so as to formulate this ****-up of a theory?

Their libertarian-related activities, aside from funding libertarian incubators like Cato, Reason, and various others, of late, have consisted of, as far as I can gather, a few main tracks: (1) fighting tougher environmental/pollution regulations (for business purposes) - again a classic, libertarian free-market goal. (2) fighting health care reform (again, this dovetails with both small and large L liberatarianism and (3) generally thwarting any and all enhanced regulatory efforts coming from the Obamadmin. Again, another classic libertarian goal.

Which - precisely - of the libertarian Koch brothers' above activities were cause for their explusion from the small L libertarian club, and your conjuring of the joseph theory?

 

^^^Good christ that was funny.

 

i think Soros has the moral high ground?

to quote an earlier post:

"That's the stupidest **** I've ever read."

 

my brother in law used to be an investment banker. about fifteen years ago he was working on taking Koch public, obviously never happened. second largest privately held company in the US. when people are that rich, I often wonder what they are afraid of? you're never going broke Koch brothers.

 

I do not belong to the stalker party, and at least 83% of my contributions are made in support of non-stalking causes and/or candidates (a modest figure, most would agree, I think).... yet here I am, libeled and labeled... how can this be?

I guess sometimes it only takes one post, eh?

 

i agree with you there.

yes you have.

i was discussing who exactly the koch brothers support. i even provided a link showing that the vast majority of their donations go to establishment republicans. not sure what you are "discussing".

as i already said, of course republicans can have libertarian leanings, but that doesnt make them libertarians. just like some democrats have socialist leanings, but that doesnt make the socialists. its really a pretty simple concept.

another poor analogy on your part sam. it would actually be more like somebody telling you the are a member of the green party, but then voting democrat every time instead of the green party.

yes it is.

i do vote for and support libertarian candidates. do the koch brothers?

 

hmm...you have started multiple arguments with me and when i respond you get upset and tell me to stop arguing with you. and now you are following me around into threads you were not previously posting in to do whatever it is you are doing...and you do not belong to the stalker party? could have fooled me.

i must have hit a nerve.

 

amazingly you still missed the point. this discussion should have stopped after sam's last post. you vote for the viable candidate, unless you want GWB to be president, oh wait that happened.

 

you are who you vote for.

 

and in that theory, GWB was your optimal outcome of sticking to your beliefs (in "your", i mean green party)

who did that benefit