Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Libertarian delegates boo frontrunner Johnson, running mate Weld ‘failed Republicans'

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Libertarian delegates boo frontrunner Johnson, running mate Weld ‘failed Republicans'

    Since entering the race, however, Mr. Weld has been blasted by Libertarians such as cyber-security entrepreneur John McAfee — who’s also seeking the party’s presidential nod — for his less-than-libertarian stances on issues such as gun rights. [my emphasis] “McAfee says Republicans are taking over the Libertarian Party. Yes, they are,” said David Knight of InfoWars in a Friday webcast. “They’re pandering. They want to be looked at as an established party.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...booed-by-dele/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I don't understand how the LP could do so many things wrong with such an opportunity. They claim that this ticket, Johnson-Weld, will be more appealing to a wider audience, but I don't see how. The only people I know that considered "switching" did so to consider Austin Petersen, and won't vote for Johnson. They somehow think that compromising is a winning strategy. Did they forget that they already ran the compromise ticket in 2012 and it didn't perform? Are they forgetting that if someone wants to compromise, the LP isn't the party they'll land on? Not to mention the shitshow of a convention. And Gary throwing Austin's congratulatory gift in the trash after receiving it, that's a real classy candidate those morons picked. I don't understand these people. They're clearly not thinking things through.

    I don't believe Gary's compromising stances will be much help in getting people to switch, I think he's just going to be a protest vote collector. True, there may be more protest votes this election than previous ones, but that's no victory of Gary's, he's basically just acting like the vote garbage can in that case. AP was building a coalition - I saw it with my own eyes.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 06-03-2016 at 07:52 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    The US two party system is merely good-cop and bad-cop on the political stage. The libertarians are shouting, "Me too, me too!"

    By what principle (that which will not be compromised) may a person/politician switch parties that would be so antithetical to one another?
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-03-2016 at 08:38 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The US two party system is merely good-cop and bad-cop on the political stage. The libertarians are shouting, "Me too, me too!"

    By what principle (that which will not be compromised) may a person/politician switch parties that would be so antithetical to one another?
    Bad cop worse cop.

    We are supposed to be a ZERO party union.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I was there I was vocally adamant to the crowd not to choose Weld. One of my calls was "We need at least one libertarian on the ticket".

    LP party has been milquetoast for years. Weld barely won 15 votes made the difference in a crowd of almost a thousand.

    People were buying the line that he was responsible for the rise of interest in the party......I am a radical and will work to clean up the party....

    Also this doesn't reflect the majority of the party....delegates who could afford to travel to Orlando went.....I barely made it....and glad I did... helped change some wording in their plank.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Gary Johnson does not have the money to be a viable candidate...sad reality.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/c...0033226&type=f
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    Gary, as an outsider ~ turned good olde boy with his Big J enterprise, did a decent job overseeing nuevo Mexico interests for two terms, kinda like Jimmy did in Ga. But, as we know, Jimmy on the national stage was not so successful and Gary has already had two tries for the big stage and failed miserably, yet some feel a third time is a charm...

    my vote would go to pat, who in "1996, he received 921 votes (1%) to finish second to President Bill Clinton (76,754 votes); this was actually ahead of real politicians such as Buffalo mayor James D. Griffin and in 1992 he came in second to George Bush in the North Dakota Republican Primary. In the 1992 Republican Party primaries he received 10,984 votes total." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen

    Ross is still alive...hummm

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-03-2016 at 10:16 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I helped the Badnairik campaign in 2004. With that experience, and having been an activist since 2007, and being a history enthusiast, I have come to the conclusion that people who vote for and/or donate money to the LP, like voters in general, are unaware of the extent to which democracy doesn't work and can't be tamed, as well as the fundamental nature of having any form of ruling class to pose its will on a group of easily manipulated collectivist minded people. It will either be powerless or corrupted, and if by some miracle you get the likes of Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul elected, you will still end up having few if any long term positive effects, and probably surprisingly few short term effects.

    Currency is a fantastic example, because it is one of the most important, and fractional reserve lending and government debt now have us in a nasty depression if you don't count QE. Colonial script, Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln put the banksters in their place hard, and it lasted a very short little while, now being forgotten by almost all.

    Broad reforms from a political party are the wishes of naive statists. My advice is stop looking for someone to rule you, it won't help your life out or anyone elses.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    The only way a third party would gather any steam is if the candidates from both the Demoncraps and the God-offal-Party stunk big-time, AND, the third party candidate was well-known and highly respected by people from both mainstream parties. Otherwise, if you vote for a candidate who has zero statistical probability of winning, you're shirking your responsibility as an American voter and tossing your hard (by blood) won privilege out the window.

    Do your civic duty and take a good, hard look at the only two candidates who could win, then make your choice for either the better of the two or the less worst of the two. THAT's the minimum standard of responsibility in this arena.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The only way a third party would gather any steam is if the candidates from both the Demoncraps and the God-offal-Party stunk big-time, AND, the third party candidate was well-known and highly respected by people from both mainstream parties. Otherwise, if you vote for a candidate who has zero statistical probability of winning, you're shirking your responsibility as an American voter and tossing your hard (by blood) won privilege out the window.

    Do your civic duty and take a good, hard look at the only two candidates who could win, then make your choice for either the better of the two or the less worst of the two. THAT's the minimum standard of responsibility in this arena.
    By the same logic, if you live in a red or blue state, just stay home. You only need to vote if you are in a swing state. Got it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    By the same logic, if you live in a red or blue state, just stay home. You only need to vote if you are in a swing state. Got it.
    Pretty much, but only if it's a decidedly (i.e. overwhelmingly) red or blue state. Game theory 101, except for one thing: It's no longer "theory."
    Last edited by since9; 06-06-2016 at 01:42 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Pretty much, but only if it's a decidedly (i.e. overwhelmingly) red or blue state. Game theory 101, except for one thing: It's no longer "theory."
    from the statistician, using decidedly and overwhelmingly are great statistically subjective statements...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Pretty much, but only if it's a decidedly (i.e. overwhelmingly) red or blue state. Game theory 101, except for one thing: It's no longer "theory."
    Your concepts here are entirely flawed. The best attempt the world is ever known to have seen to use government and some democracy to protect freedom has created the largest ever and quite a murderous authoritarian monster.

    But golly gee, if we just vote more, err wait, no, I guess even you said no, then we'll improve things?

    Non aggression is freedom. Theft and violence from a known imperialistic war machine, in the name of protecting you from theft and violence is crazy, especially while subjecting everyone at least halfway to direct tyranny of the majority under democracy which always entails people voting for candidates that will claim they will support their interests using the coercion of the government against others. This is truly insane, and somewhere along the line our society was stupid enough to call it "freedom".

    Granted, the term "democracy" is thrown around by a lot of half wits in modern times, but I would generally hope that democracy in the context of a discussion of libertarians would be understood to be a universally bad idea.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    [ ... ] Granted, the term "democracy" is thrown around by a lot of half wits in modern times, but I would generally hope that democracy in the context of a discussion of libertarians would be understood to be a universally bad idea.
    It would be good for you to read the history of the concept and term democracy, and to compare and contrast the practice with others, demarchy, sortition.

    Aristotle writes extensively in Politics, and in book IV, Chapter IX, paraphrased from the literal translation, "It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.(1294be, ~1000 words)". Only the tyrant oligarchs elected by majority vote, the demos elected by lottery.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6762/pg6762.txt
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-06-2016 at 05:13 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    from the statistician, using decidedly and overwhelmingly are great statistically subjective statements...
    From the non-statistician, accusations of subjectivity in a subjective environment is like taking out an add to let the world know the sky is blue...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Your concepts here are entirely flawed.
    Not even. Voting theory is a subset of game theory. Both have been both well-known and oft-proven for more than three decades.

    Time to read up, Michigander. You might try "Game Theory and Political Theory by Peter Ordeshook, published by Cambridge University Press circa mid-1980s. Here's a link.

    Keep in mind that game theory requires rationality, while many people who think they behave rationally when it comes to voting actually act irrationally. Here's a very good, and short, Prezi introduction to the concept of utility while considering Game Theory in Mass Elections.

    The best attempt the world is ever known to have seen to use government and some democracy to protect freedom has created the largest ever and quite a murderous authoritarian monster.
    In some aspects, yes. In many others, however, no. We are simultaneously the world's greatest donators to various worthwhile causes beyond our borders, both from the perspective of the individual, as well as the corporation, and finally, our government itself.

    The rest of your rant is totally misplaced. The establishment is over that-a-way...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    By the same logic, if you live in a red or blue state, just stay home. You only need to vote if you are in a swing state. Got it.
    While I think you typed that statement as an example of reducto-ad-absurbum logic, when it comes to the presidential election, there is some truth to that.

    Maybe give some thought to whether your congressional House and Senate elections are as predictable as the outcome of where your State's electoral votes will go.

    Consider on your gubernatorial, legislative, State AG, other State races, school board races (often non-partisan), and other local elections.

    We have made tremendous strides the last 30 years or so on RKBA and related issues, mostly at the State and local levels because we have elected "good enough" people to those offices. We've managed to avoid new federal infringements because we (politically, legally) "crucified" enough congressmen who voted for the '94 gun ban that even the gun grabbers who remain, often fear the political consequences of voting for attacks on our RKBA. Maintaining this fear requires that respect for our RKBA remains an election issue in enough congressional races. That doesn't happen if too many pro-RKBA folks "stay home" because they don't like the candidates for one particular office.

    I'm sometimes amused that those who complain the most about their fellows being trapped in a two-party system, will themselves so often fail to look beyond party labels to actually cast votes that will help advance or protect our RKBA.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    We call them grammar/spelling Nazis for a reason.

    Ironic that those who have the greatest challenge with basic English usage including grammar, punctuation, and proper capitalization presume to point out modest spelling errors on the part of another.

    Hypocrite is too kind of a term but all that might pass muster with our mods. Pot, meet kettle.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Gentlemen - please take you differences in style elsewhere. We have work to do and little time for snipping at each other.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I watched the L debate and to be honest the differences in policy between all of them are basically negligible. Johnson, IMHO, is the only one that carries himself and speaks like a politician (that isn't a compliment) and is the reason he has been nominated. I had no real preference which one got it and had already committed to voting for ANYONE who might actually attempt to even slow the ever expanding obesity of the gov. I scoff at anyone that would shame those that stand with the underdog of liberty while "patriotically" licking the less pustulous orb of the diseased sac that is the two party scam.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The only way a third party would gather any steam is if the candidates from both the Demoncraps and the God-offal-Party stunk big-time, AND, the third party candidate was well-known and highly respected by people from both mainstream parties. Otherwise, if you vote for a candidate who has zero statistical probability of winning, you're shirking your responsibility as an American voter and tossing your hard (by blood) won privilege out the window.

    Do your civic duty and take a good, hard look at the only two candidates who could win, then make your choice for either the better of the two or the less worst of the two. THAT's the minimum standard of responsibility in this arena.
    As far as I'm concerned this is boundlessly ignorant and incredibly conceited... You dare to tell me that I'm "shirking" my "responsibility as an American" by simply voting for the candidate I believe to be most qualified? You dare to impose your grotesquely perverted idea of "civic duty" on me and try to shame me into compliance? "Scoff" does not even near accurate description of my reaction to you, sir.
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Libertarian Gary Johnson promises to lay off the weed as president.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...weed-as-presi/

    Riight. Well, maybe until he legalizes it by Executive Order.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The only way a third party would gather any steam is if the candidates from both the Demoncraps and the God-offal-Party stunk big-time, AND, the third party candidate was well-known and highly respected by people from both mainstream parties. Otherwise, if you vote for a candidate who has zero statistical probability of winning, you're shirking your responsibility as an American voter and tossing your hard (by blood) won privilege out the window.

    Do your civic duty and take a good, hard look at the only two candidates who could win, then make your choice for either the better of the two or the less worst of the two. THAT's the minimum standard of responsibility in this arena.
    Don't take this personally, Since9. I'm just using your comment as a springboard.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Privilege? No, I don't think voting is a privilege. Voting is a power. If I can deputize someone as my delegate to inflict government on other peaceful equals who have not consented to be ruled by me or my designees, then voting is necessarily a power. It cannot be a privilege* or a right.**

    No one has ever explained to my satisfaction from where I would acquire this power to inflict government on others who are my equal without their express, individual consent.




    *Privilege. Oh, my. My rulers grant me the privilege to help determine who is going to rule over my friends, family, and self. I'm so grateful for the crumb. [/sarcasm] I'm not stupid. They grant me the privilege to vote for which ruler I get; but, they will never, ever willingly let me vote for whether or not I get ruled.

    **A right. Same idea. Surely at some point in the distant past, the people who were ruled won a concession from government: "Ok, ok! Put away the pitchforks and torches! We will grant that you have a "right" to have a say in who rules you." But, government most certainly did not say you have a right to decide whether to be ruled by the pandering, self-interested, vote-buying scum. No, no, no. They only concede the fraction of a millimeter they think they need to. And, only at sword-point at that. You see how that works? They grant that you have a "right" to have a say in which ruler you get. And, thereby misdirect the question. The question isn't whether you have a right to have a say in who rules you. At the bottom of it is the question whether anybody is enough better than you to rule you without your express individual consent. Certainly, in today's world, odds are very good that those who would rule you are not only not your equal but are actually rather scummy and far beneath you ethically.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-08-2016 at 09:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The only way a third party would gather any steam is if the candidates from both the Demoncraps and the God-offal-Party stunk big-time, AND, the third party candidate was well-known and highly respected by people from both mainstream parties. Otherwise, if you vote for a candidate who has zero statistical probability of winning, you're shirking your responsibility as an American voter and tossing your hard (by blood) won privilege out the window.

    Do your civic duty and take a good, hard look at the only two candidates who could win, then make your choice for either the better of the two or the less worst of the two. THAT's the minimum standard of responsibility in this arena.
    Again, please don't take this personally, Since9. Just using your comment as a jumping-off point.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responsibility?

    Yes, let's discuss responsibility.

    First, if anyone is going to hold me responsible, then by God, I will have the final say in whether I accept that responsibility. If you want to hold me responsible for my actions, then by God, you had better acknowledge that I have total say in it. For, if you hold even one iota that I am not in total control and have the final say, then there is no possible way you can hold me responsible, is there?

    So, let's just have a look--a superficial look--at the things that some might say I have a responsibility for.

    Side Note: Did you ever notice that some people are ever happy to tell you what your responsibilities are? They never ask you what you think your responsibilities are. They tell you what they are.

    So, where was I? Oh, yes: the things I am supposed to accept responsibility for. Well, let's just see. Let's make a little list. Some would hold that if I don't vote I am evading responsibility for:

    Thirteen-hundred ninety seven innocent dead in drone strikes. That's the government's own stat. And, they claim they are doing it to protect America. Unfortunately, for them, they also insist that I am part of "America" (see my 30 odd tax returns). Vicious jerks--I never authorized them to commit murder in my name. Yep. Murder I said, and murder I meant. You kill a few innocents in your first drone strike, it's involuntary manslaughter at best. You keep on launching missiles from drones knowing full-well that innocents are likely to die, it is murder. And, then to do that while claiming to protect me? Oh, no you don't, you liar!! Don't you dare infer that somehow you are doing murder on my behalf by killing of innocent people who but for distance could be my friends and neighbors. And, don't you dare drag me into your crimes!

    Destruction of the economy--the Crash of 2008 and all the fall-out from wiping out vast amounts of retirement investments to putting millions of human beings out of work and everything in between. Enough said.

    A national debt and obligations driven past Saturn. No joke. Its not "to the moon", its past Saturn. Literally. You can't do this calculation on your typical calculator--it won't hold enough zeroes. Go for the calculator function on your computer. Just do the math. Six inches to the dollar. Two dollars to the foot. Five thousand two hundred eighty feet to the mile ($10,560/mile). Then, multiply by $45-54 trillion dollars of debt and obligations. Once you've got that worked out, google the average distance from Earth to Saturn. There's no possible way that can ever be paid off. So, that only leaves a default. Or, a sneaky default sold as something else. No matter which way you slice it, lots of people are going to get hurt financially. The economic wreckage is going to be epic. The softest possible landing the crooks can engineer is going to be very, very harsh, making the Crash of '08 look like a day at the park.

    You see, those who tell me I am shirking responsibility are also telling me I must inflict the above on my fellow people. Ahhhhhhh. They never mention that part. That part always gets glossed-over with polite language, or minimized if mentioned at all.

    No. If I am responsible for my actions, then there is no way in he!! I am going to contribute to inflicting that devastation on my fellow people.

    But, wait! There's more. Not just responsibility, but irresponsibility. Let's take a look.

    Politicians lie, lie, lie. Four thousand years of political history show that, if nothing else. C'mon! Its like the worst used-car salesman. Even when they tell you the truth about some things, they don't mention what is wrong with car. Same for the best politicians: they might tell you all the good things they plan to do, but they carefully omit the rest.

    So, I am supposed to pull the voting lever knowing that the person I am voting for is probably lying? Really? Knowing that he is likely to perpetuate the stuff I wrote above and a host of other things? What am I supposed to do? Hope that he's different? Isn't that the height of irresponsibility? Hoping that somebody who is almost guaranteed to be a smooth-talking, self-interested, pandering liar is going to be different? Is not going to visit similar wreckage and economic destruction on my fellow human beings? Knowing that I cannot control my agent once he's in office if he starts violating his campaign promises and starts supporting lobbyists to the detriment of others?

    Nope. As long as I am responsible for my actions and any harm to my fellow human beings that arises therefrom, I will have the final say in whether I accept a responsibility to act in a certain way politically. As long as I will have to answer to God on Judgment Day and to my own conscience, then I and I alone will determine my responsibilities.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-09-2016 at 12:18 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    There once was a Libertarian gun forum that focused on discussing gun laws. Yet every law brought up for discussion was decided by the Libertarian consensus as being null and void.

    Johnson's fine as a candidate IMO. I'll be voting for him (as the worse of two evils too!).

    Go ahead and vote for Hillary or Donald ... you're wasting your vote.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •