Raimondo on Gary Johnson: 'Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor'

[sailingaway]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/04/21/gary-johnson-caveat-emptor/

and no, I don't consider him gospel, I just post it for what it is.

[low preference guy]

He[Johnson]’s supposedly against foreign aid – except, perhaps, when it comes to Israel. It’s not clear if, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), he would end that particular boondoggle, but in this interview he was clear that maintaining our military alliance with Israel is "key" – although key to what, he did not say.

LOL. Raimondo is such a good writer.

[BamaFanNKy]

Same guy who wrote this ill informed bullshit:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/

[low preference guy]

The Johnson campaign, in my view, is an indirect tribute to Ron Paul’s monumental achievement. It was Paul, after all, who brought libertarianism into the public consciousness. That a cheap knock-off has now appeared on the market underscores the real value Paul has created for the libertarian movement – and I doubt many will fall for the counterfeit. Not if, as he says in the above-referenced interview, that he thinks we ought to "save" Social Security by "increasing the amount of withholding." Is the world ready for a "libertarian" in favor of hiking taxes? Only in Bizarro World.

My thoughts exactly. A few will fall, but those who are more perceptive won't.

[low preference guy]

Same guy who wrote this ill informed bullshit:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/

He was wrong then, he apologized, and now he is exactly right.

[BamaFanNKy]

He was wrong then, he apologized, and now he is exactly right.

He's right, when he's not. The stupidity and absurdity of Raimondo suits you. Weird how yours and his genius is not shared by folks like Ron Paul who love have Gary Johnson speak at their events.

[sailingaway]

I should have posted this in the main forum. A lot of it is about Ron and Kochtopus, and people are interested. I posted here because I hadn't read the whole thing and didn't want to start another fight about Gary in general forums. But this is about Ron, too.

BamaFan, the first thing I thought of was the story against Rand. That is one reason I posted here. But I have been thinking the exact same thing about Gary and the Kochtopus, and Raimondo knows a lot more about that whole tangle than I do.

[BamaFanNKy]

I should have posted this in the main forum. A lot of it is about Ron and Kochtopus, and people are interested. I posted here because I hadn't read the whole thing and didn't want to start another fight about Gary in general forums. But this is about Ron, too.

It's about Raimondo trying to be the smartest guy in the room, which he is not. He gets too high and mighty and goes off half cocked while being terribly ill informed.

[low preference guy]

He's right, when he's not. The stupidity and absurdity of Raimondo suits you. Weird how yours and his genius is not shared by folks like Ron Paul who love have Gary Johnson speak at their events.

You think Ron and Rand will have Johnson speak at their events now? You're delusional.

Also, what's stupid and absurd about this?


Gary Johnson, "the next Ron Paul," or, rather, Paul Lite, Paul without the hard edges, without the "kooky" end-the-Fed stuff, without the social conservatism, without the stubborn devotion to principle and to Austrian economics, specifically – in short, a hollowed out libertarianism, without any style and surely without its soul.

[sailingaway]

He does go off half cocked. But he does know more about Ron and the Kochtopus and those newsletters the Kochtopus's media outlets pushed into a scandal in 2007, even though libertarians had known the whole story about them for a decade. But I'll let it lie for now. It is the Kochtopus tie that is newly supported (as I said, I just had a hunch the way reason et al were pumping him up). The humanitarian wars bit everyone knows. It is one reason Gary isn't too popular here.

[BamaFanNKy]

You think Ron and Rand will have Johnson speak at their events now? You're delusional.

Also, what's stupid and absurd about this?

So, basically you are saying that before he ran they were ok with his foreign policy. Now that he's a candidate they are not?

Also, your arguments are absurd as are Raimondo. As someone who's followed both Ron and Gary, they both are for sound money and the sane foreign policy (with slight variations as is Rand v. Ron). Where they differ is Social Con vs. Social Lib. Really..... it boils down to civil unions, belief in creationism and abortion.

[low preference guy]

it boils down to civil unions, belief in creationism and abortion.

LOL!

Thanks for letting us all that you think that being for humanitarian wars is irrelevant.

[Indy Vidual]

He makes many valid points regarding the Kochs opposition to Ron Paul.

[BamaFanNKy]

LOL!

Thanks for letting us all that you think that being for humanitarian wars is irrelevant.

The only person saying he's for humanitarian wars is Raimondo and LPG. Two voices who have proven to be blowhards and uninformed.


He makes many valid points regarding the Kochs opposition to Ron Paul.

Which has nothing to do with Gary. Others made references that Rand was part of the Koch crew, which was bull shit.

[Sola_Fide]

I haven't liked Gaymondo since what he did to Rand, but this article was pretty spot on....in the sense that Gary's simple "cost/benefit analysis" is not the full-orbed libertarian argument that we really need right now. Ron has a much more sound understanding of why he believes what he believes.

[low preference guy]

The only person saying he's for humanitarian wars is Raimondo and LPG. Two voices who have proven to be blowhards and uninformed.

Hahahahaha!!!



On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.

TWS: So, you think that the United States, even if it weren’t in its own narrow national interest, even if we weren’t threatened by the [other] country, but there was a genocide going on—a clear genocide—it would be the right thing to do to go in and stop that?

GARY JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, I do.

Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitarian-war_522029.html)

[sailingaway]

So, basically you are saying that before he ran they were ok with his foreign policy. Now that he's a candidate they are not?

Also, your arguments are absurd as are Raimondo. As someone who's followed both Ron and Gary, they both are for sound money and the sane foreign policy (with slight variations as is Rand v. Ron). Where they differ is Social Con vs. Social Lib. Really..... it boils down to civil unions, belief in creationism and abortion.

I don't think you get why Ron let him speak at events. It was to help GARY and to spread the message, even if it wasn't all the same message. Ron does that. It is all about the message, and he helped introduce a number of people to his followers. Tom Woods and Napalitano caught on. Gary didn't.

[sailingaway]

The only person saying he's for humanitarian wars is Raimondo and LPG.


.

Actually, the humanitarian wars bit came from a Weekly Standard interview.

[BamaFanNKy]

Hahahahaha!!!

Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitarian-war_522029.html)

Again, Only you and Raimondo (I should include the reporter in this piece from the Weekly Standard). There is no video of him saying that.

According to pieces in Kentucky, "Rand Paul doesn't believe that drugs are a pressing issue" and "Believes that Hazard Kentucky is known for the Duke's of Hazzard." Anyone who believes one print interview over 4 to 5 different speeches, well, they need to back away. Print journalist will skew and write what they want to push a story:

Here's his stance on Libya: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4613006/the-politics-behind-libyan-intervention

[BamaFanNKy]

I don't think you get why Ron let him speak at events. It was to help GARY and to spread the message, even if it wasn't all the same message. Ron does that. It is all about the message, and he helped introduce a number of people to his followers. Tom Woods and Napalitano caught on. Gary didn't.

Uh. I'm not going to argue this anymore. You are right. Ron is the only King Maker and is 100% right on the issue.

Here is the controversial views of Gary Johnson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKPJLlbp-s

[low preference guy]

Again, Only you and Raimondo (I should include the reporter in this piece from the Weekly Standard). There is no video of him saying that.

Hahaha!!!! None of those stories have any exact quote from Rand Paul. But it doesn't matter, it's a conspiracy! They falsified a direct quote and Johnson didn't care about rectifying it despite the widespread reach of the article.

[sailingaway]

But Libya was polling unpopular when he wrote it BamaFan. Going with what is popular is nothing new in politics. At the time he gave the Weekly Standard interview, the public hadn't turned more antiinterventionist.

LPG, well there was a direct quote about Dukes of Hazzard. Rand just blew it, but so what? We support him because of his geographical knowledge as pertains to television shows?

[low preference guy]

But Libya was polling unpopular when he wrote it BamaFan. Going with what is popular is nothing new in politics.

Also, being against the war in Libya isn't the same as being non-interventionist in principle. Michael Savage is against the war in Libya and Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq. That doesn't make them non-interventionists.

[BamaFanNKy]

But Libya was polling unpopular when he wrote it BamaFan. Going with what is popular is nothing new in politics.

Jesus. So, the guy who goes with the wind and what is popular is Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro weed, Anti-War and running as a GOPer? Um, yeah.

[low preference guy]

LPG, well there was a direct quote about Dukes of Hazzard. Rand just blew it, but so what? We support him because of his geographical knowledge as pertains to television shows?

There isn't a quote about the drugs. The Dukes of Hazzard or whatever is a non-issue. I don't even remember or care what the heck that was about.

[BamaFanNKy]

Hahaha!!!! None of those stories have any exact quote from Rand Paul. But it doesn't matter, it's a conspiracy! They falsified a direct quote and Johnson didn't care about rectifying it despite the widespread reach of the article.

Actually the quote by Rand were DIRECT QUOTES according to AP fucknuts. I wrote many pieces disputing them with asking staffers who were there. You're not bright and are dishonest with your debate so, we'll have to disagree. You take the word of one reporter as opposed to actual video of him stating his positions.

[sailingaway]

I never said Ron was the only king maker, you seemed to imply that Ron endorsed all of his ideas because he let Gary speak at his events. But he let Jesse Ventura speak at the Rally, too, and Jesse is, and Ron is not, a truther. Ron is just very tolerant of different views as being part of exercising liberty.

[BamaFanNKy]

There isn't a quote about the drugs. The Dukes of Hazzard or whatever is a non-issue. I don't even remember or care what the heck that was about.

"I don't think it's a real pressing issue," Paul told The Associated Press, suggesting that Eastern Kentucky voters are more concerned about fiscal and social issues.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/08/13/1390380/paul-eastern-kentucky-drug-problem.html#ixzz1KDzEE9R8

[sailingaway]

There isn't a quote about the drugs. The Dukes of Hazzard or whatever is a non-issue. I don't even remember or care what the heck that was about.

Rand did say that quote, it just wasn't in that context. However, no question, the papers made stuff up about Rand. I haven't seen any suggestion before now that the Weekly standard interview, which is pretty well known, wasn't accurate, though. Whatever. As I said, my interest in this article is the Kochtopus, none of the rest of it is anything new.

[low preference guy]

You take the word of one reporter as opposed to actual video of him stating his positions.

The only dishonest person here is you. Johnson would've disputed the quotes. He wouldn't let a quote which shows he is not fit to be President be published widely without any rectification. You're delusional or dishonest.

[low preference guy]

Rand did say that quote, it just wasn't in that context.

Was Gary's quote out of context? Isn't this pretty good context?


TWS: So, you think that the United States, even if it weren’t in its own narrow national interest, even if we weren’t threatened by the [other] country, but there was a genocide going on—a clear genocide—it would be the right thing to do to go in and stop that?

[BamaFanNKy]

I never said Ron was the only king maker, you seemed to imply that Ron endorsed all of his ideas because he let Gary speak at his events. But he let Jesse Ventura speak at the Rally, too, and Jesse is, and Ron is not, a truther. Ron is just very tolerant of different views as being part of exercising liberty.

Obviously, Ron and Gary are very similar in views in more ways that Jesse and Ron.

We all know Ron is more open to various views but, to say that Gary is pro-Humanitarian war is dishonest. Using one obscure quote from a Mark Levin employing magazine shows that we must be sheep who would believe everything they write. It's like people who believed Raimondo about Rand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tudnm5cp3UM&feature=channel_video_title

[BamaFanNKy]

The only dishonest person here is you. Johnson would've disputed the quotes. He wouldn't let a quote which shows he is not fit to be President be published widely without any rectification. You're delusional or dishonest.

So, is Rand Paul not fit to be in the Senate. He did not correct Lawrence O'Donnell.

[sailingaway]

Jesus. So, the guy who goes with the wind and what is popular is Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro weed, Anti-War and running as a GOPer? Um, yeah.

He was trying for the last two years to be 'better than Ron Paul' on precisely the two areas the ESTABLISHMENT didn't like Ron for, and those were the fed and wars. The establishment, and Kochtopus are copacetic about abortion, gay marriage, talking about marijuana legalization that is unlikely to happen any time soon, and vaguely anti war for future wars. The last is where he'd have to go speak to the Weekly Standard to be vetted. As Rand was. And I do remember what Raimondo wrote about that.

[low preference guy]

"I don't think it's a real pressing issue," Paul told The Associated Press, suggesting that Eastern Kentucky voters are more concerned about fiscal and social issues.

I understand that Rand actually said and he admitted it. What was wrong was the interpretation of the quote, not the quote itself. With Gary, it's in the quote itself, not in the interpretation, where he admits he is for humanitarian wars.

[BamaFanNKy]

Was Gary's quote out of context? Isn't this pretty good context?

Video? Any other examples of that view? One quote from a Neo-Con mag does not make it fact.

[sailingaway]

So, is Rand Paul not fit to be in the Senate. He did not correct Lawrence O'Donnell.

ODonnell is a wart. WE can handle ODonnell.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/2382.jpg

[low preference guy]

So, is Rand Paul not fit to be in the Senate. He did not correct Lawrence O'Donnell.

There was no actual quote that O'Donnell attributed to Rand where Rand unequivocally stated that he was for humanitarian wars or the fed or whatever.

[BamaFanNKy]

I understand that Rand actually said and he admitted it. What was wrong was the interpretation of the quote, not the quote itself. With Gary, it's in the quote itself, not in the interpretation, where he admits he is for humanitarian wars.

Wrong. His answer was yes, yes it does. We don't see or hear the quote. we have to trust this reporter. I do not trust partisan print reporters. Neither does Rand's staff and why they carry recorders now.

Again, is Rand Paul not fit to be Senator since he didn't go on Lawrence O'Donnell and correct him?

[low preference guy]

Video? Any other examples of that view? One quote from a Neo-Con mag does not make it fact.

Again, if it wasn't true, Gary would've disputed.

[low preference guy]

Again, is Rand Paul not fit to be Senator since he didn't go on Lawrence O'Donnell and correct him?

I already answered you before you asked me for the second time.

[BamaFanNKy]

There was no actual quote that O'Donnell attributed to Rand where Rand unequivocally stated that he was for humanitarian wars or the fed or whatever.


I already answered you before you asked me for the second time.
No and no you did not, he said because Rand did not dissent he voted for the war. He also said his staff was lying to constituents. Rand gave no rebuttal so, he must have been lying to his constituents or he's not fit for his job, according to your standard.

[low preference guy]

No and no you did not, he said because Rand did not dissent he voted for the war. He also said his staff was lying to constituents. Rand gave no rebuttal so, he must have been lying to his constituents or he's not fit for his job, according to your standard.

No, that's very different from a word-by-word quote in the context of an interview. The other stuff is just the rants of a nutjob.

[sailingaway]

No, he said because Rand did not dissent he voted for the war. He also said his staff was lying to constituents. Rand gave no rebuttal so, he must have been lying to his constituents or he's not fit for his job, according to your standard.

Rand's staff did give a rebuttal, saying the text hadn't been given in advance and that by the time Rand got back to the floor.....why am I telling you this? you told us.

[low preference guy]

Rand's staff did give a rebuttal, saying the text hadn't been given in advance and that by the time Rand got back to the floor.....why am I telling you this? you told us.

pwnd.

I guess Bama fan is not delusional as I believed. He is just a liar.

[BamaFanNKy]

No, that's very different from a word-by-word quote in the context of an interview. The other stuff is just the rants of a nutjob.

No, no it's not. Silence is consent in your world.

So, this if this is true:

Again, if it wasn't true, Gary would've disputed.

This is true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAGl31mQZi0

[BamaFanNKy]

Rand's staff did give a rebuttal, saying the text hadn't been given in advance and that by the time Rand got back to the floor.....why am I telling you this? you told us.


pwnd.

I guess Bama fan is not delusional as I believed. He is just a liar.

Actually, there was no answer after the part where they said his staff was lying to constituents. So, as for me being pwnd, I think not.

Also, his staff never clarified to MSNBC but, to some supporter who blogs.

SO, in LPG delusional world, Rand agreed with Libya or is not fit to be in the Senate.

[low preference guy]

No, no it's not. Silence is consent when someone is attributing to you word-by-word quotes that you never said with full context and which show that you're unfit to be in office.

Fixed. I don't expect anyone to respond to everything people say.

[BamaFanNKy]

Fixed. I don't expect anyone to respond to everything people say.

Actually it proves you will change your statements when I prove how ignorant you actually are. Fact is, you do not have time to run down for correction on every article. You clear it up in the next view. Which you will use to say Raimondo is correct. Although Raimondo has proven before as a hack.

"Rand Paul is half of Ron Paul."

[low preference guy]

Actually it proves you will change your statements when I prove how ignorant you actually are.

I haven't changed any statement. I was always talking about Gary Johnson's word by word quotes with full context. Look at my first quote where I answered you. It was a quote of Gary's with full context. I was all the time referring to that.

I think it'll be clear to anyone who reads this conversation who is being dishonest and/or delusional here. I'll let the readers judge and leave the wacko alone.

[BamaFanNKy]

I haven't changed any statement. I was always talking about Gary Johnson's word by word quotes with full context. Look at my first quote where I answered you. It was a quote of Gary's with full context. I was all the time referring to that.

I think it'll be clear to anyone who reads who is being dishonest and/or delusional here. I'll let the readers judge and leave the wacko alone.

Actually, as stated by Matt Collins in the other thread. Asking Gary directly he said he was misquoted. His current on camera statements oppose that print piece. After seeing what print journalists do and Raimondo I don't trust it either.

You however, can continue to trust Raimondo who said similar things about Sen. Paul. You and Raimondo can both think neither Gary nor Rand are fit for office.

[low preference guy]

You however, can continue to trust Raimondo

I'm just reading opinions from Raimondo. I'm not getting facts from him. You don't trust or not trust opinions, you agree or disagree with them. And I agree that Gary Johnson is a cheap knock-off has now appeared on the market underscores the real value Paul has created for the libertarian movement . If you can't tell real value from a cheap knock-off, that's your problem.

[BamaFanNKy]

I'm just reading opinions from Raimondo. I'm not getting facts from him. You don't trust or not trust opinions, you agree or disagree with them. And I agree that Gary Johnson is a cheap knock-off has now appeared on the market underscores the real value Paul has created for the libertarian movement . If you can't tell real value from a cheap knock-off, that's your problem.

I think I've proven I can. I spotted you as a douchebag who is uninformed months ago.

[BlackTerrel]

Well when the race card fails... there is always the Israel card.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288653-If-they-are-throwing-the-Race-Card-on-Gary-Johnson....-what-do-you-think-they-will-do.....

[BamaFanNKy]

Well when the race card fails... there is always the Israel card.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288653-If-they-are-throwing-the-Race-Card-on-Gary-Johnson....-what-do-you-think-they-will-do.....

True Story.

[Flash]

Sorry haven't read through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been addressed yet. But Raimando's criticism of Gary Johnson is just plain silly. In an ideal world, I would be a non-interventionist. However, Man is not a rational creature. We still live in a world with plenty of dictatorships (may of whom our gubmint backed and funded throughout the years). If a nation is committing genocide against it's people then I would be more than willing to support some sort of intervention to stop this from occurring. Much different than the Neo-Cons who want to imperialistically make the world safe for democracy, while simultaneously fund dictators with billions of dollars.

As for Israel-- Rand Paul while running said the same thing. Why not just treat Israel as 'friends' without getting too involved into their affairs? If we have stuck to this policy the Jews & Muslims in that region would've hammered out a solution long ago.

[low preference guy]

As for Israel-- Rand Paul while running said the same thing.

I think Rand Paul proposed to cut all foreign aid to Israel.

Also, your brand of interventionism is likely not to be very popular among lovers of liberty.

[Flash]

I think Rand Paul proposed to cut all foreign aid to Israel.

Also, your brand of interventionism is likely not to be very popular among lovers of liberty.

Yeah well screw it. My end goal is anarchy, however we should still recognize the reality of the world as it is today. If we're going to have a State, then let it at least attack certain dictators who are trying to commit genocide upon it's own people. How often will that actually happen?

Don't forget, while Rand Paul was running he clearly stated he viewed Israel as an ally and valued a strong relationship with the Zionist State. Then while in office he advocated cutting off foreign aid. The way I see it-- Israel is an ally to us, they are a friendly nation however we shouldn't be giving foreign aid to them or anyone. Nothing Gary Johnson said was offensive to me.

[doodle]

So many threads, hopefully this is not repetitiion:

LINK (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?288800-For-those-who-want-his-stances-cleared-up&p=3222645&viewfull=1#post3222645)

[malkusm]

I think I've proven I can. I spotted you as a douchebag who is uninformed months ago.

Earns you an infraction - next one is a temp ban.


+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to retaliation. This often results in a disruption of the board, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

I realize that there are very passionate arguments on both sides, but please refrain from personally attacking other members and stick to the issues.

[doodle]

Sorry haven't read through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been addressed yet. But Raimando's criticism of Gary Johnson is just plain silly. In an ideal world, I would be a non-interventionist. However, Man is not a rational creature. We still live in a world with plenty of dictatorships (may of whom our gubmint backed and funded throughout the years). If a nation is committing genocide against it's people then I would be more than willing to support some sort of intervention to stop this from occurring. Much different than the Neo-Cons who want to imperialistically make the world safe for democracy, while simultaneously fund dictators with billions of dollars.

As for Israel-- Rand Paul while running said the same thing. Why not just treat Israel as 'friends' without getting too involved into their affairs? If we have stuck to this policy the Jews & Muslims in that region would've hammered out a solution long ago.

Guess you also didn't follow the whole "Atlas Shrugged" movement.

I would personally also support doing something to stop mass killing of civilians regardless of their religion/race/creed etc but US military interventions on so many occasions have led to firebombing and killing of very large number of innocent people (Heroshima, Nagasaki, Veitnam, Iraq , Fallujah and proxy support of Israel's killing of civilians in Palestine) that trusting a highly corrupted big government machine often under control of MIC and greedy wall steet aligned war lobbies makes not a compelling argument. Not a big fan of bombing to hell a city to save its people even if our costly bombs are approaching expiration dates. Comedy of errors video plug. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY&feature=player_embedded)

[Flash]

Guess you also didn't follow the whole "Atlas Shrugged" movement.

I would personally also support doing something to stop mass killing of civilians regardless of their religion/race/creed etc but US military interventions on so many occasions have led to firebombing and killing of very large number of innocent people (Heroshima, Nagasaki, Veitnam, Iraq , Fallujah and proxy support of Israel's killing of civilians in Palestine) that trusting a highly corrupted big government machine often under control of MIC and greedy wall steet aligned war lobbies makes not a compelling argument. Not a big fan of bombing to hell a city to save its people even if our costly bombs are approaching expiration dates. Comedy of errors video plug. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY&feature=player_embedded)

Yes this is a problem with the Neo-Conservative ideology. Intervention everywhere at all times which may lead to blowback. But I'm talking about very specific situations where a holocaust-type event is occurring, ie mass state-sponsored genocide. However, realistically, surrounding neighboring nations would probably deal with this type of event before we'd have to get involved. Look at Libya now-- the Europeans and Arab nations could have handled that without getting America involved.

As for Atlas Shrugged, I understand the main concept of it but I have never read it and don't plan to anytime soon. It's true weapons are costly, but it doesn't concern me. We're not going to stop the government from wasteful spending, it goes against the nature of the State. The sooner this whole thing collapses the better.