Don't vote for Gary Johnson

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Irving]

Thanks for posting this. We haven't really touched on the subject of third party voting on this site.

[hatidua]

I've never done real well with people telling me what to do or who to vote for. It's just the American in me I guess...

[Teufelhund]

Thanks for posting this. We haven't really touched on the subject of third party voting on this site.

[ROFL1][ROFL2]

I'd like to thank you for posting this as well. You made much better arguments for him than against him. Well said. [Awesom]

[Sharpienads]

Thanks for posting this. We haven't really touched on the subject of third party voting on this site.

[ROFL1]

But it is a fun topic to discuss. Where's my Obama/Johnson 2012 sign? Oh, here it is:

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m591/Sharpienads/0bama_Johnson_2012-1.jpg

[Teufelhund]

LOL
Oh, is this the appropriate forum for political pictures to keep them out of the Funny Pictures thread? I've got two or three.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/523915_439325889436617_1744776867_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/228902_441156229253583_1840241917_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/643952_440945649274641_305602919_n.jpg

[Teufelhund]

Forgot this one.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541213_438515119517694_592515279_n.jpg

[BPTactical]

You know, in past elections 3rd party votes were not overly critical. You want to vote your ideals, great. While in the past the candidates had different views the majority of differences did not tally to more than talking points.
This time is different though.
We face very possibly the most critical general election in our lifetimes.
Ideals take a backseat to the survival of our nation.
Somethings are a little bigger than ones ideals and personal desires.

[Teufelhund]

You know, in past elections 3rd party votes were not overly critical. You want to vote your ideals, great. While in the past the candidates had different views the majority of differences did not tally to more than talking points.
This time is different though.
We face very possibly the most critical general election in our lifetimes.
Ideals take a backseat to the survival of our nation.
Somethings are a little bigger than ones ideals and personal desires.

I've got one for this somewhere too. . . gimme a minute. . .

There it is

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/375914_437864232916116_853239497_n.jpg


ETA: Here are 40 more points (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same) where they are the same.

[Scanker19]

I'm voting for Obama so I can enjoy the crying afterward.

[TEAMRICO]

I'm voting for Obama so I can enjoy the crying afterward.

Well that was the biggest OBAMA sticker on your truck I have ever seen today!
Would have made Lenin and Stalin proud Jordan[Tooth]
Gary Johnson? Who the fuck is that!? Never heard of him!

[Scanker19]

Well that was the biggest OBAMA sticker on your truck I have ever seen today!
Would have made Lenin and Stalin proud Jordan[Tooth]
Gary Johnson? Who the fuck is that!? Never heard of him!

It wasn't a sticker. It was a magnet so I could stomp on it later

[Bailey Guns]

Well, I'll just say it and then leave. If you vote for someone either than R or D you just either don't understand or don't care how our system works, regardless of how you rationalize it in your own mind.

Witness: Perot (92), Nader (2000)

Go ahead and try to defend it. You can't.

[Goodburbon]

Bailey the ideas you propegate don't work, have led us to where we are now. Knock yourself out voting for turd sandwich.

A conservative that doesn't conserve is just a half assed progressive.

[Bailey Guns]

You can tell that to yourself, or me, as often as you like. Doesn't change the reality.

Socially, on many issues, Gary Johnson is as progressive as they come. As are many libertarians.

I can agree that you and I are entitled to our varied opinions.

[earplug]

Most conservative agree that voting for Gary Johnson will allow Obama to win.
Most of the same people think voting for Mitt will slow the fall of the USA and our collapse will come about later.
No One has explained to me why a slow failure is better then a fast failure when it involves a economic system and personal liberty.
Being slowly ground down and losing property rights, net worth and loss of our standards or living may be better done fast rather then slow.
At least the young will remember the better days and might fight for improvements.

[Sharpienads]

Most conservative agree that voting for Gary Johnson will allow Obama to win.
Most of the same people think voting for Mitt will slow the fall of the USA and our collapse will come about later.
No One has explained to me why a slow failure is better then a fast failure when it involves a economic system and personal liberty.
Being slowly ground down and losing property rights, net worth and loss of our standards or living may be better done fast rather then slow.
At least the young will remember the better days and might fight for improvements.

Because not all of us have given up.

[Irving]

These kinds of discussions should be had ALL the time, except during elections. By the time elections roll around, it is too late.

[Bailey Guns]

Most conservative agree that voting for Gary Johnson will allow Obama to win.
Most of the same people think voting for Mitt will slow the fall of the USA and our collapse will come about later.
No One has explained to me why a slow failure is better then a fast failure when it involves a economic system and personal liberty.
Being slowly ground down and losing property rights, net worth and loss of our standards or living may be better done fast rather then slow.
At least the young will remember the better days and might fight for improvements.

It could also be, as with any other libertarian, your basic premise is false. I certainly don't buy it. But that's just me.

[sniper7]

Most conservative agree that voting for Gary Johnson will allow Obama to win.
Most of the same people think voting for Mitt will slow the fall of the USA and our collapse will come about later.
No One has explained to me why a slow failure is better then a fast failure when it involves a economic system and personal liberty.
Being slowly ground down and losing property rights, net worth and loss of our standards or living may be better done fast rather then slow.
At least the young will remember the better days and might fight for improvements.

Reminds me of the hunger games. You never know how things will then out. All those who want to crash the system and reset have some dillusional thoughts. I know...I've had them. I like to think ill survive, shelter my family with my tens of thousands of rounds of ammo and the countless guns I have stashed. I like to think I could drop all looters and zombies without problems.

But the reality is we have been fighting for improvements. We have got a lot if improvements. Look at the non-renewal of the awb. The concealed carry rights which would be awesome to go national. Carry in national parks. Almost every generation goes through at least one downswing. Some worse than others. To think a third party will change the beast that is congress! Sway SCOTUS, and rule the UN with an iron first...your delusional.

[68Charger]

Socially, on many issues, Gary Johnson is as progressive as they come. As are many libertarians.

I know at least one liberal fed up with Obummer that they are considering voting for Johnson...

So when is a vote for a 3rd party NOT a vote for Obeyme? when it takes votes away from him...

[Bailey Guns]

A 3rd party candidate has the potential to hurt either major candidate. No doubt about that.

Ask Bush (1) or Gore...they'll tell you.

But a 3rd party candidate is not going to win. Not even remotely close. They won't...no,they can't...even get a single electoral vote. Not one. The libertarian party is a pipe dream, plain and simple. If that hurts feelings, too bad. It's true. They're lucky to get .5% of the popular vote nationwide and the popular vote means jack.

It's not because people don't understand the libertarian party or what they stand for. It's exactly because people DO understand what the libertarians stand for.

They're too dogmatic for almost the entire population to agree with. Hell...the hero of the libertarians won't even run under his own party's name. He hides behind the Republican party in order to get elected.

Libertarians, especially on this forum, are constantly telling me I shouldn't compromise my principles and ideals with my vote. That's just not possible. The only perfect candidate I'll ever find running for office would be me...and I'm not a candidate. No one else. I'll always find something on which I disagree with every candidate out there. So I shouldn't vote?

I am not willing to vote for a known loser. I'm at least going to vote for the candidate from a party that has a chance to win. This time that's Mitt Romney. Not because he's the perfect candidate but because his beliefs more closely match mine. And because he's a member of a party that can actually get something done that I want done. That's exactly why Ron Paul caucuses with the republicans. Because if he caucused as a libertarian he'd be a party of one and he'd be a nobody. And he would stand just as much chance of getting his agenda passed as a libertarian president as he would caucusing in congress as the lone libertarian. It's no different than the avowed socialists in congress siding with the democrats on everything.

The same people on this forum who tell me I shouldn't compromise my principles and beliefs by voting for a republican are willing to do exactly what they're telling me not to do. I've yet to have anyone answer my question of "who is your perfect candidate?" I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's positions. I don't agree with many of Gary Johnson's positions. I don't agree with some of Mitt Romney's positions. The difference is, I agree with most of Romney's positions on the issues and Romney can actually win.

As a matter of fact, I said many months ago right here I thought Romney would win by about a 5% margin. I still do. I also believe Romney is going to be one of the best presidents of my lifetime.

Time will tell.

[earplug]

If its just about you, vote Mitt.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Danimal]

Deleted

[DOC]

Ok I won't. I'm not going to throw away a vote on a 3rd party vote sucker. I remember the last Govenor's race and how he was the better choice and he got 45% of the vote but there was 10% that still voted for R and not we have Lickenpooper. Same high taxes on cars and cigarettes and punishment taxes if we are late. We even have to pay punishment taxes on camper trailers.
And for what? So we can have a huge bottleneck on I25 everywhere with no better traffic flow. But millions can be spent on ugly designs put in the walls that we have to look at on our slow drive home. I hate it but I'm not voting 3rd party this year.

[OneGuy67]

Thanks Danimal, for posting this thread. I've been contemplating this issue for some time and wanted to ask the same question here of the forum members.

I'm trying to understand the concept of voting for my principles, which could cause me to suffer 4 additional years of a president with no principles, that could very realistically destroy our society. How can one have the opportunity to vote this person out of office and throw their vote away on a third party candidate, who cannot win, but will siphon off just enough votes in the 11 battleground states, to cause Obama to retain the presidency?

I mean, we all agree he needs to go, but why toss your crucial vote away, and more importantly, siphon votes from Romney, that are desperately needed in order to win? Obama and Romney are statistically tied in all of the polls in Colorado at around 45% and Johnson is polling at 2%. That 2% could be the difference it takes to put Romney over Obama here and gain the Electoral votes. It could also be the same in the rest of the battleground states.

Just food for thought.

[KevDen2005]

Thanks Danimal, for posting this thread. I've been contemplating this issue for some time and wanted to ask the same question here of the forum members.

I'm trying to understand the concept of voting for my principles, which could cause me to suffer 4 additional years of a president with no principles, that could very realistically destroy our society. How can one have the opportunity to vote this person out of office and throw their vote away on a third party candidate, who cannot win, but will siphon off just enough votes in the 11 battleground states, to cause Obama to retain the presidency?

I mean, we all agree he needs to go, but why toss your crucial vote away, and more importantly, siphon votes from Romney, that are desperately needed in order to win? Obama and Romney are statistically tied in all of the polls in Colorado at around 45% and Johnson is polling at 2%. That 2% could be the difference it takes to put Romney over Obama here and gain the Electoral votes. It could also be the same in the rest of the battleground states.

Just food for thought.

Had this very conversation with a coworker who used to be a die-hard Obama supporter. I thought how funny it was that she was die hard for years before the presidency and within two months decided she no longer liked him and continued to dislike him more and more as the months passed. She always claimed to be very liberal and she is, however when she explained it to me on what her beliefs were she fits the concept of classical liberal or Jeffersonian liberal, not modern day at all.

So this year she has told me that she has to vote with her conscience and will be voting third party. Of course her and I agree on a lot of concepts and theories about freedom and what the government should be doing. She wants Obama out very badly but doesn't care for Mitt. Honestly, I am not a huge Mitt fan and as I get older I am less Republican and more conservative based on the Constitution. I am pretty religious and I believe that guides my moral compass, however I don't agree with the Republican party pushing that agenda.

I told this co-worker that I also had to vote with my conscience. That is, I need to remove the current administration at whatever cost, and that may be voting for someone who don't exactly prefer but still believe would be a better choice than what we have. My conscience tells me that if we don't replace the current administration no matter what that we won't have much of a country left in four years.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[KevDen2005]

This is how I feel too. Then when Obama is out then we can focus for the next four years to break the two party system. We just need to do it at the right time. We all know that there is no way that a third party candidate will be elected for this election, there is too much radical division and there is too much emotion evolved in the election for the Libertarian party to win. If we can agree on that, then we can work on breaking the two party system and fixing our education system with Romney in office instead of the much worse alternative. Either way the same work needs to be done to fix the country, it will be significantly easier if there is a Republican in office instead of a Communist.

Agreed. I personally would like to see Allen West in office. Granted he may not be completely third party, but I think he is closer than a lot of other candidates that we have seen. He seems to care about his people, want freedom, and has not problem saying how he feels.

[Ronin13]

I share this:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbsk2913781r54qfqo1_1280.png

[Irving]

What good is extra time going to do if everyone keeps starting threads like this, and keeps voting the party line no matter what? EXTRA TIME DOES NO GOOD IF NOTHING CHANGES.

[KevDen2005]

What good is extra time going to do if everyone keeps starting threads like this, and keeps voting the party line no matter what? EXTRA TIME DOES NO GOOD IF NOTHING CHANGES.

Oh, I agree with you my friend. However, the extra time is that the republican party is destroying this nation at a slower rate than the democrats, which are destroying the country at a slower rate that Obama and his communists. So the buying of extra time is making sure Obama is out of office.

[dwalker460]

I keep telling you how the Libertarian party can achieve thier goals and I just dont think the Libertarians get it-
First- get local officials elected running as Libertarians- this means Mayors, Governors, etc.
Second- Get Congressmen elected AS LIBERTARIANS, NOT runnign as Republicans and caucusing as Republicans, but actually get a decent percentage of Libertarians elected and sitting in Congress.
Third- Then you eye the White House, and can do something with it if you actually manage to get a guy elected.

What, exactly, do you think Johnson could accomplish? Nothing, thats what. Republicans will only work with him when it fits their agenda, and the same with Democrats. So what exactly does any votes for Johnson accomplish? Not much. Although, I do get that if he can get 5% of the popular vote the Liberatarians get federal funding for the next election cycle, buuuuut again, where does that lead you?

Here is why Libertarians make no sense-

You want to reduce Federal powers on infringement on percieved personal liberties, yet the way you answer the questions as to how and why are almost Party Line-
Q"What happens if you do actually shut down say, the Department of Homeland Security?"
Typical A "A private company would step in and since profit is involved, do a better job, just look at the private contractors currently being used in the Middle East"
Response- "Ok, I get that private sector often does a lot better job than the government, but who would oversee these private companies? This sort of thing in the past has often lead to abuse of power without fear of reprisal, how exactly would such a thing be regulated and more importantly, who would pay them?"
Typical Answer- "Some funding would obviously have to come from taxpayer monies, other funding would come from corporations and other business, such as shipping companies, airports, etc. that required the security"
Response- "Huh, so still use taxpayer money with less oversight and the ability to setup what is essentially a protection racket and extort businesses?"
Typical Answer- "Thats not what I said"
Response- "Hmmmmm"


Ok so lets move on to the drug issue-

LN- "All drugs should be legalized, the war on drugs is a drain on the economy, that money can be better spent elsewhere. The prisons are full of decent people who got put there on drug charges and its ruined thier lives. People should have the personal choice of what they do with their body"

Response- "Ahhhh ok, so it should be perfectly legal for some nutjob to sell drugs on the corner and hook my kid on crack?"

LN- "No of course not, there would be an age limit and drugs would have to be sold through approved outlets. Once the drugs are legal the drug dealers will go away because anyone can just go down to the local drug shop and get what they want when they want it and so crime etc. will drop, plus we can tax those drugs and use that money to help anyone who becomes addicted"

Response- "Huh, so why has that not happened in the states where drugs are legal? I mean teens still buy from drug dealers because they cant buy legally, and crimes such as theft has not appreciably dropped. Also, what happens to the drugs that are absolutely addictive and habit forming, to the point they deprive people of the ability to actually make a choice because its a physical need?"

LN- "Well obviously if you choose to do heroin or crack and get addicted it can affect your life, but the taxes accrued by the legal drug sales will help pay for their care."

Response- " Cant happen, because the taxes taken in on the drug sales will never be enough to pay for the resulting addiction, victims of drug related violence, etc. additional regulation to ensure the proper licensing and enforcement, etc."

I could go on, but you get the drift. In the 60's everyone was looking for Utopia, it did not exist then and it doesnt exist now. As much as I generically agree with a lot of what a Libertarian has to say, they generically are not realistic about much of anything.

[tmckay2]

if you truly want a third party candidate to win, they have to get votes from both parties obviously. as such, in my opinion, it will be easier to get a third party member in while there is a republican incumbent versus and democrat one. its not a holier than thou type of thing but frankly i think conservatives are much easier to convince to go for third party than democrats. for whatever reason liberals are extremely cohesive when it comes to their candidates, especially ones in office. look at obama. what the heck can they point to as a reason he needs four more years? its all emotional. if we have romney in, and country can limp along a bit longer, and the democrats put forth a "meh" candidate in the next election, there is a good chance we could get a third party candidate in. convincing conservatives to vote for someone less mainstream than romney won't be hard. a good number of people voting for him openly state they will vote for him mostly because they figure he won't be as bad as obama, not because they love and adore him or think hes a great candidate. right now its useless voting third party. he will win a tiny amount of the votes since pretty much no liberals will vote for him. you can then pat yourself on the back and watch another four years of obama. but hey, at least you voted third party.

[Ronin13]

Feel free to disagree, but right now is not the time to start the campaign of trying to change people's minds... The country will fall apart at the seams if Obummer gets reelected, mark my words, mark them well... It won't if Romney is elected (well not just yet- or not as quickly). Once Obama is defeated, THAT is the time to start trying to sway popular opinion out of the Red corner and Blue corner. I agree 100% that we need to get out of this 2 party system, but not with the election just a few weeks away, it won't work... (oh dear, is the CD scratched, there's that same line getting repeated again). And you won't gain any support for your cause by instigating with that same BS line "You are part of the problem then!" No, I see the world as it is, you see it as you wish it were... Take off the amber colored glasses and notice that you won't change even 12% of the population to vote for a 3rd party this year. That will take a few years (we may not even garner enough numbers for the 2016 election). And, what's been said over and over again- start small! Get a libertarian/green/whatever candidate elected locally first, like in state legislature, then congress, THEN president... this could take some time, but patience is a virtue...

[Teufelhund]

The one thing I do agree with the doom-and-gloom guys about is that Obama's administration is one of, if not the worst in our history. I don't think he's going to send us all to re-education camps or anything so melodramatic, but I am worried about impending monetary collapse if something isn't changed drastically, and very soon. He needs to go, but it doesn't matter if we're just going to end up with someone else in office who will continue to make things worse. It's not like Bush handed Obama a country in wonderful shape, and Obama broke it; he just continued down a similar, counter-productive path. How divergent is the current Republican platform from the one in place while Dubya Bush was in office?

If you guys could somehow convince me that Mitt wouldn't have done the major things Obama has done, or the things George Bush did, I think I'd be willing to vote R just to get the current administration out. I just don't see it though. Mitt agrees with Obama on most of the important issues, most of with which I disagree. Mitt is talking about increasing spending and the size of government in every sector, and yet also proposing a massive tax cut. I have to agree with Biden on this one: that's not mathematically possible, unless there is something Mitt plans to save money on that he hasn't told us about.

Also, is Mitt going to repeal the Patriot Act? I've never heard any American say he supports the Patriot Act, and yet there it is. And you guys think we'll be represented better by having another Republican back in office? If you base your decision on the record of the last few sitting Presidents, you have to conclude our liberties and economy will continue to circle the drain as long as a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. If voting R for the win doesn't produce a more desirable proposition, why the hell would I do it? I'd rather add to the vote percentage the Libertarians will get in order to increase their funding for next cycle.

A few of you have made good arguments and convinced me that the Libertarian party should focus more on getting (L) leaders elected to Congress. Congress is probably a bigger issue than POTUS right now; these career legislators spending a large portion of their lives passing laws for their corporate sponsors are what is really killing us. I think term limits for legislators would fix a lot of our problems, but it would take several years before it made any impact.

[Rust_shackleford]

My goal here is to put forth an argument against anyone thinking of voting for anyone other than Romney-Ryan. It is proper form for a discussion to put forth the arguments of those that oppose your views prior to throwing your views into the faces of others. Otherwise you are just preaching and not acknowledging the argument.

Reasons to vote for Gary Johnson:

1) He is in general a better person, has a stronger record and is intelligent enough to lead our country in a positive direction. If he has his way he will fix most of our countries problems.

2) He is not a member of the back stabbing two party system. With 5% votes next election cycle the Libertarian party is guaranteed equal funding and representation.

3) He has a genuine interest in improving our country, thereby is not in the pocket of big government, lobbyists, or major corporations.

Addressing # 1:

I would agree with all of this. No really I think that he is morally superior in just about every way. He has strong ethical and moral values and should he institute all of his plans our country would certainly be better off. However presidents do not get anything done if they do not have support of at least one of the major bi-partisan groups, plus some swing voters from the other side of the isle. Literally nothing that he says he would accomplish would get passed unless we also replaced half of congress and the senate with people willing to agree with and support him. So far not one single seated congressman or senator has come forward to my knowledge to endorse or show support for Gary Johnson over Romney-Ryan. If it were even possible to get him elected he would at best fight with the legislative and judicial branches effectively changing 1 out of every 10 things he wants. Worst case, nothing he wants because they resent him for not being a party member, or because the lobbyists and special interest groups will pit their elected officials against him on issue after issue.

Addressing #2:

He is most certainly an outsider, and is in no way swayed by the corrupt 2 party system. I agree, and lets look at this from two different angles. First off, if he is able to net 5% of the American vote, the libertarian party gets the same federal funding as the two current political parties. Currently he is poling around 6% on some poles. This would be a huge step in breaking the two party system, four years from now. And guess where that puts us, a three party system with the same political influence, money and eventually corruption as the two party system. There is no magical number of parties that will fix the problem of political corruption. Making a third funded party is not going to fix this, we need political reform that will take power away from the current political system. If you think that Gary Johnson is going to be able to fix this, please re-read #1. We as a nation need to stand up and demand action, and this can be done with or without Gary Johnson in office. Secondly, we can look at this from the perspective that he would be able to obtain an electable majority and beat both Obama and Romney. Again this puts us back at the problem identified in #1.

Addressing #3:

He is completely funded by hard working American people. There are not many corporations backing him, and he seems to have a genuine interest in improving the lives and economic standing of everyone in our country. Again this is correct, but is lacks one key element: current support. He seems to think that there is an easy answer to all of our nations problems at the federal level. This is not true, and it is due to the complex net woven intentionally by past and present administrations to protect the interest of those who financially support them. It is a giant knot of bureaucratic bullshit that can only be solved with the support of a knowledgeable and caring electorate and constituent population that can work together to solve problems and overcome hardship. You know as well as I that this is not the case. There are 47% of people out there that are going to vote on getting more welfare and don't give a damn who pays for it because they do not have the economic, educational, or motivational means to better their situation. Do you think that they are going to be able to work together or understand what they need to do in order to fix our nation? Will they find another way to make ends meet over just getting free money? No, the vast majority will not. All that they care about is watching Mtv and collecting their check. We have to fix our culture before any real government changes can occur.

The big point that I am trying to push here is that we all know that there are better options for president than the two we are forced to choose from. In fact I would guarantee that there are 20 million people out there that would do a better job than any of the current elected Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch representatives. And that is where the true problem lies, we literally elected these dumb ass people. That is because there is a large population out there that either doesn't care, or vote on emotion as opposed to using logic and applying it to our ethical and moral standards before making a decision. We have to fix this problem first before we have any hope of maintaining a reasonable, intelligent government. We need to focus on this now, not in four years or more importantly not in the 20 years that it would take to get enough support to actually elect a third party president. The third party outsider as smart as he may be, is not the answer. The real answer is standing up to the current and future administration and let them know that collectively as a nation we will not accept their failure anymore. Take Holder out and publicly trial him for accessory to murder, take his pension and put him in prison. We need to look realistically at the logical possibilities and decide what is the lesser of two evils, then when the counting is done stand up as a nation and make them fix our nation or wish they were never elected. We have been sitting here and taking it for the last four years. Complaining about what is going on, but who is acting? Who is doing something about it? These are the questions we need to answer and come election time we need to make a decision based on logic not emotion or we are no better than the liberals that vote for Obama.
Goldman Sachs 2012

[Rust_shackleford]

Until we end the cycle of debt based currency it doesn't matter which puppets are elected.

[Teufelhund]

. . .

I could go on, but you get the drift. In the 60's everyone was looking for Utopia, it did not exist then and it doesnt exist now. As much as I generically agree with a lot of what a Libertarian has to say, they generically are not realistic about much of anything.

You do go on. The drift I get from your post is the only things you know about the Libertarian platform are what you've heard from Republicans. That is to say, you don't understand most of it. Your arguments against what little you do understand are contradicted by actual statistics you likely haven't bothered to look up for yourself.

Here are some links to get you started:

http://www.lp.org/platform

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

[Ronin13]

The one thing I do agree with the doom-and-gloom guys about is that Obama's administration is one of, if not the worst in our history. I don't think he's going to send us all to re-education camps or anything so melodramatic, but I am worried about impending monetary collapse if something isn't changed drastically, and very soon. He needs to go, but it doesn't matter if we're just going to end up with someone else in office who will continue to make things worse. It's not like Bush handed Obama a country in wonderful shape, and Obama broke it; he just continued down a similar, counter-productive path. How divergent is the current Republican platform from the one in place while Dubya Bush was in office?

If you guys could somehow convince me that Mitt wouldn't have done the major things Obama has done, or the things George Bush did, I think I'd be willing to vote R just to get the current administration out. I just don't see it though. Mitt agrees with Obama on most of the important issues, most of with which I disagree. Mitt is talking about increasing spending and the size of government in every sector, and yet also proposing a massive tax cut. I have to agree with Biden on this one: that's not mathematically possible, unless there is something Mitt plans to save money on that he hasn't told us about.

Also, is Mitt going to repeal the Patriot Act? I've never heard any American say he supports the Patriot Act, and yet there it is. And you guys think we'll be represented better by having another Republican back in office? If you base your decision on the record of the last few sitting Presidents, you have to conclude our liberties and economy will continue to circle the drain as long as a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. If voting R for the win doesn't produce a more desirable proposition, why the hell would I do it? I'd rather add to the vote percentage the Libertarians will get in order to increase their funding for next cycle.

A few of you have made good arguments and convinced me that the Libertarian party should focus more on getting (L) leaders elected to Congress. Congress is probably a bigger issue than POTUS right now; these career legislators spending a large portion of their lives passing laws for their corporate sponsors are what is really killing us. I think term limits for legislators would fix a lot of our problems, but it would take several years before it made any impact.

Romney proposed making cuts, he also said "No tax cuts that add to the debt." He wants to make one thing clear- more jobs=more taxpayers=more tax revenue. That's how. I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about with the whole increased spending and making government bigger- I have yet to hear him propose that. I have heard him and Ryan both say that regulations need to be relaxed in some areas, and government spending needs to be reduced (PBS subsidiary? No more stimulus money?). L or D, it's all the same to me this election... If we all believed what they say then the "truth" would be that Obama is the devil who wears a suit and worships Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Marx; and Romney is an evil rich guy who wants to give jobs to China and make it so rich people pay no taxes at all... [Bang]

[Rust_shackleford]

Romney proposed making cuts, he also said "No tax cuts that add to the debt." He wants to make one thing clear- more jobs=more taxpayers=more tax revenue. That's how. I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about with the whole increased spending and making government bigger- I have yet to hear him propose that. I have heard him and Ryan both say that regulations need to be relaxed in some areas, and government spending needs to be reduced (PBS subsidiary? No more stimulus money?). L or D, it's all the same to me this election... If we all believed what they say then the "truth" would be that Obama is the devil who wears a suit and worships Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Marx; and Romney is an evil rich guy who wants to give jobs to China and make it so rich people pay no taxes at all... [Bang]
Read my lips no new taxes!

[dwalker460]

You do go on. The drift I get from your post is the only things you know about the Libertarian platform are what you've heard from Republicans. That is to say, you don't understand most of it. Your arguments against what little you do understand are contradicted by actual statistics you likely haven't bothered to look up for yourself.

Here are some links to get you started:

http://www.lp.org/platform

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

I actually read those, I agree with some, strongly dis-agree with others.

Personally, I would rather vote for the guy who knows how to run a business and actually can create jobs and has done so his whole career. I tend to believe a guy who did not take a salary while Governor instead literally saying, I have enough money, no need for the taxpayer to pay me. The guy who to keep in touch with Americans actually went out and did blue collar jobs and has volunteered extensively not just with his wallet throwing around a his bucks (Bill gates/Warren Buffet take note) but actually working himself to help others. And he did it in America, to help Americans, not on some Peace Corp mission in Guatemala.

Yeah I dont agree with all Mitts views, but then I have NEVER agreed with all of anyones policies. I do understand his approach on taxes/spending and feel that while it is a little less aggressive than I think it should be, its likely to get approved and put into effect and actually will have some benefit. He is not a socialist in any form and understands business, trade, and policy making on a a level Johnson never will, and Obaloney cannot even dream of.

I cannot vote for Governor Veto. I dont think he "gets it" at all. I cannot see him accomplishing anything, which will not leave things at status quot, but rather continue down this path, which is socialism.He is literally running on the " different is better" platform that Obaloney used! Which makes him twice the loser IMHO. Not that he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected, but it is an uneeded distraction.

[Rust_shackleford]

I actually read those, I agree with some, strongly dis-agree with others.

Personally, I would rather vote for the guy who knows how to run a business and actually can create jobs and has done so his whole career. I tend to believe a guy who did not take a salary while Governor instead literally saying, I have enough money, no need for the taxpayer to pay me. The guy who to keep in touch with Americans actually went out and did blue collar jobs and has volunteered extensively not just with his wallet throwing around a his bucks (Bill gates/Warren Buffet take note) but actually working himself to help others. And he did it in America, to help Americans, not on some Peace Corp mission in Guatemala.

Yeah I dont agree with all Mitts views, but then I have NEVER agreed with all of anyones policies. I do understand his approach on taxes/spending and feel that while it is a little less aggressive than I think it should be, its likely to get approved and put into effect and actually will have some benefit. He is not a socialist in any form and understands business, trade, and policy making on a a level Johnson never will, and Obaloney cannot even dream of.

I cannot vote for Governor Veto. I dont think he "gets it" at all. I cannot see him accomplishing anything, which will not leave things at status quot, but rather continue down this path, which is socialism.He is literally running on the " different is better" platform that Obaloney used! Which makes him twice the loser IMHO. Not that he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected, but it is an uneeded distraction.
Freedom is Slavery

[William]

As I learned from "Master and Commander" it is always best to choose the lesser of two weevils.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Sharpienads]

I would say the solution (or a gigantic leap to the solution) is to keep government as local as possible. Local government is more responsive and responsible to the people.

In other words, if our country functioned the way it was set up, we wouldn't be in this mess. It drives me insane when I get blank looks from people after I say things like federalism and rule of law.

ETA: The problem is how do we get there. It won't happen quickly. Government responsibilities will have to slowly be transferred from the federal to state level until all the federal government does is what is enumerated in Article 1.

[hatidua]

Until we end the cycle of debt based currency it doesn't matter which puppets are elected.

In the grand scheme of things, that about covers it.

[Goodburbon]

We have a man in office whose signature piece of legislation is a quasi socilization of the healthcare system. Running against him is a man who wants to repeal that legislation....and institute his own "beyter " quasi socialist healthcare system. Does everyone not notice the hypocrisy?

Presidents do not create jobs with the exception to white house staff. Job creation is not the job of a democratic republican government. That is a job of communist governments. Our governments job is to create a stable and safe environment for businesses to spawn and prosper. Dumping money into a system to spur onomic activity actually destabilizes the value of the currency, which is a cornerstone of a stablend safe environment. The alternative R plan which will never pass because of the Ds) is to. balance the budget by 2040. Thats another 27 years accumulating debt of more than 1 trillion a year (which will balloon as our government keeps creating money. .this t rain needs to stop...not "slow down slowly", before the currency has to be debased so that our debt can be "paid". The loser is us, regardless of party elected. Faster with the D party, but its probably better for it to happen while im in my 30s than in my 50's. I might have a chance to reacquire some savings.

The way i see it, this "most important election ever" has been relegated to "least t important election ever by the choices presented. Probably the most important election ever was over 100 years ago, and the trickle down has led us here.

[Sharpienads]

We have a man in office whose signature piece of legislation is a quasi socilization of the healthcare system. Running against him is a man who wants to repeal that legislation....and institute his own "beyter " quasi socialist healthcare system. Does everyone not notice the hypocrisy?

Presidents do not create jobs with the exception to white house staff. Job creation is not the job of a democratic republican government. That is a job of communist governments. Our governments job is to create a stable and safe environment for businesses to spawn and prosper. Dumping money into a system to spur onomic activity actually destabilizes the value of the currency, which is a cornerstone of a stablend safe environment. The alternative R plan which will never pass because of the Ds) is to. balance the budget by 2040. Thats another 27 years accumulating debt of more than 1 trillion a year (which will balloon as our government keeps creating money. .this t rain needs to stop...not "slow down slowly", before the currency has to be debased so that our debt can be "paid". The loser is us, regardless of party elected. Faster with the D party, but its probably better for it to happen while im in my 30s than in my 50's. I might have a chance to reacquire some savings.

The way i see it, this "most important election ever" has been relegated to "least t important election ever by the choices presented. Probably the most important election ever was over 100 years ago, and the trickle down has led us here.

Sources on these?

[Rucker61]

Presidents do not create jobs with the exception to white house staff. Job creation is not the job of a democratic republican government. That is a job of communist governments. Our governments job is to create a stable and safe environment for businesses to spawn and prosper.

While Calvin Coolidge may have said, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business", and Will Rogers said,
“The business of government is to keep the government out of business - that is, unless business needs government aid”,

"The business of government is business" isn't a basis for our government. At least, I can't find it in the Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[Great-Kazoo]

I would say the solution (or a gigantic leap to the solution) is to keep government as local as possible. Local government is more responsive and responsible to the people.

In other words, if our country functioned the way it was set up, we wouldn't be in this mess. It drives me insane when I get blank looks from people after I say things like federalism and rule of law.

ETA: The problem is how do we get there. It won't happen quickly. Government responsibilities will have to slowly be transferred from the federal to state level until all the federal government does is what is enumerated in Article 1.

The problem with this. The state .gov is so glued to the .fed teat as is every entitlement mouth it will never release it's teeth off it.

Personally I do not care who YOU VOTE FOR.
I am unable to allow (hoping my vote counts) the last 4 years to continue another 4.
SCOTUS appointments, 1 possibly 2 will set back gun ownership. It will open the flood gates more then they are now with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
It will allow the .gov to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS currently held in military detainment. They will also allow civilian trials for TERRORIST. Call them what you want, hide your head in the sand or live in DENIAL. They are TERRORIST, who's goal is to bring this country to it's knee. Where it will be that much easier to remove it's head.
Don't believe it, look at what the DOJ wanted to do regarding a civil trial in of all places NYC, for a terrorist.
Forget about the appeasement that has happened to date. 4 more years, FUCK might as well get ready to rock now.

[Goodburbon]

Sources on these?

Sources?

Um let's see.

Romney : " I will repeal and replace Obamacare" re: just about every stump speech I've seen televised. Here's one from the convention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tePDipdNRk8

Is healthcare the business of government? No. So why repeal and "replace"? This makes no sense. There is already a safety network called medicare/medicaid, that is ballooning beyond anyone's imagination due to the proliferation of a lack of personal responsibility in our society.

Furthermore in that little clip he says he's going to "protect the sanctity of marriage". What does that mean? Ban gay marriage at a federal level? The government is now in the business of telling people who they can legally love and spend the rest of their lives with? Didn't see that power granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution when I read it.



Ryan's budget balancing act?


Look anywhere. A quick search resulted this:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/11/us/politics/0812-ryan.html

Though that is largely irrelevant, since the democrats have voiced that they wouldn't allow something so "radical" to pass. The actual date of a "balanced budget" will much likely not occur before a debasing of the currency. Vote for Romney though, because a vote for anyone else could allow Obama to win and it would destroy this country.

The country is already beyond saving when half of us demand that the budget not even be balanced, in less than 50 years. That's over 60 years straight of deficit spending, at an exponentially accelerating pace as the interest service on that debt swells. It is unsustainable and will come crashing down before the asshats in Washington can ever come together to rein in our (yes it's OUR) spending. They can't even pass a single year's budget. So ladies and gentlemen this is the LEAST important election ever. At least vote for freedom.

[jhood001]

The problem with this. The state .gov is so glued to the .fed teat as is every entitlement mouth it will never release it's teeth off it.

Personally I do not care who YOU VOTE FOR.
I am unable to allow (hoping my vote counts) the last 4 years to continue another 4.
SCOTUS appointments, 1 possibly 2 will set back gun ownership. It will open the flood gates more then they are now with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
It will allow the .gov to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS currently held in military detainment. They will also allow civilian trials for TERRORIST. Call them what you want, hide your head in the sand or live in DENIAL. They are TERRORIST, who's goal is to bring this country to it's knee. Where it will be that much easier to remove it's head.
Don't believe it, look at what the DOJ wanted to do regarding a civil trial in of all places NYC, for a terrorist.
Forget about the appeasement that has happened to date. 4 more years, FUCK might as well get ready to rock now.

A citizen of the United States is entitled to their day in court and don't you ever forget it! The pendulum can swing even further than it already has and YOU can be labeled as a 'TERRORIST' or a 'POLITICAL PRISONER' depending on who is in charge of the labeling. I would much rather see those US citizens with foreign interests in mind get their day in court than I would US citizens with their countries best interests in mind NOT get theirs.

Non-US citizens being accused of crimes in the US can burn. Let our military sort them out.

[dwalker460]

Sources?

Um let's see.

Romney : " I will repeal and replace Obamacare" re: just about every stump speech I've seen televised. Here's one from the convention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tePDipdNRk8

Is healthcare the business of government? No. So why repeal and "replace"? This makes no sense. There is already a safety network called medicare/medicaid, that is ballooning beyond anyone's imagination due to the proliferation of a lack of personal responsibility in our society.

Ahhh actually the idea is to reduce socialist programs and anything that doesnt make common financial since. Romney is a dollars and cents sort of guy, half of the government programs out there right now will come under review, and if it does not meet the criteria, be reformed or axed completely. Might want to inform yourself before you spout leftist drivel.


Furthermore in that little clip he says he's going to "protect the sanctity of marriage". What does that mean? Ban gay marriage at a federal level? The government is now in the business of telling people who they can legally love and spend the rest of their lives with? Didn't see that power granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution when I read it.

I dont see anything in the Constitution about marriage period, so I would interpret his statements to mean that he will not support any legislation in either direction.




Ryan's budget balancing act?


Look anywhere. A quick search resulted this:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/11/us/politics/0812-ryan.html

Though that is largely irrelevant, since the democrats have voiced that they wouldn't allow something so "radical" to pass. The actual date of a "balanced budget" will much likely not occur before a debasing of the currency. Vote for Romney though, because a vote for anyone else could allow Obama to win and it would destroy this country.

The country is already beyond saving when half of us demand that the budget not even be balanced, in less than 50 years. That's over 60 years straight of deficit spending, at an exponentially accelerating pace as the interest service on that debt swells. It is unsustainable and will come crashing down before the asshats in Washington can ever come together to rein in our (yes it's OUR) spending. They can't even pass a single year's budget. So ladies and gentlemen this is the LEAST important election ever. At least vote for freedom.

What kool-aid are you drinking???

Romney will push for a balanced budget the first year in office, unlike the current administration which has never even turned one in! Again, Romney understand finance, banking, and commerce on a level that Obaloney and Johnson simply do not. And he has top-shelf advisors, not political cronies, to install as his cabinet who can and will get things done. Balancing the budget is easy, its getting out of this debt that Obaloney has put us in thats the real issue, and that will likely really take 40 years.

Lets face facts- Libertarians will do more harm than good. Johnson can not balance the budget or reduce debt because he does not have anything like a realistic approach to do so. We are hiring a man to do a job. You do not have to agree with him on everything but its time to take off your rose colored glasses and take a long hard look at reality. Romney is the man for the job. Yeah I used to think he was a candy ass and while I supported him I had doubts as to whether he could get shit done, but I have changed my opinion and think he is the exact right guy for the job. 4 years of at least a balanced budget and possibly some deficit reduction is a metric assload better than either of the alternatives, and its time you third party jokers realized it.

[Ronin13]

A citizen of the United States is entitled to their day in court and don't you ever forget it! The pendulum can swing even further than it already has and YOU can be labeled as a 'TERRORIST' or a 'POLITICAL PRISONER' depending on who is in charge of the labeling. I would much rather see those US citizens with foreign interests in mind get their day in court than I would US citizens with their countries best interests in mind NOT get theirs.

Non-US citizens being accused of crimes in the US can burn. Let our military sort them out.

This frightens me to death! I'm entitled to a fair and speedy trial by the Constitution, however, if I'm labeled a terrorist (I'm a veteran after all)- all bets are off... So you are right with the labeling. [Peep]

[Rust_shackleford]

Rome is burning [BooHoo] No saving the U.S. as long as you have a Central Bank[Bang]

[clark]

Personally I am for doing away with all party's, except the ones with beer of course. [Beer] You are elected by the people to serve the people that elected you not the party that you represent. The congressional voting of party lines instead of voting for the people that elected you in the state you represent is torro poopoo. This is how we got obama care among other atrocities. Just my opinion playing the [Muaha] advocate. .

[Great-Kazoo]

A citizen of the United States is entitled to their day in court and don't you ever forget it! The pendulum can swing even further than it already has and YOU can be labeled as a 'TERRORIST' or a 'POLITICAL PRISONER' depending on who is in charge of the labeling. I would much rather see those US citizens with foreign interests in mind get their day in court than I would US citizens with their countries best interests in mind NOT get theirs.

Non-US citizens being accused of crimes in the US can burn. Let our military sort them out.


Reread my post then comment.
Citizen or not, plot to bomb anywhere in America, it's embassies, or military installations and a bullet will suffice. They didn't get there by only selling hot dogs. Give any of the islamist a day in civilian court and the system becomes a mockery of justice.
How does their justice system work mmmmmmmmmmmm?
Oh yeah beheading on the web, stoning to death, shooting children because they do not follow sharia law.
Obviously we disagree and neither one of us will be dragged from our homes and executed for it.

It will allow the .gov to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS currently held in military detainment. They will also allow civilian trials for TERRORIST. Call them what you want, hide your head in the sand or live in DENIAL. They are TERRORIST, who's goal is to bring this country to it's knee. Where it will be that much easier to remove it's head.

[Teufelhund]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561773_10150938961159364_1711069977_n.jpg

[USAFGopherMike]

I'm with Kev minus the religion. Religion is the source of most wars and wars are bad mmkay (sarcasm)(read-good for gun enthusiasts). [worms] I'd love to see the bullshit 2 party system go away but it's unlikely. Too much money in it and those tards we call congressmen don't want that to change. On the drugs topic - Drugs are also bad and opening the door is a bad idea. You want to do drugs? Go somewhere else and do them. I think we should just shoot anyone caught dealing drugs. Right then and there. Cost of justice - $.25. Done. No criminals sucking the gov't teet in prison for $150/day or whatever it cost. People don't like getting shot and being dead is not "optimal". I vote me for Johnson's running mate in 2016. [Luck]

[USAFGopherMike]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561773_10150938961159364_1711069977_n.jpg

Yeah, I would get behind that.

[Ronin13]

Yeah, I would get behind that.

Me too... but I still wouldn't be a libertarian with her- I'm happy being a conservative constitutionalist... [Beer]

[Bailey Guns]

"Five Percent of the vote ENDS the Two-Party System."

He must be smoking a lot of that stuff he wants legalized.

[Zundfolge]

Bill Whittle makes the best case against the 3rd party protest vote.


In all seriousness, if you are considering voting for Gary Johnson or some other third party protest vote, please watch this video. I promise I won't bother any of you about this any more, just watch the video.

wPjBXufufUU

[roberth]

"Five Percent of the vote ENDS the Two-Party System."

He must be smoking a lot of that stuff he wants legalized.

I was thinking the same thing - ID10T D0P3R

[Teufelhund]

5% equals federal funding and a level playing field in 2016.

I should clarify the Johnson campaign didn't create the ad I posted above, it was fan-created.

[Bailey Guns]

5% equals federal funding and a level playing field in 2016.

I should clarify the Johnson campaign didn't create the ad I posted above, it was fan-created.

I figured it was a little risque...even for a libertarian.

FYI: Federal funding does NOT equal a level playing field. 70 million votes = a level playing field. Good luck with that.

[jhood001]

Bill Whittle makes the best case against the 3rd party protest vote.


Gotta leave it to Bill for being able to be honest and still get his point across effectively.

"Some people will try to tell you that a vote for ron paul or gary johnson or even no vote at all is a vote for Barak Obama. I may have even said that myself once or twice and for that I sincerely apologize because that is offensive and it's not true. But what is true is that while mugging a person is a crime, standing by idly and not stopping an assault you had the power to stop, while that may not be a crime in itself, but it is hardly a principled position to take."

You're either with Bill Whittle or you're against Bill Whittle. [Coffee]

[Bailey Guns]

I was for Bill Whittle before I was against him...before I was for him again.

:)

[roberth]

5% equals federal funding and a level playing field in 2016.

I should clarify the Johnson campaign didn't create the ad I posted above, it was fan-created.

If they are a true Libertarian they shouldn't be taking Federal funding for their election.

[Teufelhund]

If they are a true Libertarian they shouldn't be taking Federal funding for their election.

/sigh. No one should get federal funding for campaigning. However, if you only let unscrupulous bastards write the rules, the rules will always be written in favor of unscrupulous bastards.

[roberth]

/sigh. No one should get federal funding for campaigning. However, if you only let unscrupulous bastards write the rules, the rules will always be written in favor of unscrupulous bastards.

So principles stop when it comes to money.

Thank you for that clarification.

[Teufelhund]

Casting the first stone, are we? How many of you dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and self-described patriots defended the signer of the Patriot Act, then voted for the co-sponsor of NDAA, and are now voting for another guy who supports both?

[roberth]

Casting the first stone, are we? How many of you dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and self-described patriots defended the signer of the Patriot Act, then voted for the co-sponsor of NDAA, and are now voting for another guy who supports both?

Le sigh.

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool (R) - If you had been paying attention you'd know that I wasn't going to vote (R) at all but I...nevermind, I'm not going to explain myself again.

I've never claimed to be a patriot so don't put words in my mouth.

The best way the change this country is from within the established (R).

The (L) is going have another horrible turnout and you only have yourselves to blame.

[Canuckistani]

Obama or Romney: choose one to end the 'evil' that the other represents, right?

http://freedombeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/541056_4116054574527_303673616_n.jpeg

[Teufelhund]

Le sigh.

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool (R) - If you had been paying attention you'd know that I wasn't going to vote (R) at all but I...nevermind, I'm not going to explain myself again.

I've never claimed to be a patriot so don't put words in my mouth.

The best way the change this country is from within the established (R).

The (L) is going have another horrible turnout and you only have yourselves to blame.

Yeah, that worked out really well for Ron Paul, didn't it?

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It was a generalization pointed at the general consensus here I consistently argue with. I honestly don't know how to defend accepting a compromise of my principles simply to hope it will make a major impact in changing the country for the better further down the road. Someone else is making the rules right now, and we can either play by them or let them continue to do whatever the hell they want.

How do you figure Libertarians will be responsible for a poor turnout of Libertarian votes? I personally convinced a number of people to vote for GJ who would have otherwise voted for BO or abstained.

[roberth]

See, you're preaching to the choir here.

What the (L) needs to do is get the 40% that aren't here.

The 40% that think the (L) is batshit crazy. Yeah, those people. Pull on your boots and go get the 40% that want some government interference in their lives.

Hint #1 - Don't come at them like you do us here. You want to win them over, not call them names and imply they are stupid, unpatriotic, and all the other demeaning shit you do here.

Hint #2 - Be patient, this is going to be a very difficult task for the (L).

Hint #3 - When you get frustrated remember Hint #1.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Seriously dudes WWJD? Jk lighten up fellers. You have 28 months of rest before presidential commercials start again.

[Teufelhund]

More of the, "I won't do what I know is right because you were mean to me about it and made me feel bad." That sounds more like a protest vote than anything else I've heard this election cycle.

Yeah, you nailed it. I'm no diplomat, nor do I have any desire to be. I don't want to be super-sweet to anyone and try to convince them to do the right thing in spite of themselves. That is something for men who are more interested than I in being liked. If you're being stupid, I'm the guy who will tell you so without any consideration of your feelings. I guess I'm not helping matters, but I think people need to grow the hell up and get over their fractured little sensitivities.

That's OK, there are plenty of things I can do for the (L) party that don't require me to be public-facing.

[DOC]

I feel the same way when I talk to die-hard obama robots.

[CMP_5.56]

Until we end the cycle of debt based currency it doesn't matter which puppets are elected.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rust_shackleford]

Reread my post then comment.
Citizen or not, plot to bomb anywhere in America, it's embassies, or military installations and a bullet will suffice. They didn't get there by only selling hot dogs. Give any of the islamist a day in civilian court and the system becomes a mockery of justice.
How does their justice system work mmmmmmmmmmmm?
Oh yeah beheading on the web, stoning to death, shooting children because they do not follow sharia law.
Obviously we disagree and neither one of us will be dragged from our homes and executed for it.

It will allow the .gov to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS currently held in military detainment. They will also allow civilian trials for TERRORIST. Call them what you want, hide your head in the sand or live in DENIAL. They are TERRORIST, who's goal is to bring this country to it's knee. Where it will be that much easier to remove it's head.
Killing 250 people with a drone strike to get one suspected terrorist, that's the high moral ground. America is doomed by it's complacency of allowing the Military Industrial Complex to hijack our Military for profit. Who creates these terrorist? Look up Operation Cyclone.

[hatidua]

Obama or Romney: choose one to end the 'evil' that the other represents, right?

http://freedombeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/541056_4116054574527_303673616_n.jpeg

The masses will never grasp it...

[TEAMRICO]

The masses will never grasp it...

That's deep bra'.
You are so enlightened to the reality!
Wow, just wow. You got it all figured out maaaaan.

Vote your concious Tuesday. Float on brother.

[USAFGopherMike]

Killing 250 people with a drone strike to get one suspected terrorist, that's the high moral ground. America is doomed by it's complacency of allowing the Military Industrial Complex to hijack our Military for profit. Who creates these terrorist? Look up Operation Cyclone.

Do you really think that we kill 250 every time we employ an RPA? Collateral damage is way down since we started using them. We've gotten pretty good at taking out the onesy-twosy would be terrorists and insurgents. On that note, if I find out that we had an MQ-1 overhead with eyes on and didn't put hellfires on targets attacking the consulate, I will be more than pissed.

[Rucker61]

Do you really think that we kill 250 every time we employ an RPA? Collateral damage is way down since we started using them. We've gotten pretty good at taking out the onesy-twosy would be terrorists and insurgents. On that note, if I find out that we had an MQ-1 overhead with eyes on and didn't put hellfires on targets attacking the consulate, I will be more than pissed.

So accidently or negligently killing non-combatants is okay with you, as long as some real bad guys are killed, too?

[Great-Kazoo]

So accidently or negligently killing non-combatants is okay with you, as long as some real bad guys are killed, too?

It is more than OK with me. Hiding out in a village to avoid American attacks, or any attack is immoral. You do not hide behind women and children.
ALLOWING said combatants to (wink ,wink) hide out, says to me they are OK with it and sympathetic to their cause, Killing the infidel.
The town OBL was "Hiding Out" in, that entire area should have been left in rubble along with the Paki .gov.
Realistically we should pull all funding to pakistan, and every other stan, GTFO so they can kill each other in the Name of Peace.

[Rucker61]

It is more than OK with me. Hiding out in a village to avoid American attacks, or any attack is immoral. You do not hide behind women and children.
ALLOWING said combatants to (wink ,wink) hide out, says to me they are OK with it and sympathetic to their cause, Killing the infidel.
The town OBL was "Hiding Out" in, that entire area should have been left in rubble along with the Paki .gov.
Realistically we should pull all funding to pakistan, and every other stan, GTFO so they can kill each other in the Name of Peace.

I'll never understand the concept that it's okay for us to kill women and children to kill our enemies, but it's evil for our enemies to kill our women and children. I blame Douhet for the this concept.

[Bowtie]

It is more than OK with me. Hiding out in a village to avoid American attacks, or any attack is immoral. You do not hide behind women and children.
ALLOWING said combatants to (wink ,wink) hide out, says to me they are OK with it and sympathetic to their cause, Killing the infidel.
The town OBL was "Hiding Out" in, that entire area should have been left in rubble along with the Paki .gov.
Realistically we should pull all funding to pakistan, and every other stan, GTFO so they can kill each other in the Name of Peace.

I agree,

Flying planes into buildings doesn't have any judgment.
Fuck them.
We are better than them.

We will kill the people responsible and their close friends.

[Great-Kazoo]

I'll never understand the concept that it's okay for us to kill women and children to kill our enemies, but it's evil for our enemies to kill our women and children. I blame Douhet for the this concept.

AND I Have never understood a person or person who hides behind the skirts of woman and beds of children. All the while proclaiming their War against the INFIDEL is Just.

[USAFGopherMike]

It is more than OK with me. Hiding out in a village to avoid American attacks, or any attack is immoral. You do not hide behind women and children.
ALLOWING said combatants to (wink ,wink) hide out, says to me they are OK with it and sympathetic to their cause, Killing the infidel.
The town OBL was "Hiding Out" in, that entire area should have been left in rubble along with the Paki .gov.
Realistically we should pull all funding to pakistan, and every other stan, GTFO so they can kill each other in the Name of Peace.

^ I like it.

[USAFGopherMike]

So accidently or negligently killing non-combatants is okay with you, as long as some real bad guys are killed, too?

Some collateral damage is sometimes necessary, but should be avoided whenever possible. Do you think we knowingly take a shot if we know there will be collateral damage? From an air-to-ground ROE standpoint, I'll tell you we won't. The Air Core(and Navy FTM) has learned a few things since WWII. PGMs and real-time C4ISR with high-fidelity IR/EO optics make that a reality. Team that with our LOAC/ROE and you have a scalpel rather than a nuke.

[Rucker61]

Some collateral damage is sometimes necessary,



Explain "necessary"




but should be avoided whenever possible. Do you think we knowingly take a shot if we know there will be collateral damage?


Your first statement says, yes we do, if it's necessary.




From an air-to-ground ROE standpoint, I'll tell you we won't. The Air Core(and Navy FTM) has learned a few things since WWII. PGMs and real-time C4ISR with high-fidelity IR/EO optics make that a reality. Team that with our LOAC/ROE and you have a scalpel rather than a nuke.

I understand that the precision has increased since WWII, but I'd hardly call it a scalpel, as we still get collateral damage.

If collateral damage is acceptable in pursuit of our enemies, is it then okay to kill our own civilians to kill our enemies, if they're hiding among them? How about allied civilians?

[Rucker61]

AND I Have never understood a person or person who hides behind the skirts of woman and beds of children. All the while proclaiming their War against the INFIDEL is Just.

I understand why they do it; like you, I feel it's a war crime and an abhorent tactic. I don't understand why that then gives us the moral high ground to kill women and children to get to them.

[Bailey Guns]

I think I'm partially on Rucker's side on this one.

I believe civilian casualties should be avoided. Not avoided "at all cost", but when possible and practical. And that's a tough judgment call.

Just because enemy combatants are hiding out among civilians doesn't mean civilians are complicit in their hiding. The Taliban often uses terror tactics among the local population to gain their cooperation. I don't think that should be an automatic death sentence for those locals.

It's a tough call and war is a nasty business. Sometimes civilians are gonna get hurt. I do believe, in general terms, our ROEs are far too strict. But I suppose that's the price we pay for trying to be the good guys.

[Great-Kazoo]

I think I'm partially on Rucker's side on this one.

I believe civilian casualties should be avoided. Not avoided "at all cost", but when possible and practical. And that's a tough judgment call.

Just because enemy combatants are hiding out among civilians doesn't mean civilians are complicit in their hiding. The Taliban often uses terror tactics among the local population to gain their cooperation. I don't think that should be an automatic death sentence for those locals.

It's a tough call and war is a nasty business. Sometimes civilians are gonna get hurt. I do believe, in general terms, our ROEs are far too strict. But I suppose that's the price we pay for trying to be the good guys.

The Islamist know we try at all cost to not engage, when being fired upon from mosque, or other places of worship. Hiding out in villages again shows their true colors. Deplorable, unconscionable? Absolutely. However the on going MO they have leaves Our .mil between iraq & a hard place. I believe they (AlQ /Taliban) do this with the hope the world outcry will get us to stop the attacks. IF that ever happens, might as well close up shop and cede defeat to Islam. We do that there, guarantee they will be here in force with higher profile attacks than we ever saw in the sand box.
Detroit is one of the "hotbeds" (allegedly) of islam. Add in X amount of unknown operatives that may have casually walked in from mexico and you have serious security concerns.
Will we feel the same if attacks happened here, regarding terrorist hiding out in places of worship? Will J. Jackson, the MSM and the current CIC deplore another video, attacking Islam and mohammed, or will we as America stand together to eradicate terrorism. Even though i highly doubt it will ever disappear.

[sniper7]

Obama or Romney: choose one to end the 'evil' that the other represents, right?

http://freedombeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/541056_4116054574527_303673616_n.jpeg

I think the rainbow people pretty much vote (D) most of the time.


Either way that doesn't change the fact that there are never enough people willing to step out of either of the lines unless they get results immediately.

your lines can represent McDonalds. Another register is open...there is just no one there to take your order and there never will be. I think I'll stay in my line and hope I get to the front of it.

[Bailey Guns]

Will we feel the same if attacks happened here, regarding terrorist hiding out in places of worship? Will J. Jackson, the MSM and the current CIC deplore another video, attacking Islam and mohammed, or will we as America stand together to eradicate terrorism. Even though i highly doubt it will ever disappear.

I certainly hope so.

America rarely "stands together" these days. You have those on the side of our traditional values and those who will submit to progressive ideals of multiculturalism and appeasement.

We could have enemy invaders marching on our country from all sides and you'd still have those that would tell us it was our fault and if we'd just look at things from the enemy perspective our enemies wouldn't hate us.

You even see a bit of that attitude right on this forum. We have a small contingent here that will argue our issues with radical Islam are a direct result of US "meddling" in middle-eastern countries. Despite the fact that we've had problems with Islamic barbary since the late 1700s.

[Great-Kazoo]

I certainly hope so.

America rarely "stands together" these days. You have those on the side of our traditional values and those who will submit to progressive ideals of multiculturalism and appeasement.

We could have enemy invaders marching on our country from all sides and you'd still have those that would tell us it was our fault and if we'd just look at things from the enemy perspective our enemies wouldn't hate us.

You even see a bit of that attitude right on this forum. We have a small contingent here that will argue our issues with radical Islam are a direct result of US "meddling" in middle-eastern countries. Despite the fact that we've had problems with Islamic barbary since the late 1700s.


^Amen (in an all inclusive way) to that^ :)

[Sharpienads]

Killing 250 people with a drone strike to get one suspected terrorist, that's the high moral ground. America is doomed by it's complacency of allowing the Military Industrial Complex to hijack our Military for profit. Who creates these terrorist? Look up Operation Cyclone.

You seem to know everything Rusty, so tell me, exactly what "drone" is capable of killing 250 people in a single strike? Not that I always agree with the practice of using RPAs to kill suspected terrorists, but I have a hunch you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially since you use the word "drone".


Do you really think that we kill 250 every time we employ an RPA? Collateral damage is way down since we started using them. We've gotten pretty good at taking out the onesy-twosy would be terrorists and insurgents. On that note, if I find out that we had an MQ-1 overhead with eyes on and didn't put hellfires on targets attacking the consulate, I will be more than pissed.

Thank you.


So accidently or negligently killing non-combatants is okay with you, as long as some real bad guys are killed, too?

Well there is a huge difference between accidentally and negligently. The short answer is it depends. We go through great lengths to minimize CD as much as possible, even to the point where we put ourselves at risk sometimes. The whole "you have the right/obligation to defend yourself" isn't absolute (well, you can always defend yourself, but that doesn't mean you won't face the consequences). I do not condone indiscriminate killing. But war is war, sometimes it gets messy, sometimes you make mistakes, sometimes you have to think with your head and not your heart. I don't know if there is a right answer to your question. Like I said, it depends.

[Ronin13]

It is more than OK with me. Hiding out in a village to avoid American attacks, or any attack is immoral. You do not hide behind women and children.
ALLOWING said combatants to (wink ,wink) hide out, says to me they are OK with it and sympathetic to their cause, Killing the infidel.
The town OBL was "Hiding Out" in, that entire area should have been left in rubble along with the Paki .gov.
Realistically we should pull all funding to pakistan, and every other stan, GTFO so they can kill each other in the Name of Peace.

THIS! You'd think $2B a year would buy a little more loyalty...

I understand [B]why they do it; like you, I feel it's a war crime and an abhorent tactic. I don't understand why that then gives us the moral high ground to kill women and children to get to them.

Harboring our enemies is just as wrong as being one yourself. We arrested folks in AFG that gave safe haven to HQN, TB, and AQ (we hardly ever saw much from AQ), they knew damn well what they were getting into when they allowed the bad guys to hid among them.

[USAFGopherMike]

Explain "necessary"



Your first statement says, yes we do, if it's necessary.



I understand that the precision has increased since WWII, but I'd hardly call it a scalpel, as we still get collateral damage.

If collateral damage is acceptable in pursuit of our enemies, is it then okay to kill our own civilians to kill our enemies, if they're hiding among them? How about allied civilians?

It is a scalpel figuratively speaking. During WWII we would use 300 planes dropping 30 bombs each to carpet bomb a target. We tried to avoid taking out the school and church, but it happened... a lot. Now we do that with one aircraft and one bomb. Surgeons use scalpels, but they also sometimes make mistakes.

By "necessary", I mean collateral damage. During the pre-OIF days as we "prepped the battlefield", we found that SH had gotten smart with some of his SAMs. He'd park them under bridges until he was ready to shoot at our guys. He knew that we tried to minimize CD to the max extent possible and bridges were on the list of things we didn't like to blow up. After awhile though, you decide, fuck it, it's not worth the risk to let him keep shooting at us. We'll take out half that bridge if we get that high value military target. We can always rebuild that bridge. I do not advocate killing innocent civilians in order to take out military targets, but it sometimes happens unknowingly or by accident.


The Islamist know we try at all cost to not engage, when being fired upon from mosque, or other places of worship. Hiding out in villages again shows their true colors. Deplorable, unconscionable? Absolutely. However the on going MO they have leaves Our .mil between iraq & a hard place. I believe they (AlQ /Taliban) do this with the hope the world outcry will get us to stop the attacks. IF that ever happens, might as well close up shop and cede defeat to Islam. We do that there, guarantee they will be here in force with higher profile attacks than we ever saw in the sand box.
Detroit is one of the "hotbeds" (allegedly) of islam. Add in X amount of unknown operatives that may have casually walked in from mexico and you have serious security concerns.
Will we feel the same if attacks happened here, regarding terrorist hiding out in places of worship? Will J. Jackson, the MSM and the current CIC deplore another video, attacking Islam and mohammed, or will we as America stand together to eradicate terrorism. Even though i highly doubt it will ever disappear.

There's lots of truth in this ^, however I do believe you have to separate radical islam from everyday peace loving muslims. How do you think those christians feel in Iran? I think we should go after the radical Imams who teach hate and it is on the Muslim community to reject any teachings that do not follow in religious freedom and understanding.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles by people escaping religious persecution in Europe. If someboby is unwilling to abide by the laws or thinks that their religious laws/rules (read sharia law) are above ours, they can pack their shit and leave.

[Ronin13]

How do you think those christians feel in Iran?

There are Christians in Iran? I would think believing in Christianity would warrant you to NOT want to live in an Islamic republic.

[USAFGopherMike]

There are Christians in Iran? I would think believing in Christianity would warrant you to NOT want to live in an Islamic republic.

Yes. Few and far between, often persecuted once found out. They don't openly practice. More so in Turkey. I think Turkey is almost 10% now.

[Ronin13]

Yes. Few and far between, often persecuted once found out. They don't openly practice. More so in Turkey. I think Turkey is almost 10% now.

Well the Muslim Turks did commit a genocide of the Christians back in the early 1900's.

[USAFGopherMike]

True. One more reason the Muslim faith is the largest growing demographic in the world today.

[roberth]

True. One more reason the Muslim faith is the largest growing demographic in the world today.

Yeah, they murder the competition.

[Rust_shackleford]

I VOTED MY CONSCIENCE I VOTED MY PRINCIPLES

[Aloha_Shooter]

I VOTED MY CONSCIENCE I VOTED MY PRINCIPLES

Ubw5N8iVDHI

[Bailey Guns]

I VOTED MY CONSCIENCE I VOTED MY PRINCIPLES

That's cute...

[Great-Kazoo]

I VOTED MY CONSCIENCE AND I VOTED MY PRINCIPLES

I didn't need my conscience to tell me who to vote for, It already knew what was right.

[DOC]

I voted for whomever was cuter and cooler and would give me the most free stuff. And I wasn't going to vote Obama then I thought I better or else people will think that I am racist because he is some black. So I voted for Romney, because Buck Farrack he had his chance and blew it and now we need to get a new guy in there even if its Romney.

[Rust_shackleford]

May the GOP will stop catering to moderates now?

[Rust_shackleford]

Ubw5N8iVDHI
[Beer]
I'll sleep well knowing the GOP didn't dupe me again.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah. You really showed 'em. Way to go.

There are over 50 million people out there who don't give a fuck who you voted for because they voted for the guy that won.