PDA

View Full Version : The Importance of the Virginia Governor's Race for Libertarians




cajuncocoa
10-29-2013, 06:17 PM
Ron-Paul-Inc. coalition of RPF to bash EPJ in 3....2....1....


Following my post, Conspiracy Theory: Ron Paul Inc. Teams Up With the GOP Establishment (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/conspiracy-theory-ron-paul-inc-teams-up.html), I received calls from a number of observers of the libertarian movement. One chided me for giving an impression in the post that Ron Paul Inc members were once libertarian and that they are just now slipping. He made a very strong case that the members of Ron Paul Inc are opportunists and were so even when they worked directly on the 2012 Ron Paul campaign. They hold no libertarian principles and use libertarianism as a tool to advance their power.

Two callers pointed out to me the curious fact that Ed Crane is backing the Libertarian Party candidate in the race, Robert Sarvis. WaPo reports:
Libertarian Robert Sarvis is getting some late financial help in his uphill fight for Virginia governor against better-funded foes Ken Cuccinelli II and Terry McAuliffe.

[Ed Crane's] Purple PAC — a group devoted to backing candidates who are “‘red’ when it comes to economic policy, ‘blue’ when it comes to social policy” — launched a six-figure television ad buy Thursday designed to boost Sarvis’s campaign by painting him as a more appealing choice than Cuccinelli (R) or McAuliffe (D).

Here's the Crane ad:







Both observers note that Crane is not ignorant of the fact that Sarvis is not gong to win. This ad buy will only help out the Democrat McAuliffe, by drawing votes away from Cuccinelli and into the Sarvis corner. Some suspect that the Kochs have Cuccinelli in their pocket and that the Crane sponsorship of Sarvis is a way to get back at the Kochs, who booted him from the Cato Institute. In other words, backroom politics is running this race, not principle.




Indeed, there are no real libertarians among the three running, as I pointed out early on, Sarvis is far from a principled libertarian. This is not surprising, his "libertarian" thinking was molded inside the Beltway. He has a Master's in economics from George Mason University.




The pro-Cuccinelli operatives are sending out a negative email about Sarvis, identifying the various ways Sarvis leaks from libertarian principle. Curiously, though, the email is being sent out by Russ Moulton, a defense contractor! (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/conspiracy-theory-ron-paul-inc-teams-up.html) Support of a candidate by a defense contractor should not be seen by a libertarian as anywhere near a positive endorsement.




Bottom line: There are no strong libertarian candidates in this race, Sarvis appears to be a hardcore beltarian, Cuccinelli is simply a mainstream establishment Republican and McAuliffe is a typical establishment Democrat. There is nothing in this race that libertarians should be excited about. The only reason I have put it on the map, here at EPJ, is because Ron Paul, probably under pressure from Ron Paul Inc, has endorsed Cuccinelli (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/on-sad-ron-paul-endorsement-of-ken.html). It would be nice to see Cuccinelli lose, which would be a signal to the opportunists at Ron Paul Inc that Ron Paul followers are not going to follow Ron when he makes establishment endorsements.





The best thing for libertarians in Virginia to do in next week's vote is A. sit out this vote and every vote. B. Vote for Sarvis, he is not going to win, but votes going to him won't go to Cuccinelli and will signal that the Ron Paul movement is not buying into Ron Paul Inc.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/the-importance-of-virginia-governors.html

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 06:34 PM
The best thing for libertarians in Virginia to do in next week's vote is A. sit out this vote and every vote. B. Vote for Sarvis, he is not going to win, but votes going to him won't go to Cuccinelli and will signal that the Ron Paul movement is not buying into Ron Paul Inc.

Smart, get a progressive Hillary-ally elected just to stick i to "Ron Paul Inc."

Fucking idiotic article.

cajuncocoa
10-29-2013, 07:03 PM
Smart, get a progressive Hillary-ally elected just to stick i to "Ron Paul Inc."

Fucking idiotic article.
Least among 3 evils approach is so last century for me.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 08:22 PM
Least among 3 evils approach is so last century for me.

I don't see Cuccinelli as evil.

cajuncocoa
10-29-2013, 09:04 PM
I don't see Cuccinelli as evil.

It's a figure of speech, eduardo. He's not a liberty candidate either...which means he's no better or worse than either of his opponents.

Saint Vitus
10-29-2013, 09:17 PM
I just don't understand why Ron Paul inc. are so heavily backing someone who is not even a liberty candidate in a race that is not even close. Based on every poll I've seen, McAuliffe is going to win by double digits. Why are so many Ron Paulites sticking their necks out for a candidate who is closer to Rick Santorum and has absolutely no chance of winning?

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 09:26 PM
It's a figure of speech, eduardo. He's not a liberty candidate either...which means he's no better or worse than either of his opponents.

So you're either a 'liberty candidate according to cajuncocoa' or you're evil and nothing good could come out of you in office? You might not consider him a 'liberty candidate' but many of us do, including Ron and Rand Paul.

Saint Vitus
10-29-2013, 09:36 PM
So you're either a 'liberty candidate according to cajuncocoa' or you're evil and nothing good could come out of you in office? You might not consider him a 'liberty candidate' but many of us do, including Ron and Rand Paul.


Do you consider Mike Huckabee part of the liberty movement? Are there any differences that you can see between Mike Huckabee and Ken Cuccinelli? I was under the impression that liberty minded individuals didn't just campaign for any Joe-Blow Republican. What are some Ron Paul issues that Ken Cuccinelli has endorsed? I see plenty of Mike Huckabee issues that's he down with. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/mike-huckabee-campaigns-for-republican-ken-cuccinelli-in-virginia-governors-race/2013/10/20/1750c992-39af-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html

thoughtomator
10-29-2013, 09:39 PM
Cuccinelli is better than McAuliffe, there's no question on that. But better still might be to make the Libertarian Party a real force in Virginia politics.

Cuccinelli's social agenda is also strongly anti-libertarian which is a bitter pill to swallow.

Saint Vitus
10-29-2013, 09:40 PM
Would the liberty movement get behind a Mike Huckabee campaign? Serious question, because I can't tell Rand Paul, Ken Cuccinelli, et. al apart from him. None of the issues that I once gave a shit about in 2007 are even being remotely addressed anymore by these watered-down Republicans.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 09:49 PM
Do you consider Mike Huckabee part of the liberty movement?

No, but I don't think he's that bad on issues other than foreign policy.


What are some Ron Paul issues that Ken Cuccinelli has endorsed?

Right to life, ending birthright citizenship, strong support for the Second Amendment, lower taxes, curtailing eminent domain, marijuana decriminalisation, strong defender of the 10th Amendment, against no-knock warrants, farmer freedom...


I see plenty of Mike Huckabee issues that's he down with.

And? He's a social conservative, as are many in the Ron Paul liberty movement, including Ron Paul.

I'm sure Ron and Mike agree on quite a number of issues as well, such as treating drug use a social and medical problem not a criminal issues, eliminating corporate taxes, support for homeschooling, and being pro-life.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 09:50 PM
Would the liberty movement get behind a Mike Huckabee campaign? Serious question, because I can't tell Rand Paul, Ken Cuccinelli, et. al apart from him. None of the issues that I once gave a shit about in 2007 are even being remotely addressed anymore by these watered-down Republicans.

What issues do you care about that Rand doesn't address?

thoughtomator
10-29-2013, 09:51 PM
Cuccinelli's "support" for the Second Amendment is not that strong. He does not support Constitutional carry. Permits are bullshit, they give the government a list of gun owners which is the last thing any gun owner should want. "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for the government to have a permit system.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 09:54 PM
Cuccinelli's "support" for the Second Amendment is not that strong. He does not support Constitutional carry. Permits are bullshit, they give the government a list of gun owners which is the last thing any gun owner should want. "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for the government to have a permit system.

While Constitutional Carry would be ideal, I don't think that support for a permissive shall issue system is anti-2nd Amendment.

RonZeplin
10-29-2013, 10:03 PM
I don't think that support for a permissive shall issue system is anti-2nd Amendment.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

GregSarnowski
10-29-2013, 10:13 PM
There's no basis for this presumption that most of Sarvis votes would otherwise go to the GOP candidate. Almost always when a LP candidate is polled it is shown that the votes are coming equally from both major parties as well as independents and otherwise non-voters, yet the nonsense that LP votes belong to Republicans never dies.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 10:18 PM
But better still might be to make the Libertarian Party a real force in Virginia politics.

Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh.

thoughtomator
10-29-2013, 10:33 PM
While Constitutional Carry would be ideal, I don't think that support for a permissive shall issue system is anti-2nd Amendment.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

My question precisely, character for character. "permissive shall issue system" = without putting your name on the government's list, your 2nd Amendment rights are by default infringed.

mad cow
10-29-2013, 10:59 PM
Cuccinelli's "support" for the Second Amendment is not that strong. He does not support Constitutional carry. Permits are bullshit, they give the government a list of gun owners which is the last thing any gun owner should want. "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for the government to have a permit system.

The NRA,GOA and VCDL endorsed him with good reason.Cooch or McAuliffe is going to be the next Governor of Virginia,PERIOD.

Would I rather see the National Firearms act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed?Or heroin or any other drug sold in any store that wants to sell them tax-free and without prescription?Or the Fed ended and the 16th amendment repealed?

Sure,but those are not our choices.Cuccinelli or McAuliffe is going to be the next Governor of Virginia,those are your choices,Period.

fr33
10-29-2013, 11:27 PM
Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh.

Laugh while you lose elections. Either get right with liberty or lose. Self defense is not up for debate.

thoughtomator
10-29-2013, 11:35 PM
Sure,but those are not our choices.Cuccinelli or McAuliffe is going to be the next Governor of Virginia,those are your choices,Period.

If we're being realists here then, the state will continue to be run by Fascists and it ultimately doesn't matter who is governor one iota. There is something seriously wrong with Cuccinelli that I can't quite put my finger on. The closest that I can say for sure is that he seems like less than a whole person, like some element of his soul got cut out and stored in a bottle somewhere. I have wanted to like him since I first heard of him and he's been completely unable to close the sale. There's a lack of follow-through in what he claims to be and stand for, and a bizarre lack of consistency.

Ken Cuccinelli can be either a social theo-servative or he can be a libertarian conservative, but he can't be both. All the libertarian type stuff he's done has been exclusively in those few areas where there is coincidental crossover with the theo-cons.

Perhaps I'm not as frightened as many about the prospect of Governor McAuliffe, perhaps it's because I'm aware he is limited to a single term, or perhaps it is because I have zero belief in the good faith of the RPV, or perhaps it is because the only time I've ever seen a positive shift in the political landscape is when a Democrat like McAuliffe wreaks havoc and it gets the people to the point where they finally have had enough of that foolishness. That McAuliffe is in the lead shows that this state has had nowhere near enough of that foolishness yet.

mad cow
10-30-2013, 12:33 AM
Cuccinelli's "support" for the Second Amendment is not that strong. He does not support Constitutional carry. Permits are bullshit, they give the government a list of gun owners which is the last thing any gun owner should want. "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for the government to have a permit system.


On Wednesday, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, said he would "push" for more gun control if he is elected governor in a debate with Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
McAuliffe invoked the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, and Newtown tragedies and asked, "How many people have to be killed until we wake up to have sensible gun ownership?"
He said he was "dismayed with United States Senate this year" for not bringing up a bill which was co-sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) that would have mandated universal background checks.
"As governor, I'm going to push," McAuliffe said. "We need universal background checks for everyone to keep our loved ones safe."
Cuccinelli mentioned that McAuliffe was the only candidate among the six running statewide who has received an "F" grade from the NRA. After the Colorado recall of State Senators John Morse and Angela Giron, McAuliffe vowed to bring Colorado-style gun control laws to Virginia.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/McAuliffe-I-m-Going-to-Push-for-More-Gun-Control-if-Elected-VA-Gov

Yeah,you won't vote for Cooch over gun control because he ain't libertarian enough for your taste.
Brilliant!

The next Governor of Virginia will either be Ken Cuccinelli or Terry McAuliffe PERIOD!

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 12:38 AM
One of these days all of us libertarians are going to have to pony up and get out of the Republican party.

eduardo89
10-30-2013, 12:40 AM
One of these days all of us libertarians are going to have to pony up and get out of the Republican party.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bye-Bye-Bye-NSYNC-Dance-Gif.gif

mad cow
10-30-2013, 12:50 AM
One of these days all of us libertarians are going to have to pony up and get out of the Republican party.

Hey,at least we would get more votes than the Green Party.
Some years...

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 12:54 AM
http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bye-Bye-Bye-NSYNC-Dance-Gif.gif


And that response is one of the reasons why. When your so called fellow "liberty" Republicans start acting like every douchebag Democrat you have to deal with, says a lot.

eduardo89
10-30-2013, 12:56 AM
And that response is one of the reasons why.

Well, when you openly criticise and advocate against the Republican nominee, who would arguably be the best governor in the country and a crucial ally to Rand Paul in 2016 (not just in the primaries but in the general in a big swing state), what do you expect the response from Republicans would be when you threaten to leave the party?

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 12:58 AM
Well, when you openly criticise and advocate against the Republican nominee, who would arguably be the best governor in the country and a crucial ally to Rand Paul in 2016 (not just in the primaries but in the general in a big swing state), what do you expect the response from Republicans would be when you threaten to leave the party?


I would expect the response from Republicans to be exactly what I got. I would expect the response from anyone truly committed to liberty to be a bit different. And your assertion that he would be the best governor in the country is most definitely a matter of opinion.

eduardo89
10-30-2013, 01:07 AM
I would expect the response from Republicans to be exactly what I got. I would expect the response from anyone truly committed to liberty to be a bit different. And your assertion that he would be the best governor in the country is most definitely a matter of opinion.

Which current governor is better?

angelatc
10-30-2013, 01:17 AM
Laugh while you lose elections. Either get right with liberty or lose. Self defense is not up for debate.

The Libertarians are the people who lose elections. We're allowed to laugh at them, because we all went through the same phase.

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 01:18 AM
Which current governor is better?


Subjective depending on your criteria. If I lived in Virginia I would support Sarvis on ideological criteria personally but then I am not a conservative Republican.

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 01:19 AM
The Libertarians are the people who lose elections. We're allowed to laugh at them, because we all went through the same phase.

Republicans lost the presidential election and enough senate seats to be in the minority.

thoughtomator
10-30-2013, 01:45 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/McAuliffe-I-m-Going-to-Push-for-More-Gun-Control-if-Elected-VA-Gov

Yeah,you won't vote for Cooch over gun control because he ain't libertarian enough for your taste.
Brilliant!

The next Governor of Virginia will either be Ken Cuccinelli or Terry McAuliffe PERIOD!

Really, you should know better than to try and sell "lesser evil" here.

mad cow
10-30-2013, 02:10 AM
Really, you should know better than to try and sell "lesser evil" here.

Hey vote for me.I promise that I will nullify every gun law,drug law,tax law,vehicle law,Any gosh darned law passed since 1788.
I will also give you one FRN dollar.You gonna get that deal from Sarvis,McAuliffe or Cuccinneli?
Seriously,PM me.

Yer not worried that your vote might be wasted are you?Tell me that you aren't one of them "lesser of two evil" types.Gawd how I hate them!

eduardo89
10-30-2013, 02:35 AM
Really, you should know better than to try and sell "lesser evil" here.

And voting for Sarvis isn't voting for the 'lesser evil?'

enoch150
10-30-2013, 02:21 PM
Well, when you openly criticise and advocate against the Republican nominee, who would arguably be the best governor in the country and a crucial ally to Rand Paul in 2016 (not just in the primaries but in the general in a big swing state), what do you expect the response from Republicans would be when you threaten to leave the party?

That depends on whether the party believes it can win even without our support. It appears that Cuccinelli and the Republicans in Virginia cannot.

So how is your response helping your cause?

Peace&Freedom
10-30-2013, 04:13 PM
The Libertarians are the people who lose elections. We're allowed to laugh at them, because we all went through the same phase.

Many Libertarians first went through the phase of being Republicans (AKA, the people who lose legislatively). We're allowed to laugh at them back.

thoughtomator
10-30-2013, 04:15 PM
Hey vote for me.I promise that I will nullify every gun law,drug law,tax law,vehicle law,Any gosh darned law passed since 1788.
I will also give you one FRN dollar.You gonna get that deal from Sarvis,McAuliffe or Cuccinneli?
Seriously,PM me.

Yer not worried that your vote might be wasted are you?Tell me that you aren't one of them "lesser of two evil" types.Gawd how I hate them!

I would vote for that. Except for the one dollar part which is illegal.

thoughtomator
10-30-2013, 04:17 PM
And voting for Sarvis isn't voting for the 'lesser evil?'

No, because a ballot line for the Libertarian Party is good, and the leverage it will give libertarians within the VAGOP will be even better.

Not sure if you're from VA or not but the RPV is all but openly hostile to the libertarian faction it depends on to produce electoral majorities.

Carlybee
10-30-2013, 04:21 PM
And voting for Sarvis isn't voting for the 'lesser evil?'


No because they are better on civil liberties than most Republicans although I'm not sure some conservative Republicans would get that. (On social issues, personally I am not against gay marriage but not sure pushing it as a campaign item is a great idea, but they are trying to grow the party.) He may also be trying to appeal to the independents there too.

speciallyblend
10-31-2013, 12:36 AM
Would the liberty movement get behind a Mike Huckabee campaign? Serious question, because I can't tell Rand Paul, Ken Cuccinelli, et. al apart from him. None of the issues that I once gave a shit about in 2007 are even being remotely addressed anymore by these watered-down Republicans.

The gop is dying . What you are seeing is the creation of fossil fuel, even rand paul lost me as a delegate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGeskFzE0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGeskFzE0s

fisharmor
10-31-2013, 03:51 AM
And voting for Sarvis isn't voting for the 'lesser evil?'

...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 05:35 AM
http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bye-Bye-Bye-NSYNC-Dance-Gif.gif

This is how the GOP keeps losing elections. Instead of reaching out to libertarians and including our concerns in the platform, we get this. You need us more than we need you.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 05:41 AM
Many Libertarians first went through the phase of being Republicans (AKA, the people who lose legislatively). We're allowed to laugh at them back.

+rep. I laugh at those who think voting for the GOP matters at this point. What difference does it make? They end up caving to the Democrats when the going gets rough (which is synonymous with losing when it comes right down to it).

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 05:42 AM
...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

+rep !!!

cjm
10-31-2013, 07:17 AM
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.


I disagree with this. Both Sarvis and Cuccinelli will provide net gains to the liberty movement. The only difference is that Cuccinelli is within the margin-of-error in a couple recent polls.

libertarian Virginians should vote for Cuccinelli (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli)

Cap
10-31-2013, 07:22 AM
Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

speciallyblend
10-31-2013, 08:27 AM
...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

+rep but it wouldn't let me:(

speciallyblend
10-31-2013, 08:30 AM
This is how the GOP keeps losing elections. Instead of reaching out to libertarians and including our concerns in the platform, we get this. You need us more than we need you.

so true, and they don't even need us anymore;) but that doesn't change the fact. They will lose without us and that is why i see them losing again and again. They deserve to lose. Accountability is a bitch.
Plan on serving it on election day.

FSP-Rebel
10-31-2013, 10:17 AM
T-mator makes the best argument for me to stomach a vote in Sarvis's favor but even then, I'd still have to back Cooch. If the GOP nominee was establishment then I'd certainly go LP but Cooch was the grassroots delegates' choice against the insider (VAGOP) estab's pick at their convention, so imo that makes a difference. And the last thing the LP needs for their credibility is to keep fielding beltarians as their candidates. In the pursuit of coalition building, I'd think making allies w/ conservatives that are friendly towards libertarians for the most part would be the way to go. It's not too often when you get a conservative candidate that is clean enough to openly back decrim so that at minimum differentiates him from the more theocratic, doctrinaire socons like Santorum. The underlying theme here seems to be to stick it to the GOP in general and "they" need us more than we need them. Problem with that is a greater percentage of the GOP is being lined with the liberty movement and the tea party than ever before. So when some think they're making war on just establishment republicans, it's rubbing off on the growing segments of those who are libertarians and even ancaps in some instances. And by keeping this party transformation going, nominees in many areas aren't estab insiders anymore and we're seeing many more primarying of establishment politicians that have sold us out. The way I see it is we threaten hard in primaries and caucuses with libertarian-leaning republicans (they all won't be 5 stars, sorry) and take our coalition chances, but if we come up short against insiders I'm more than willing to vote LP and always have.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 10:27 AM
Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

bumping so this doesn't get buried by other posts....I'd like to hear the answer myself. Not just from eduardo, but others who seem to continuously compromise bits of the liberty agenda for Republican victories.

erowe1
10-31-2013, 10:52 AM
He made a very strong case that the members of Ron Paul Inc are opportunists and were so even when they worked directly on the 2012 Ron Paul campaign. They hold no libertarian principles and use libertarianism as a tool to advance their power.

The author of the OP should just say what he means. Instead of hemming and hawing about "Ron Paul Inc." he should just come right out and say that he's talking about Ron Paul himself here.

cjm
10-31-2013, 10:59 AM
...In the pursuit of coalition building, I'd think making allies w/ conservatives that are friendly towards libertarians for the most part would be the way to go.

I understand the desire to try things out with a third party. I voted LP for most of 20 years. But in a state that gets bluer each year (we have general elections every year), Virginia Republicans have been somewhat welcoming to libertarians joining the party. Pro-life libertarians get the red carpet treatment in my observation. We don't have fist fights and broken bones here. We have Morton Blackwell and the Leadership Institute. The only libertarians that have had problems with the established GOP members that I know of, were those that came in with the "takeover" attitude that wasn't really appropriate here.

Virginia is a good place to build coalitions with conservatives. If we were deep red it might be a different story, I don't know. But this purple Virginia has opportunity for libertarians in the GOP.

Also, primaries are cheaper than general elections.

erowe1
10-31-2013, 11:02 AM
rand paul lost me as a delegate.

+ rep

Christian Liberty
10-31-2013, 11:20 AM
No, but I don't think he's that bad on issues other than foreign policy.



Huckabee is a freaking fascist. I seriously hope that you said this in ignorance

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee


In April 2010, whilst speaking to student journalists at The College of New Jersey (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/The_College_of_New_Jersey), Huckabee said that legalizing same-sex marriage would "be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?"[59] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-59)

Shows how much he cares about liberty (Not.) I guess Mike either has never read 1 Corinthians 5, or he hates it.


Huckabee supports a larger military and a fifty percent increase in defense spending. In December 2007, he wrote:

"The Bush administration plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize the challenges of increasing our enlistments without lowering standards and of expanding training facilities and personnel, and that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."[72] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-foreignaffairs.org-72)



Disgusting. He should learn something from Ron Paul. but of course, being an evil fascist, he won't.


We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. I 100% agree that we can't leave until we've left with honor because, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

I think this comment speaks for itself


Huckabee is "America’s leading Christian Zionist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Christian_Zionism) politician."[92] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-92) He believes that the land of Israel (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Israel) was promised to the modern-day Jews (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Jews) by God. He has written that, "the Jews have a God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them."[93] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-93)

You've spoken against Christian Zionism before, eduardo. Will you be consistent enough to condemn those who support it?


The Jewish Russian Telegraph reported that "When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state."[94] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-94) He calls Israel an "ally", "America's greatest friend in the region", and says Israel should have access to advanced weapons and technology.[95] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-95)

I think the implicit communism in this statement is obvious.


Huckabee said that he supports the death penalty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Death_penalty), but only reluctantly. He believes that eliminating parole (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Parole) gives no incentive for rehabilitation,[7] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-hope-7) and believes that more prisons should be built, and their management should be privatized.[4] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-issues-4) As Governor, he granted 1,033 pardons and commutations which is ten times more pardons than Governor Bill Clinton (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton) granted during his tenure.[8] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-8)[9] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-9) He supports flexible federal block grants (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Block_grant) for crime programs, and supports tougher juvenile crime (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Juvenile_crime) penalties, but believes that the states should set them. Huckabee supports drug courts for non-violent drug offenders, believes that drug education fails and drug punishment works, and that stricter penalties for drug-related crimes (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Drug-related_crime) should be enforced. He opposes the medical use of marijuana (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Medical_cannabis), and said he would continue to raid, arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who are using marijuana as a medicine.[10] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-10)
[QUOTE]

If that isn't evil I don't know what is.

Christian Liberty
10-31-2013, 11:21 AM
...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.
Yeah, pretty much.

Although, as I've said, I'd probably just write in Eric Peters.

idiom
10-31-2013, 05:36 PM
Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

How many libertarian have been elected to congress outside of the Republican camp?

speciallyblend
11-01-2013, 06:40 AM
bottom line is the gop didn't field a candidate that would sway the lp vote to come over, but the gop will not even account for their own failure. They will say the lp caused them to lose instead of fielding a candidate to sway their vote. The failure is on the gop not the lp. If the gop wants the lp vote that badly . Then run a f'in candidate they could vote for. If the gop loses? it is their own damn fault. Same will be true in Colorado, if you cannot run a candidate that is for the 2/3 voter majority in colorado. Then that gop candidate is dead in the water before the election.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 06:57 AM
The author of the OP should just say what he means. Instead of hemming and hawing about "Ron Paul Inc." he should just come right out and say that he's talking about Ron Paul himself here.

Nope. "Ron Paul Inc" refers to the political operatives who manage(d) Ron's (and Rand's) campaigns, specifically those more interested in their own personal gains than in advancement of the liberty movement and its goals. Jesse Benton would be an example, but there are others.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 07:29 AM
Nope. "Ron Paul Inc" refers to the political operatives who manage(d) Ron's (and Rand's) campaigns, specifically those more interested in their own personal gains than in advancement of the liberty movement and its goals. Jesse Benton would be an example, but there are others.

No. Ron Paul willingly and gladly endorsed Cuccinelli, and this guy knows it.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 07:58 AM
No. Ron Paul willingly and gladly endorsed Cuccinelli, and this guy knows it.
Neither of us knows for certain if that is true.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 08:11 AM
Neither of us knows for certain if that is true.

We all know for certain that it's true, including the author of the OP.

Peace&Freedom
11-01-2013, 09:09 AM
How many libertarian have been elected to congress outside of the Republican camp?

How many libertarian policy and legislative victories have happened in Congress due to the Republican camp? The accountability works both ways.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 10:48 AM
We all know for certain that it's true, including the author of the OP.

LOL. I guess you can read minds now. Well, I can't, and I'll admit that I don't know if it's true. I suspect it's not as Ron as allowed Ron Paul Inc. to lead him to a couple of bad decisions in the past, and this just smells like another one to me. There IS personal political gain to be had for the people of Ron Paul Inc. in a Cuccinelli win, so I have to go with my instinct which is to agree with the author of the OP.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 10:48 AM
How many libertarian policy and legislative victories have happened in Congress due to the Republican camp? The accountability works both ways.

oh, snap. :)

erowe1
11-01-2013, 10:49 AM
I guess you can read minds now.

There's no need to read minds. We have Ron Paul's words.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 10:51 AM
There's no need to read minds. We have Ron Paul's words.

You must think Ron Paul is God. I guess I just realize he's a human being with the same faults everyone else has....and that he wants to help his son to secure the GOP nomination no matter what he might have to do for the cause. It's a parent thing.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 10:52 AM
You must think Ron Paul is God.

That's not what I said. You can disagree with Ron. You and the OP obviously do. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend you're not really disagreeing with him. Don't pretend that the people you're accusing of being hypocrites don't include him. We don't need to be mind readers to know this.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 11:01 AM
That's not what I said. You can disagree with Ron. You and the OP obviously do. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend you're not really disagreeing with him. Don't pretend that the people you're accusing of being hypocrites don't include him. We don't need to be mind readers to know this.

I don't know if it includes him (and neither do you). If it does indeed include Ron, then YES I DISAGREE WITH HIM.

Now why don't you be honest and stop pretending that Ron Paul Inc hasn't made questionable decisions in Ron's name before? This could be another of those. Just sayin'.

FSP-Rebel
11-01-2013, 11:27 AM
I was hoping this wouldn't turn into an inquisition on Ron. He's been kinda quiet for a while and I've been waiting for his next political pick. The last endorsement I remember was for Broun 4 Senate back in August and he certainly hasn't stumped for him yet like he's doing here in this time sensitive race.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 11:53 AM
I don't know if it includes him (and neither do you).
Of course we all know it includes him. We have his own words and actions.


If it does indeed include Ron, then YES I DISAGREE WITH HIM.
That's fine. Then stop hiding behind this "Ron Paul Inc." label, and just say you're really talking about Ron Paul himself.



Now why don't you be honest and stop pretending that Ron Paul Inc hasn't made questionable decisions in Ron's name before? This could be another of those. Just sayin'.
Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.

SilentBull
11-01-2013, 12:17 PM
The purists at it again. You see, they care so much about liberty that they want to choose the path that advances liberty the least, or none at all. Makes no sense to me. Help give Rand Paul an ally so he can continue to change the Republican party? Who wants that? Ugghh.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Of course we all know it includes him. We have his own words and actions.


That's fine. Then stop hiding behind this "Ron Paul Inc." label, and just say you're really talking about Ron Paul himself.


Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.

You may be right that this is not one of those times because Ron himself is going to speak on Cuccinelli's behalf....so I'll just say I disagree with Ron's endorsement in this case (not the first time he's made a questionable one...see: Michele Bachmann).

This race is really for those who live in Virginia to decide...that doesn't include me, thank God because I think I would have to stay home on election day with those candidates as my choices.

One thing is certain: it seems that every decision, every word, is carefully crafted with the political benefit to Rand in mind. OK, I support him too...but I wouldn't go so far as to vote for KC if I lived in VA. I hope Rand proves to be worth all this compromise.

Peace&Freedom
11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.

There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them). I think sometimes the 'Inc' folks come to a decision and talk Ron into robotically going forward with an endorsement, or write a email or donation message first, then get Paul to sign off on it without him necessarily being intellectually onboard with it.

This concept explains a lot of things, from the old newsletters, to past campaign mixed signals, to endorsements of people who are closer to being Santorums than they are Paulians. It would not mean that Paul is 'lying' but simply is very deferential in going along with his team's recommendations.

mad cow
11-01-2013, 12:55 PM
There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them). I think sometimes the 'Inc' folks come to a decision and talk Ron into robotically going forward with an endorsement, or write a email or donation message first, then get Paul to sign off on it without him necessarily being intellectually onboard with it.

This concept explains a lot of things, from the old newsletters, to past campaign mixed signals, to endorsements of people who are closer to being Santorums than they are Paulians. It would not mean that Paul is 'lying' but simply is very deferential in going along with his team's recommendations.

Well,it's getting worse.They are actually giving him mind control drugs and forcing him on to an airplane to Virginia,where he is endorsing Cooch at a rally in Richmond the night before the election.

That's if your theory holds water...

erowe1
11-01-2013, 01:47 PM
There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them).

This isn't a case of them giving off different messages. This is a case of Ron Paul himself personally giving off the message that he supports Cuccinelli. For some, this makes him a hypocrite. Only they don't dare say so, so instead they say it's not really him, it's someone else.

Stop hiding behind codes. People think Ron Paul is a hypocrite. They think he doesn't care about liberty, but only pretends to. They should say it. Or else shut up about it. That's the only possible conclusion to draw from the OP.

Feeding the Abscess
11-01-2013, 01:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAgkximgiYA

Ron Paul, in his own words, on the Cuccinelli endorsement.

fisharmor
11-01-2013, 01:58 PM
Yeah, pretty much.

Although, as I've said, I'd probably just write in Eric Peters.
Hell, I never thought of that!

He may get my vote!

fisharmor
11-01-2013, 02:02 PM
The purists at it again. You see, they care so much about liberty that they want to choose the path that advances liberty the least, or none at all. Makes no sense to me. Help give Rand Paul an ally so he can continue to change the Republican party? Who wants that? Ugghh.

Let's just say that part of my purity test includes whether or not the guy is trying to put me on a sex offender list and take away all my guns for getting a blowjob from my wife.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 02:25 PM
Let's just say that part of my purity test includes whether or not the guy is trying to put me on a sex offender list and take away all my guns for getting a blowjob from my wife.

When they come for the non-purists there will be no one left to stand up for them.

Where have we heard that before?

CaseyJones
11-01-2013, 02:43 PM
Poll: McAuliffe 42, Cuccinelli 40, Sarvis 13

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-mcauliffe-42-cuccinelli-40-sarvis-13_765718.html

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 03:02 PM
Poll: McAuliffe 42, Cuccinelli 40, Sarvis 13

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-mcauliffe-42-cuccinelli-40-sarvis-13_765718.html

13% pretty impressive for an LP candidate. If Cuccinelli was a better candidate, the GOP would be running away with this race.

cjm
11-01-2013, 03:04 PM
Poll: McAuliffe 42, Cuccinelli 40, Sarvis 13

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-mcauliffe-42-cuccinelli-40-sarvis-13_765718.html

Wow, possibly the best of both worlds. Imagine a Cuccinelli win and LP with ballot status?

Feeding the Abscess
11-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Wow, possibly the best of both worlds. Imagine a Cuccinelli win and LP with ballot status?

Perhaps Sarvis is shooting for the same thing? Could explain his increasingly leftist rhetoric in the lead up to the election.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 04:03 PM
Wow, possibly the best of both worlds. Imagine a Cuccinelli win and LP with ballot status?

I haven't been following the discussions much. What does the LP need for ballot access?

cjm
11-01-2013, 04:09 PM
I haven't been following the discussions much. What does the LP need for ballot access?

10% in a statewide race. They then have automatic access for 4 years. Otherwise, it's 10k sigs to get on the ballot for a statewide race.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 04:12 PM
10% in a statewide race. They then have automatic access for 4 years. Otherwise, it's 10k sigs to get on the ballot for a statewide race.

To get that high of a percentage in a real election, Sarvis would need to be way above where he is now in the polls.

But that's good news for Cooch. Once you take away about 9 of the 13 % who say they're going to vote Sarvis but who really aren't, and divvy them up between the major party candidates that they'll actually end up voting for, it will probably be about 5-6 for Cooch and 3-4 for McAuliffe.

Peace&Freedom
11-01-2013, 04:46 PM
This isn't a case of them giving off different messages. This is a case of Ron Paul himself personally giving off the message that he supports Cuccinelli. For some, this makes him a hypocrite. Only they don't dare say so, so instead they say it's not really him, it's someone else.

Stop hiding behind codes. People think Ron Paul is a hypocrite. They think he doesn't care about liberty, but only pretends to. They should say it. Or else shut up about it. That's the only possible conclusion to draw from the OP.

No, there's an alternative interpretation, and I provided one. It's not a code, it's an alternative explanation. You are the one using code to pigeonhole those who disagree with you as questioning Paul's commitment to liberty. Paul trusts his team, they offer him good (or bad) things to endorse, and he frequently does so, regardless of the conflicts. This is a case of Ron Paul being advised wrong, then himself personally giving off the message.

Just because we don't always beforehand see the team creating these conflicts for him to adopt out in the open, doesn't mean they aren't there. You think many Ron Paul supporters are hypocrites, when all they are noticing is that some of his actions reflect a team who steered him in a questionable direction.

erowe1
11-01-2013, 05:00 PM
No, there's an alternative interpretation, and I provided one.

You mean the "robotically going forward" bit? Otherwise, I don't see any alternative interpretation.

Besides, why would anyone doubt that Ron Paul is on board with this? If you know anything about Ron Paul, Cuccinelli is precisely the kind of candidate he would enthusiastically endorse. If anything, I'd expect Ron Paul Inc. tried to persuade him not to and he told them to shove it.

FreedomFighter1776
11-02-2013, 04:28 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/615033_633494730022297_1301914491_o.jpg

speciallyblend
11-02-2013, 07:11 AM
The purists at it again. You see, they care so much about liberty that they want to choose the path that advances liberty the least, or none at all. Makes no sense to me. Help give Rand Paul an ally so he can continue to change the Republican party? Who wants that? Ugghh.

ok this has nothing to do with purists. the gop has been in power in va before and what have they done? the same as the dems, put us in more debt and support bigger intrusive gov policies. How is that better? the r and d are just yapping the same ole bs.

speciallyblend
11-02-2013, 07:11 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/615033_633494730022297_1301914491_o.jpg

nice

SilentBull
11-02-2013, 09:15 AM
ok this has nothing to do with purists. the gop has been in power in va before and what have they done? the same as the dems, put us in more debt and support bigger intrusive gov policies. How is that better? the r and d are just yapping the same ole bs.

But the GOP IS changing. People like Rand Paul and Mike Lee are becoming the leaders of the party. More and more are beginning to follow because they see how popular Rand's ideas are becoming. How can we deny that the Rand Paul strategy is working? Shouldn't we be helping Rand Paul to have another possible ally for when he runs in 2016. What is accomplished by supporting the Libertarian candidate?

IndianaPolitico
11-02-2013, 09:18 AM
Alright, let's step away from this R vs. L debate here. For people who seem to go after party loyalists, there seem to be many who want Virginia to vote for Sarvis, just because of his party label. This isn't about saving a party, this is about what is best for the country, and Virginia in particular. Cuccinelli would help ADVANCE the cause of liberty, much more so then a libertarian candidate getting 8% of the vote.

erowe1
11-02-2013, 09:21 AM
Alright, let's step away from this R vs. L debate here. For people who seem to go after party loyalists, there seem to be many who want Virginia to vote for Sarvis, just because of his party label. This isn't about saving a party, this is about what is best for the country, and Virginia in particular. Cuccinelli would help ADVANCE the cause of liberty, much more so then a libertarian candidate getting 8% of the vote.

I agree. The case for Sarvis is nothing but pure partisanship. It's all about party labels and nothing else. The case for Cuccinelli is about what could be accomplished by electing him.

BuddyRey
11-02-2013, 09:30 AM
If I were a Virginia voter, I'd hold my nose and cast my ballot for The Cooch for strategic reasons. Having said this, I totally understand why other libertarian-leaning voters find him underwhelming and are opting for Sarvis instead. There's really no clear "good guy" in this race, and some people just have different priorities than others.

cjm
11-02-2013, 09:30 AM
ok this has nothing to do with purists. the gop has been in power in va before and what have they done? the same as the dems, put us in more debt and support bigger intrusive gov policies. How is that better? the r and d are just yapping the same ole bs.

This statement tells me that you are not paying attention to Virginia politics or the goings on in the RPV the last two years.

CaptUSA
11-02-2013, 09:34 AM
http://www.boltedmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/man-no-nose.jpg

speciallyblend
11-03-2013, 12:23 AM
Alright, let's step away from this R vs. L debate here. For people who seem to go after party loyalists, there seem to be many who want Virginia to vote for Sarvis, just because of his party label. This isn't about saving a party, this is about what is best for the country, and Virginia in particular. Cuccinelli would help ADVANCE the cause of liberty, much more so then a libertarian candidate getting 8% of the vote.

ballot access is what it is about, the republicans have had the power in va and all they did was bigger gov. The gop track record is not good. There is a better choice. I am all for the lp getting ballot access. the gop is already on the ballot but not supporting liberty and has a fail track record on it.

speciallyblend
11-03-2013, 12:27 AM
This statement tells me that you are not paying attention to Virginia politics or the goings on in the RPV the last two years.

really you know nothing then. I want the lp to have ballot access and they have a strong shot at it. The gop has been in power and has nothing to show but bigger intrusive gov. I know plenty about va and va beach. Vote Sarvis!! Everyone has a right to support someone and i support lp ballot access and sarvis has a strong chance to win that access for the lp.

speciallyblend
11-03-2013, 12:28 AM
If I were a Virginia voter, I'd hold my nose and cast my ballot for The Cooch for strategic reasons. Having said this, I totally understand why other libertarian-leaning voters find him underwhelming and are opting for Sarvis instead. There's really no clear "good guy" in this race, and some people just have different priorities than others.

hey some common sense in rpf omg screen shot!!

Keith and stuff
11-03-2013, 01:24 AM
If I were a Virginia voter, I'd hold my nose and cast my ballot for The Cooch for strategic reasons. Having said this, I totally understand why other libertarian-leaning voters find him underwhelming and are opting for Sarvis instead. There's really no clear "good guy" in this race, and some people just have different priorities than others.
That's how I feel. Though I'd likely also volunteer for Ken to get the chicken sandwiches, pizza and so on. While I beleive Sarvis is much more pro-liberty, I beleive Ken is the most pro-liberty candidate to even be elected to statewide office in VA and I'd vote and volunteer for him because I believe he has a slight chance of actually winning.

Change the sign to warm and frequent food and you got me ;)
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-zO5H6Rcthzw/UGW-w2CGueI/AAAAAAAAAHE/CJYzjqRfQI0/s1600/will_work_for_food.JPG

PS. Though, perhaps I'm not a woman, don't wear rings and don't have nice nails :toady:

jhon
11-05-2013, 04:38 PM
Former Rep. Ron Paul speaks at Ken Cuccinelli's election-eve campaign rally in Richmond, Virginia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJNuv-NcQM8

Bastiat's The Law
11-05-2013, 04:42 PM
The LP candidate supports carbon taxes.

speciallyblend
11-06-2013, 07:56 AM
The LP candidate supports carbon taxes.

and the gop supports bigger gov and taxes and a va history to show it, so if you want to nick pick ,republicans are the dems best friend.

Peace&Freedom
11-06-2013, 10:47 AM
and the gop supports bigger gov and taxes and a va history to show it, so if you want to nick pick ,republicans are the dems best friend.

The real problem, in a nutshell.

speciallyblend
11-07-2013, 01:41 AM
another tidbit i saw on fb, sums it up nicely to the coochies out there,For the last 48 hours, Cuccinelli apologists have been claiming that Cuccinelli was, despite his statist social agenda, more libertarian than Sarvis.

Guess what, Cuccinelli? You had the opportunity to actually prove that. Not by having your staff make outlandish claims on this facebook page. BY DEBATING ROB SARVIS, WHEN HE REPEATEDLY INVITED YOU TO.

Or, at least, by not childishly refusing to debate Sarvis....

That’s the thing about Libertarian votes. You actually have to earn them.

As future advice for the RNC and DNC: if you want to prove that your candidate is “more libertarian” than the Libertarian candidate, consider actually debating the Libertarian to prove it.