Thing you hate about the Libertarians the most

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, for once they are all irrealist, political onnanists, who don't realize the only way of moving toward a libertarian direction, adn election libertarians to office, is the Republican Party.
Another thing I tend to notice in some, is their obsession over the constitution. The constitution do protects the freedoms, altough activist judges keep geopardizing even that, but is by no means a perfect document. Having the feds coining money or regulating interestate commerce is by no means a good thing. We should be more concentrated in making a ethical case for our opinions and less on arguing legalisms.

The Republican party isn't very libertarian with its support for the Patriot Act, Iraq war, and corporate welfare, and opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you can't even reform a major party in a Libertarian direction, what makes you think you'll ever be able to reform the country in a Libertarian direction?

The Republican party is full of RINOs that will forever support bigger more oppressive government.  There is also the fanatical religious right that wants to turn this country into some kind of theocracy.  At the moment the Republicans cannot win without the support of these two groups.  Until that changes they will never be purged from the party and the party will not move in a Libertarian direction.

The Democrats have a slightly different problem.  They're completely taken over by the big government socialists.  They have purged from their leadership most the people who oppose oppressive government.  Most of the Democrat voters have the live and let live outlook on life.  They see the fanatics in the Republican party and have no choice but to vote for the socialist who at least promises that the oppressive government will at least oppress everyone equally.

The LP needs to come along and draw off the libertarian Republicans and the average Democratic voter.  Neither of these groups in their own parties can accomplish much.  However I think together in the LP they'll be more effective.  If each group makes up a 1/3 of their own party and they vote for the LP then we cut D&R vote totals, The LP candidate will also bring in people who have given up on voting and the next thing you know the LP gets about 33-35% in a 3-way race.  In such a race that could be enough to win.  In any case it will be more effective than splitting the pro-freedom vote between two anti-freedom candidates.

So in short that's why I think it will be easier to use the LP to change the government rather than the corrupted old parties.

What the hell are you talking about?
The whole country was socialist in 1936.
The Democratic party is not socialist today.
Since when was the Patriot Act "freedom"?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

The Republicans in the 20s followed those policies. There was a minor problem in October 1929.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funding is one of the least of the Libertarians problems. 
The biggest problem with the Libertarians is that they are completely self-delusional.  They think that everyone would ultimately agree with them if they just heard their message, and every year, they think the next election will be the one where the finally "break out". 

It's not going to happen.  They should have had a perfect chance in 2004, with the Republicans running on an overtly moralist, intrusive-government platform.  What do the libertarians do?  They nominate a candidate with no political experience who brags about how he drives without a license and never files income tax. 

Yet still they believe he's the one.  There were several libertarians on this board that claimed that Badnarik would win 5% in many states states, and a couple that genuinely believed he would win states.  Yet the Libertarians managed their worst result ever, failing to get close to 1% in a single state.

If the Libertarians were really serious about one day becoming politically relevant, they wouldn't nominate some wacko in every district who is destined to poll 0.5%.  Seeing that result across the board just reinforces their joke status.  If they were serious, they would give real funding and support to a few candidates in a few local races, concentrated in a single state, where they could actually be competitive.   

Look at the Vermont Progressive Party.  Get a single Congressman, even a couple state legislators somewhere.  Don't bother running nobodies for President until you've proven you have actually appeal in a well-funded race.

No kidding, a sudden strong third party needs one of the following:

massive splinter of existing parties: 1860
established candidate running: 1912
two really crappy 2 party choices: 1924 (didn't come close to winning)
self funding billionaire: 1992 (didn't come close to winning)

Those tend to be pretty rare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's something usefull the Libertarian party could do: run a candidate against every uncontested Republican in Congress. They might win one of those.