Gary Johnson makes the GOP nervous..

[P@triot]

There's not a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to prevent it. In addition, the major financial interests of the nation are content with their ability to control our government via the existing parties. Maybe it's overly pessimistic, but I have to assume that no alternative party will rise to prominence if it goes against this arrangement.

Really? The two party's who have as much hate for each other are "colluding" together? Give me a break on the wild conspiracy theories...

There is no third party's because the people on each side realize that doing so ensures the other side a victory.

Furthermore, rather than this irrational, immature obsession on a "3rd party", what people should be doing is focusing on improving the existing party's. We need a LOT more Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's and no more John McCain's and Barack Obama's...

 

[P@triot]

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

 

[Shelzin]

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

It should... Yes.

I wish I could find something that actually shows how happy the people are with it.

It doesn't matter though.

Given that it seems most people are willing to accept "lesser of two evils", and flat out the system is corrupt beyond saving... It absolutely matters. If they don't feel they can change it, they won't try.

I have lived in an area in which everybody had their own well, their own septic system, their own propane tank,

I am in that area now.

The Founders maybe didn't foresee modern conveniences, but they certainly understood the principle of social contract and how it was necessary that the federal government not interfere with that and allow the people to form whatever sort of societies and local government they wished to have.

At a city/state level... Yes. Not federal.

A shared healthcare system is no different than any of the other aspects of social contract. If it works, great. If it doesn't, scrap it and do something else. If there is respect of liberty, there must be freedom to make mistakes and do things wrong as well as succeed and get things right.

But the local social contract is none of the business of the federal government which is based on constitutional principles intended to apply to all people equally without respect for political party, religion, socioeconomic status or any other criteria. The federal government is intended to secure the rights of the states to do what they please, not to dictate how the states must organize themselves.

Works for me.

I believe Mitt Romney understands that. I'm not at all confident that it has ever occurred to Barack Obama.

I believe they both understand that. And it was insurance companies that bought them to make it happen.

 

[P@triot]

I will never, EVER, believe a single word a politician says during an election. And how people can delude themselves into thinking a politician means anything they say during elections is beyond me.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I think you're being incredibly naive to vote for someone based off of what they say. Especially when what they say flies in the face what they've done.

Well, considering he's NEVER been PRESIDENT before, you have exactly zero track record to grade him on. So there goes your "flies in the face of what they've done before" theory.

Apparently you can't comprehend the difference between STATE and FEDERAL governments? How sad for you....

 

[Shelzin]

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

*blink*blink*

So it's ok for a republican do it but not a democrat. Got it.

Take the worst insult you know. And then pretend I said it to you. I would do it myself but I don't know what you find most insulting.

 

[P@triot]

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

*blink*blink*

So it's ok for a republican do it but not a democrat. Got it.

Take the worst insult you know. And then pretend I said it to you. I would do it myself but I don't know what you find most insulting.

I absolutely think it's ok for a Democrat to be exponentially more conservative to operate in a conservative state and working with an overwhelming majority conservative state legislature! In fact, I would LOVE if every Democrat acted more conservative, regardless of the situation. That's such a stupid fucking question, I can't even comprehend why you would ask it.

As far as the "worst insult" I can fathom? That would be to be called a "fucking idiot Soveriegn Citizen libertarian asshole like Shelzin". Hands down the worst insult in the world.

 

[P@triot]

*blink*blink*

So it's ok for a republican do it but not a democrat. Got it.

Take the worst insult you know. And then pretend I said it to you. I would do it myself but I don't know what you find most insulting.

Once again we see the Sovereign Citizen libertarian with ZERO understanding of the US Constitution or the difference between STATE and FEDERAL government. Typical of these anarchist jack-asses...

 

[sitarro]

I disagree about Romney and businesses but I agree that there is a lot to dislike about Mitt. The only way to provide jobs for the middle class is to get government out of the way of the people who hire middle class workers. obama won't do that and Romney will.

I'd rather have Johnson or Ron Paul any day, but obama MUST go, and if I can help that in any way, I will.

Based off of what evidence? His record shows the opposite. He passed Romneycare and raised taxes and fees on businesses.

Based on what he says he's going to do. You realize that the president of the United states is a different job than Governor of a state right? At any rate, we know what obama will do; harm the business climate.

There is something about Romney that many don't get...... it's 2012 not 2002. Romney is worth 250 million, has 5 adult successful sons and his lifelong sweetheart of 43 years.......at 65 what is he thinking about? He has said it in his speeches. He wants and needs a legacy, a point in history that will live on. At 58, I think about it so I'm sure at 65 he definitely thinks about what history will say about him. I think he wants to be the guy that saved this country. He has the tools, the qualifications and the desire to do everything he can to accomplish that, I don't see anyone else with that combination of leadership skill and electability. He's had my vote since the 2002 Olympics, when he saved them.

I'm not an ideologue, I don't give a crap about abortion, I don't think it will be around much longer.....in 2012, you have to be an imbecile to get pregnant when you don't want to. I couldn't give a fuck about gays, if they want to serve in the military....good for them, but if you approach the wrong person and get your ass kicked to death..... I'm not interested in that either. Heterosexuals have done a good enough job of making marriage a joke that gays can't possibly make it worse.... more work for divorce attorneys....... just shut up about your fucking sexual lifestyle, nobody cares. As for the drug war, it's a joke and should be reformed, I smoked pot for 35 years and just stopped because I wanted a job that didn't allow it, haven't looked back. People are going to destroy themselves some way, who cares if it's alcohol or smack.

I do want a strong military...... there have been a ridiculous amount of innovations created because of military research that is then used in the public sector. The advances in the clean burning powerful jet engines are here today because of military research dollars and the world is better off for it. I was talking to an architect one day about the work I did on golf courses, she was an idealist that immediately jumped on golf courses as being the biggest waste of prime real estate, the pesticides, the displacement of animals.....all of the predictable bullshit from a typical uninformed crusader. I told her she was wrong, that she should come with me to Scottsdale, Arizona to see for herself the refuge for animals that are the golf courses there. Ducks diving in the water hazards, flocks of Quail running in front of the golf carts, bunnies gorging on the winter rye on the tee boxes and fat coyotes that gorge themselves on the same bunnies. Like the military, research has been paid for because of need for the golf industry. Turf has been developed that is more drought resistant, that needs less water.....used in parks and yards. Mowers that have advanced more than they ever needed to without the game of golf. It's all how you look at things like the military....or golf. The military also offers a career for many and great training for a second occupation once you get out. My Father was a 17 year old that had never been out of Louisiana that lied about his age to get into the Army Air Corps during WW2, he became a fighter pilot. After the war, he went to college and got his accounting degree but couldn't get the flying bug out of his system so he erupted and stayed in for 29 years. He was an instructor in his last half of his Air Force career and was eventually assigned to the film branch. He knew he wasn't ready to sit at a desk for a living so he put in to become a pilot to fly Generals around in the Air Force's business jet at the time knowing he would get a bunch of hours and would be able to get a corporate pilot gig when he retired from the USAF. That is exactly what he did and continued to fly corporate for 20 years. Kind of a positive use of the military isn't it?

The point is, I don't really fall into any category. In some ways I might be labeled a libertarian but I see a big role for military spending besides protecting the country. Democrats piss me of in how proud they are about being wrong most of the time. Libertarians piss me off because they will literally help elect the worst possible jerk to make a point......they don't seem to get that they need a base of at least a third of the countries voters to be viable. You also need a serious amount of bodies in Congress to back a Presidential candidate to be taken seriously. Republicans don't give a shit enough to put up the best person for the whole country most of the time and have a very hard time sticking together to get the vote out.

 

[Foxfyre]

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

How do you know that he didn't? But when both the people and the legislature were in favor of a universal healthcare system, then isn't the best course to go to work with them to produce the best one they could come up with? If it hasn't delivered as promised and is now unpopular, that no doubt adds to the majority of the people who want Obamacare repealed too.

 

[P@triot]

Ron Paul never said he wanted to get rid of the US military or blamed America for 9/11. Nice strawman, but try harder next time.

He absolutely said BOTH, and you're either an uninformed idiot or a liar. Which one is it?

 

[Foxfyre]

You know folks, I don't know a single person that had his or her mind changed by being called an idiot or a moron or an asswipe or an ideologue or a fanatic or a partisan or a wingnut or by being told he was brainwashed or that he was going to hell. I do know a few intelligent people who were persuaded when they were gently encouraged to look at something differently.

 

[Amazed]

Why is this thread still around?

nobody knows who this Johnson guy is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

Hey genius, Romney only served one term regardless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

How do you know that he didn't? But when both the people and the legislature were in favor of a universal healthcare system, then isn't the best course to go to work with them to produce the best one they could come up with? If it hasn't delivered as promised and is now unpopular, that no doubt adds to the majority of the people who want Obamacare repealed too.

No. Gary Johnson, for example, didn't govern with that philosophy in a state that was 2-1 Democrat, and he got reelected. The simple fact is that Romney did what he did because he believed in it. He believed that government run health care was better than the free market. If he didn't, he would've vetoed the bill.

 

[P@triot]

If he gets unemployment to 6.5 percent or less and cuts the deficit a lot; appoints solid judges; repeals Obamacare; will you be changing your tune?

No. Mitt Romney could fully repeal Obamacare, allow the free market to operate in health care as much as Congress will cooperate, end the Federal Reserve, return us to a real gold standard, appoint Judge Napolitano to the Supreme Court, and I'll never support him.

Folks, you can't make this shit up. This is how fucking insane these people are. If a GOP president does EVERYTHING the Sovereign Citizen asshole wants, they still won't "support him" simply because his name is not Ron Paul.

Unreal.... These people have gone so far off the deep end, it's very obvious they must be institutionalized. If Mitt Romney does nothing other than institutionalize these bat shit crazy Sovereign Citizen assholes, I will consider him to be among the greatest presidents of all time. Let's hope he throws these numb nuts in a very dark hole of an asylum some where, has them instituted for life, and gets them the therapy they so desperately need.

If a man were to actually implement constitutional government, open up the free-market, and get unemployment low, I'd support Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Barack Obama if they did that. The fact that he's already stating he won't support Mitt no matter what kind of job he does tells you everything you need to know.

 

[P@triot]

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

Hey genius, Romney only served one term regardless.

So that means he should have TRIED to be a failure?

 

[freedombecki]

Gary Johnson makes the GOP nervous - The Maddow Blog

Good..they won't admit it but their actions speak louder than words.

That's silly.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid emptying out the US Treasury of all its money and putting us at risk with a $16 Trillion Dollar Deficit makes us nervous, especially when Obama goes on a spending binge for his chums by fiat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he gets unemployment to 6.5 percent or less and cuts the deficit a lot; appoints solid judges; repeals Obamacare; will you be changing your tune?

No. Mitt Romney could fully repeal Obamacare, allow the free market to operate in health care as much as Congress will cooperate, end the Federal Reserve, return us to a real gold standard, appoint Judge Napolitano to the Supreme Court, and I'll never support him.

Folks, you can't make this shit up. This is how fucking insane these people are. If a GOP president does EVERYTHING the Sovereign Citizen asshole wants, they still won't "support him" simply because his name is not Ron Paul.

Unreal.... These people have gone so far off the deep end, it's very obvious they must be institutionalized. If Mitt Romney does nothing other than institutionalize these bat shit crazy Sovereign Citizen assholes, I will consider him to be among the greatest presidents of all time. Let's hope he throws these numb nuts in a very dark hole of an asylum some where, has them instituted for life, and gets them the therapy they so desperately need.

If a man were to actually implement constitutional government, open up the free-market, and get unemployment low, I'd support Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Barack Obama if they did that. The fact that he's already stating he won't support Mitt no matter what kind of job he does tells you everything you need to know.

That's a pretty weak attempt since anybody can just click the link and see the rest of my post, junior.

 

[Shelzin]

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

*blink*blink*

So it's ok for a republican do it but not a democrat. Got it.

Take the worst insult you know. And then pretend I said it to you. I would do it myself but I don't know what you find most insulting.

I absolutely think it's ok for a Democrat to be exponentially more conservative to operate in a conservative state and working with an overwhelming majority conservative state legislature! In fact, I would LOVE if every Democrat acted more conservative, regardless of the situation. That's such a stupid fucking question, I can't even comprehend why you would ask it.

A democrat didn't do it. Mitt Romney did. That would be:

I absolutely think it's ok for a Republican to be exponentially more liberal to operate in a liberal state and working with an overwhelming majority liberal state legislature! In fact, I would LOVE if every Republican acted more liberal, regardless of the situation.

That's such a stupid fucking question, I can't even comprehend why you would ask it.

And I asked it to show exactly what I have.

As far as the "worst insult" I can fathom? That would be to be called a "fucking idiot Soveriegn Citizen libertarian asshole like Shelzin". Hands down the worst insult in the world.

Aww... Shucks.

I wouldn't dream of arguing with you about the asshole or idiot part... Opinions vary. But I'm not a libertarian, and I'm not sure what the Sovereign Citizen thing is even supposed to mean.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Spoken like a true IDEALISTIC FOOL! You understand nothing, but pop off at the mouth about everything.

Romney was elected in a widely liberal state and had to work with a state legislature that was 71% liberal. Had he followed your assinine advice, he would have been thrown out on his ass (like Ron fucking Paul has been over and oever) after his first term.

You have to account for the situation, and adjust to it. It really is that simple, you fucking Soveriegn Citizen numb nuts....

Hey genius, Romney only served one term regardless.

So that means he should have TRIED to be a failure?

Now limiting government is apparently trying to be a failure. Who knew?