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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

When one has nothing of

When one has nothing of substance to say they drop the topics at hand and resort to insults, sarcasm, and repeating a point which isn't in dispute.

I consider that a compliment. You'd refute the points made and the source material if that was possible but resorting to plain ol' aspersions is much easier.

Really? Neo-liberalism came from Classical Liberalism? You've said that at least twice after I stated that was the case the first time and well what the heck? I'll again say no s***.

Also, just fyi, fire is hot. And hey, this just in, water is wet.

Perhaps the bong resin buildup is affecting your memory.

You may smoke at night,.......and the effects carry well into the next day. In the meantime, party on dude!

You mean like you did

Actually dumbass I don't smoke... I just wanted to see how many more times you'd try to insult me through it to see what you'd say when I insulted you.

You did exactly what was expected. You cried hypocritically, that same old worn out reply for people who just can't stand to take what they dish out.

You're an idiot. If you'll actually read your own sites slowwwwwly, you'll see who actually pushes this so called neo-liberalism. It's the elite moron which brings me to my points on how words change stoooopid.

Do try and keep up.

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.

And you did what was

And you did what was expected: throw in more red-herrings, evade the topics below, and use even more pejorative language.

I never asked if you smoke, nor do I care, nor is it pertinent to topic. But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you enjoy weed more power to you.

You've had many chances to bring something of substance to the table and instead bring conjecture, opinion, and name-calling and repeating the same point (which I also made and we agree on) several times. Which means you have nothing to dispute the two points made (other than opinion backed by nothing) which were again:

1. Modern liberalism and neoliberalism are not synonyms.

2. Using the previously referenced definition of "neoliberalism" RP's economic views can be considered neoliberal as he's a proponent of deregulation, real free markets, etc.

So all sniping aside, if you can make a case (using something other than opinion) that the above two points are patently wrong by all means go for it. If you're just going to espouse more opinion it's the equivalent of "my dad can beat up your dad." and therefore meaningless. I provided you four links to back up my points and I could have listed more but there was no need for it. You've provided none.

And not for anything but Milton Friedman, someone who is also a key figure in the liberty-movement and admired by many including the likes of Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, etc. was also a proponent of neoliberal economics.

They are synonymous in todays time.

No you never did ask me.. You made an insult using it and then cried foul, like a bitch, when I insulted you back.

If you'll read your own links you'll see my case of the perversion of terms throughout history and by the elites as time has gone by but you haven't.. You grabbed just enough in your mind that you think supported what you had said.

I stand by what I said.. Dr.Paul is a classical liberal, not a neo-liberal.

Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[67] under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.[68] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken[citation needed] to be John Williamson's[69] "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can have only a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.
Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment
Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Floating exchange rates;
Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth
Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country
Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.
Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
Legal security for property rights; and,
Financialisation of capital.

Read through that last bit and tell me if you see anything odd.

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.

I gave you nearly two weeks

I gave you nearly two weeks and you supplied nothing in the way of sources. Not a single source, incredible but predictable. I really thought you'd find a way to provide at least one link. You've insulted yourself, again. There is no need for anyone else to do it. Thanks for not disappointing.

I read the links before they were posted. How about you step up and illustrate where the perversion is in any of the four links and provide sources to back it up. You have no case in the links I provided. You would have copied and pasted such perversions already. And are you implying RP isn't a proponent of deregulation and truly free markets? He is, hence his admiration of Friedman. (I referred to Friedman in my previous post to help you. This appears to have gone over your head.)

You can stand by what you said all you like the same way one can stand by their belief cats walk on two limbs and it only appears to be four. Opinion and conjecture is all you have and shown here. Others back it up with some sources.

"They are synonyms in today's time." And what source do you have to back up your statement? Oh yes, none. You would have posted it by now. Your source is your opinion even when dictionaries and encyclopedias say otherwise. This is also why you cannot refute point #2 either.

If...

either of you make another comment in this sub-thread then by law you two are required to get married. :>

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

There is, and only ever was, one kind of Liberalism.

There's different aspects of this same liberalism, for example social liberalism and economic liberalism, but its all the same liberalism.

Sorry but the confusion has arisen by a popular mis-labelling in the United States that has gone on for many decades now which seeks to use 'liberal' as a synonym for 'socialist'. That's plain wrong, the two are virtual opposites.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Of course that seems to be the case yet it only seems that way

to you and not to the rest of the states. Seemingly in life things change and adapt and new words arise as meaning sometimes change. One could look at these new words in say.... a dictionary or some online venue. One might also open their eyes to the political landscape around them.

Liberalism is and for the foreseeable future forever tied with socialism now because society has done so. You may commence with the angst, gnashing of teeth and stand in place stomping fits.

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.

No angst here, simply informing you of what the word means

Of course you can invent any meaning you like if you wish, happy musings!

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

I'm not inventing.. Just observing

Even as dictionaries stay the same, words change. Their uses change on occasion.

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.

Sorry - I hadn't realized that this was now the DailyRomney.

But 12 thumbs up prove it is.

Typical GJ response

Oh no, GJ is exposed as a fraud! Quick, call everyone who disagrees with you a Romney supporter!!

Um... did you actually READ the post I was responding to for

getting 12 thumbs up?

Its all about how much better Romney is than Gary Johnson.

So yeah those who disagree and gave 12 thumbs up DO seem to be Romney supporters. Got it?

Ya gotta READ what you are responding to.

Take your own advice

If you're referring to my comment, I was NOT defending Romney. I was just pointing out how odd it is that he said what Gary Johnson should have said. Just trying to figure out where he was coming from. Maybe try responding in a rational way rather than labeling all 'opposition' as a secret Romney operative.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Alright! Romney Infiltrator steps in and grabs 11 thumbs up from

Ron Paul supporting, ROMNEY SUPPORTING, Gary Johnson haters.

You guys are ACTUALLY supporting NeoCon Romney with an out of context general policy quote, vs. Gary Johnson who is refering to emergencies?

Does your hate for Gary Johnson blind you so much that you are going to support establishment guy, Ron Paul trashing, ROMNEY?

Romney infiltrator?? Lol

Just because I questioned one remark made by Gary Johnson doesn't mean I'm a secret spy for the Romney campaign. I'm not even anti-GJ, he'd obviously be better than Obomney. But do you notice how similar you and all the others sound like Obama supporters? You're contorting your own belief structure to fit what Gary said, rather than admit he might be on the wrong side of that issue. I keep getting reminded that "it isn't about one candidate, it's about liberty" and yet when I posted that quote, I see everyone defending Gary and throwing liberty under the bus.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

If the shoe fits wear it.

And Obama supporters are the left shoe - while you Romney infiltrators are the right.

Same pair of shoes.

You're losing your marbles

The argument used by GJ supporters against RP supporters was as follows: "it's not about the man, it's about the message". But now, when I point out how GJ is missing the message, you are defending the man. Do you see the problem there?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Not a fair comparison.

Romney was talking about a general policy ideal.

Johnson was talking about exceptional circumstances.

You are starting to sound..

like these guys...
(just replace Obama with Johnson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts&list=UUhwwoeOZ3EJ...

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

Why would I watch your video of Obama supporters?

I have no intention of watching it.

I am a Libertarian leaning Republican and I CERTAINLY support Johnson over Romney - while YOU clearly have NeoCon love.

You are making assumptions

You are making assumptions that I did not claim. I wish my smile and smirk would have been presented while displaying that video for you. You are a human being, as am I, therefore I pray my posting that video and the resulting conversation does not lead into muck yet leads us to both be better because of it.

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

b-b-but

he's the best one we got! stop eating our own!!!

/sarcasm

Wow!

.

Blessings )o(

Gary Johnson

Is a liberty candidate and he is on the ballot..period! Vote for him or not, that is your choice. He talks about the issues that are important to liberty in this country. If you claim to be a for liberty you cannot vote for two people that did not once adress NDAA,the drug war, or any other encroachment on your liberty during the debates. And then sidestep the questions or support them every time they are asked. Grow up Gary Johnson haters! Yeah he is pro choice. So am I and did everything I could to get Ron Paul the nomination. Don't agree with Ron on every single thing..sorry. Gary Johnson is the best choice on the ballot...deal with with it! You wanna screw the GOP for their treatment of liberty. Gary Johnson is your best chance to voice your displeasure with having Romney crammed down our throats. Ron Paul write-ins are not going to be countable. I for one want them to see that oh this libertarian guy kinda screwed us. Maybe we should have given those guys a fair shake in the nomination process.

Deficit + Debt

A deficit is a budget term that means the annual amount of spending over and above the amount of revenue. The debt is the total aggregate of all deficits until that point (net of any surpluses used to pay down the debt). Having a balanced budget only means that your revenues match your expenses. Part of your yearly expense, however, is interest; thus, the more debt you have, the harder it is to service the interest expense line item (assuming interest rates are equal, which is a very tough assumption to make).

Sorry!

This was supposed to be in reply to the question about the difference between deficit and debt, not a new reply. Whoops. Sorry.

Did you believe what you read in that article? If so, why?

And if not, why did you post it?

Just for starters, he uses the CPI as the rate of inflation. Haven't you seen the video where Ron Paul takes Bernanke to the woodshed for making the same assumption? If so, why would you buy into an argument that is based on Bernanke's bogus claim? Nobody who understands what Ron Paul has been saying about economics should have any trouble poking huge holes in this guy's arguments.

But it's worse than that. This same author has written elsewhere that the CPI is not a valid measure of inflation! He *knows* that what he's saying is wrong.

But it's worse than *that*. The author also omits the context for the claim he's looking at, namely that the 5% annual budget increase under Johnson was down from a *ten* percent annual budget increase prior to that.

And ... yes ... it's worse than *that*. He argues that the growing debt under Johnson's administration contradicts the claim that Johnson balanced the budget in his last year. When Johnson took office he had the existing debt and a deficit on the budget to deal with, and when he left the budget was balanced (zero deficit). So you would *expect* that the debt would be increasing but that the rate of increase would drop off. And this is in fact exactly what the graph in that article shows.

The author seems to be confusing "debt" and "defiict" in this argument, or rather, since he's got a background in economics, he seems to be hoping the *reader* will be confused enough about "debt" and "deficit" not to notice that the argument actually makes no sense.

If he had a valid argument to make, he wouldn't have to make bad arguments like these.

Could you explain to the rest of the class what the difference

between debt and deficit is?

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.

As far as I know...

deficit is how much more you spend every year, than what you have to spend.

debt is what you borrow/ have borrowed, usually to cover that shortfall.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.