Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 97

Thread: Gary Johnson 2016 over the hillaries(hillary/trump)!!Spread the websites far and wide

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Gary Johnson 2016 over the hillaries(hillary/trump)!!Spread the websites far and wide

    These 2 sites are cross linked if any media wants to interview site creator please im me. thank you kenny, GARY JOHNSON over the hillaries(hillary and trump(hillary with a phallus)) www.hitlary.com and www.trumphoon.com feel free to main page this and sites mods? if you like, We need to defeat trump and hillary or we will all need lots of lube as they F US!! GARY JOHNSON 2016 the only option unless you love big government loving authoritarians!!
    2016 gop est business as usual, rules do not apply.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    non issue when compared to forced extortion healthcare, spying on americans and failed foreign policy so bake the f in cake or don't open. if that is your issue then yeah i can deal with that. bigger issues then baking a cake Gary johnson over authoritarians like trump/hillary . if you want perfection then you run or ask jesus to. I'll bake the nazi cake if you won't i guess i will vote for trump or hillary now since you have to bake a cake/s so baking a cake is a deal breaker eh? i can find a long list of better deal breakers with liars like trump or hillary both liberals. Gary Johnson over the hillaries(trump/hillary)
    Last edited by speciallyblend; 07-06-2016 at 06:49 PM.
    2016 gop est business as usual, rules do not apply.

  5. #4

  6. #5
    I agree the cake baking thing is kind of a minor issue - in principle is a pretty important issue but he doesn't want to make things worse, he is just going with the status quo of businesses serving people without discriminating based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. I agree with GJ it is currently a "black hole" issue that would likely lose the election for a candidate.

    The two big issues are his stances on the TPP and also that Hillary is innocent or whatever.. oh, and I don't think he is very good on immigration considering that it is currently a highly subsidized government program.

    But he is very libertarian on about 90% of the issues. I will still probably vote for him. I would rather have a libertarian who is a little bit of a globalist than an authoritarian leaning nationalist.. although I think we may be better off with Trump than Hillary, I'm not 100% certain on that, but there is good reason to think he would be.

    Nationalism may be preferable to socialism, nationalism is a reaction to all of the forced and subsidized multi-culturalism that is having a lot of negative impacts on western society. But nationalism is not optimal, it's not a solution, more like self defense.
    Last edited by dannno; 07-06-2016 at 07:38 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  7. #6
    I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.

  8. #7
    I like these 2 sites... nice how they show the flaws of each candidate and lead into a better choice.... Johnson might not be a perfect Libertarian, and might not be better than Dr Paul, but he is the best shot we got at changes we want. Finally.

    And if enough people out there hate both Hitlary and Trumphoon (and there are a BUNCH who hate BOTH) we might actually stand a chance of winning. (Yes, got to poll a little higher and got to get into the debates. No debates, no chance.) But we can't be internally divided over cake baking and stupid stuff like that.

    Need to share these sites....
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    ...in principle is a pretty important issue...
    Yep. To ignore that particular issue is akin to acting contradictory of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by speciallyblend View Post
    non issue when compared to forced extortion healthcare, spying on americans and failed foreign policy so bake the f in cake or don't open.
    You're patently wrong about that. And it's a reckless assessment in scope.

    While I agree with you that the issues you've provided for comparison are critical, they are not beyond the critical scope of the former. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 01:38 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.
    I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yep. To ignore that particular issue is akin to acting contradictory of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    You're patently wrong about that.
    So it is much better to say "He is not good enough. So we will continue to bitch and moan and let Hitlary or Trumphoon get elected because Gary is just not pure enough." SMFH

    Here in lies the idiocy of most libertarians. It has got to be 100% pure, or we will pout.

    Here is a better idea, let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time, so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America has warmed up to the idea a little....
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....
    I agree... however, we need to expose Americans slowly, and 2, 2 terms REPUBLICAN Governors are a good stepping stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time, so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America has warmed up to the idea a little....
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    So it is much better to say "He is not good enough. So we will continue to bitch and moan and let Hitlary or Trumphoon get elected because Gary is just not pure enough." SMFH

    Here in lies the idiocy of most libertarians. It has got to be 100% pure, or we will pout.

    Here is a better idea, let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time, so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America has warmed up to the idea a little....
    I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code. To minimize the terms of controversy to "bake my cake" and proceed to push that issue aside is to ignore the relevance of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.

    The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance to it.


    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 01:51 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code.

    The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance to it.


    It is unfortunately a process to convert most Americans to what we recognize. And while Johnson is not perfect, he is a good stepping stone. It is either that, or still continuing to complain. I liked McAfee better, but Johnson is a good bridge and has a better chance to make a change in our direction. So I agree with the OP. who cares about baking a cake. It is one issue that some of us see as a flaw, but if he can win the hearts of millions to advance the overall goal, I am willing to run with it.
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    It is unfortunately a process to convert most Americans to what we recognize. And while Johnson is not perfect, he is a good stepping stone. It is either that, or still continuing to complain. I liked McAfee better, but Johnson is a good bridge and has a better chance to make a change in our direction. So I agree with the OP. who cares about baking a cake. It is one issue that some of us see as a flaw, but if he can win the hearts of millions to advance the overall goal, I am willing to run with it.
    Yeah, like I said, I'm not reserving focus on the election cycle. And my interest in the thread was specific to what was minimized. I think the best course, in scope, is to go back to nuts and bolts and get on the same page there. The election can't and won't drive practical terms of controversy now. The only fruit it's providing is divide and conquer. Look around.

    So, then, principle and philosophy. That's where I'm at. And likely where I'll focus most of my energy if I salvage the patience to remain around here.

    But to minimize the particular issue that was brought into question is a big deal. That's the big one. Again, it's the primary fundamental principle. That's a no no of the highest law.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 02:01 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code. To minimize the terms of controversy to "bake my cake" and proceed to push that issue aside is to ignore the relevance of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.

    The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance to it.


    'American philosophy'.... gtfo. A philosophy is either true or it is not. And for the fundamental moral principle of your philosophy being God, every single one of your 'quotes that support the principle' was a quote from a fallible individual. Quit puffin your chest, boy.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yeah, like I said, I'm not reserving focus on the election cycle. And my interest in the thread was specific to what was minimized. I think the best course, in scope, is to go back to nuts and bolts and get on the same page there. The election can't and won't drive practical terms of controversy now. The only fruit it's providing is divide and conquer. Look around.

    So, then, principle and philosophy. That's where I'm at. And likely where I'll focus most of my energy if I salvage the patience to remain around here.

    But to minimize the particular issue that was brought into question is a big deal. That's the big one. Again, it's the primary fundamental principle. That's a no no of the highest law.
    I agree, and disagree. I think the election cycle can give a lot of exposure and bring in a lot of new eyeballs. So both are important. And I am willing to bypass some principle to win eyeballs to bring more people over, and then sharpen principle. Because the principle first approach has been tried since 1971, and here we sit...
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    'American philosophy'.... gtfo. A philosophy is either true or it is not. And for the fundamental moral principle of your philosophy being God, every single one of your 'quotes that support the principle' was a quote from a fallible individual. Quit puffin your chest, boy.
    One time I'll let you do that. Once.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    I agree, and disagree. I think the election cycle can give a lot of exposure and bring in a lot of new eyeballs. So both are important. And I am willing to bypass some principle to win eyeballs to bring more people over, and then sharpen principle. Because the principle first approach has been tried since 1971, and here we sit...
    Yeah, I know. Just need to go about it the right way, though. We're too fragmented.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    One time I'll let you do that. Once.
    Is that because the founders told you to give me one chance, or Him? hahahaha

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Is that because the founders told you to give me one chance, or Him? hahahaha
    And just as soon as Thor starts making damned good points, a Trump spammer shows up and picks a fight in the thread over nothing, hoping to derail it.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And just as soon as Thor starts making damned good points, a Trump spammer shows up and picks a fight in the thread over nothing, hoping to derail it.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise.
    Think what you want. I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth. There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Think what you want. I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth. There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.
    Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego. And our egos tend to get us into trouble. That's the problem. We have entirely too many cowboys around here. People who dont think things through all the way before popping their mouths off. It's very wise to think things through. It's practical to consider the position one places themselves in prior to placing themselves there. Reason being is that the red face that one saves may be their own.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 02:40 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Think what you want. I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth. There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.
    Well, maybe I am confusing you with someone else. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego. That's the problem. We have entirely too many cowboys around here. People who dont think things through all the way before popping their mouths off. It's very wise to think things through. Reason being is that the red face that one saves may be their own.
    What is this thread about? Seems to me it's about an election where the two evils we're expected to choose between are just about the two most evil bastards who have ever run for the office, and about a couple of sites and videos which point that out.

    Can we allow this thread to be about that? Or are we really going to compare things like Benghazi, and things like attacking the First Amendment by not only threatening to sue journalists for slander but threatening to target people on the basis of their religion, to whether a professional baker can refuse this or that or whether Johnson is willing to rule out any possibility of stopping a genocide somewhere?

    And if so, why do we have to do it in this thread?

    So, we have too many cowboys who are unwilling to think things through before popping off? Like as in, unwilling to think about where the proper thread for the thing they want to pop off about might be? Like that kind of cowboy, pardner?

    Are the people who might actually choose the lesser evil if the choice is Satan, Be'ezelbub, or some guy who drank a juice box in the grocery store then hid the empty behind a cantaloupe allowed to have an activist thread around here any more? That's not a rhetorical question. You certainly may answer.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 07-07-2016 at 02:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well, maybe I am confusing you with someone else.

    What is this thread about? Seems to me it's about an election where the two evils we're expected to choose between are just about the two most evil bastards who have ever run for the office, and about a couple of sites and videos which point that out.

    Can we allow this thread to be about that? Or are we really going to compare things like Benghazi, and things like attacking the First Amendment by not only threatening to sue journalists for slander but threatening to target people on the basis of their religion, to whether a professional baker can refuse this or that or whether Johnson is willing to rule out any possibility of stopping a genocide somewhere?

    And if so, why do we have to do it in this thread?
    The issue was raised in the thread with regard to the bake my cake debate. The op responded to the insertion by claiming it to be a non-issue. It is patently false to profess it to be a non-issue. The issue is one that contradicts the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itelf. And that is what I took issue with. So, I responded appropriately, correctly, and respectfully.

    Unfortunately, P3ter_Griffin decided to pick a battle that I promise he is absolutely not prepared to finish. That was a choice on his part.

    Does that answer your question?

    To the latter point, I agree with you. So, then, if P3ter_Griffin would enjoy making his claim in the specific thread with which he took issue, I'll certainly accommodate him.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 03:05 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego.
    Individuals will be less likely to do grassroots efforts when the grassroots efforts they do do and talk about get trashed, whether we agree or not with the efficacy of the specific grassroots efforts they have undertaken, ones they may undertake in the future we may agree with. It is subjective, but imo in the grassroots if you disagree so much with the efficacy of a project someone has undertaken, and are not offering constructive criticism to their project, then don't say anything. Plenty of room for debates in other sections of RPF.

    eta: I am leaving this thread. My apologies to the OP. I already sent him a +rep before all this, because his websites are nice... much better than I can do.
    Last edited by P3ter_Griffin; 07-07-2016 at 02:50 PM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Individuals will be less likely to do grassroots efforts when the grassroots efforts they do do and talk about get trashed, whether we agree or not with the efficacy of the specific grassroots efforts they have undertaken, ones they may undertake in the future we may agree with. It is subjective, but imo in the grassroots if you disagree so much with the efficacy of a project someone has undertaken, and are not offering constructive criticism to their project, then don't say anything. Plenty of room for debates in other sections of RPF.

    eta: I am leaving this thread. My apologies to the OP. I already sent him a +rep before all this, because his websites are nice... much better than I can do.
    Well. Respectfully, I didn't forward any disagreement with his project. In fact, I didn't even mention it. As I said, it was just that one thing that popped out there that caught my interest.

    Beyond that, I'm fairly confident that speciallyblend won't be putting the brakes on any projects over little squabbles like this. It happens. Is what it is.

    Anyway. Thank You, P3ter_Griffin. Have a good evening.

    I'm going to bail on the thread, too. I only had that one thought that I wanted to share anyway since it caught my attention.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-07-2016 at 03:02 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    The issue was raised in the thread with regard to the bake my cake debate. The op responded to the insertion by claiming it to be a non-issue.
    He didn't say it was a non-issue. He said it doesn't hold a candle to a great many other issues facing this nation and the world today. And I agree with him.

    You said your piece. You consider a baker open to the public being forced to served anyone who comes in his business with money to be as big an issue as Benghazi, state secrets on home servers, the elimination of the First Amendment through people targeted for their religion and reporters getting sued by the politicians they're supposed to cover, influence buying and selling, endless inflation and endless wars. Fine. You registered that opinion.

    Now. If you want to belabor it, go for it--just please do it somewhere else besides this thread. Thank you for the bumps, and have a nice evening.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He didn't say it was a non-issue. He said it doesn't hold a candle to a great many other issues facing this nation and the world today. And I agree with him.
    And he's patently wrong in making that claim. And so are you if you're in agreement with the claim. You're talking about the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty here. Even if you don't think that you are, you are. And that isn't minimal in comparison to anything. Nothing.

    You said your piece. You consider a baker open to the public being forced to served anyone who comes in his business with money to be as big an issue as Benghazi, state secrets on home servers, the elimination of the First Amendment through people targeted for their religion and reporters getting sued by the politicians they're supposed to cover, influence buying and selling, endless inflation and endless wars. Fine. You registered that opinion.
    Well, no, I'm afraid it's a bit broader than that. But, yes. I did register my opinion. Albeit minimally.

    Now. If you want to belabor it, go for it--just please do it somewhere else besides this thread. Thank you for the bumps, and have a nice evening.
    Yeah, I'm not posting anything here aside from responding to you people at this point.

    Thank You, acptulsa.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.
    He is FOR THE Trans pacific Partnership!!! No fing way.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •