5 votes

Tea Party should vote Libertarian Gary Johnson

Republicans say they're for smaller government, but Governor Mitt Romney started a healthcare program in Massachusetts that's just like Obamacare! Remember the Tea Party uprising against the bailouts?! Well, the Republican candidate for Vice President voted for the Wall St. bank bailouts!
I'm asking you to vote for Libertarian Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson opposes bailouts, and as Governor, he vetoed more bills than all other governors combined!
Please vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. We've got to make a change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcg8-edjm3M

Paid for by Libertarian Action Super PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

http://www.LASPAC.org



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Constitution Party (Re-Post)

I just got my ballot in the mail here in Oregon , and when I looked at it I was in disbelief. The Constitution Party candidate for President on the Oregon Ballot is Will Christensen! I researched and found the Constitution Party of Oregon nominated Mr. Christensen instead of Virgil Goode. Now I am not a political guru, but to me that says the Constitution Party has a lot of work in order to get themselves on the same page. I mean without solidarity nationally, they will not be a good vehicle for the Liberty Movement. If they cannot all agree on who the nominee will be on a national scale, they will never have what it takes to win. At least the Libertarian Party has solidarity. Gary Johnson is their choice this election and all state parties have agreed. If we do not find a way of banding together, the Liberty Movement will splinter for sure. This is Politics and it is never set in stone on issues. Ron Paul was the best choice, but he is not in the running now, so we need to suck it up and find a way to solidify the movement, because it is not you or I that will suffer, but the movement itself. Ron Paul is not out of the movement, but he is out of the race at this time. He is still going around doing what he does best, waking people to the destruction of our Constitution. I still stand behind Ron Paul as the Father of the R3VOLution, but I will vote for Gary Johnson on this ballot because I believe that he is the best choice for our movement at this time. This has never been about one person, it is about all of us and saving the Republic, and we need to find some type of common ground and stop the in fighting. Suck it up people.

Third parties are a dead end.

They're a good avenue to vent frustration by casting a protest vote if you don't like the Republican candidate, but, as far as organizing goes, third parties are a waste of time because the United States is designed as a two-party system. The Founders didn't specifically try to design a two-party system, that's just the way it happened when they made it so that the winner takes all in ever single election. If a party can't get a plurality of votes in a district or in a state, it can't win anything nationally. History shows that third parties do not reach national prominence unless they are replacing the second party. But, then that third party usually just became the obsolete second party under a different name (ex. Whigs - Republicans 1850s).

Indeed they should. As should

Indeed they should. As should anyone else, if the choice is between him and Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Someone obviously forgot to get that memo to Rand. If even he, with his rather privileged upbringing when it comes to political philosophy, is so lost that he picks Romney over GJ, what hope can there possibly be for your regular Tea Partier. I mean, Romney just supported the bailouts that got the Tea Party movement all worked up. And signed Obama/Romney care into law; and is proud of it. As he is of being so good at working across the aisle that he passed a bill to take Massachusettsans' guns away.

Your typical Tea Party member will not back

someone who is both pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. Just something to think about heading into 2016. If that is part of your platform, you better start trying to pick off alienated democrats.

Pro-life and Pro-marriage

That's why I'm voting Constitution Party. :D

Virgil Goode 2012!

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

I'd rather they didn't.

I'd rather they didn't. They've been co-opted and are tainted. They don't stand for true liberty.

.

Libtards hate the tea party and everything it stands for. always have. Rand Paul too. you hate rand right libtard? He is a TP leader.
You LOATHE sarah palin- dont you??
and all the other liberty republicans too huh?

RP movement attracted appx 20% confused lib dems, who liked his non interventionist foreign policy. Too bad you never learned Pauls conservative fiscal principles or the constitutional role of limited gvt.

Libtards have left the RP movement because they know they have no place in it, they do not agree with TP and conservative fiscal principles. Paul is the opposite of todays libtard(stray,we, LL, stfs,bob45, and on and on..) They are homeless with no obama to lead them and are fooling yourselves if you think gairie is anything other then lib establishment!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Give me a break.

As a Tea Partier, why would I vote for someone who can't beat Obama? Mitt's not perfect, but, he's far better than Obama has been.

Romney/Ryan 2012!!!

Really?

Can you name three major policy issues where BO and Mitt the Knife don't agree?

I though so. there are none.

Willard = BO. Anyone who likes Romney but not BO is a racist for the most significant difference in them is their genetic heritage.

Yep, that must be it. I don't want a colored mulatto

leading our white country.

You are incredibly ignorant. To claim there's no difference between Obama and Romney aside from their genetic heritage is like claiming there's no difference between Castro and his recent, liberal opponent Capriles other than their ethnic heritage. Barrack Obama was reared and trained by communists. He is doing everything he politically can to push this country left.

You asked for three major policy issues that will be different once Mitt Romney is president than if O wins a second term.

1. Obamacare will be defunded and states will be able to opt out of implementing it. President Romney will not set up a healthcare exchange in states that opt out of the abominable bill. He will also repeal it if given a chance by the Senate.

2. Supreme Court Justices - that's a big one.

3. Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama do not agree when it comes to giving taxpayers' dollars to Planned Parenthood - another big one.

Racist? Nonsense.

That's ridiculous. Romney is much more likely to attack Iran, for example, so war-happy neocons have a reason for preferring Mitt. They want their wars more than anything else. So it's possible for someone to prefer Romney over Obama for reasons of destructive stupidity rather than racism.

Any choice you are given by the

state is equally bad. Voting would be illegal if it made a difference. I don't care what you think about Johnson, but you're deluding yourself in thinking that the government would be so clueless as to allow a way out.

Nihilist by any chance?

Puuuuuuuuuke!

One of the Teocons has spoken!!!

At least you're honest about your disgusting neocon leanings.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Ron Paul is a Teacon.

The Tea Party isn't a centrally-controlled organization. Not every single Tea Partier supports the same candidate or is willing to vote for someone who is less than a perfect fiscal Conservative. This particular Teacon intends on being a pragmatist when it comes to presidential elections. We can always hold Romney's feet to the fire from Congress.

Yes, I can tell from the wonderful rating congress has that

you're idea of "holding their feet to the fire" has worked nicely.

Oh and Dr.Paul is a Tea Party original.. Teacon are neocons that infiltrated that movement.

As usual.. kudos for coming out with your disgusting side for all to see but again as usual, you're wrong.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Now there's something

that you and I can agree on!

On topic..

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the "Tea Party" did support Gary.. the half that's neocon anyway.. but even that probably won't happen because then we'd get to see Gary for what he is, easier.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

One of these things is not like the others ...

Ron Paul described Gary Johnson as "wonderful."

Judge Nap describe Gary Johnson as a "lover of liberty."

You describe Gary Johnson as a neocon in disguise, and quote anti-liberty smear pieces against him from a guy who made no secret of his dislike for Ron Paul.

Care to take a peek at this too?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816

I'm a purest.. remember? Personally I love Dr.Paul AND Judge Nap but that doesn't mean I would vote the same way they would.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The market-ticker article

The Johnson claim that this guy first "fact checks" is:
Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office.

The "fact checking" starts out with: "Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years." And it goes on to criticize this on the grounds that CPI only increased by 20.9% in that period, but 5% compounded over 8 years is 50%.

This is so lame I'm only going to address this one point and then drop it. Wow is this lame.

Let's take his criticism at face value first. If the guy believes that the CPI is an accurate measure of inflation then he's an idiot. If he knows it's not accurate, then he's being dishonest. Here's a video of Ron Paul explaining this to Bernanke in case anyone isn't aware of it yet: http://youtu.be/H4uL6CSiGrU

But his "fact checking" is actually worse than just trying to pass off a manipulated and unrealistic inflation value as legit. It took me less than a minute with google to find out that what Johnson is *actually* claiming about the significance of that 5% annual rate is that before him the annual growth rate was TEN percent. So he cut it in half, and (the claim is) this was in large part due to the two hundred vetoes or whatever it was. Funny how this "fact check" missed that bit of context.

This one is even more pathetic than the other. At least Weinstein tried to mask his neocon concerns about Johnson cutting the military too deeply and not having a neocon perspective on Iran and Israel by trying to put a thin concern trollish veneer on it.

LOL That's rich

I suppose you forgot to mention the increase total while he was in office huh. :)

The "guy" is a well known economist.. you are not. You lose because you don't understand what's being said and you failed to mention the rest of the story.

It's okay.. you're not the first GJ fanboy that blew his mind over the revelation that GJ isn't a knight in shinning armor or even a stable boy of Liberty.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

LOL that's *really* pathetic

Just on a hunch I googled for karl denninger and cpi understates inflation just to see whether, as someone who writes about economics, he might have ever admitted that the cpi numbers are bogus.

The first google hit is one of his articles titled: We Lie With Statistics: MSM (Inflation)
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201673

He not only knows the CPI is bogus, he's criticized the MSM for treating it as a valid measure of inflation. Toss that into the context of his "fact checking" of Gary Johnson, where he uses the CPI as if it were a valid measure of inflation. Iin addition to omitting the context of the 5% claim being that the growth rate was double that before Johnson's vetos.

The dude has an axe to grind.

And Dr.Paul usually finds that the CPI's are off to which

direction? Keeping that in mind if Karl's numbers are off, which way would they be off? Chances are they're worse than he suggests.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The CPI understates inflation

The CPI understates inflation. Bernanke likes this because it helps to hide the true story about the loss of value of the dollar.

Karl is arguing that Johnson isn't conservative because the growth in spending was greater than CPI.

But if the actual loss of value of the dollar is greater than the CPI, then the CPI isn't a valid benchmark the way Karl is trying to use it.

IOW, the numbers are off in the direction that makes Karl's argument bogus.

And all of this is *in addition to* Karl omitting the actual relevance of the 5% claim, namely that the previous rate was *double* that before Johnson came in with all of those vetoes.

Go look up the increase he talks about.

BTW.. Even Dr.Paul has used CPI's before because that's what people hold to, to explain the problem of inflation..

You've never used someones own math to bring to light their mistake? :)

The DEBT increased to almost DOUBLE but Gary's a hero because he didn't spend what they did previously.. Brilliant.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Cite where Dr. Paul has used CPI numbers

the same way. Using CPI numbers is fine if it makes the case you need to make and if inflation is larger than the CPI, the case is even stronger. Dr. Paul might do that, sure.

But the guy you're quoting here didn't do that. He used the CPI numbers in such a way that if they understate inflation his conclusion is false. That's a very different thing. If you can show me Dr. Paul using CPI numbers in a comparable way, I'll be surprised because Dr. Paul understands such things and is honest about such things. I doubt you can though.

From your earlier question you seem to have initially misunderstood this. The CPU numbers aren't off in the direction that helps Karl's argument if CPI is wrong. They're off in the other direction. They understate inflation.

Okay so we've established the percentages are off

from our point of view but that's only if you don't buy into CPI.

So can you figure out what the difference is? :)

Oh BTW.. I never said he did in the exact same way.. I just said he's used CPI's before.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Come on dude

from our point of view but that's only if you don't buy into CPI.

Huh? Even *he* doesn't buy into CPI, except when it's convenient for him to pretend it's accurate because he's got an axe to grind.

Oh BTW.. I never said he did in the exact same way.. I just said he's used CPI's before.

("He" being Ron Paul here.) The difference is that Ron Paul used CPI numbers *honestly*, in such a way that if actual inflation is larger his case is *stronger*.

But your guy used CPI numbers *dishonestly* in such a way that if the actual inflation is larger, his conclusion is *bogus*.

So your point that Ron Paul "also used CPI numbers" is rather misleading.

LOL that's pathetic

First watch the video where Dr. Paul explains to Bernanke that the CPI is artificially low, and not close to a valid measure of the real rate of inflation. Then decide if you side with Dr. Paul, or with Bernanke, on this question.

If you side with Bernanke, then I guess that's why the article you cited makes sense to you. The guy you cited may be a "known economist" ... and so is Bernanke for what *that's* worth ... but that doesn't make him right. Establishment economists can't admit to just how badly the dollar is being hurt.

If you side with Dr. Paul on this, then you know that the article you cited is wrong. It uses a manipulated, artificially low inflation number as a benchmark and says that Gary Johnson can't be truly conservative if he can't hold *real* inflation down to the artificially-low CPI number. That's dishonest.

And that was just part of it. The article also omits the context for that annual growth claim, namely that the 5% growth was a reduction from the previous 10% growth.

The guy has an axe to grind. I'm sure he knows that the CPI doesn't accurately reflect just how much value the dollar is losing year over year. He may not want to admit it, but he knows it. He knows that using the CPI as a benchmark therefore makes no sense. And if he can use google at all he probably also knew that the significance of the 5% claim was in contrast to the previous growth rate that was *double* that.

He uses the cumulative growth, 50% (which I quoted him on) presumably because it's a bigger number so it makes his case sound stronger or something. Why did he omit the context of the 5% claim? Perhaps because he had then he would have had to also admit that without the budget restraints that Johnson achieved, in part though hundreds of vetoes, the cumulative total would have been more than TWO HUNDRED percent.

You like this guys conclusion so much that you are willing to ignore the fact that he's treating CPI as an accurate measure of inflation, just like Bernanke, and contrary to what Dr. Paul has pointed out repeatedly. You find your goals aligning with those of that neocon in the other article, someone who has repeatedly and dishonestly attacked Dr. Paul in the past, and who has an openly anti-liberty agenda, so suddenly you like his articles too. Who's wrong here?