Gary stop listening to hipsters about Kony, start listening to Michael Scheuer

[Bastiat's The Law]

Gary is fond of talking about intervening abroad for humanitarian reasons. That's the way these things start Gary. It's rather disturbing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixt6F_lGCg

[JohnAshman]

His point is that he is not willing to throw out the idea on ideological grounds. He would do it because it's the right thing to do

Thomas Jefferson broke the Constitution by making the Louisiana Purchase, but the opportunity was unbelievable and he had no time to wait for the power to do it, so he did it. There ARE times when something causes you to do something you may normally be against, because it doesn't fit the mold.

[Respect38]

The thing is, I believe that if you did talk to Gary Johnson about this issue, explain to him what's wrong with that viewpoint in a rational way, that he would admit that he's wrong and take up your viewpoint.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Every tyrant in history claimed it was for the good of the people. Reality is a bit more complex than that.

The Somalia debacle should be taught in school.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The thing is, I believe that if you did talk to Gary Johnson about this issue, explain to him what's wrong with that viewpoint in a rational way, that he would admit that he's wrong and take up your viewpoint.
The amount of on-the-job training Gary needs is starting to worry me. Even if he made it into the debates, he might get schooled.

[cheapseats]

The amount of on-the-job training Gary needs is starting to worry me. Even if he made it into the debates, he might get schooled.


Mainstream Media surely might BUSHWHACK Gary Johnson . . . or "simply" ignore him, as they did Ron Paul.

But Gary Johnson will NOT be schooled by Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

[JohnAshman]

The amount of on-the-job training Gary needs is starting to worry me. Even if he made it into the debates, he might get schooled.

Who has more experience than Gary Johnson? He already has had plenty of on the job training running a multi-million dollar company and a state.

Do you REALLY think Obama and Romney have something to teach Johnson? Seriously? Did they open up a school on "How to really screw over everyone with government"?

[HigherVision]

The amount of on-the-job training Gary needs is starting to worry me. Even if he made it into the debates, he might get schooled.

Yeah but guess what, he's the best we're gonna get so make the best of it. At least he's willing to learn.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Who has more experience than Gary Johnson?

Obama?

[JohnAshman]

Obama?

Well, only at being President. He doesn't have any business managerial experience and half as much experience running a government.

He has just about zero experience in achieving anything but a better government position.

And what's worse? The second term of a President always seems to be much worse than the first one.

[jemuf]

I don't know if Gary Johnson has time to be president; he's too busy promoting the gay agenda.

Gary Johnson first caught my attention about 8 months ago when he was promoting "gay unions". Then he released the "Be Libertarian With Me" video. I noticed the gay rainbow flag in one of the frames.

Then I started following him on Twitter a couple weeks ago. I've gotten 3 tweets from him and they're all about Gay Pride in Denver.

I guess he doesn't subscribe to Ron Paul's theory that there are no "women's rights", "black rights", "gay rights", "225 lbs or heavier rights", etc; there's only individual rights.

[cheapseats]

I guess he doesn't subscribe to Ron Paul's theory that there are no "women's rights", "black rights", "gay rights", "225 lbs or heavier rights", etc; there's only individual rights.


"Hopefully," he also does not subscribe to Rand Paul's theory of "PASSENGER RIGHTS".

[JohnAshman]

I don't know if Gary Johnson has time to be president; he's too busy promoting the gay agenda.

Gary Johnson first caught my attention about 8 months ago when he was promoting "gay unions". Then he released the "Be Libertarian With Me" video. I noticed the gay rainbow flag in one of the frames.

Then I started following him on Twitter a couple weeks ago. I've gotten 3 tweets from him and they're all about Gay Pride in Denver.

I guess he doesn't subscribe to Ron Paul's theory that there are no "women's rights", "black rights", "gay rights", "225 lbs or heavier rights", etc; there's only individual rights.

But there are ENTITLEMENTS that make marriage beneficial, implicit legal benefits.

[DerailingDaTrain]

But there are ENTITLEMENTS that make marriage beneficial, implicit legal benefits.

lol this guy

you really don't get it do you?

[matt0611]

"Hopefully," he also does not subscribe to Rand Paul's theory of "PASSENGER RIGHTS".

Uhh, you're using that term completely out of context. No surprise though.

[JohnAshman]

lol this guy

you really don't get it do you?

Have you ever read the 14th Amendment and the part about "privileges" and "citizens"?

[JohnAshman]

I don't know if Gary Johnson has time to be president; he's too busy promoting the gay agenda.

Gary Johnson first caught my attention about 8 months ago when he was promoting "gay unions". Then he released the "Be Libertarian With Me" video. I noticed the gay rainbow flag in one of the frames.

Then I started following him on Twitter a couple weeks ago. I've gotten 3 tweets from him and they're all about Gay Pride in Denver.

I guess he doesn't subscribe to Ron Paul's theory that there are no "women's rights", "black rights", "gay rights", "225 lbs or heavier rights", etc; there's only individual rights.

He does agree with Ron in some of these things. But he's also smart to go after groups who's rights have been trampled by both Republicans and Democrats.

Ron Paul supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which is an unbelievably discriminatory and unconstitutional attack on individual rights.

If a business had a policy of DADT, they'd be sued out of business and the government would drop a hammer on them, not necessarily in that order.

[Weston White]

Well, you cannot really make a valid comparison between private business entities from which their privilege to exist is acquired from the very government that is empowered to grant that same exception, e.g., the government could pass DADT onto businesses if they wanted to, while a private business could not hire employees with the intention to train them to go off and kill people, (Xe (Blackwater), American Private Police Force (American Police Force), and Wackenhut exceptions noted).

[DerailingDaTrain]

He does agree with Ron in some of these things. But he's also smart to go after groups who's rights have been trampled by both Republicans and Democrats.

Ron Paul supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which is an unbelievably discriminatory and unconstitutional attack on individual rights.

If a business had a policy of DADT, they'd be sued out of business and the government would drop a hammer on them, not necessarily in that order.

I was right. You really don't get it

[cheapseats]

I was right. You really don't get it


Irrespective of whatever circular argument is underway, YOU ADVOCATE THE BANNING OF DISSENTING OPINION.

YOU really do not "get" Liberty.

[cheapseats]

Gary is fond of talking about intervening abroad for humanitarian reasons.


If you believe that, you must also believe that Ron Paul is fond of talking about whether one period of his newsletters conveyed racism, whether heroin should be decriminalized, and whether widespread perception of his un-electability portends a third-party bid.

It is BEYOND ironic and into PERVERSE territory, for Ron Paul Supporters NOT to acknowledge that corporate-owned Mainstream Media will do to OTHER "dangerous" upstarts what they have ALWAYS done to Ron Paul.

I mean, TAKE YER FUCKIN' PICK. Ron Paul is Controlled Opposition, or he has been systematically bushwhacked right down the line.

[JohnAshman]

Well, you cannot really make a valid comparison between private business entities from which their privilege to exist is acquired from the very government that is empowered to grant that same exception, e.g., the government could pass DADT onto businesses if they wanted to, while a private business could not hire employees with the intention to train them to go off and kill people, (Xe (Blackwater), American Private Police Force (American Police Force), and Wackenhut exceptions noted).

Business doesn't get its privilege to exist from the government. Government gets its privilege to exist from the people.

[JohnAshman]

If you believe that, you must also believe that Ron Paul is fond of talking about whether one period of his newsletters conveyed racism, whether heroin should be decriminalized, and whether widespread perception of his un-electability portends a third-party bid.

It is BEYOND ironic and into PERVERSE territory, for Ron Paul Supporters NOT to acknowledge that corporate-owned Mainstream Media will do to OTHER "dangerous" upstarts what they have ALWAYS done to Ron Paul.

I mean, TAKE YER FUCKIN' PICK. Ron Paul is Controlled Opposition, or he has been systematically bushwhacked right down the line.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

Ron Paul is all for rights, except for the ones he doesn't like. Same as any other politician.

Libertarianism has become so dogmatic about specfic governmental economic policies (Why the gold standard? Why not, let's say, the copper standard?) that you dare not deviate from those aspects, but feel free to deviate when it comes to individual rights, which I always thought was the whole point.

DDT played a video in which Paul contradicted himself in two sentences. First he said that these things should be settled by the states according to the 10th Amendment, then realizing that he has said that about the WRONG issue, he switched 180 degrees to saying that of course there was a right to privacy as dictated by the 4th Amendment. Ron Paul is a libertarian about 33% of the time, a constitutional conservative about 33% of the time, and a social conservative a la Santorum about 33% of the time. And he can switch gears effortlessly. You have to ask which Ron Paul is talking sometimes and sometimes Social Conservative Paul forgets what Libertarian Paul said last week.

Which is fine, he's still better than pretty much everyone else in Congress combined, but he's hardly the pure messiah to whom all must bow.

Speaking of which, Gary did EXACTLY that, when he flew to Houston to meet with Paul and ask for his blessing and support for the 2012 election run. All that we know of what happened is that the meeting was cut short by Paul the moment Gary told them that he was going to run and that Ron announced a month after Gary did. This after Ron asked for Gary's support in 2008 and he not only gave it, he went out and spoke at a Ron Paul rally for him. This why Gary has repeatedly said that he will not ask for Paul's endorsement, nor does he expect it. I didn't understand why, but now I do. Even with this, Gary said he would have picked Ron Paul as his VP in the debate, the only one to do so.

Finding this out pretty much makes me angry at myself for promising to vote for Paul if he wins the nomination (even though that possibility is extremely low to nonexistent). I've learned a lot more about Paul than I've known in the past and most of the relevations haven't been good. I didn't know he also tried to get an amendment passed that would allow people states to ban flag burning, something that Murray Rothbard specifically said is none of government's business, unless the flags are the property of government or someone else. That is already illegal.

[Weston White]

Business doesn't get its privilege to exist from the government. Government gets its privilege to exist from the people.

No that is not an entirely correct assertion.

[JohnAshman]

No that is not an entirely correct assertion.

If you're talking Libertarian theory, it is.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Irrespective of whatever circular argument is underway, YOU ADVOCATE THE BANNING OF DISSENTING OPINION.

YOU really do not "get" Liberty.


If all he was doing was offering a different opinion then I would be fine with it. That's not what he is doing. He is posting negative things about RP and trying to further the goals of his own candidate.


Ron Paul is all for rights, except for the ones he doesn't like. Same as any other politician.

As of yet I haven't seen him post anything of actual value. He doesn't even seem to be a libertarian from the way he sounds in most of his posts.

Also, why is it that everyone seems to think, that if you advocate for someone to be banned then you are against liberty?


The forums have a Mission Statement and a ToS which were agreed to, which included stipulations for when one would be asked to leave (or forced to). Every forum has this, including the new one; the degree to which it is enforced varies from forum to forum.

[JohnAshman]

If all he was doing was offering a different opinion then I would be fine with it. That's not what he is doing. He is posting negative things about RP and trying to further the goals of his own candidate.



As of yet I haven't seen him post anything of actual value. He doesn't even seem to be a libertarian from the way he sounds in most of his posts.

Also, why is it that everyone seems to think, that if you advocate for someone to be banned then you are against liberty?

Like most fake libertarians, you're all for your liberty, it's only mine you don't like.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Like most fake libertarians, you're all for your liberty, it's only mine you don't like.


Your liberty to do what..come on a privately owned forum and talk shit about the person who it is named for?

From what I've seen you aren't very libertarian but instead more like a big government Democrat.

[JohnAshman]

Your liberty to do what..come on a privately owned forum and talk shit about the person who it is named for?

From what I've seen you aren't very libertarian but instead more like a big government Democrat. I'm done with fake libertarians like you.

Speaking of "talking shit".

Well, for one thing, I am dealing with facts here and responding to a lot of incorrect assertions by a lot of people.

If you don't want to vote for someone who's pro-choice, GREAT, that's a real difference. If you hate it when people burn flags, then GO FOR IT, that's a real difference. If you want to build more fences, don't vote for Gary, that's a REAL difference. If you want to police people's bedrooms, don't vote for Gary, that's a REAL difference. But don't make up stuff.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Speaking of "talking shit".

Well, for one thing, I am dealing with facts here and responding to a lot of incorrect assertions by a lot of people.

If you don't want to vote for someone who's pro-choice, GREAT, that's a real difference. If you hate it when people burn flags, then GO FOR IT, that's a real difference. If you want to build more fences, don't vote for Gary, that's a REAL difference. If you want to police people's bedrooms, don't vote for Gary, that's a REAL difference. But don't make up stuff.

Ron Paul is not in favor of any border fence and he doesn't want to police anyone's bedroom. Where are you getting this stuff from...DailyKos?

I'm willing to bet you don't actually know much about Ron Paul.

[cheapseats]

If all he was doing was offering a different opinion then I would be fine with it. That's not what he is doing.


Agreed.




...I'm done...


Kenny Rogers: "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run..."

It's JUNE. The Election is in November, the nominating Convention in AUGUST. This is Ron Paul's THIRD bid for the presidency. Ron Paul chose CONSISTENCY as the word that best describes himself. The uneducated will NOT be educated in time to make a difference.

it takes takes two "sides" to get mired in heady theoretical debates about irreconcilable differences.

NOT ENGAGING is an exercise in Discipline. Censorship is the OPPOSITE.

[JohnAshman]

Agreed.






Kenny Rogers: "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run..."

It's JUNE. The Election is in November, the nominating Convention in AUGUST. This is Ron Paul's THIRD bid for the presidency. Ron Paul chose CONSISTENCY as the word that best describes himself. The uneducated will NOT be educated in time to make a difference.

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/27/12-ron-paul-inconsistencies-ron-paul-is-inconsistent-ron-paul-is-not-consistent-ron-paul-is-not-the-consistent-one/
http://thesantaanasentinel.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-consistently-inconsistent/
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2361691-Ron-Paul-s-Flip-Flopping-and-Inconsistency
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1860518/pg1
http://supak.blogspot.mx/2011/12/ron-paul-mr-inconsistency.html
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/mar/17/paul-is-inconsistent/

Cheap, he couldn't even be consistent from one sentence to the next in the video DDT put up!

I'll admit, his 3 personalities are each consistent, but they are not consistent with each other.

It is hard to be different things to different people and be consistent. He has done it better than most, Romney and Obama make him look like the Superman of consistency. But his multiple beliefs don't jibe.

But I'm still going to vote for him if he wins the nomination. That I promise.

[JohnAshman]

Ron Paul is not in favor of any border fence and he doesn't want to police anyone's bedroom. Where are you getting this stuff from...DailyKos?

I'm willing to bet you don't actually know much about Ron Paul.

Except for the one he voted to fund?

Okay, he's not "for" border fences, he simply VOTED for it -

Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty, not because he supported the construction of a border fence.

Dr. No just couldn't muster up a no for the fences he says he is against.

I guess it's similar to his anti-pork stance.

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul -- libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful -- has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can't resist the political allure of earmarks.

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident.""

[erowe1]

I guess it's similar to his anti-pork stance.

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul -- libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful -- has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can't resist the political allure of earmarks.

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident.""

RP voted against every one of those earmarks.

[JohnAshman]

RP voted against every one of those earmarks.

Why did he request them, then?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-on-earmarks-and-corporate-welfare-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/28/gIQAWjEaOP_blog.html

Never mind, I'll answer my own question -

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

He asks for them, knowing they will be voted in by the grand majority of Congress. Then he votes against it knowing they will pass and his earmarks will go through. THEREFORE, he can get a TON of earmarks for his district, yet SAY that he never voted for them! Brilliant!!!! Seriously, that is brilliant stuff.

He never VOTED for an earmark, but he's gotten $BILLIONS of them put in for his district.

Talk about outsourcing responsibility! "Hey, I just gave them the idea!"

That's some ballsy stuff right there.

I guess it was the social conservative Ron Paul that put them in and the libertarian ron paul that voted against them while constitutional Ron Paul applauded the maneuver.

[erowe1]

Why did he request them, then?

Do we seriously need to go over this all again?

He did the right thing. He requested them so that they'd be in the budget in case the rest of Congress passed it. Then he voted against them. He's right, earmarks don't add one cent to the amount the government spends. And what's he supposed to do, let the rest of Congress rob his constituents and then spend their money everywhere else in the country, just because they can outvote him?



He never VOTED for an earmark

And that's the main thing right there. If only the rest of Congress voted like him.

[JohnAshman]

Let's review my interest in this forum.

I stopped by because I saw some REAL whoppers being told about Gary Johnson. I figured maybe I should correct some of them since they were most all truly false. In the mean time, you guys have educated me, quite by accident of course, on some of the most AMAZING things about Ron Paul i wouldn't have believed if someone told me. Nepostism, hypocrisy, pork barrel politics, flag burning amendments, bedroom activism. And I'm thinking THIS is the hero of the Austrian School? Wow. I'm truly learning alot, thanks guys.

[erowe1]

Let's review my interest in this forum.

I stopped by because I saw some REAL whoppers being told about Gary Johnson. I figured maybe I should correct some of them since they were most all truly false. In the mean time, you guys have educated me, quite by accident of course, on some of the most AMAZING things about Ron Paul i wouldn't have believed if someone told me. Nepostism, hypocrisy, pork barrel politics, flag burning amendments, bedroom activism. And I'm thinking THIS is the hero of the Austrian School? Wow. I'm truly learning alot, thanks guys.

I'm not anti-Johnson. I'll probably vote for him. But seriously? This is what you've got? By your own admission, Johnson does not ideologically oppose military intervention for humanitarian reasons. And we're supposed to think that when you add together such a litany of non-issues as "nepostism, hypocrisy, pork barrel politics, flag burning amendments (which IIRC RP voted against), bedroom activism" that's as bad as supporting humanitarian military intervention? Would Johnson also support the Louisiana purchase, like you implied you do? If so, that also is far worse than any of these piddly complaints you have about RP.

[JohnAshman]

He did the right thing. He requested them so that they'd be in the budget in case the rest of Congress passed it. Then he voted against them. He's right, earmarks don't add one cent to the amount the government spends. And what's he supposed to do, let the rest of Congress rob his constituents and then spend their money everywhere else in the country, just because they can outvote him?


No he didn't do the right thing! He did the wrong thing, then came up with a CYA for it. When he says "I never voted for an earmark", he's implying that has had nothing to do with earmarks at all. It's like John Gotti saying "I never killed anyone".

Come on, you have to realize that's the WEAKEST excuse I've ever heard in my life. No wonder his colleagues don't take him seriously. They know the games he's playing. Then they see him go out and say "well, *I* never voted for these, these other people did". They must just laugh and say "hey, did you hear what Ron said about us this time?"

He said this -

"Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds." - Ron Paul.

He says it is his responsibility, then he votes against his responsibility? He is trying to have it both ways. Again!

Literally, he's FOR earmarking everything because it's a good thing to do, but then is voting AGAINST them because it is a bad thing to do. What?!?

Are you fer'it or agin'it? I'm both!

[JohnAshman]

I'm not anti-Johnson. I'll probably vote for him. But seriously? This is what you've got? By your own admission, Johnson does not ideologically oppose military intervention for humanitarian reasons. And we're supposed to think that when you add together such a litany of non-issues as "nepostism, hypocrisy, pork barrel politics, flag burning amendments (which IIRC RP voted against), bedroom activism" that's as bad as supporting humanitarian military intervention? Would Johnson also support the Louisiana purchase, like you implied you do? If so, that also is far worse than any of these piddly complaints you have about RP.

No, he ideologically opposes it, but is willing to listen to argument that there is a real benefit to doing it. But he's not claiming to be an intellectual purist either! He's always been pragmatic. Always looks for the greater good.

I think he would absolutely support the Lousiana Purchase because it made $en$e. There are times when there are exceptions so pprofound that you stop worrying about ideology and you do what makes sense. That's what Thomas Jefferson always did. He was a pragmatist first, ideologue second.

I don't think these are piddly complaints. He needs to walk his own talk.

I mean, look, my big complaint is that the people object to Gary because he's not a "real libertarian" or a "hardcore libertarian" and that he has these little areas where he deviates. And that is fine if they are fundamentally unacceptable. BUT you can't then say that Ron Paul IS a "real libertarian" or a "hardcore libertarian" or that he is a "Rothbardian Superman". He isn't. Not at all.

Both are IMPERFECT. But AT LEAST Gary never pretended to be and we've never claimed he was. Everyone says he can't measure to up to Ron. I'm saying he measures up fine.

Both are better than the alternatives. And I'm going to stick my neck out for Ron if he wins, though I'm less pleased to do so given some of what I've found out over the last few days that I didn't know about him.

[erowe1]

No wonder his colleagues don't take him seriously.

You mean his colleagues who pretend to be budget hawks by not requesting any earmarks for their districts, but then voting yes on trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending that Ron Paul votes against, much of which is earmarked?

I have trouble seeing how it isn't they who are the hypocrites.

[JohnAshman]

You mean his colleagues who pretend to be budget hawks by not requesting any earmarks for their districts, but then voting yes on trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending that Ron Paul votes against, much of which is earmarked?

I have trouble seeing how it isn't they who are the hypocrites.

They ALL are. It's just a matter of degree.

And sorry for getting so worked up, but this has me SUPER animated. I've been taking a LOT of heat for supporting Gary Johnson as being an equal but different option to Ron Paul if he doesn't unseat Romney. And pretty much has all been on the basis of "Ron Paul is as pure as the driven snow and Gary Johnson isn't".

Man, I need a beer!

[Weston White]

If you're talking Libertarian theory, it is.

No, operating a structured business entity is not of a human right; it is a fictional invention of man provided through the auspices of their various forms of government.

[cheapseats]

No, operating a structured business entity is not of a human right;

True...but if Humanity has ordered itself such that "structured business" is a legitimate and likely means by which TO support one's survival (as opposed to, say, CANNIBALISM), "the court" must BROADLY-not-narrowly interpret the individual as being "within his rights".

In theory.

JohnAshman was here to engage natural-born Theorists in theoretical roundabouts, which Theorists LOVE.

But once INTO seemingly polite, reasonable debate, JohnAshman began "discovering" unflattering things about Ron Paul..."purely" as "logical" deductions of the debates he himself launched and fueled (with help from the Theorists, natch).

AS WE ALL KNOW, insulting Ron Paul is FIGHTIN' WORDS. Why do we suppose he did that?

GITCHYER GARY JOHNSON PIMPIN' ASS THE HELL OFF RON PAUL TURF!! i THOUGHT MAYBE I COULD/WOULD VOTE FOR HIM, BUT YOU CURED ME OF THAT, YA DOUCHEBAG!!

Mission Accomplished.




it is a fictional invention of man...

FICTIONAL and ARTIFICIAL are quite different.

[Bastiat's The Law]

If you believe that, you must also believe that Ron Paul is fond of talking about whether one period of his newsletters conveyed racism, whether heroin should be decriminalized, and whether widespread perception of his un-electability portends a third-party bid.

It is BEYOND ironic and into PERVERSE territory, for Ron Paul Supporters NOT to acknowledge that corporate-owned Mainstream Media will do to OTHER "dangerous" upstarts what they have ALWAYS done to Ron Paul.

I mean, TAKE YER FUCKIN' PICK. Ron Paul is Controlled Opposition, or he has been systematically bushwhacked right down the line.
Can someone translate this garble? :confused:

[Bastiat's The Law]

Let's review my interest in this forum.

I stopped by because I saw some REAL whoppers being told about Gary Johnson. I figured maybe I should correct some of them since they were most all truly false. In the mean time, you guys have educated me, quite by accident of course, on some of the most AMAZING things about Ron Paul i wouldn't have believed if someone told me. Nepostism, hypocrisy, pork barrel politics, flag burning amendments, bedroom activism. And I'm thinking THIS is the hero of the Austrian School? Wow. I'm truly learning alot, thanks guys.
This isn't the media spinning Johnson, this is about Johnson not being ready for primetime. Did you see his C-SPAN interview?

[Weston White]

True...but if Humanity has ordered itself such that "structured business" is a legitimate and likely means by which TO support one's survival (as opposed to, say, CANNIBALISM), "the court" must BROADLY-not-narrowly interpret the individual as being "within his rights".

In theory.

JohnAshman was here to engage natural-born Theorists in theoretical roundabouts, which Theorists LOVE.

But once INTO seemingly polite, reasonable debate, JohnAshman began "discovering" unflattering things about Ron Paul..."purely" as "logical" deductions of the debates he himself launched and fueled (with help from the Theorists, natch).

AS WE ALL KNOW, insulting Ron Paul is FIGHTIN' WORDS. Why do we suppose he did that?

GITCHYER GARY JOHNSON PIMPIN' ASS THE HELL OFF RON PAUL TURF!! i THOUGHT MAYBE I COULD/WOULD VOTE FOR HIM, BUT YOU CURED ME OF THAT, YA DOUCHEBAG!!

Mission Accomplished.





FICTIONAL and ARTIFICIAL are quite different.

The purpose of operating a business is to acquisition wealth, such reaches far above and beyond mere survival.

Businesses exist as fictional persons, or if you like artificial entities, and thereby retain “rights” which are either or both fictional or artificial in concept; while, such is not at all the case for literal persons or individuals.

[cheapseats]

The purpose of operating a business is to acquisition wealth

BUSINESS = TRANSACTIONS.

People's purposes are their OWN. Some people are "in business" their entire lives without accumulating Wealth. Some people are "in business" to STOP other business.




Businesses exist as fictional persons,

FICTITIOUS.

I am not "down" with Corporate Personhood, AT. ALL.

I am also not "down" with ad nauseam ring-around-the-rosie mental masturbation two months before the GOP convention and four months before the General. Why? Because brainiacs have been RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, and there isn't enough TIME to stay that course to any purpose.

Ron Paul's "smart" support tying itself into theoretical knots has NOT well served Ron Paul's candidacy or, indeed, the "education process".

[cheapseats]

Originally Posted by Bastiat's The Law
Gary is fond of talking about intervening abroad for humanitarian reasons.




If you believe that, you must also believe that Ron Paul is fond of talking about whether one period of his newsletters conveyed racism, whether heroin should be decriminalized, and whether widespread perception of his un-electability portends a third-party bid.

It is BEYOND ironic and into PERVERSE territory, for Ron Paul Supporters NOT to acknowledge that corporate-owned Mainstream Media will do to OTHER "dangerous" upstarts what they have ALWAYS done to Ron Paul.

I mean, TAKE YER FUCKIN' PICK. Ron Paul is Controlled Opposition, or he has been systematically bushwhacked right down the line.




Can someone translate this garble? :confused:



Ron Paul spent an AWFUL lot of time answering the same questions about NOT writing racist newsletters and NOT making a third-party run. Shall Voters presume that those subjects are simply Ron Paul's default COMFORT ZONE?

You apply different standards when someone you DON'T like gets tripped up by corporate-stooge, low-brow, gotcha-oriented Media than when someone you WUV gets tripped up by corporate-stooge, low-brow, gotcha-oriented Media. Fret not, you got lots o' company.

[falconplayer11]

Back to the topic...Gary Johnson is a principled libertarian who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. His foreign policy might not be as well-developed as Ron Paul's but he would support Ron Paul's decisions 100%.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is not going to be on the ballot. He has been extremely quiet over the past few weeks. Frankly, I think it's time we supported the libetarian who is actually still trying to be president, not scheming under the absurd idea that the GOP is going to suddenly treat Ron Paul as godfather.

[erowe1]

Back to the topic...Gary Johnson is a principled libertarian who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. His foreign policy might not be as well-developed as Ron Paul's but he would support Ron Paul's decisions 100%.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is not going to be on the ballot. He has been extremely quiet over the past few weeks. Frankly, I think it's time we supported the libetarian who is actually still trying to be president, not scheming under the absurd idea that the GOP is going to suddenly treat Ron Paul as godfather.

I doubt that there's much use in talking about what "we" should do. We're a bunch of individuals, some of whom will do one thing and some another.

But if we were to unite our efforts on something moving forward, I have trouble seeing why there's any point to keep paying attention to the presidential race. That ship has sailed. Third party candidates are irrelevant. We should worry about other races where we can make a difference and actually get someone in office, like Bentivolio.

[mczerone]

I doubt that there's much use in talking about what "we" should do. We're a bunch of individuals, some of whom will do one thing and some another.

But if we were to unite our efforts on something moving forward, I have trouble seeing why there's any point to keep paying attention to the presidential race. That ship has sailed. Third party candidates are irrelevant. We should worry about other races where we can make a difference and actually get someone in office, like Bentivolio.

I somewhat agree.

We're all going to make up our own minds about the presidential vote - write in, LP, Obama, or Romney. If there's going to be any group efforts for the 2012 general election it should be to get behind "local" candidates.

Bentivolio is a good option, and there are others for US house/senate.

But I don't think we should discount LP candidates.

For one, I am running as a Libertarian against an incumbent Democrat In my county. I'm not a "third party" in this race - I am the opposition to someone who has burned many bridges with his Democratic base and was never liked by the GOP.

There are also other winnable races that the LP is in, and those should be spotlighted as much as the GOP liberty candidates' races.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ron Paul spent an AWFUL lot of time answering the same questions about NOT writing racist newsletters and NOT making a third-party run. Shall Voters presume that those subjects are simply Ron Paul's default COMFORT ZONE?

You apply different standards when someone you DON'T like gets tripped up by corporate-stooge, low-brow, gotcha-oriented Media than when someone you WUV gets tripped up by corporate-stooge, low-brow, gotcha-oriented Media. Fret not, you got lots o' company.
It wasn't a media gotcha question. It's Gary Johnson's take on foreign policy. He wants to intervene for humanitarian reasons in Uganda and would have in Somalia too. He's fallen victim to the Wilsonian democrats nation building vision.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Gary needs to bone up on foreign policy matters if he wishes to receive my vote.

[anaconda]

Scheuer surprises me by advocating indefinite military detention of innocent goat herders (early in video).

Update: I'm up to 13 minutes in the video and I'm astonished to the extent that Scheuer seems to imply that 9-11 was accomplished by 19 young Muslim fundamentalists with box cutters. And that we should have taken 15 months to "destroy as much as possible" in Afghanistan.

[cheapseats]

It wasn't a media gotcha question.

OF COURSE it is. Media FRAMES the narrative. Where ya been?




It's Gary Johnson's take on foreign policy. He wants to intervene for humanitarian reasons in Uganda and would have in Somalia too. He's fallen victim to the Wilsonian democrats nation building vision.

Is there ANYTHING about Gary Johnson's governorship of New Mexico, or his stewardship of a solo handyman business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, that leads you to believe that he would BORROW OR PRINT MONEY to facilitate the dreams you fear he harbors?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Scheuer surprises me by advocating indefinite military detention of innocent goat herders (early in video).

Update: I'm up to 13 minutes in the video and I'm astonished to the extent that Scheuer seems to imply that 9-11 was accomplished by 19 young Muslim fundamentalists with box cutters. And that we should have taken 15 months to "destroy as much as possible" in Afghanistan.
And let me guess you have a conspiracy theory that says otherwise?

http://images.worldgallery.co.uk/i/prints/rw/lg/7/3/Maxi-Posters-X-Files---I-want-to-believe-73702.jpg

[Bastiat's The Law]

OF COURSE it is. Media FRAMES the narrative. Where ya been?





Is there ANYTHING about Gary Johnson's governorship of New Mexico, or his stewardship of a solo handyman business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, that leads you to believe that he would BORROW OR PRINT MONEY to facilitate the dreams you fear he harbors?
Watch the interview moron. Gary is awkward as hell in front of the camera. Did the "media" make Gary say he wants to go hunting for Kony? You conspiracy types live in a fantasy world of your own making.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zGYai3KOc

[Travlyr]

And let me guess you have a conspiracy theory that says otherwise?

It is no longer a theory. It has been scientifically proven as fact.

[cheapseats]

Watch the interview moron.

I'll get back to the video, but first I wanna focus on ANIMOSITY and UNEVEN MODERATION.


Moron:
1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Oh, sailingawaa-aay, where's your heavy-handed moderaaaation?


ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
@RepRonPaul: Yer fans hurl MORON label. Does true #Moron (10-yr-old development) receive #Disability or fend for self with yer Conservatism?





Gary is awkward as hell in front of the camera.


Ron Paul WAS awkward as hell in front of the camera. NOW, with lots 'n lots of rallies under his belt, he is much better in front of the camera...tho he is still known to hit foul balls in interviews and go off on tangents in debates.

Gary Johnson does NOT have "polished" body language nor gift of gab, this is true.

BARACK OBAMA has the gift of gab. Bill Clinton, too The camera LOVES Sarah Palin...in a Hollywood YOU OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES kinda way.

The more I see, the less I know but I know one thing: For Ron Paul lovers to criticize how other candidates "PRESENT" is high irony and nonexistent class.

ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
@RepRonPaul: "Enthusiastic" fans disparage #GaryJohnson AWKWARDNESS IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA. Do you not find that ungracious AND ALSO IRONIC?

[PierzStyx]

He doesn't even seem to be a libertarian from the way he sounds in most of his posts.


So? I'm not a libertarian. And neither is Ron Paul for that matter. His philosophy of strict constitutionalism crosses paths with libertarianism, and he is definitely influenced by libertarian thought, but he is not a "pure libertarian" by any means.

[PierzStyx]

Back to the topic...Gary Johnson is a principled libertarian who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. His foreign policy might not be as well-developed as Ron Paul's but he would support Ron Paul's decisions 100%.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is not going to be on the ballot. He has been extremely quiet over the past few weeks. Frankly, I think it's time we supported the libertarian who is actually still trying to be president, not scheming under the absurd idea that the GOP is going to suddenly treat Ron Paul as godfather.

Still No One But Ron Paul for me. Johnson has not shown to me that he really represents my views or would even be a good President. Likelihood of election is unimportant to me. That I vote for someone who I feel is the best candidate is essential.

[anaconda]

And let me guess you have a conspiracy theory that says otherwise?

http://images.worldgallery.co.uk/i/prints/rw/lg/7/3/Maxi-Posters-X-Files---I-want-to-believe-73702.jpg

It's just that I've never seen a shred of credible proof to support his inference. And lots of deceit and cover ups from various components of government.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's just that I've never seen a shred of credible proof to support his inference. And lots of deceit and cover ups from various components of government.
So you're a Truther? Just say so.

[DerailingDaTrain]

So? I'm not a libertarian. And neither is Ron Paul for that matter. His philosophy of strict constitutionalism crosses paths with libertarianism, and he is definitely influenced by libertarian thought, but he is not a "pure libertarian" by any means.

Yeah...

:rolleyes: