Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 134

Thread: Did Gary Johnson Throw out AP's pistol?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sujan View Post
    There are differences between Gary and Austin, but I don't see a big difference. I get it why Austin endorsed Gary, because Austin probably wants to run again in 2020, but then with a war chest and automatic ballot access, assuming Gary won't run again (which I think he won't). Could be a landslide victory for Austin. He is only 35, so he could be the prime Libertarian candidate for years, if not decades, to come.
    You aren't helping you case. I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You don't like cutting federal spending? Ending the wars? Repealing the PATRIOT Act?
    I like obeying the Constitution. Johnson won't do it.

    ...to name a few of his many solidly libertarian positions.
    Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?

    No thanks amigo. I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.



    That's the craziest thing I've heard all day.
    I vote the Constitution. Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump. If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?

    ...and I've spent a good part of the day dealing with Trumpkins.
    Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    You aren't helping you case. I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.
    Haha ok. But then who do you like?

  5. #64
    Lol...this is funny.

    Pushing the chance of getting better than 1 percent using the same arguments that Trump and Hillary people use.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    No $#@!. I wasn't about to vote for Trump for "strategic" purposes, I'll be damned if I vote for Johnson/Weld for the same.
    There's a slight difference.

    Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

    The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

    The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sujan View Post
    Haha ok. But then who do you like?
    I liked McAfee because even with no understanding of the Constitution, his policies most closely aligned with the Constitution anyway.

    Now, I will probably write in "Giant Meteor" for the Presidential Race.


  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Sujan View Post
    Haha ok. But then who do you like?
    I can't speak for Gunny but I would have loved for Grayson to run as Pres, as opposed to V.P. Even if Grayson had won the V.P. pick I might have considered voting on the ticket. Johnson/Weld? $#@! them. Seriously. There is NOTHING about that ticket I care for. NOTHING.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There's a slight difference.

    Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

    The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

    The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.
    TO YOU. Why would I want to give this steaming pile of $#@! ballot access?

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There's a slight difference.

    Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

    The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

    The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.
    We'll just have to disagree.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I like obeying the Constitution. Johnson won't do it.

    Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?

    No thanks amigo. I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.

    I vote the Constitution. Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump. If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?

    Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?
    I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

    You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

    Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.

    Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.

    So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

    I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.
    Same reason the Trumpaloompas kept coming at me I suppose.

    You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.
    This is a belief which you hold that is yours, and yours alone. It has been argued as fact merely by making the statement, therefore I will not vouch for it's integrity.

    Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.
    I have supported many candidates ... a voluminous quantity over the last 12 years and you know what? Not a single one of them did I agree with 100%. Imagine that. This charge is also all in your head.

    Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.
    Why do you claim to speak for my principles, when if you understood my principles at all you wouldn't bother lobbying me to support Johnson in the first place?

    So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

    I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.
    So refusing to support a statist authoritarian hack means that I refuse to oppose tyranny?

    LOL you zombie kids and your 'logic.'

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

    You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

    Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.

    Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.

    So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

    I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.
    I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. $#@! that stupid ass $#@! about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. It just doesn't happen that way.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. $#@! that stupid ass $#@! about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. It just doesn't happen that way.
    ...and it never will. Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil. Even the lesser evil. This is axiomatic.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    ...and it never will. Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil. Even the lesser evil. This is axiomatic.
    And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your principles, correct?

    If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by jct74 View Post
    There was a confrontation between them today, maybe had something to do with it.



    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-nomination/


    I'm really not that concerned about it though.

    Sounds like Peterson is a hothead and would not get my vote. PS, he is too young and if he cant understand then he has no business at that level of politics.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your political principles, correct?
    Absolutely not. That entire idea is a figment of your imagination. I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense. I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.

    If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?
    I don't compromise, I collate.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yeah, writing in RP is getting even easier.

    I'll sleep well on election night.

    Gunny is right, it was a douche move.

    Yes, it was a douche move.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Absolutely not. That entire idea is a figment of your imagination. I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense. I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.

    I don't compromise, I collate.
    Equivocation..

    Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.

    It can't be both.

    Which is it?

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Equivocation..
    Absolutely not. There is an enormous difference between compromising principles, and building coalitions around common goals. The very fact that you would call that an equivocation is frankly absurd.

    Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.
    You live in such a 2D black and white world. Your vision is so desperately narrow "It can only be this or that" and I'm just here laughing at the tesseract you are calling a diamond down there in flatland.

    It can't be both.

    Which is it?
    I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.

    I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.
    And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?

    A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:

    • Abolishing the Fed
    • Cutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%
    • Repealing the PATRIOT Act


    Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?

    I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?
    It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.

    ....acting as if all compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the absurdity of that position.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?

    A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:

    • Abolishing the Fed
    • Cutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%
    • Repealing the PATRIOT Act
    None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.

    The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

    Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?
    I love how you take a primary violation of the federal Constitution and blithely pass it off as baking a cake. But yeah, I'll bite that halibut. Any person who would hold a gun to someone's head and make them bake a cake should be in jail, not the White House.

    It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.


    ....acting as if all compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the absurdity of that position.
    How have I backed down? I sidestepped your complex-question trap by re-stating my actual belief and in your world this is backing down? LOL








    Am I the only one who finds it brutally ironic how this guy was so rabidly anti-trumpaloompa all this time, and all the sudden Johnson is the topic and he turns into one of them, only pro-Johnson?

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.
    Just to be clear: You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined? You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?

    The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
    And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Just to be clear: You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined? You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?
    You keep trying to pervert my position into the little box you have selected for me in your head. It will not work, and it's a practice the Trumpaloompas used and you should be ashamed.

    I have said and I will say again, I vote for the people I believe will bring us closer to the Constitution, and oppose those who would remove us further from it. The #1 issue in Constitutional Compliance today, is the balance of federal and state powers. If anyone wants from me what YOU would call a "compromise vote" then first and foremost they will not f'k up the balance of federal and state power any more than it already is.

    And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?
    I get that you do not consider piddlin shyt like.......the entire foundation of American government.....important enough to affect your lofty goals, but I do not and will never think like you. Indeed I am appalled that such a position would even be entertained.

  28. #84
    Let's review:

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?

    A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:

    • Abolishing the Fed
    • Cutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%
    • Repealing the PATRIOT Act


    Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?
    None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.
    Just to be clear: You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined? You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?
    You keep trying to pervert my position into the little box you have selected for me in your head.
    Now, how exactly did I misrepresent you?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-30-2016 at 03:35 AM.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Let's review:



    Now, how exactly did I misrepresent you?
    Well first of all you think I give a damn about 'gays' one way or the other.

    This perception is probably an effect of your aggressively narrow perspective.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well first of all you think I give a damn about 'gays' one way or the other.

    This perception is probably an effect of your aggressively narrow perspective.
    That is not an answer to the question: more like an evasion.

  31. #87
    To me this seems like the most deranged election I have ever been aware of.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    To me this seems like the most deranged election I have ever been aware of.
    No doubt about that..



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That is not an answer to the question: more like an evasion.
    LOL really?

    How many times do I have to say that the #1 issue is the balance of federal and state power before you stop trying to make it about baking cookies and gay sex?

  35. #90
    I mean, are cookies and sex all you can think about or something?

    Because my position honestly has nothing to do with either, but you keep ruthlessly dragging them back in.

    Why?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •