Romney warns tea party activists not to form third party

[CarmelHP]

you can neg rep me every day of the week, it makes no matter to me....
So me calling you out for being an ass by using special olympics as a deragatory is me crying about being PC? You can say what you want, in fact please tell us more, it just shows the type of person you are.

Yes, you're very willing to use the diversion tactics of the Left when you're on the ropes. Shows me the type of person YOU are. And who negged who first, whiner ?

 

[Ogre]

And you and you're compatriots sure aren't winning any support by your attacks saying you don't want washed up R's and D's polluting your party though you nominate them for President. What nonsense, the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Fine, we'll leave you all alone to play with yourselves.

And I'm the one that doesnt get it.... I wish you would join the Libertarian party, we need all the members we can get, but please, don't try to turn the Libertarian Party, or any tea party groups into another Republican party. All that will do is kill the momentum. If you'd like I can send you some information and a calendar of events.

 

[CarmelHP]

And I'm the one that doesnt get it.... I wish you would join the Libertarian party, we need all the members we can get, but please, don't try to turn the Libertarian Party, or any tea party groups into another Republican party. All that will do is kill the momentum. If you'd like I can send you some information and a calendar of events.

And dilute your cherished POE (purity of essence). I wouldn't dream of it now that I know how you feel about all the ideologically impure who can't meet your exacting standards, whatever they are, and apparently only in the eye of the beholder.

You get to have the last word, no matter how much of a distortion of truth it may be..

 

[Ogre]

Yes, you're very willing to use the diversion tactics of the Left when you're on the ropes. Shows me the type of person YOU are. And who negged who first, whiner?

No diversion here, I have counterpointed you. I also let you know what I thought of your petty poor taste insults. I'm not whining, whining does nothing. I am simply attempting to convey my position to you.
Anything else you's like to discuss, or shall we go back to ?

 

[Ogre]

At least you get something right everynow and again. R's, not unlike yourself (Thankfully you haven't made it to that point yet), who finally give up on their own party and join the Libertarians, and bring along their own socially conservative, and foerign policy stances, is where the party gets weakened.
(I'll go ahead and get my flame retardent suit, and wait over here for your "scolding")

And dilute your cherished POE (purity of essence). I wouldn't dream of it now that I know how you feel about all the ideologically impure who can't meet your exacting standards, whatever they are, and apparently only in the eye of the beholder.

I think I conveyed the notion of bring yourself, not the Republican platform, but if I failed at that then, please, make no mistake, I profess of no "Pure" of Ideology exclusivity of the Libertarian party. By all means, please, jump on in, the water is fine.

 

[hornadylnl]

And you and you're compatriots sure aren't winning any support by your attacks saying you don't want washed up R's and D's polluting your party though you nominate them for President. What nonsense, the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Fine, we'll leave you all alone to play with yourselves.

And what's this, "the party did this..." or "the party did that..." you mean voters? Tough, that's the way it works. Your presidential nominee WAS picked by the party, not voters, and look how that turned out. Reason is useless the big blue "L"oser party

Nowhere did I say I was a liberatarian. I'm just not supporting a party that supports tyranny and status quo.

 

[CarmelHP]

Nowhere did I say I was a liberatarian. I'm just not supporting a party that supports tyranny and status quo.

Parties do not support anything. Parties are not living things, they have no feelings or beliefs. They are instruments to be used. Any group can forge a coalition and take over party apparatus, that's what the coalition of various flavors of socialism did with the Democrat party. It used to be the party of the Unreconstructed South. It was people of a certain mindset taking it over a little at a time that got it to where it is today.

 

[hornadylnl]

There is room for everyone in the repub big tent but liberty lovers. Proof? The establishments support of Dan Coats and all the other rinos in the last few years.

 

[Truckerman79]

There is room for everyone in the repub big tent but liberty lovers. Proof? The establishments support of Dan Coats and all the other rinos in the last few years.

I think CarmelHP's point was that if libertarians were to concentrate their efforts on infiltrating the GOP instead of continuing their failures under the Libertarian Party banner, then they could have a chance changing the Republican Party establishment.

It is obvious that a third party cannot and will not succeed in this country.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think CarmelHP's point was that if libertarians were to concentrate their efforts on infiltrating the GOP instead of continuing their failures under the Libertarian Party banner, then they could have a chance changing the Republican Party establishment.

It is obvious that a third party cannot and will not succeed in this country.

Carmel is complaining that the Liberatarians don't want repub washouts yet look at how the repub party treats anyone who is liberty minded? In every primary where there has been a grass roots conservative running in the last few years, the repub party endorses the liberal.

Even counting the Liberatarians, there is still only 2 parties. What's the difference between democrats and repubs? They've melded into 1 party.

 

[Truckerman79]

Carmel is complaining that the Liberatarians don't want repub washouts yet look at how the repub party treats anyone who is liberty minded? In every primary where there has been a grass roots conservative running in the last few years, the repub party endorses the liberal.

Even counting the Liberatarians, there is still only 2 parties. What's the difference between democrats and repubs? They've melded into 1 party.

There are many liberty minded Republicans that are serving right now. Many of the liberal ones got defeated in the last two elections. The conservative movement is taking control of the GOP and the rising stars in the party are solid conservatives. I think the upcoming elections will prove my point even further. My gut tells me that Dan Coats will lose the primary. The establishment in D.C. can pick who they want, but in the end the people choose who serves. The Tea Party movement is a signal to the establishment that the people will no longer tolerate wishy washy RINOs.

I have to disagree with your last statement. The differences are clear. Even the liberal Republicans won't vote for any of the Democrat Party's socialist agenda.

 

[CarmelHP]

... Which party would our founders back today? I'm sure they'd back liberatarians over the repubs any day of the week....

You means the guys who said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately?" The English born anti-monarch republicans who allied themselves with the despotic French monarchy? I think the Founders were not obstinate fools and ideologues. They didn't love the French king, but he held the best tools to defeat a common enemy. They would have used the best tool for the job and put aside differences to face a bigger, more immediate enemy. There are only two parties with the infrastructure to win elections. The Libertarian Party has proven itself a perennially minor party and which promises to be so for the reasonably foreseeable future. Only two parties have the infrastructure, access and recognition to win local and national races. The Democrat Party isn't going to be taken over because it already has a motivated, implacable cadre of committed socialists who are driving it forward relentlessly.The Republican Party is sitting there with the motor running waiting for someone to drive it. All too often it's left to a band of appeasers to drive it, because those who should be joining together are too busy nitpicking and pettifogging about ideological details to do much about transforming into an effective political force. It's very easy to sit around and pretend to be philosopher kings, but it's hard organizing and winning elections. The socialists are adept at winning because of greed, they have a vested interest in acquiring the levers of government to grant themselves wealth and power. If you're truly freedom loving your interest is only in keeping what you have against the ravages of the socialist behemoth. The time is already past in which we could afford the luxury of dissipating the resistance against the common enemy.

 

[MTC]

You means the guys who said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately?" The English born anti-monarch republicans who allied themselves with the despotic French monarchy? I think the Founders were not obstinate fools and ideologues. They didn't love the French king, but he held the best tools to defeat a common enemy. They would have used the best tool for the job and put aside differences to face a bigger, more immediate enemy. There are only two parties with the infrastructure to win elections. The Libertarian Party has proven itself a perennially minor party and which promises to be so for the reasonably foreseeable future. Only two parties have the infrastructure, access and recognition to win local and national races. The Democrat Party isn't going to be taken over because it already has a motivated, implacable cadre of committed socialists who are driving it forward relentlessly.The Republican Party is sitting there with the motor running waiting for someone to drive it. All too often it's left to a band of appeasers to drive it, because those who should be joining together are too busy nitpicking and pettifogging about ideological details to do much about transforming into an effective political force. It's very easy to sit around and pretend to be philosopher kings, but it's hard organizing and winning elections. The socialists are adept at winning because of greed, they have a vested interest in acquiring the levers of government to grant themselves wealth and power. If you're truly freedom loving your interest is only in keeping what you have against the ravages of the socialist behemoth. The time is already past in which we could afford the luxury of dissipating the resistance against the common enemy.

Accurate and sobering sitrep.

 

[Ogre]

You means the guys who said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately?" The English born anti-monarch republicans who allied themselves with the despotic French monarchy? I think the Founders were not obstinate fools and ideologues. They didn't love the French king, but he held the best tools to defeat a common enemy. They would have used the best tool for the job and put aside differences to face a bigger, more immediate enemy. There are only two parties with the infrastructure to win elections. The Libertarian Party has proven itself a perennially minor party and which promises to be so for the reasonably foreseeable future. Only two parties have the infrastructure, access and recognition to win local and national races. The Democrat Party isn't going to be taken over because it already has a motivated, implacable cadre of committed socialists who are driving it forward relentlessly.The Republican Party is sitting there with the motor running waiting for someone to drive it. All too often it's left to a band of appeasers to drive it, because those who should be joining together are too busy nitpicking and pettifogging about ideological details to do much about transforming into an effective political force. It's very easy to sit around and pretend to be philosopher kings, but it's hard organizing and winning elections. The socialists are adept at winning because of greed, they have a vested interest in acquiring the levers of government to grant themselves wealth and power. If you're truly freedom loving your interest is only in keeping what you have against the ravages of the socialist behemoth. The time is already past in which we could afford the luxury of dissipating the resistance against the common enemy.

1. So exactly what direction do you want your Republican party to go?
2. and what specific platforms and stances should it take or adhere to?

So far, I keep hearing that the R's and D's are the only viable parties and I should try to reform from within the R party, but you havent given any indication of your take on the above two questions. I am curious.

 

[CarmelHP]

1. So exactly what direction do you want your Republican party to go?
2. and what specific platforms and stances should it take or adhere to?

All too often it's left to a band of appeasers to drive it, because those who should be joining together are too busy nitpicking and pettifogging about ideological details to do much about transforming into an effective political force.

 

[Ogre]

I see, your happy with the Republican Party as is. I guess I should have assumed that was the case, but I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. That explains alot.

 

[CarmelHP]

I see, your happy with the Republican Party as is. I guess I should have assumed that was the case, but I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. That explains alot.

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. If you think that party platforms (rather than the people, particularly those you help put in place) mean anything, then you haven't been paying attention. If you think labels mean anything, you're a fool. Should I assume you're dishonest or clueless or a fool? Either way, you're part of the problem. I guess to you the Founding Fathers thought the French monarchy was something to be emulated. I don't think there's any way to wise up those who prefer to blindly follow a label.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE[/ame]

 

[Ogre]

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. If you think that party platforms (rather than the people, particularly those you help put in place) mean anything, then you haven't been paying attention. If you think labels mean anything, you're a fool. Should I assume you're dishonest or clueless or a fool? Either way, you're part of the problem. I guess to you the Founding Fathers thought the French monarchy was something to be emulated. I don't think there's any way to wise up those who prefer to blindly follow a label.

WTF are you talking about? What do you mean platforms don't mean anything? Are you saying that none of your Republican politicians adheres to their platform stances? I want YOU to tell me what YOU would like to see the Republican Party push for. A political party should have a clear direction, as should those politicians offiliated with said party. If a politician campaigns that they are going to work towards legislation promoting X,Y and Z initiatives, once they are elected they are measured on not only how they vote on all other legislation, but what they did to address their original initiatives. That is a crucial part of measuring elected officials, whether they adhere to their stated principals and what they do to promote the initiatives they campaigned on. You state that you care not about party offiliation, but most of your posts are clearly from a Republican background, that is why I bring up the R platform and direction. I'm not sure why you are dancing around simply answering my questions.

Ill make it more simple, what direction do you want your chosen elected officials to legislate towards, stances on key issues....?

 

[CarmelHP]

Ill make it more simple, what direction do you want your chosen elected officials to legislate towards, stances on key issues....?

Why? You have your mind made up. I have plenty of postings saying what I'd like to see. I was one of the first to the Dan Coats offering on here, if not the first, but you'd prefer to lie.

Remember this, so you already knew what I'd like to see on the federal level, but you're willing to lie. Platforms are like chastity pledges. If the pledger's a slut it doesn't matter how eloquent the pledge was written. What's the Libertarian Party's almighty platform that let them offer the Bob Barr turd sandwich washed down with a big old douche. It's people that make the difference, not what someone whispers in your ear while trying to get you to vote for them. Anyone who clings to platforms is an imbecile. Anyone who won't use the best tool for the job is a fool. Anyone who won't learn from history is a moron. I'm ashamed to admit that I gave to Libertarian candidates back in college when I thought that party could go places. I've waited 25 years and it's worse than ever, I've learned my lesson, it will forever be a minor, peripheral party because its members and candidates want a pulpit, a debating society, not to win elections. You don't get it, I understand that, but I'm not going to keep giving singing lessons to pigs.

 

[Ogre]

Why? You have your mind made up. I have plenty of postings saying what I'd like to see. I was one of the first to the Dan Coats offering on here, if not the first, but you'd prefer to lie.

Remember this, so you already knew what I'd like to see on the federal level, but you're willing to lie. Platforms are like chastity pledges. If the pledger's a slut it doesn't matter how eloquent the pledge was written. What's the Libertarian Party's almighty platform that let them offer the Bob Barr turd sandwich washed down with a big old douche. It's people that make the difference, not what someone whispers in your ear while trying to get you to vote for them. Anyone who clings to platforms is an imbecile. Anyone who won't use the best tool for the job is a fool. Anyone who won't learn from history is a moron. I'm ashamed to admit that I gave to Libertarian candidates back in college when I thought that party could go places. I've waited 25 years and it's worse than ever, I've learned my lesson, it will forever be a minor, peripheral party because its members and candidates want a pulpit, a debating society, not to win elections. You don't get it, I understand that, but I'm not going to keep giving singing lessons to pigs.

Lie about what?