GARY JOHNSON will END the IRS

[kieefer]

Well, duh. It's a freedom thing; you wouldn't understand.

Oh I understand.

I can see that in reality there is no one person that gets elected that will ever, in this decade get rid of the IRS or the Fed. or remove our troops off foreign lands.

When we have half the population that has no idea what the Fed does and no idea what a constitutional government should look like, plus add to that fact that they are also not paying taxes, how on earth do you expect turn that around with one election?

I'm all for freedom and liberty but we've been digging this hole to tyranny for a long time. The Libertarian Party will not change it in one election. Their play book is no different than any other party, they have some great ideas that I like but I don't think I'll see any of them implemented within my lifetime. I hope that I would but my vote is too important to waste on a slim and none chance that it will happen.

Having said that I also don't think Romney is our best choice but he is apparently our only choice at this time that has the best chance of slowing the bleeding. If he turns out to be another disaster then we have this fight for OUR freedom again in another 4yrs. and then maybe a few more people will wake up to what's happening.

[sigmtnman]

Oh I understand.

I can see that in reality there is no one person that gets elected that will ever, in this decade get rid of the IRS or the Fed. or remove our troops off foreign lands.

When we have half the population that has no idea what the Fed does and no idea what a constitutional government should look like, plus add to that fact that they are also not paying taxes, how on earth do you expect turn that around with one election?

I'm all for freedom and liberty but we've been digging this hole to tyranny for a long time. The Libertarian Party will not change it in one election. Their play book is no different than any other party, they have some great ideas that I like but I don't think I'll see any of them implemented within my lifetime. I hope that I would but my vote is too important to waste on a slim and none chance that it will happen.

Having said that I also don't think Romney is our best choice but he is apparently our only choice at this time that has the best chance of slowing the bleeding. If he turns out to be another disaster then we have this fight for OUR freedom again in another 4yrs. and then maybe a few more people will wake up to what's happening.

Does the media give any libertarian ideas legitimacy? No they don't because it would hit the pocket books of the multi-nats that own them. Will Romney or Obama or whatever other puppet the left or right stand up do it? No they won't because it will hit the pocket books of those who allow them to be the front runners.

One election? That's ripe. This aint my first rodeo. Every single time we go through this. I'm told to suck it up and eat the #### sandwich, only to watch my rights deteriorate and the jackass who I was told to vote for actually contributes. It gets old. See I am a swing voter. I am not tied to a party because I feel they are both out for themselves and the corps they are funded by. If anything the members of both parties behave in a fashion that actually drives me away in their quest to sway me. It's quite ironic.

Vote for who you like. If your man is viable, he will get elected.

Edited July 12, 2012 by sigmtnman

[daddyo]

I'm told to suck it up and eat the #### sandwich, only to watch my rights deteriorate and the jackass who I was told to vote for actually contributes. It gets old.

Yep, just go ahead and bend over.

Meanwhile, nothing changes in Amerika.

Edited July 12, 2012 by DaddyO

[Caster]

Meanwhile, nothing changes in Amerika.

..and it never will until it REALLY changes.

[sigmtnman]

"There is no "slippery slope" toward loss of liberty, only a long staircase where each step down must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders." – Alan K. Simpson, U.S. Senator, New York Times, 9/26/82

[RobertNashville]

Then vote for the man, Robert. Like I give a rat's hiney. Not sure why you waste so much time trying to convince others that he's the best guy for the job, when he's no different from what we have now.

I intend to vote for him and I noticed you didn't attempt to answer my question.

I can't help but wonder why.

[sigmtnman]

Can't speak for DaddyO, but mostly because your question is obviously rhetorical and you have no desire to understand the opinions of others.

Edited July 12, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

More bold may help your point Robert.

Apparently the bold is needed because people don't seem to be getting the point. In any case, no one has yet replied with an answer to my question.

If someone can show me a better candidate with better policies and better stands on issues and has a reasonable and demonstrable chance of defeating the Communist then I'd be happy to at least consider voting for him or her.

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

I intend to vote for him and I noticed you didn't attempt to answer my question.

I can't help but wonder why.

Here's why: I'm not jumping through your hoops today. My opinion wouldn't make a bit of difference to you anyway, so I'm simply not going to waste time with it.

Just vote for RINO Mitt and let the rest of us vote how we want to. You are for freedom to choose, right?

Edited July 12, 2012 by DaddyO

[RobertNashville]

The question isn't rhetorical - I'm looking for an answer (not an opinion), if there is one.

Show me a better candidate who can truly beat Obama and I'll vote for him - calling the question rhetorical or saying that answering is jumping though hoops seems to me to be just a mechanism to avoid answering.

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

The question isn't rhetorical - I'm looking for an answer, not an opinion), if there is one.

Show me a better candidate who can truly beat Obama and I'll vote for him.

Calling the question rhetorical or saying that answering is jumping though hoops seems to me to be just a mechanism to avoid answering.

Let me put it another way - who I vote for and why is none of your business. That's all you need to know.

[RobertNashville]

Let me put it another way - who I vote for and why is none of your business. That's all you need to know.

That's fine; but just to be clear, I didn't ask who you (or anyone ) were going to vote for.

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

That's fine; but just to be clear, I didn't ask who you (or anyone ) were going to vote for.

Oh, not directly, no.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Apparently the bold is needed because people don't seem to be getting the point. In any case, no one has yet replied with an answer to my question.

If someone can show me a better candidate with better policies and better stands on issues and has a reasonable and demonstrable chance of defeating the Communist then I'd be happy to at least consider voting for him or her.

At this timeframe in the presidential race, Romey is the only hope of dethroning the Dictator. But I guess everyone is not aware that the primary process is over, and are still in denial that a third party candidate is only a vote to keep the commie in office.

[RobertNashville]

Oh, not directly, no.

Not directly, not indirectly and not in any other way.

[daddyo]

Yeah, the rest of us are just too stupid to get it....

Edited July 12, 2012 by DaddyO

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, the rest of us are just too stupid to get it....

I didn't say anything like that either....I'm asking an honest question to which I'd like an honest answer.

[sigmtnman]

Robert, you've already stated in another thread that we have no logic. It can only be inferred that you feel your logic is superior and thusly we are stupid.

Let me put it this way. I look at a president and elected officials similar to a wife, as I will be stuck with the decision for some time. I didn't settle on an ugly woman I didn't like and I won't settle with who other people think has the best chance to get elected.

Do as you please, but stop inferring that your logic is somehow above others or at the very least, if you do, stand behind the statement.

[RobertNashville]

Robert, you've already stated in another thread that we have no logic. It can only be inferred that you feel your logic is superior and thusly we are stupid.

Let me put it this way. I look at a president and elected officials similar to a wife, as I will be stuck with the decision for some time. I didn't settle on an ugly woman I didn't like and I won't settle with who other people think has the best chance to get elected.

Do as you please, but stop inferring that your logic is somehow above others or at the very least, if you do, stand behind the statement.

Respectfully, I didn't say anyone was stupid or that people have no logic; what I've said (and I say) is that I don't see logic in supporting a candidate(s) that can't win. Inferring anything beyond that is inferring a meaning that isn't there and not intended.

If there is logic to supporting a non-viable candidate, it shouldn't be that difficult for someone to explain it but so far, people have either relied on emotion-based arguments or haven't tried at all.

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Then you are saying you could be mistaken and that you just don't see it? If so, then my apologies for misunderstanding your semantics.

Are you familiar with Plato's The Allegory of the Cave?

Edited July 12, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

Then you are saying you could be mistaken and that you just don't see it? If so, then my apologies for misunderstanding your semantics.

Are you familiar with Plato's The Allegory of the Cave?

It's been a very long time since I read The Republic but I think I understand your reference.

Are you saying I'm chained to the blank wall of the cave and only seeing shadows rather than reality and that's why I don't see a logic that is actually there?

Edited July 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

More so that perception is reality for everyone. We all bring different life experiences and history in how we interpret things. Even the person who is elevated from the depths of the cave is bound by his new insight and could still elevate his perception further given even greater perspective.

I do however feel that if many people agree, then perhaps there is reason to question the premiss.

[mav]

If there is logic to supporting a non-viable candidate, it shouldn't be that difficult for someone to explain it but so far, people have either relied on emotion-based arguments or haven't tried at all.

Well... there is no logic in supporting a nonviable candidate. However, Johnson is a viable candidate. His name will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Will he win? Not a chance in hell, but he still is a viable candidate. Therefore, nobody is wasting their time or being illogical by supporting him.

Everything breaks down to principles, and I will admit that ArmyVeteran and sigmtnman (and a few others) are more principled than me. I am more pragmatic even though I know my pragmatism has been partially responsible for the downfall of the country. Will Romney be better than Obama? Certainly, but he will still suck and he won't bring about the sweeping change that is desparately needed to turn the country back around. Nevertheless, I will still be voting for him this November.

When I honestly think about the position I have taken, the only word I can ascribe to myself is chump. I have bought into the two party paradigm, and I always find a reason as to why I won't break out of it. I am part of the problem.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I didn't vote for Obama the last time like many did to prove they weren't racist, and I will vote for Romney this time, because I'm anti-communist and not stupid.

Edited July 12, 2012 by ThePunisher