23 votes

Final Decision

I will probably vote for Gary Johnson. But I've seen his fiscal record floating around -- you guys know which stuff I'm talking about. Now I'm not sure. What do you guys think? Might be going with Ron Paul now.

Comment viewing options

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

A party without proper representation

sounds familiar. Where have I seen that played out 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.

the two party system

the two party system certainly doesn't deserve my vote. and more choices is good in a free society, so i'm voting to increase choices in the future.

in your head

Im sorry but this whole Idea of taking over the GOP is a good one, but their needs to be a back up plan in case this strategy does not work. I know you saw what happens at the RNC, what makes you think the corruption will not be higher in the future?

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

If Johnson left office at the

If Johnson left office at the end of 2002 after balancing the 2003 budget (or was it the 2002 budget?), why is there more debt in 2003? Did his successor spend over budget? Or did someone spend over budget while he was in office?

2002 and 2003 do have decreasing deficits. I'd like to see a comparable graph showing true inflation instead of CPI inflation, although I would imagine that's difficult to do because inflation hits different sectors differently, right?

Not trying to make a point either way. Just asking honest questions. Which I know is a rarity around here.

I'm not saying that I know

I'm not saying that I know the answer to this, I don't. But... the question is if we are looking at this the right way. Look at the breakdown of costs that increased and you'll see the increases were mostly from healthcare and pensions. The pensions he can't do much about because they're agreed to with the people that are working for the government. It wouldn't be right to take away their pensions just as Dr. Paul said it wouldn't be right to remove social security from those retired or about to retire. As far as health care... was this healthcare for the poor? For workers? Was the law passed before he got into office? Did he do anything to prevent them from getting higher? Also, do you guys realize the overall amount of things he did with primarily a democratic state congress? Have you seen how many bills he vetoed?

Gary Johnson is not the perfect candidate by any means and he's less perfect than Dr. Paul. That is true. However, since my state does not count write-ins I feel completely comfortable voting for Gary Johnson. Yes, he has stances I don't agree with and yes, he's got some issues with his past positions. However, while looking at the overall person and doing my own research on him I feel that I would be happy if he got elected. I'm not going to hold out for the perfect person because they don't exist and I'm not going to hold out for another Dr. Paul because he is a one of a kind. God blessed us with him and the citizenry of our country %&$&ed it up.

Please see my post below.

Please see my post below. His budget increases were lower than the rate of inflation.

That's unless one wants to believe the official gov numbers are factual and gov is being honest.

Vote for liberty when you can find it.

_

Free includes debt-free!

If the average voter bought a used car like he chooses a

candidate.....

He would have his final selection down to these three:

#1. A Ford, with body cancer, one wheel missing, the seats all torn up, leaking oil as fast as its poured in, and with a transmission that only goes in reverse.

#2. A Chevy, with a crashed in right side, broken window glass all around, an engine held in place with C-clamps, and dragging both its bumpers on the ground.

#3. A car of another brand, in excellent shape but with a speck of dirt on the windshield.

He would spend all of his time griping about the speck of dirt on the windshield of the third car and talking about how he could never drive a car with dirt on its windshield - so he would buy the Ford or the Chevy.

OR - he would simply WRITE IN that he owned a car - without actually HAVING a car (kind of like voting for a candidate who ISN'T a candidate), and then wonder why he has to walk.

Welcome to the Holodeck

_

Free includes debt-free!

The author of this link is

The author of this link is either ignorant or is a GOP-stooge with an axe to grind due to fear of Johnson stealing votes from Romney.

If one uses official gov inflation numbers, (which we all know are fluff), and instead uses another measure, (I'll use John Williams' chart) the rate of inflation was ABOVE 5%. So therefore Johnson's budget grew BELOW the rate of inflation.

Link: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

If the author can't get this right there is no reason to trust the rest of his info.

Did anyone see the Gary Johnson FEMA comment?

I'm not trying to bash the guy, but I just don't understand where he's coming from sometimes. Read the two quotes below. One of them is from Mitt Romney, one of them is from Gary Johnson.

“I think (disaster relief) may come under the basic notion of the government protecting us. There are these natural catastrophies that without the federal government, states aren’t as well equipped.”

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”

The second one is from Mitt, and the first one is from Gary. Why do I agree more with Mitt than the Libertarian? Does GJ actually believe that, or is he simply saying what people want to hear? I remember the media trying to rip RP apart over his claim we need to eliminate FEMA during a hurricane, but he didn't back down because he was right. Is GJ wrong or lying?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

It's astounding with all the

It's astounding with all the Romney double-speak which has been highlighted over the last 12 months ANY creedence is given to ANYTHING Romney says.

Double speak usually occurs in the direction of

What is politically expedient. But this isn't about what Romney said--I just provided his quote as a contrast. The real question is, why did GJ say what he said?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Henry, it's a pair of pretty

Henry, it's a pair of pretty ho-hum statements with the second being technically factual since any state gov doesn't have the same funds as the federal gov.

Perhaps a better question would be why are some expecting GJ to be perfect. I can understand the bruhaha with Bob Barr 4 year ago but GJ isn't Barr and brings a much different resume.

Also, last I checked GJ never endorsed a pro-bailout, pro-patriot act warmonger like Lamar Smith. But who did you ask? RP did. But there was very little criticism of that here. It was quickly forgotten but VERY disappointing.

Just looking for a little fairness. Otherwise it's hypocrisy. No one is perfect.

Like I said, I'm not trying to attack the guy

I think he'd be light years better than Obomney for sure. He just does/says things every once in a while that really make me scratch my head. I heard an interview with him and Robert Wenzell where he really left a lot to be desired, to say the least. I'm not trying to attack him personally, I think he's probably a pretty good guy. I just have (as I think we all should) a very high threshold when it comes to trusting politicians. It is about the principles, and ALL politicians should be held accountable, including RP.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

You can attack him all you

You can attack him all you want, that's fine, but the playing field has to be even. The movement acts like children all too often. I'm talking about the actual liberty movement, not the paid stooges who blog nonsense to sway public opinion.

Remember in 2010 when candidates like RJ Harris, Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and others were running for office. The candidates w/o the last name "Paul" struggled to raise funds. Why? Well they are not Ron's son of course, and that was the only reason as Rand hadn't held office previously and had no track record to go on.

The Ron-Paul-write-in movement is well-intended but ridiculous. Sorry, only an idiot complains about the two-party duopoly and then votes in a fashion which promotes a two-party duopoly.

I remember the Wenzel interview well and Wenzel came off as I clown. He kept referring to all the "hardcore libertarians out there" as if hardcore libertarians are a dime-a-dozen and can be found on any street corner.

I. Am. Not. Attacking. Him.

I complemented him like 6 times, and somehow if I question a single comment he makes, I'm a secret GOP spy trying to ruin Johnson's campaign?

Wenzell was a hair rude, but I think he was just incredulous at the answers being given to him by the "Libertarian" candidate. He asked him why recessions are caused and Johnson said something like "uhhh....I think it happens when we just...all get a little overheated, and uhhhh spend too much". How do you want Wenzell to react to something as batcrap crazy as that?

This isn't about Ron/Rand/Amash/etc. I questioned one little thing Johnson said, and all you're capable of doing is wrestling with some strawman built out of positions and ideas that are completely unrelated. What does writing in Ron Paul (something I never even mentioned) have to do with Gary Johnson and FEMA?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Have you noticed?

That when you offer your opinion or assessment of the issues you always interlace and end it with personal attacks and character smears? It's as if some inner turmoil prevents you from being self-satisfied with your own conclusions. That you need to externalize to validate yourself. To lash out and harm and keep-in-line those persons who dare express different opinions.

Let me try my hand at it:

Perhaps you are an authoritarian sociopath who was never taught, or rejected learning, social graces and manners and have no real respect for others (because you are superior, of course -- evolution was exceptionally kind to you - but not so much to others)?

Deep Thoughts with Weebles... :)

If your goal is to champion your ideas, then you are failing. People tune out or assume a defensive posture the moment you attack them. Unless they are submissives who crave that sort of thing for whatever reason. Not too many of those types hanging around in the Liberty crowd, though...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It's also astounding that...

considering his liberal views, any credence is given to anything Gary Johnson says.

I don't play, I commission the league.

News flash: liberal views are

News flash: liberal views are part of libertarianism.

CLASSICAL liberal views...

which differ from GJ's neolib views.

I don't play, I commission the league.

LOL. One is connected to the

LOL. One is connected to the other. Know what you're talking about and know what each is.

"Know what you're talking about and know what each is."

Good advice, you should try that.

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.

Wow.

Classical liberalism is the antithesis of modern liberalism in so many ways.

Classical liberal = Ron Paul

Modern liberal = Willard, Obama, GJ

I don't play, I commission the league.

What you're in effect saying

What you're in effect saying is you find Romney's, Obama's, and Johnson's platforms to be more-or-less the same. If that's the case it speaks volumes for your acumen on the subject matter which is low.

Also you are using the terms modern liberalism and neoliberalism interchangeably as if they are synonyms which they are not.

RP would be considered a neolib for many of his views.

Again, know what you're talking about.

They are pretty much synonyms.

Dude it's completely apparent to everyone but you that you DO NOT know what the terms mean yourself.

Neoliberalism:

"In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy UNDER THE RULE AND GUIDANCE OF A STRONG STATE, a model which came to be known as the social market economy."

It's an offshoot of Classical Liberalism just as NeoConservatism is an offshoot of Conservatism.

THIS is Dr.Paul

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets"

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.

Hey "DUDE" if you're going to

Hey "DUDE" if you're going to make a rebuttal to something let it be to a statement which was actually made.

What I said was the terms "modern liberalism" and "neoliberalism" were being used interchangeably as if they were synonyms which they are not.

So neoliberalism is an offshoot of classical liberalism? No s***. I said that about six posts up.

Pass that bong dude!

Actually DUDE

I answered it.. it just passed over your head I guess because I didn't make it easy for you.

I defined neo-liberalism which should have shown you the similarities between that and "modern liberalism" if you were paying attention. I then went on to answer your assertion that Dr.Paul was a neo-liberal.

So you've been wrong 3 times in a row on the same subject matter and still you persist. :)

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.

You answered nothing except

You answered nothing except why it's a bad idea to post replies while stoned.

Neoliberalism is a primarily an economic philosophy and is defined as such while modern liberalism is a social philosophy. This is why they are not synonyms. Again, know what you're talking about.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp#axzz2B...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Modern+liberalism

A modicum of research would show you this, DUDE. Granted that would mean putting the bong down.

Additional info on why Dr. Paul's economic policy can be considered neoliberal:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

http://aotcpress.com/articles/neoliberalism/

And you could be an arugument for Abortion on

the Liberal side.

Neo-Liberalism is a bastardization of Classical Liberalism noted by the pushers of neo-liberalism.

And I only smoke at night. Maybe you should try it.. it might relax the sphincter that's cutting off the blood to your brain.

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.