Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 103

Thread: Gary Johnson: 'Religious freedom, as a category' is 'a black hole'

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Yeah, really. I remember when he ran against Ron in the Rep. primary. I didn't think he was worth a $#@! then, only a distraction from Ron, and I don't think he is worth a $#@! now. If you want to vote for him then go ahead. If Trump or Hillary supporters want to vote for them then go ahead.

    I'm glad you found someone.
    I understand your frustration. For POTUS this election, not voting, voting for Castle, or voting for Johnson, I believe is acceptable. Voting for Hillary or Trump would be a tragedy.
    Rand Paul for Peace



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...



    Anyway, it doesn't matter.

    If the people insist on committing electoral suicide, so be it.

    What can I do?
    I can only assume that your purpose in providing all those quotes was to apologize and say I was right, that you never asked the question that you claimed in post 52 you had asked. Because that's just what those quotes show.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by LatinsforPaul View Post
    I understand your frustration. For POTUS this election, not voting, voting for Castle, or voting for Johnson, I believe is acceptable. Voting for Hillary or Trump would be a tragedy.
    I've written in Ron Paul the last two. My dad said he was just going to write in his name. I figure I'm gonna support him. At 86 and a "get off my lawn" kinda guy I figure Why not?

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I can only assume that your purpose in providing all those quotes was to apologize and say I was right, that you never asked the question that you claimed in post 52 you had asked. Because that's just what those quotes show.
    Sure, despite the fact that that's false, as is clear from the quoted posts, let's go with that..

    As I keep emphasizing, it really doesn't matter.

    /debate



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.
    That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    dannno, we have Christians on this board who advocate that killing gays is a responsibility of government. You understand there are different ways to interpret.... everything I suppose. But especially religious or philosophical texts. Why don't you lay out how you believe a Muslim is commanded to follow his religious scripture... and I'm not just saying link to some $#@!ing video... so that a debate on the understanding you have outlined can commence, instead of taking these stupid ass jabs. I have laid out elsewhere a reasonable scriptural guideline which would suggest that Muslim individuals are capable of living peacefully amongst non-believers. And that is greatly supported by the fact that they do.

    My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.
    The issue is that there are Islamic governments who execute gay people, that is pretty non-existent or at least very rare in Christian societies and from what we see with the Muslim immigrants in Europe there are some major problems - they are trying to force diversity on Europe by group of people who hate diversity.. And I am going by all of those questionnaire studies they did on Muslims in Europe, not just my opinion. You can look them up.

    Now that said, you are absolutely correct - there have been many, MANY peaceful Muslim groups and countries who have allowed other cultures and religions to live among them peacefully. And as I argued in another thread that is fairly active on the topic right now, I think the OP is Trump Supporters or something, there has been a lot that the west has done to foment the negative attitudes that Muslims have today and we need to stop doing that. But we also have to look at the consequences of our actions responsibly, such as bringing people who we have angered into our country when we could be helping the refugees resettle in the Middle East for 1/10th of the cost, through say private charities.
    "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."

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.
    you mean sell out? Libertarian means something different to me than what you have posted above.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  10. #68
    What we have here, it seems, with all of this hey, "my definition of Libertarianism is different than your definition of Libertarianism and because my definition of Libertarianism happens to be mine, then, it surely must be the correct and proper definition of Libertarianism because I say so and I don't care what you think" drama is a simple failure to wilfully recognize what Liberty is prior to debating who is the more Libertarian. So, let's define Liberty. Can we do that? We should likely consider doing that first.

    Here is how I think Liberty is defined. And I'm certainly open for any corrections. Ready? Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same. It's pretty simple. Does that sound right? If so, then, whomever holds a policy or position that is consistent with that definition fully is most likely the true Libertarian. Policy does not define Liberty. Nor can it. Nor should it. Principles define Liberty.

    Truthfully, I'd likely never trust a growing handful of friends here with any real responsibility when it comes to adult activism in Liberty where adult activism in Liberty may be needed. Some friends lack the correct temperament. And some friends aren't very responsible representatives of their cause.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-30-2016 at 12:35 AM.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The issue is that there are Islamic governments who execute gay people, that is pretty non-existent or at least very rare in Christian societies and from what we see with the Muslim immigrants in Europe there are some major problems - they are trying to force diversity on Europe by group of people who hate diversity.. And I am going by all of those questionnaire studies they did on Muslims in Europe, not just my opinion. You can look them up.

    Now that said, you are absolutely correct - there have been many, MANY peaceful Muslim groups and countries who have allowed other cultures and religions to live among them peacefully. And as I argued in another thread that is fairly active on the topic right now, I think the OP is Trump Supporters or something, there has been a lot that the west has done to foment the negative attitudes that Muslims have today and we need to stop doing that. But we also have to look at the consequences of our actions responsibly, such as bringing people who we have angered into our country when we could be helping the refugees resettle in the Middle East for 1/10th of the cost, through say private charities.
    Yes, we at least don't discriminate on who we kill. That is, if you are to believe we are a Christian society. But to the peaceful Muslim and the peaceful Christian, the government isn't a reflection of their religion, it is a group of rulers.

    I read the other thread, along with many other of your posts. I know you are talking a 'pragmatic approach'. But I think the masterminds behind the pragmatism have slipped in information that is not valid to alter what the pragmatic approach is. And I'm not saying you have bitten. The state should absolutely not be in the refugee business, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, that is the principled position. While many others have gone full-blown 'Islam is not compatible with western culture, ban Islam'. And the comments like:

    Muslims (a religion that likes to execute gay people and is generally extremely unaccepting of other cultures and lifestyles)
    is a reinforcement for that.

    From what I remember, the reason that the commandment to execute gays did not make it into the Quaran is because the commandment was only remember by one individual, who was a ruler who executed gays, and it took two individuals to remember a commandment to make it into the Quaran. But chopping off the hands of a thief seems legit.?

    I'm not saying I want to become muslim or that anyone should necesarilly derive justice from the Quaran (don't know enough about it tbh), but that such claims, as you made, should be substantiated before they are tossed around on RPF. For the sanctity of truth. From what I remember Ron had to deal with a portion of his campaign who thought he should shift his positions from 'blowback' to 'they hate us for our freedom', yet he kept preaching blowback.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes. I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle. He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity. I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.
    You and R3v will receive no hate from me for your thoughts and approach. I'm not super invested in candidates I'm just more enjoying the bigger picture. In 2012 my understanding of liberty was.... quite wrong you could probably say, my understanding of many things have grown since then so its just kind of enjoyable to check it out and laugh at how crazy it is. I do think though, because of Gary's nature, similar to Ron's, kind, friendly, unintimidating, he is the kind of guy to let the cat out of the bag and make an argument for strict property right adherence, and the justice and goodness in it. But at the same time... my understanding 'what people are okay with', is not really up to par. It may well sink his campaign no matter how eloquently he makes the argument. Either way, I'm just observing, talking out my butt.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    What we have here, it seems, with all of this hey, "my definition of Libertarianism is different than your definition of Libertarianism and because my definition of Libertarianism happens to be mine, then, it surely must be the correct and proper definition of Libertarianism because I say so and I don't care what you think" drama is a simple failure to wilfully recognize what Liberty is prior to debating who is the more Libertarian. So, let's define Liberty. Can we do that? We should likely consider doing that first.

    Here is how I think Liberty is defined. And I'm certainly open for any corrections. Ready? Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same. It's pretty simple. Does that sound right? If so, then, whomever holds a policy or position that is consistent with that definition fully is most likely the true Libertarian. Policy does not define Liberty. Nor can it. Nor should it. Principles define Liberty.

    Truthfully, I'd likely never trust a growing handful of friends here with any real responsibility when it comes to adult activism in Liberty where adult activism in Liberty may be needed. Some friends lack the correct temperament. And some friends aren't very responsible representatives of their cause.
    haha, I enjoy your posts, pops.

    I think there are plenty of word combinations that could say the same thing but I'm just fine with the one you've chosen.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    That would be really a forthright, proper libertarian thing for him to do. And it's code for "I hate the CRA." Which for almost all of America is code for "I love slavery." He's too smart to do it. He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes.
    Exactly the same could be said of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

    The only difference is that, unlike Johnson, one of those two is actually going to win.

    (And I don't think I've ever encountered an electoral "strategy" based on openly disavowing and explicitly rejecting the need for "ANY" support from its own base - especially not in relation to "minor" parties. Oh, well ... *shrug* ... good luck with that, I guess ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    I will be very disappointed if he starts directing his message to ME this cycle.
    It would appear you have nothing to fear in this regard.

    As far as I can tell, Johnson hasn't really got much to say about liberty per se to anyone at all (let alone you or me).

    (But how this is supposed to redound to the benefit of libertarianism or the "mainstreaming" of liberty is beyond my ken ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    He needs to get the broad majority of America to hear the word libertarian and understand it means inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity.
    Liberty harshez teh feelz, and defending property rights is unreasonable (and maybe not even sane).

    So let's sneer at those things as "code" and just abandon them to the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

    (I mean, after all, if it will get us more votes this year, then "William Weld 2020" might be positioned to do even better! Ah! Be still my heart ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    I'm kind of with R3v here. I desperately want Gary Johnson to NOT go into speaking-to-the-libertarian-choir mode for the next few months.
    If you're not going to proselytize, then what's the point?

    Your congregation is never going to grow if you refuse to preach to unbelievers.

    (And while sermonizing the "choir" may indeed be a pointless waste of time, that does not obviate the just-stated fact ...)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-30-2016 at 06:34 AM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    From what I remember Ron had to deal with a portion of his campaign who thought he should shift his positions from 'blowback' to 'they hate us for our freedom', yet he kept preaching blowback.
    Not me, he is absolutely correct. They hate us because we have been bombing them, supplying our allies with weapons and using intelligence operations to supersede their sovereignty. That message needn't get lost.
    "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."

  17. #74
    What Occam's Banana said.

    I voted for GJ in 2012 despite knowing he did not even have a one in a million chance of winning. I voted according to what I believed. This time around, I can't vote for Johnson. Yeah, he has a lot of good points. But I could not publicly stand up and say I voted for him after the things he and Weld have said. Yeah, he's better than Trump or Hillary. But I believe that he falls far short of Castle. And in the real world, they have roughly the same chance of getting elected.

    Furthermore, the fact that Johnson and Weld are running on a Libertarian ticket bothers me. If they called themselves "Independent" or "Third Party", that would be different. But the fact that they call themselves libertarian means that people (including many who I like and respect) will look at them and say "Well, if that's libertarianism, I am not interested." The redefining of libertarianism to mean " inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity" or "Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative" or anything anyone wants it to mean strikes me as problematical. Not only is it wrong and dishonest, it seems to me that in the long run it is politically disastrous and pragmatically stupid.

    What Johnson and Weld are doing is good for Johnson and Weld. It isn't good for the cause of freedom. IMHO.
    "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." - John Adams

    "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind." - John Witherspoon


    Why I stand with Rand

  18. #75
    Lol. I'm amused at how many people are dismayed that libertarianism could be associated with (not defined by) "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." Which of those qualities is incompatible with libertarianism, and why would one find any of them undersireable? Until a staunch libertarian (which GJ is far, far from) can stand up in front of America and sincerely say "I feel your pain," there will be no true liberty advocates representing the American people in Clarksville City Hall let alone Washington DC.

    I'll say it again since it seems to make people so mad - Gary Johnson does not need the vote of anybody on RPF. I posit that it would be best for him to avoid them like the plague. For grins, here's my guess how the general election votes of RPF active members will go -

    trump - 35%
    Johnson - 25%
    Write-in/abstain - 35%
    Hillary - 5%
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Sure, despite the fact that that's false, as is clear from the quoted posts, let's go with that..
    The quotes are there for anyone to read. You clearly never asked what you claimed in post 52 you had asked.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post

    haha, I enjoy your posts, pops.
    Heh. Well. Thank You. I just happen to be in muh prime, though.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Lets go....Liberty defined: Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equallty doing the same.
    Wow, you talk like a Johnson supporter. In fact, he said the following just last night. You should be ashamed for plagiarizing -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
    "Non-Aggression principle - don't use force unless force has been applied to you... Liberty and freedom always come down on the side of choice, that we as individuals should always make choices in our lives as long as those choices don't adversely affect others."


    Sorry, but I get chills of awesomeness hearing him say this stuff to an arch-liberal talk show host.

    And if you don't watch any of the rest of that video, watch the last 20 seconds!
    Last edited by undergroundrr; 07-30-2016 at 10:50 AM.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Lol. I'm amused at how many people are dismayed that libertarianism could be associated with (not defined by) "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." Which of those qualities is incompatible with libertarianism, and why would one find any of them undersireable? Until a staunch libertarian (which GJ is far, far from) can stand up in front of America and sincerely say "I feel your pain," there will be no true liberty advocates representing the American people in Clarksville City Hall let alone Washington DC.
    I don't disagree. But I have reservations.

    I have no problem with libertarianism being associated with "inclusiveness, compassion, reasonableness and ironclad sanity." But when that moves toward a desire to associated with those qualities, and then to doing everything one can to ensure that it is associated with those qualities, then one has come a long way toward defining libertarianism by those qualities.

    And when that happens, one may feel that it is helpful to jettison aspects of libertarianism. So out goes freedom of association, because it might lead to actions that cause people to feel excluded. And out goes freedom of speech for the same reason. And of course if we are compassionate, we have to have socialized medicine and a welfare state. And if we are reasonable, then . . . .[fill in the blank]

    Gary Johnson does not need the vote of anybody on RPF. I posit that it would be best for him to avoid them like the plague.
    Sure GJ doesn't need the votes of hard core libertarians / Ron Paulists / members of this forum. Nor does Hillary Clinton. Nor does Donald Trump. GJ and HC and DT are all in this to get votes. Fine.

    I'm not interested in what is best for GJ any more than I am interested in what is best for DT or HC. I'm interested in what is best for the cause of liberty. And I'm not convinced that a vote for GJ will help the cause of liberty much more than a vote for HC or DT.
    "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." - John Adams

    "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind." - John Witherspoon


    Why I stand with Rand

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Wow, you talk like a Johnson supporter. In fact, he said the following just last night. -
    Well. That's certainly the right philosophy. One that I've repeated many times here of late. He'd do well to straighten his position out to reflect ihis words here fully, though. This is the difference between talking about it and being about it. Will see how it goes, I suppose. He has some critical patching up to do.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnM View Post
    I don't disagree. But I have reservations...
    Thanks for that thoughtful response. I'll just add (somewhat related to the OP) that I think those qualities are Christ-like. It would be nice to see them in a candidate. And even if Gary Johnson (who just cited the NAP on national TV) isn't everybody's cup of tea, he will contrast favorably for many with the dishonesty, criminality, sociopathy and coarse incivility of trumplary.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    He needs moderate liberal and moderate republican votes. He doesn't need ANY libertarian, alt-right or socon votes.
    Why? Moderates already have the major party candidates.

    Socons would love to have someone besides Trump to vote for, and they make up a huge voting block. Gary should actively court them, and instead it's as if he wants to push them away. He would rather get 1% of the vote without their support than 10% with it.

    Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul were a little younger and were the LP candidate this year that he would be a huge factor? And that wouldn't be by way of moderating all of his stances, but by presenting the same genuine, thoughtful, consistent ideological persona that he always has.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Why? Moderates already have the major party candidates.

    Socons would love to have someone besides Trump to vote for, and they make up a huge voting block. Gary should actively court them, and instead it's as if he wants to push them away. He would rather get 1% of the vote without their support than 10% with it.

    Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul were a little younger and were the LP candidate this year that he would be a huge factor? And that wouldn't be by way of moderating all of his stances, but by presenting the same genuine, thoughtful, consistent ideological persona that he always has.
    Gary Johnson couldn't resonate with socons if he tried. He's just not that guy. And really, Ron failed with socons in the end. There's just too much drive to restrict personal choice (not their own, but that of others) among that sect. Even if they may on some issues have the moral high ground, they're the definition of exclusive and insular. To court them would be to entirely alienate the left, who Gary Johnson does resonate with.

    I don't think trump and Hillary are comfortable for moderates at all. Don't underestimate the volatility of the situation - the electorate has gotten itself into a pickle, and it's increasingly scared to death of these two people. Gary Johnson is the only escape hatch. He will be a bombshell if he makes the debates.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Moderates
    This has always seemed like such a deceptive and meaningless buzzword to me. I understand its meaning. But it's always thrown around so deceptively. I think its dishonest to do that. I'm not insinuating that you're doing that. I'm just expressing my distaste for the fact that it's generally done that way.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-30-2016 at 11:30 AM.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    His conclusion on the issue is entirely wrong; businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve, for whatever reason.

    But he's right that "religious freedom" is a "black hole." It could be used to justify anything.

    The proper argument against forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes et al is based on property rights, not this nebulous "religious freedom."
    I'll wager there are as many people if not more who believe that "property rights" is also a black hole.

    The truth of the matter is, if someone wants to strip you of your freedom, they don't give a damn what justification you use to defend it.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  30. #86
    You think it's the federal government's job to prevent—

    "Discrimination. Yes."

    In all cases?

    "Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes.



    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    This has always seemed like such a deceptive and meaningless buzzword to me. I understand its meaning. But it's always thrown around so deceptively. I think its dishonest to do that. I'm not insinuating that you're doing that. I'm just expressing my distaste for the fact that it's generally done that way.
    I think I see what you mean. But a huge plurality (almost a majority) of voters aren't hardcore anything. If you buy into what this website is selling, 47% of voters self-identify as "moderate" -

    http://republic3-0.com/myth-independ...stefan-hankin/
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I'll wager there are as many people if not more who believe that "property rights" is also a black hole.
    That's why Sanders.

    Again, if a candidate talks abstractly about "property rights," it's code for slavery. Best case, it's "Get off my lawn." But somehow if you phrase it as "right to make a choice," people are okay with that.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Again, if a candidate talks abstractly about "property rights," it's code for slavery. Best case, it's "Get off my lawn." But somehow if you phrase it as "right to make a choice," people are okay with that.
    It's imperative that we, and anyone like Gary Johnson who purports to stand for liberty, change public opinion on this. If phrases like "property rights" and "freedom of association" sound extreme, then that's all the more reason to keep repeating them until they are mainstream. The idea that a person has the right to do business and not do business with whomever they want using their own property is positively unimpeachable. We just need to keep making people face that and consider it. We need to educate them. Giving into their nonsense is the very opposite of what we should do.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    It's imperative that we, and anyone like Gary Johnson who purports to stand for liberty, change public opinion on this. If phrases like "property rights" and "freedom of association" sound extreme, then that's all the more reason to keep repeating them until they are mainstream. The idea that a person has the right to do business and not do business with whomever they want using their own property is positively unimpeachable. We just need to keep making people face that and consider it. We need to educate them. Giving into their nonsense is the very opposite of what we should do.
    Yes, GJ can do that if he wants your and my stamp of approval. He'd better not if he wants to make a good showing this election.

    One of my favorite things about Ron Paul was when he framed environmental issues in a property rights context. No individual or company would have a right to pollute in any way that damages someone's property or person. The implications are extreme and go way further than the most draconian Kyoto Summit pipedream. All of the environmental left would get serious about property rights if they understood that.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •