GARY JOHNSON will END the IRS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep it is possible that the stuffed shirt will be a better president than the empty suit. But getting all upset about the difference between the douche versus the crap sandwich might be wasted effort and money. Or not. Maybe it is the most important thing in the world that we elect the crap sandwich to boot the douche out of power.

In Y2K everybody on both sides was real upset that the wrong incompetent idiot might be elected. Did it matter? If Gore had won, even his most fanatic fans would have been sick of seeing him within a year, and he would have been replaced by an R in 2004. Who knows? Maybe a less-incompetent R than G.W. Bush? And it would be vanishingly unlikely we would have had a president Obama in 2008.

Similarly, the only reason to get all upset about the "colossal importance" of the 2004 election was that the D's had somehow managed to scrape up a candidate even worse than G.W. Bush. But the same deal-- Kerry was so unlikeable and idiotic, dollars to donuts we would have elected an R president in 2008, and possibly that R would be less-incompetent than Obama. No telling. Alternate history is far from an exact science.

Just saying, maybe I'll vote for the stuffed shirt but even if the stuffed shirt wins it doesn't necessarily mean a long-term benefit. Maybe it just sets up a chain of events leading to somebody even worse in the white house by 2016.

So maybe voting for somebody you actually like, makes more sense. Or not.

[sigmtnman]

I do enjoy your posts Lester. They always deliver.

[Oh Shoot]

.....

So maybe voting for somebody you actually like, makes more sense. Or not.

Always suggests to moi that the citizenry should not be voting for ANYone except their reps in the House. Let the House decide the Senate, as it used to, and also decide the Prez.

If folks had to focus on holding only their local pols' feet to the fire every two years for EVERYthing, this would be a vastly different country at this point. Better country? No guarantees as per The Lester Weevils Alternate History Theorem, but quite likely yes, IMHO.

- OS

Edited July 12, 2012 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

I do enjoy your posts Lester. They always deliver.

Yep, significant factor as to why I tune in as frequently as I do to the non-fireams part of TGO.

- OS

Edited July 12, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

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.

You made me realize that I have used the term "viable" and "winnable" somewhat interchangeability and inappropriately (or at least without defining what I mean by "viable"; that was a mistake on my part. I do understand that Johnson (as well as others) are on the ballot and from that standpoint, are viable but I would never have described him/her as viable.

I did not support Romney in the primaries; I supported other candidates; I donated money to their campaigns and did some other legwork. But, none of them won the nomination and I'm not going to donate more money to them or vote for (write in or otherwise) any of them in November because I see no way that they could win. I still like them and I think any of the candidates I initially supported would be a better President than Romney but they didn't win the nomination. I guess that's why I say that I don't see the logic of supporting someone who can't win.

I consider myself to be a principled man, or at least I try to be. But I guess I"m a pragmatists first.

Does that make me unprincipled or a bad person? I'd like to think not but maybe it does.

[RobertNashville]

Yep it is possible that the stuffed shirt will be a better president than the empty suit. But getting all upset about the difference between the douche versus the crap sandwich might be wasted effort and money. Or not. Maybe it is the most important thing in the world that we elect the crap sandwich to boot the douche out of power.

In Y2K everybody on both sides was real upset that the wrong incompetent idiot might be elected. Did it matter? If Gore had won, even his most fanatic fans would have been sick of seeing him within a year, and he would have been replaced by an R in 2004. Who knows? Maybe a less-incompetent R than G.W. Bush? And it would be vanishingly unlikely we would have had a president Obama in 2008.

Similarly, the only reason to get all upset about the "colossal importance" of the 2004 election was that the D's had somehow managed to scrape up a candidate even worse than G.W. Bush. But the same deal-- Kerry was so unlikeable and idiotic, dollars to donuts we would have elected an R president in 2008, and possibly that R would be less-incompetent than Obama. No telling. Alternate history is far from an exact science.

Just saying, maybe I'll vote for the stuffed shirt but even if the stuffed shirt wins it doesn't necessarily mean a long-term benefit. Maybe it just sets up a chain of events leading to somebody even worse in the white house by 2016.

So maybe voting for somebody you actually like, makes more sense. Or not.

Going through the "what ifs" is always entertaining and often enlightening; the problem is, none of can really know what would have happened "if".

It seems to me that last election cycle a lot of people were putting forth the idea that if we elected a really bad candidate (i.e. Obama) and rejected McCain that by the next election cycle we would get a really good, upstanding Conservative Republican candidate...well, we rejected McCain and got Obama and not only is he a really bad President but a communist who rejects, dismisses and ignores the Constitution at every opportunity yet we've got Mit Romney as the Republican candidate

Now, I don't consider Mit to be a RINO or a bad candidate as some here seem to but I sure don't see him as the really good, upstanding Conservative people were saying we would get.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Going through the "what ifs" is always entertaining and often enlightening; the problem is, none of can really know what would have happened "if".

It seems to me that last election cycle a lot of people were putting forth the idea that if we elected a really bad candidate (i.e. Obama) and rejected McCain that by the next election cycle we would get a really good, upstanding Conservative Republican candidate...well, we rejected McCain and got Obama and not only is he a really bad President but a communist who rejects, dismisses and ignores the Constitution at every opportunity yet we've got Mit Romney as the Republican candidate

Now, I don't consider Mit to be a RINO or a bad candidate as some here seem to but I sure don't see him as the really good, upstanding Conservative people were saying we would get.

Hi Robert

I didn't have grand expectations when I voted libertarian rather than McCain or Obama. If I'd liked McCain would have voted for him. Was actually a fan of McCain for a couple of months of the Y2K primary season but then started studying his record and became real unimpressed. Unfortunately had contributed $100 back then and so he kept sending me incessant contribution begging letters and emails for 8 more years until after the 2008 election. After the Y2K primary McCain had got "on my radar" for the 8 years afterward and I paid attention to what he was doing in the senate. Can't recall anything he did in those 8 years which made me happy, and nursed a serious grudge about McCain re campaign finance reform and immigration. Had low expectations for McCain 2008 even if he happened to win, and certainly couldn't consider in clear conscience voting for the guy.

My persistent thin rationale voting libertarian was that if libertarians could just consistently rack up at least one percent in every presidential election-- Nowadays it is common for candidates to lose by less than a percent or two. Kept hoping that whichever party that loses each election, the strategists would see that 1 percent and think, "If our platform had been libertarian enough to attract that one percent of libertarian voters then we could have won." Which in theory, over time, would move both parties' platforms at least a little closer toward libertarianism. Of course it would be more ideal if one or the other party would just come up with a platform and candidate I actually like.

The persistent low libertarian turnout since Y2K is testament to the skill of D and R hucksters in framing every election as "the end of the world" unless the lesser of two evils wins. I suspect the Libertarian vote would be at least 5 percent except the hucksters manage to scare people bad enough to vote the lesser of two evils rather than their conscience.

Ain't convinced that our situation would be better today if McCain had won, though victory would have been virtually impossible because by then G.W. and the R congress had so seriously damaged republican prospects. If McCain had won, he would have signed all the bailout and stimulus BS coming from congress. If McCain had won, he would have cooperated with D's and signed "healthcare reform". Maybe the details of McCainCare would slightly differ from ObamaCare, just an alternate recipe of crap sandwich. And of course with a President McCain and a D-majority congress, guarantee we would have "comprehensive immigration amnesty" by now.

McCain would by now have us more deeply involved in OLD foreign adventures than even Obama, and McCain would by now have us in even more NEW foreign adventures than Obama. McCain keeps complaining that Obama does not unilaterally invade enough third-world nations. If McCain was president, the R's in congress wouldn't have fought against commie initiatives so much, because they would be supporting a commie R president right or wrong. If McCain was president, then the D's could have held the house in the 2010 election cycle, and the R's in office would be acting as liberal as D's. The R-tagged plastic political animals would have witnessed the election success of liberal D's, and witnessed the election success of a liberal R president, and the R congresscritters would be falling all over themselves to out-liberal the liberals in order to buy votes.

So sure Obama is screwing the pooch, but McCain would have wore that poor pup out by now. I have zero guilt voting libertarian in 2008 and "letting" Obama win. If by miracle McCain would have won then he would surely lose this 2012 year, and he would probably lose to a D even more commie than Obama. So we would have had four years of a president as bad or worse than Obama, followed by a D president elected this year, as bad or worse than Obama.

====

Now on the good side, Romney so far appears a little brighter than G.W, Kerry, Gore or McCain. Various academic and test records that came out on G.W., Kerry, Gore and McCain lead me to suspect that they were certainly above-average intelligence, but almost certainly not 99th percentile smart. Easily 90th percentile or possibly even 95+ percentile. But that is dam pitiful. 99th percentile folk are "a dime a dozen". At least 3 million USA citizens are 99th percentile and a crying shame the recent candidates ain't even that smart. Why even consider a presidential candidate not at least among the 300,000 people in the 99.9 percentile? 300,000 is a rather large potential pool to ignore and go scraping around in a pool of 30 million people to find candidates for the leader of the free world.

Anyway, am pretty certain Romney is at least 99th percentile material, a welcome change not seen since Clinton. Not that Clinton was a fabulous president. Smarts are not everything. Carter might be one of the smartest recent presidents, who even had good success as a businessman and guvnor, but he still sucked as president. But it is slightly encouraging to have a non-dummie running. Betcha Ron Paul has a higher IQ though. Not many dummies get to be doctors. Its a rather exclusive club.

To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. To a community organizer, every problem looks like a class-warfare problem. To a financier/manager, everything looks like a financial/scheduling problem. Maybe that is the tool to take on our massive problems or maybe it ain't. Bloomberg is a financier and he ain't a dummie and look what an idiot he is as mayor of NYC.

[kieefer]

Here's a couple of questions for you ArmyVet, if you can't find it on a video please type it out.

What are GJ's polling numbers along with Ron Paul's?

What percentage of the vote do they need to have to continue their run for the WH?

(I'm assuming of course they have set a % goal in which they think they can actually win and not be another Ross Perot.)

[daddyo]

Good god-o-mighty, Lester, :up: :up: :up: to your last post, but especially this statement:

I have zero guilt voting libertarian in 2008 and "letting" Obama win.

That's how much guilt I will have voting for the man I choose in Nov. I'm sick and tired of buying the lies on both sides of the aisle.

If I get one more recorded phone message at dinnertime telling me that we have to vote for Mitt because Barry O'Dumbo will destroy the country if we don't, I'm going to rip my phone out of the wall and use it for target practice.

[sigmtnman]

Yup. Zero guilt here too. If the Rs or Ds wanted me to vote for their guy they would put someone up I could get behind. I reckon I'm a 1%er as well.

Edited July 13, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Then I guess that 1% conscience vote means that everyone else is stupid and you'd just as soon

see this country end up in a war sooner, with itself. Not that I disagree with you on that, but I don't think

it has to end that way. Choices. The Tea Party is trying, but you include that in the blame game, guys.

and it is a viable attempt.

And Sig, I agree about the parties bit, but we made our bed a long time ago. That's about like re-fighting

the Civil War all the time. Sometimes you have to work within the framework to cut out the crap. The crap

was included a long time ago and it will take a while to cut out. We let Obama keep his throne and it will

add another layer of crap to cut out later, if it can be cut out at all.

What do we have then?

There are candidates showing up in primaries all around us, challenging incumbents. Maybe not enough to

suit some of you, but without the effort, and several wins, the media has spun this election cycle like all the

rest and we will have our "dumbed-down" results as usual and the imposter will still remain the president,

but maybe a different senate.

There would be more, including myself, if people would open their eyes to the spread of tyranny going on,

but so much of the time, all I hear around here is spewing that "tinfoil crap" some of the children do because

they can't see the forest for the trees, and it sounds good on the internet. There's my version of cynicism and

I hope it explains why I continue to vote for Romney. I just hope there's enough of a chance to fight another

few political battles and people quit worrying about American Idol and some dumb reality gun show with a couple

of blondes and retards in the same time slot.

[sigmtnman]

Had my last Republican savior not lied to me, signed the patriot act, Tarp 1 and a myriad of other things, I may would be more likely to listen 6.8.

I'm not saying other people are stupid and never have. The only thing I've ever meant is that people should vote for who they want and not who they think has a chance of being elected. It's ok with me if others want to compromise. It is not for me to judge them, but I do have to live with my decisions. If I give an inch, they will take a mile. I've given enough inches already.

Edited July 13, 2012 by sigmtnman

[daddyo]

As the saying goes, "I'd rather live on my feet than die on my knees".

[mav]

I guess I do; or at the very least, I believe him to be honest and trustworthy.

I suppose I do so because the Morman's I've known (and I've known quite a few over the years), are, as a group, the most moral, honest and trustworthy people I have ever known. Obviously, ascribing traits of a group to one individual is risky but I've seen nothing in Mit to cause me to think he isn't an honest and trustworthy person; that alone is more than enough for me to vote for him over the current communist in office.

Yep, it is not very wise to "ascribing(e) traits of a group to one individual." How do you feel about Harry Reid? He is a mormon, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[RobertNashville]

Yep, it is not very wise to "ascribing(e) traits of a group to one individual." How do you feel about Harry Reid? He is a mormon, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

And you don't trust him because of his record I would think.

I've seen noting in Romney that causes me to think is anything other than I described him above; we have years of history with Dirty Harry Reid to know where here stands on issues..comparing the two people because they claim the same religion is at best, unnecessary.

Edited July 13, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest ThePunisher]

If I give an inch, they will take a mile. I've given enough inches already.

Obama is going to take more than a mile and everything that you own.

[sigmtnman]

Obama is going to take more than a mile and everything that you own.

The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:

He leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul:

He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name' sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;

Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;

Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,

and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:

He leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul:

He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name' sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;

Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;

Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,

and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever.

Sir, I'm ready for the lords return.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Had my last Republican savior not lied to me, signed the patriot act, Tarp 1 and a myriad of other things, I may would be more likely to listen 6.8.

I'm not saying other people are stupid and never have. The only thing I've ever meant is that people should vote for who they want and not who they think has a chance of being elected. It's ok with me if others want to compromise. It is not for me to judge them, but I do have to live with my decisions. If I give an inch, they will take a mile. I've given enough inches already.

I don't consider it as much a compromise as I do it being getting this communist out. Letting him have another

four years might as well be saying let's go ahead and have another American Revolution. My opinion. And I know you

didn't say anyone was stupid. I could have re-phrased that. Wasn't directed at you, to begin with.

Gary Johnson has a decent record of vetos as Governor. Only thing I see he has going for him, though, is what his

ads say. That's probably good enough considering the other two candidates, but I don't see him getting anywhere.

What jtmaze said earlier about libertarians I agree with. Get a libertarian movement started from the ground up,

starting at the local and state level. Putting one man up for president every four years doesn't make for much of a

movement. Those tests I remember taking about what kind of ideology you have, the one on Beck's web page told

me I was essentially a libertarian. I agree with just about everything libertarian, but that doesn't reconcile with the

possibility of causing another Perot factor and letting another Clinton type take another election. That's just me,

though.

And I didn't like TARP, Patriot Act, etc, either. I want to see that crap gone with a lot of other things.

Edited July 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[sigmtnman]

I don't consider it as much a compromise as I do it being getting this communist out. Letting him have another

four years might as well be saying let's go ahead and have another American Revolution. My opinion. And I know you

didn't say anyone was stupid. I could have re-phrased that. Wasn't directed at you, to begin with.

Gary Johnson has a decent record of vetos as Governor. Only thing I see he has going for him, though, is what his

ads say. That's probably good enough considering the other two candidates, but I don't see him getting anywhere.

What jtmaze said earlier about libertarians I agree with. Get a libertarian movement started from the ground up,

starting at the local and state level. Putting one man up for president every four years doesn't make for much of a

movement. Those tests I remember taking about what kind of ideology you have, the one on Beck's web page told

me I was essentially a libertarian. I agree with just about everything libertarian, but that doesn't reconcile with the

possibility of causing another Perot factor and letting another Clinton type take another election. That's just me,

though.

And I didn't like TARP, Patriot Act, etc, either. I want to see that crap gone with a lot of other things.

Lester states similar thoughts to mine in a much more eloquent fashion than I could ever dream of so I'll kindly refer you to his posts on the matter.

http://www.tngunowne...post__p__784085

We don't get any Libertarians here in Polk county and I'm not a politician. I'm not sure what the answer is, but when given the chance, I stand behind the person I feel is closest to my principals, regardless of his popularity.

Edited July 14, 2012 by sigmtnman

[jtmaze]

Success breeds success. This government hasn't been successful in a very long time(my opinion). If we want to see our country return to a successful great nation that it has the potental to be, change has to be made. Groups of likeminded people have to get together and elect people in smaller communities(less than 1 million people) and make those governments successful. Reduce crime with infringing on the rights of others. We all agree that legal gun ownership reduces crime. A start would be stop a legal system from retaliating against law abiding citizens for their actions when clearly legal(innocent until proven guilty not vise versa.) With reduced crime you will see increases in all aspects of an ecomony. Use these successes, as an example to how the Constitution works when allowed to. This plan will take a great deal of people smarter than I am put I promise it is possible. My granddad grew up in a dirt floor house outside of Jackson, TN during the great deppression. At 16 years old he moved to Jackson and lived in a boarding house and worked for the railroad. He finished high school at night and retired from the RR in 1973. He then went into business for himself to keep his family living the lifestyle that they where used to living. I don't remember what year but our government merged the RR pension with social security. Granddaddy paid both SSI and RR pension his entire career and then was told he could only draw benefits from one or the other. This was the beginning of the mess we are in now. That happened at least 30 years ago. The point is if you want to survive you must work. It has taken decades to get where we are so one or two Presidents aren't going to change anything. It will take decades of voting likeminded people into office at all levels of governments. The IRS is here to stay give up on that. If you have a problem with taxes vote in enough likeminded people into office to come up with a flat tax that is fair to everyone and take the teeth out of the IRS. I would gladdly give up 1% of my salary to taxes if it was spent wisely. Fixing this problem will take decades so don't insult my inteligence by saying you are going to "do away with the IRS."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester states similar thoughts to mine in a much more eloquent fashion than I could ever dream of so I'll kindly refer you to his posts on the matter.

http://www.tngunowne...post__p__784085

http://www.tngunowne...post__p__783879

We don't get any Libertarians here in Polk county and I'm not a politician. I'm not sure what the answer is, but when given the chance, I stand behind the person I feel is closest to my principals, regardless of his popularity.

And I think you know I respect that.

[sigmtnman]

And I think you know I respect that.

Yes, Sir.

I do need to pay attention to my homophones as OhShoot pointed out in another thread.