Okay, when you bring up Johnson's position on abortion, one thing that most people who see that do not understand is the intention of the heart when in comes to public office. Johnson has made it clear, and so has the Libertarian Party's platform, that no matter what views their candidates hold on certain issues, the party:

"Recognizes that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

That is why no matter what Johnson's personal view on an issue is, because the contentious issue is divisive, it should be left alone, and our tax dollars should not be put forward to subsidize it because some people believe in protecting the integrity of life at its earliest stages.

Abortion should not be a deal breaker. What SHOULD be a deal breaker is how deep do personal views get involved in the executive process of enforcing and promoting solutions. And Gary Johnson is perfectly clear, BullInExile; it won't get thrown in the muck.

(08-30-2012 01:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 11:15 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 10:35 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Everyone has a choice. You can either be a part of the problem or part of the solution. The problem is the economy. The solution, to prevent the country from slipping into insolvency, is not Obama or Johnson. Everyone will have to live with their choices. There are many people regretting their choice in 2008 and are much more serious about their choice in 2012. Johnson is not even on their radar.

SOFA, this is one issue where I might agree and disagree with you at the same time, and side with Libertarians.. in a way

The issue _is_ the economy. We're all in agreement. (R's and L's)

Do I think Johnson _could_ get things back on track? I do... based on his Governorship record in NM. I think that Romney's policies/ideas/promises could do it faster (but hey if Johnson can prove me wrong, then so be it).

A vote for Johnson is one you will ultimately regret if Obama wins. Just sayin'.

SOFA, i haven't said I'm voting for Johnson, (I'm likely a Romney voter, my wife is likely a Johnson voter). I said I could understand a vote for Johnson better than one for Obama, if your concern is the economy.

(08-30-2012 02:53 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:14 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Libertarianism is popular on the Internet because the demographic is younger, and younger people are generally more socially tolerant and more likely to support gay rights and drug legalization. On fiscal issues, they tend to be raised at least middle class, and have less real world experience because they in fact spend so much of their time on the Internet, and see poverty and human suffering in the abstract. With less social contact comes less compassion for your fellow man, and the John Galt "every man is an island" notion has appeal because for all intents and purposes, that might describe you. It can lead to a lack of compassion and even contempt for poor people, who it can be assumed deserve their lot in life. The prospect of war and being drafted to fight the next neocon ME adventure is very real however, so Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-interventionism has its appeal there, for the college crowd.

So "They" have enough experience to be socially tolerant but at the same time "They" don't have enough experience to give a damn about people financially. Seems to be an oxymoron or maybe a Maximoron.

If you're a middle class white kid raised in the 2000s suburbs chances are you know "out" gay people, but you don't know of poverty first or even secondhand.

What about the black kids that I know who've gone lib...ertarian.

There aren't many of them. Minorities tend not to live in as much of a bubble, and are more likely to have relatives struggling so poverty is less abstract. But there are exceptions to everything.

(08-30-2012 03:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:53 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:14 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Libertarianism is popular on the Internet because the demographic is younger, and younger people are generally more socially tolerant and more likely to support gay rights and drug legalization. On fiscal issues, they tend to be raised at least middle class, and have less real world experience because they in fact spend so much of their time on the Internet, and see poverty and human suffering in the abstract. With less social contact comes less compassion for your fellow man, and the John Galt "every man is an island" notion has appeal because for all intents and purposes, that might describe you. It can lead to a lack of compassion and even contempt for poor people, who it can be assumed deserve their lot in life. The prospect of war and being drafted to fight the next neocon ME adventure is very real however, so Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-interventionism has its appeal there, for the college crowd.

So "They" have enough experience to be socially tolerant but at the same time "They" don't have enough experience to give a damn about people financially. Seems to be an oxymoron or maybe a Maximoron.

If you're a middle class white kid raised in the 2000s suburbs chances are you know "out" gay people, but you don't know of poverty first or even secondhand.

What about the black kids that I know who've gone lib...ertarian.

There aren't many of them. Minorities tend not to live in as much of a bubble, and are more likely to have relatives struggling so poverty is less abstract. But there are exceptions to everything.

While I do believe most of that. Isn't it it the young white kids who've grown up in a bubble that go to the Dems?

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

I so wish we had a "Reset" button.

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Gotta agree. if it weren't for the Tea Partiers and the conservatives AND the Libertarians all coming to an agreement of sorts? Would we have had the 2010 result we had?

But when it comes to the office of the President.. it's "Vote my way, or I'm taking my ball and going home!"

It worked in 2010.. and it can work in 2012 if everyone would quit trying to out-ego everyone.. and that goes for Republicans _AND_ Libertarians.

(08-30-2012 03:30 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  While I do believe most of that. Isn't it it the young white kids who've grown up in a bubble that go to the Dems?

I'm not denying there are young naive liberals too. But that's a topic for another day (on here, most of the topics).

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Being part of the team only means that you can change things if the leaders are going to change things. I don't believe that happens and am not as willing as you to bend down spread my cheeks for any team just so that I can say that my team won.

(08-30-2012 03:48 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Gotta agree. if it weren't for the Tea Partiers and the conservatives AND the Libertarians all coming to an agreement of sorts? Would we have had the 2010 result we had?

But when it comes to the office of the President.. it's "Vote my way, or I'm taking my ball and going home!"

It worked in 2010.. and it can work in 2012 if everyone would quit trying to out-ego everyone.. and that goes for Republicans _AND_ Libertarians.

What if the answer is simply, we think Romney is just the same or worse than Obama?

(08-30-2012 04:03 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  What if the answer is simply, we think Romney is just the same or worse than Obama?

Again, this is going on the presumption that the economic situation is the MOST important issue...

You really believe that when it comes to getting the economic engine of the United States started again?

Again, I want to make it clear, as I started a Cain supporter (and was extremely disappointed when he dropped his campaign), not a Romney supporter when the Republican race started...

But I'll say that nobody, not even Mitt, can be worse than PBHO when it comes to policies to get the economic engine going again, and if you really believe that, I'd suggest you go back and look at the policies that PBHO implemented (whether via Congress or via EO's) and tell me you really believe that Romney is as bad or worse than our current Commander in Chief.

(08-30-2012 02:53 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Johnson has made it clear, and so has the Libertarian Party's platform, that no matter what views their candidates hold on certain issues, the party:

"Recognizes that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

For the sake of argument, let's say that the above statement represents the wisest and most humane method of approaching the abortion issue. But even if that were the case, the statement would still be incomplete without recognizing that (for example) "The enduring genius of the Constitution--the division of powers--is summed up in the clause which reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people. Accordingly, the Federal government has no authority to regulate the actions of the individual State governments, as they pertain to this "sensitive issue." Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade -- and its countless judicial progeny these past 39 years -- was contrary to the Constitution's federalist mandate, and should be overturned."

(08-30-2012 04:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Being part of the team only means that you can change things if the leaders are going to change things. I don't believe that happens and am not as willing as you to bend down spread my cheeks for any team just so that I can say that my team won.

I don't spread anything, h*mo. And I know, as you should have learned, that things do change, change is inevitable. You are part of it and move the ball or you don't. But I know, you are from the instant gratification generation and don't want to play by the rules. Coastie, grow a pair.

(08-30-2012 05:13 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 04:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Being part of the team only means that you can change things if the leaders are going to change things. I don't believe that happens and am not as willing as you to bend down spread my cheeks for any team just so that I can say that my team won.

I don't spread anything, h*mo. And I know, as you should have learned, that things do change, change is inevitable. You are part of it and move the ball or you don't. But I know, you are from the instant gratification generation and don't want to play by the rules. Coastie, grow a pair.

I have a bigger set than anyone who just goes with their political party's crowd. I agree that change is inevitable, but who's to judge if it's not the change you bargained for? You also act as if you're doing something brave by picking the easier path. How would picking a side equate to growing a pair? Maybe you were referring to ovaries.

I'd also like to know how joining up for one side or another is affecting change? If there's one thing they have in common, it's that they've both played large roles in our problems now.

(08-30-2012 06:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 05:13 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 04:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I actually wish that we could give a vote of No Confidence and stop their bile altogether and elect those who aren't R and D.

Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Being part of the team only means that you can change things if the leaders are going to change things. I don't believe that happens and am not as willing as you to bend down spread my cheeks for any team just so that I can say that my team won.

I don't spread anything, h*mo. And I know, as you should have learned, that things do change, change is inevitable. You are part of it and move the ball or you don't. But I know, you are from the instant gratification generation and don't want to play by the rules. Coastie, grow a pair.

I have a bigger set than anyone who just goes with their political party's crowd.

Really, how's that. Be specific.

Quote:I agree that change is inevitable, but who's to judge if it's not the change you bargained for?

You get active, involved. Politics is a knife fight.

Quote:You also act as if you're doing something brave by picking the easier path. How would picking a side equate to growing a pair?

Not brave, but you have to have the courage to work with others in power in the hopes that in due time, you can make a difference, chart direction.

Quote:Maybe you were referring to ovaries.

You got ovaries?

I don't care how indestructible you think you are, you ain't, even if they want you to believe you are. You should have learned you gotta work within the system to change the system.

(08-30-2012 06:19 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 06:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 05:13 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 04:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 03:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Thats foolish. Quit dreaming. Wishing it worked differently won't do sh!*t, won't change sh!*t . You should have learned that being part of the team sometimes means you can change things. Grow the f*uck up.

Being part of the team only means that you can change things if the leaders are going to change things. I don't believe that happens and am not as willing as you to bend down spread my cheeks for any team just so that I can say that my team won.

I don't spread anything, h*mo. And I know, as you should have learned, that things do change, change is inevitable. You are part of it and move the ball or you don't. But I know, you are from the instant gratification generation and don't want to play by the rules. Coastie, grow a pair.

I have a bigger set than anyone who just goes with their political party's crowd.

Really, how's that. Be specific.

Quote:I agree that change is inevitable, but who's to judge if it's not the change you bargained for?

You get active, involved. Politics is a knife fight.

Quote:You also act as if you're doing something brave by picking the easier path. How would picking a side equate to growing a pair?

Not brave, but you have to have the courage to work with others in power in the hopes that in due time, you can make a difference, chart direction.

Quote:Maybe you were referring to ovaries.

You got ovaries?

I don't care how indestructible you think you are, you ain't, even if they want you to believe you are. You should have learned you gotta work within the system to change the system.

That's one strategy. But I just can't work with the devil.

The greater of the two devils is the current CinC. No response from you is necessary.

(08-30-2012 06:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The greater of the two devils is the current CinC. No response from you is necessary.

I agree actually. I may end up voting for Romney, who knows. My beef is with the organizations.

(08-30-2012 02:53 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Okay, when you bring up Johnson's position on abortion, one thing that most people who see that do not understand is the intention of the heart when in comes to public office. Johnson has made it clear, and so has the Libertarian Party's platform, that no matter what views their candidates hold on certain issues, the party:

"Recognizes that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Government has laws against Killing, abortion is no different.

Honestly the people that view an unborn baby as nothing but disposable tissue (like Max and Tom) sicken me less than people who view it as life but are too cowardly to stand up for it.

Quote:That is why no matter what Johnson's personal view on an issue is

I don't really give a fat rats behind what his personal position is.

Quote:Abortion should not be a deal breaker. What SHOULD be a deal breaker is how deep do personal views get involved in the executive process of enforcing and promoting solutions. And Gary Johnson is perfectly clear, BullInExile; it won't get thrown in the muck.

Being ok with the murder of unborn kids, no matter your personal feelings, is a deal breaker.