Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Nod for President [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Nod for President


Restless28
05-05-2012, 18:57
Ok, now we have a 3rd option, which is better than Obamney.

What say ye, GT?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-race-gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-nod-202018822.html

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 19:19
ZOMG, where will RP fit in. Those bastages should have held Ron's place, they know he's on his way.:steamed::steamed::steamed:

On second thought, nevermind.

Gunnut 45/454
05-05-2012, 20:23
CavDoc
My thoughts exactly what will RP do when he's left out completely from every avenue to the WH! No GOP nomination and now the Liberterian party has kicked him to the curb!! Poor RP nobody wants him!:rofl:

Restless28
05-05-2012, 20:39
GJ is tough in immigration and did good for the great state of New Mexico. He's pro gun, pro individual rights, and anti big government. His record as governor is a helluva lot better than Obamney's.

ChuteTheMall
05-05-2012, 20:40
:yawn:

certifiedfunds
05-05-2012, 21:11
Obama
Romney
Johnson

So, will you folks be voting Johnson?

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 21:19
Obama
Romney
Johnson

So, will you folks be voting Johnson?

Absolutely, if he is the candidate most likely to beat Barry. If he is tied for Romney, I'd go Gary.

But the pragmatist in me will have to hold my nose and vote for Romney if he is the only guy that has a chance to beat Barry.

Restless28
05-05-2012, 21:29
Absolutely, if he is the candidate most likely to beat Barry. If he is tied for Romney, I'd go Gary.

But the pragmatist in me will have to hold my nose and vote for Romney if he is the only guy that has a chance to beat Barry.

I concur with the Doc.

JBnTX
05-05-2012, 21:39
Poor RP nobody wants him!:rofl:

Maybe Ron Paul can now try a 4th party run for the presidency?

:rofl:

RC-RAMIE
05-05-2012, 21:41
ZOMG, where will RP fit in. Those bastages should have held Ron's place, they know he's on his way.:steamed::steamed::steamed:

On second thought, nevermind.

If he dont get the nomination he will sit out like he been saying the whole time.


....

RC-RAMIE
05-05-2012, 21:43
Obama
Romney
Johnson

So, will you folks be voting Johnson?

Johnson will get my vote.


....

Stang_Man
05-05-2012, 21:50
GJ is tough in immigration and did good for the great state of New Mexico. He's pro gun, pro individual rights, and anti big government. His record as governor is a helluva lot better than Obamney's.

He'll get my vote over Romney, every day.

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 06:05
If he dont get the nomination he will sit out like he been saying the whole time.


....

IIRC, what he's been saying is that he currently has no intention to run, but won't rule out changing his mind in the future. That leaves the door open to the possibility.

Maybe he's updated his statement and I missed it. Any chance you have a link?

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 06:17
Anybody think any Libertarian nominee will get even one million votes in November against Romney?

Or even one electoral vote?

What are you smoking?

:tinfoil:

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 06:30
Anybody think any Libertarian nominee will get even one million votes in November against Romney?

Or even one electoral vote?

What are you smoking?

:tinfoil:

Not sure,but the answer to your question might be found in the libertarian party platform.

JBnTX
05-06-2012, 06:40
Anybody think any Libertarian nominee will get even one million votes in November against Romney?

Or even one electoral vote?

What are you smoking?

:tinfoil:


I think they will.

I think a third party run by any libertarian candidate is a serious threat to the republican party's success in November.

Too many people are upset with the "status quo" of government in general,
and the republicans in particular.

They want a change, and they mistakenly believe that a third party can bring about that change.

The only change that they'll see is Obama go full socialist on the American people in his second term.

All brought to you by Ron Paul.

..

hogfish
05-06-2012, 07:35
Absolutely, if he is the candidate most likely to beat Barry. If he is tied for Romney, I'd go Gary.

But the pragmatist in me will have to hold my nose and vote for Romney if he is the only guy that has a chance to beat Barry.

This is always the case, isn't it? :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 07:45
This is always the case, isn't it? :dunno:

Not always. There are a lot of different opinions out there. That is just mine.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 08:18
I think they will.

I think a third party run by any libertarian candidate is a serious threat to the republican party's success in November.

Too many people are upset with the "status quo" of government in general,
and the republicans in particular.

They want a change, and they mistakenly believe that a third party can bring about that change.

The only change that they'll see is Obama go full socialist on the American people in his second term.

All brought to you by Ron Paul.

..

Wait I though he was ineffective?

aircarver
05-06-2012, 08:21
Job # 1:

Get the communists out !!

.

Glocksanity
05-06-2012, 09:18
Seriously? What a joke. Yeah, Johnson is running for President like I am running for President. He has the same chance. None.

BORNGEARHEAD
05-06-2012, 10:10
I'll vote for Johnson.

hogfish
05-06-2012, 11:51
Seriously? What a joke. Yeah, Johnson is running for President like I am running for President. He has the same chance. None.

+1...I agree. His chances are ZERO if people don't vote for him. I take it you won't be voting for him, right? :eyebrow:

G29Reload
05-06-2012, 12:42
So, will you folks be voting Johnson?

Only if he has Pat Paulsen for VP.


:rofl:

G29Reload
05-06-2012, 12:47
I think a third party run by any libertarian candidate is a serious threat to the republican party's success in November.
..

Meaning any such effort simply helps Obama.



Too many people are upset with the "status quo" of government in general, and the republicans in particular.
..

So upset with the status quo that they intend to keep it, by reelecting Obama if it kills them.



They want a change, and they mistakenly believe that a third party can bring about that change.

The only change that they'll see is Obama go full socialist on the American people in his second term.

All brought to you by Ron Paul.

..

This.

jtull7
05-06-2012, 12:54
In 2008, the Libertarian candidate received 199,314 votes, about 0.15% of the total popular vote.

So, I would not be wasting my vote voting for Gary, even though he is a friend of mine.

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 13:13
If he makes it onto my ballot, I'll have one more choice to vote against.

Anybody expect him to do better than Michael Badnarik?
(4th in 2004, behind Ralph Nader and the two real candidates).


Or will he get more than Bob Barr's half-million votes in 2008?
(another typical Libertarian 4th place behind Ralph Nader; why do they still pretend to be the third party when they do no better than 4th?):tinfoil:

Or Harry Browne, 5th place in 2000 behind the usual 3rd place Nader but also 4th place Buchanan.:rofl:


Or Harry Browne (:yawn:), 5th place in 1996 behind Ralph Nader who got bumped into 4th place by anti-GOP Ross Perot (Clinton's secret weapon).

Or Andre Morreau, 4th place behind anti-GOP Ross Perot in 1992 (Clinton's secret weapon). Nader didn't run.:popcorn:

Maybe it's time to restore the long-lost glory days of the great Libertarian Party with a return to a very, very distant and totally insignificant THIRD PLACE!!!:cheerleader:

Unless Ralph Nader chooses to humiliate them again.:nutcheck:

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 13:20
In 2008, the Libertarian candidate received 199,314 votes, about 0.15% of the total popular vote.

So, I would not be wasting my vote voting for Gary, even though he is a friend of mine.

Libertarian (Bob Barr) 523,686 & 0.40% per Wikipedia page; you posted the Constitution party (Chuckles Baldwin) total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

:embarassed:

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 16:53
Of course you are all correct. We might as well elect a progressive liberal because he's the only one that can supplant the socialist liberal.

I can see the platform slogan now.. No change you can believe in.

Snowman92D
05-06-2012, 17:07
Yeah...looks like there's no chance for legalizing drugs on this go-round.

RON PAUL IN 2016! :smoking:

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:16
Yeah...looks like there's no chance for legalizing drugs on this go-round.

RON PAUL IN 2016! :smoking:

There you go again with the drugs. You're a weird dude, you project so clearly I can't believe you aren't tested weekly :wavey:

barbedwiresmile
05-06-2012, 17:17
drugs...

The snowman strikes again.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 17:18
Yeah...looks like there's no chance for legalizing drugs on this go-round.

RON PAUL IN 2016! :smoking:

:beer::drunk::cheers::drink:



You do know drugs are legal right...

G-19
05-06-2012, 17:18
Yeah...looks like there's no chance for legalizing drugs on this go-round.

RON PAUL IN 2016! :smoking:

Now, that is funny.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 17:22
Now, that is funny.

Do you drink alcohol?

G-19
05-06-2012, 17:29
Do you drink alcohol?

Nope, I quit drinking about 17 years ago when I grew up and realized the cost and effects.

What does that have to do with anything anyway?

Do you do illegal drugs? That might explain a lot.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 17:40
Pretty funny how fast this thread got derailed by the usual suspects, who never have anything constructive to add, other then displaying some sort of seething dislike of anything remotely libertarian.



Regards to the OP. Johnson was a good businessman and governor, and was popular running things with a limited government perspective. Heck he was so crazy, he even used his veto pen, and was such a crazy libertarian, he spent the state government into a surplus. Damn, how crazy is that...

Yeah, he's no Mitt. He doesn't want to bomb everyone and police the world, doesn't agree with government run healthcare, simultaneous wars on a country's citizens, Keynesian economics, and prioritize butt sex as a government issue.

Yeah, he has no chance with zealots in the R & D camp.



He has my vote.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:41
Nope, I quit drinking about 17 years ago when I grew up and realized the cost and effects.

What does that have to do with anything anyway?

Do you do illegal drugs? That might explain a lot.

Alcohol is a drug. He wanted to make sure you weren't being hypocritical.


It's a comprehension thing. Lots of folks aren't good at it.

G-19
05-06-2012, 17:46
Alcohol is a drug. He wanted to make sure you weren't being hypocritical.


It's a comprehension thing. Lots of folks aren't good at it.

With drug use, comprehension usually suffers. Explains a lot about you RP supporters.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 17:48
Nope, I quit drinking about 17 years ago when I grew up and realized the cost and effects.

What does that have to do with anything anyway?

Do you do illegal drugs? That might explain a lot.

Nope, clean and sober. Learned my lessons same as you, without government intervention.



But you agreed with Snow's post about legalizing drugs, when drugs are legal. Which kinda makes me think you really are as confused as your posts lead me to believe, or maybe you are just uniformed, ignorant, or just plain disingenuous.



The failings of prohibition are there for anyone to see. But for some reason the dots just aren't connected.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:49
With drug use, comprehension usually suffers. Explains a lot about you RP supporters.


You mean illegal narcotic drug abuse. Don't worry, comprehension is a learning process. There's still hope.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 17:50
With drug use, comprehension usually suffers. Explains a lot about you RP supporters.

What's your excuse?

Ruble Noon
05-06-2012, 17:51
Obama
Romney
Johnson

So, will you folks be voting Johnson?

From those choices? You bet I'll vote for Johnson.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:51
What's your excuse?

He doesn't do any drugs ever just like Snowman.. never.. I swear...

Please don't tell my boss.

G-19
05-06-2012, 17:54
Nope, clean and sober. Learned my lessons same as you, without government intervention.



But you agreed with Snow's post about legalizing drugs, when drugs are legal. Which kinda makes me think you really are as confused as your posts lead me to believe, or maybe you are just uniformed, ignorant, or just plain disingenuous.



The failings of prohibition are there for anyone to see. But for some reason the dots just aren't connected.

Do you not see the difference in illegal drugs and medicinal drugs? I guess you live in a sheltered little world and don't see the effects of drug abuse.

I would not be against prohibition of alcohol coming back either. It serves no useful purpose, but can result in devastating circumstances.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:56
Do you not see the difference in illegal drugs and medicinal drugs? I guess you live in a sheltered little world and don't see the effects of drug abuse.

I would not be against prohibition of alcohol coming back either. It serves no useful purpose, but can result in devastating circumstances.

I agree. Banning things always corrects behavior.

[/Sarcasmoff]

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 17:59
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8YckHG9cbMMC8b5y55zCgR-Ojo7U3tsN8jvUpTanmnjEQAYRvMw


Go team.. go.

G-19
05-06-2012, 17:59
I agree. Banning things always corrects behavior.

[/Sarcasmoff]

It is a start. Thanks for agreeing.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:00
It is a start. Thanks for agreeing.

It's a start but it doesn't end in the same place you think it will.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:07
This kind of stuff is why the libertarians will never get in the Oval Office. Sure the economy is bad and needs fixed, but the majority of conservatives will never get behind legalizing drugs, gay marriage, etc.

Why can't you see that to most people social issues are just as important as monetary issues? There are millions of Bible believing conservatives out there, and most will not support a candidate who does not share their moral beliefs.

To most Christians GOD comes before country.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:09
This kind of stuff is why the libertarians will never get in the Oval Office. Sure the economy is bad and needs fixed, but the majority of conservatives will never get behind legalizing drugs, gay marriage, etc.

Why can't you see that to most people social issues are just as important as monetary issues? There are millions of Bible believing conservatives out there, and most will not support a candidate who does not share their moral beliefs.

Mostly because the COTUS doesn't regulate morals.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:09
The COUTS is supposed to ensure freedom and liberty.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:12
Mostly because the COTUS doesn't regulate morals.

Maybe not, but I still make the claim that unless you can get the Christians on your side you will lose. Most of us see libertarianism in the same light as liberalism when it comes to morals issues. Why do you think that the Repubs always play to the Biblical values of Christians?

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:15
The COUTS is supposed to ensure freedom and liberty.

And the HOLY BIBLE is considered to be the highest law by the faithful of this country. Second to none.

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 18:18
Do you not see the difference in illegal drugs and medicinal drugs? I guess you live in a sheltered little world and don't see the effects of drug abuse.

I would not be against prohibition of alcohol coming back either. It serves no useful purpose, but can result in devastating circumstances.

Not surprising you'd be for banning alcohol again. Prohibition was a policy of nanny-state progressives and a complete failure. You couldn't help but get behind something like that.

Incidentally, a kid could buy heroin at Walgreens 80 year ago. Maybe our problems go a little deeper than the availability of drugs.

Ruble Noon
05-06-2012, 18:18
Maybe not, but I still make the claim that unless you can get the Christians on your side you will lose. Most of us see libertarianism in the same light as liberalism when it comes to morals issues. Why do you think that the Repubs always play to the Biblical values of Christians?

Is that why Santorum is the presumptive republican nominee? Oh wait...

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:18
Maybe not, but I still make the claim that unless you can get the Christians on your side you will lose. Most of us see libertarianism in the same light as liberalism when it comes to morals issues. Why do you think that the Repubs always play to the Biblical values of Christians?

See I don't like this whole "side" thing. The COTUS is to be applied equally and we need folks supporting that first and foremost.

Washington warned us about parties and he was right.

Why can't we have the freedom to be individuals? Why do we have to conform to a collective mindset? I have no problem with you being Christian any more than I have a problem with someone else being gay.

We as a society have taken sides and it will be to our detriment because neither side conforms to the liberty and freedom we could have by adhering the COTUS.

I'm not promoting a candidate or a party, just the COUTS as written and I'll support ANY person that adheres to it closer than the next guy.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:19
Do you not see the difference in illegal drugs and medicinal drugs? I guess you live in a sheltered little world and don't see the effects of drug abuse.

I would not be against prohibition of alcohol coming back either. It serves no useful purpose, but can result in devastating circumstances.

Most of the drugs that are illegal have medical uses, if not all of them.

:rofl: Been sheltered from the effects of drug abuse? I was a drug abuser. Been there done that. I know what the differences are between buying illegal and legal drugs. Which is mainly ones a safe atmosphere and the other isn't.

Prohibition does not stop this market dynamic. And does nothing to show that it actually decreases drug use. All it does is increase the violence by pushing the demand to a black market.



That does not surprise me, you are a typical authoritarian republican crusader who thinks government intervention is the only way to solve any problems.

And despite any evidence to the contrary that government intervention into vice crimes, social/economic problems, exacerbates the problem you support continuing or more government involvement.

I'm not surprised.



Would you lockup a gay/lesbian couple, whatever pastor, church, or justice of the peace who married a gay/lesbian couple against the whims of the state?

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 18:19
And the HOLY BIBLE is considered to be the highest law by the faithful of this country. Second to none.

My Bible makes no mention of cocaine, heroin, meth, or even magic underwear.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:20
And the HOLY BIBLE is considered to be the highest law by the faithful of this country. Second to none.

No, in this country the Bible is second to the COTUS.

You have the freedom (so far) to base your life and actions on the Holy Bible. Just as others have the freedom to choose any other holy book or none at all.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:20
Not surprising you'd be for banning alcohol again. Prohibition was a policy of nanny-state progressives and a complete failure. You couldn't help but get behind something like that.

Incidentally, a kid could buy heroin at Walgreens 80 year ago. Maybe our problems go a little deeper than the availability of drugs.

Agreed, when we as a nation started turning our backs on GOD, he left us to our own devices. Worked out great, didn't it?

G29Reload
05-06-2012, 18:21
From those choices? You bet I'll vote for Johnson.

which means you're voting for Obama.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:21
And the HOLY BIBLE is considered to be the highest law by the faithful of this country. Second to none.

:rofl: Hooray for America then.

Guess we should bring back slavery then right? Or stoning? Or money and marriage to make rape ok?

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:21
No, in this country the Bible is second to the COTUS.

Not to true Christians it isn't.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:23
:rofl: Hooray for America then.

Guess we should bring back slavery then right? Or stoning? Or money and marriage to make rape ok?

Where does Jesus Christ advocate any of that?

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:25
Not to true Christians it isn't.

Here we have a true santo supporter. Gig-government is OK as long as it keeps infidels in check.



You should move to Iran or SA.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:26
Where does Jesus Christ advocate any of that?

Apparently his father does, no OT for you then? That make a biblical theocracy ok for you?

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:27
Not to true Christians it isn't.


That really doesn't matter as we have a freedom of religion guaranteed to us by the COTUS.

Like I said you can believe whatever you like but the COTUS is law and that's what we are to defend if you care about keeping said freedom of religion.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:28
Where does Jesus Christ advocate any of that?

Jesus didn't as far as I know. Nor did he write the COTUS and our law of the land.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:29
Apparently his father does, no OT for you then? That make a biblical theocracy ok for you?

If it is based on the Holy Bible, yes.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:29
If it is based on the Holy Bible, yes.


Why don't you support my freedom of religion?

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:30
That really doesn't matter as we have a freedom of religion guaranteed to us by the COTUS.

Like I said you can believe whatever you like but the COTUS is law and that's what we are to defend if you care about keeping said freedom of religion.

He doesn't care.

Jesus wanted to tax everyone and bane people from using their free-will.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:31
That really doesn't matter as we have a freedom of religion guaranteed to us by the COTUS.

Like I said you can believe whatever you like but the COTUS is law and that's what we are to defend if you care about keeping said freedom of religion.

The COTUS has nothing to do wether I can believe in GOD and his teachings.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:32
He doesn't care.

Jesus wanted to tax everyone and bane people from using their free-will.

At the point of the government rifle no less apparently.

Comprehension will be askew here too I'm afraid.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:32
If it is based on the Holy Bible, yes.


OK, good to know where you stand at least. The side that believes a book written by men who talked to god and wants to force it done everyone's throat by a barrel of a gun. Roger that.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:33
The COTUS has nothing to do wether I can believe in GOD and his teachings.

No it just allows you the freedom to exercise those beliefs.

Why don't you feel I should be able to exercise mine?

What happened to my freedom of religion?

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:34
My point was, with out Christian support you don't have a chance. In most of our eyes you are the ones that are no different than liberals.

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 18:34
Agreed, when we as a nation started turning our backs on GOD, he left us to our own devices. Worked out great, didn't it?

Turning our backs on God and toward the state. You know, the same state that locks people up for having, selling, and using drugs. I wish Christians would focus on spreading Christ's teachings and less on tinkering with social issues at great cost. Jesus turned water into wine--the finest wine the worlds ever seen--after all and presumably you'd endorse locking him up for it. I notice the Ten Commandments don't talk about drug use. Jesus didn't run around locking up drunks and druggies. Seems the Lord didn't feel that was too big an issue and it kind of irks me that so many Christians think they know better than God himself. The Bible seems to preach moderation in all things, but I don't see anything in there that would justify locking up druggies with rapists and murderers so they can worry about becoming a punk, getting the crap kicked out of them, etc.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:36
My point was, with out Christian support you don't have a chance. In most of our eyes you are the ones that are no different than liberals.

You know Ron Paul is a christian right? He is a social conservative, I think you should look into how that influences his philosophy when it comes to government. Might make you think about things differently.



Sorry for the thread hijack.

Ruble Noon
05-06-2012, 18:37
which means you're voting for Obama.

No, that means I will be voting for Johnson.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:37
No it just allows you the freedom to exercise those beliefs.

Why don't you feel I should be able to exercise mine?

What happened to my freedom of religion?

No, GOD gives me the authority to exercise my beliefs.

You have the ability to worship what ever you chose. You can worship a frog if you want, but it won't help your party to get into the White House.

Ruble Noon
05-06-2012, 18:38
You know Ron Paul is a christian right?


Shhh. You're going to make blood shoot out of his eyes.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:38
My point was, with out Christian support you don't have a chance. In most of our eyes you are the ones that are no different than liberals.

That may have been your point but that's not what you said.

All of that aside, you are taking a gamble that the majority feel the same way you do and when you force your moral principles on others and expect them to be in lock step with your own you will be disappointed.

The best thing ANY religion has is the COTUS because it allows for the freedom and liberty to exercise your choice.

That isn't the case for many countries and we are losing grip on the our law of the land because we chose sides that no longer represent the COTUS.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:39
No, GOD gives me the authority to exercise my beliefs.

You have the ability to worship what ever you chose. You can worship a frog if you want, but it won't help your party to get into the White House.


So God is now a Republican Delegate?

Neat.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:40
Go team.. go.

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:40
Turning our backs on God and toward the state. You know, the same state that locks people up for having, selling, and using drugs. I wish Christians would focus on spreading Christ's teachings and less on tinkering with social issues at great cost. Jesus turned water into wine--the finest wine the worlds ever seen--after all and presumably you'd endorse locking him up for it. I notice the Ten Commandments don't talk about drug use. Jesus didn't run around locking up drunks and druggies. Seems the Lord didn't feel that was too big an issue and it kind of irks me that so many Christians think they know better than God himself. The Bible seems to preach moderation in all things, but I don't see anything in there that would justify locking up druggies with rapists and murderers so they can worry about becoming a punk, getting the crap kicked out of them, etc.

I see you actually don't understand what the Bible says.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 18:41
no, that means i will be voting for johnson.

qftmft!

G-19
05-06-2012, 18:42
So God is now a Republican Delegate?

Neat.

Stupid Comment^^^^

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:44
Stupid Comment^^^^


I'm just following your line of reasoning.

Freedom and liberty can only exist in a country if God says so and you vote for Christian values only.

All other religions or beliefs can pound sand the COTUS doesn't apply.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 18:45
Which of course is patently untrue according to the COTUS but surprisingly supported by some folks.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 19:02
Shhh. You're going to make blood shoot out of his eyes.

Wonder if he evens knows that Santo is catholic. :whistling:

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 19:12
I see you actually don't understand what the Bible says.

Ok expert. Show me anything in the teachings of Christ that suggest we should lock up drug offenders. Not some passage that lists drunkenness along with 15 other things like jealousy and fits of anger, but the word of Jesus himself. Drugs in and of themselves are not a moral issue. If they're used it could lead to behavior that affects others. If that behavior is criminal, that user will be prosecuted for that criminal behavior. What is wrong that? I guess we'd be locking up half as many people as we currently are and that is certainly anathema to you.

G-19
05-06-2012, 19:15
He doesn't care.

Jesus wanted to tax everyone and bane people from using their free-will.
When asked about taxes Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's (the money of the time had Ceasar's image on it, sound familiar).

He also taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. The Libertarian platform is all about money and if it feels good do it (what you think "freedom" means).

I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, it takes a relationship with GOD to understand the teachings of the Bible. Just reading it won't suffice.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:19
When asked about taxes Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's (the money of the time had Ceasar's image on it, sound familiar).

He also taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. The Libertarian platform is all about money and if it feels good do it (what you think "freedom" means).

I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, it takes a relationship with GOD to understand the teachings of the Bible. Just reading it won't suffice.

You are sorely misinformed.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

I suggest you do a little more research.

Libertarian Platform. (http://www.lp.org/platform)

G-19
05-06-2012, 19:24
I'm just following your line of reasoning.

Freedom and liberty can only exist in a country if God says so and you vote for Christian values only.

All other religions or beliefs can pound sand the COTUS doesn't apply.

You are confusing the law of the land and the Law of GOD. I will vote for the person who most closely follows my beliefs, not for hoped for monetary gain.

The COTUS has no bearing on my belief in GOD and Biblical teachings, for some reasons you can not see the difference.

beforeobamabans
05-06-2012, 19:24
I think they will.

I think a third party run by any libertarian candidate is a serious threat to the republican party's success in November.

Too many people are upset with the "status quo" of government in general,
and the republicans in particular.

They want a change, and they mistakenly believe that a third party can bring about that change.

The only change that they'll see is Obama go full socialist on the American people in his second term.

All brought to you by Ron Paul.

..

Another incoherent post brought to you by our favorite foaming-at-the-mouth Texan. Let's see...Ron Paul works within his own party (remember, he's been elected 12 times as a Republican) to influence it to a return to constitutional principles and he gets blamed for the success of a third party? Right.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:32
You are confusing the law of the land and the Law of GOD. I will vote for the person who most closely follows my beliefs, not for hoped for monetary gain.

The COTUS has no bearing on my belief in GOD and Biblical teachings, for some reasons you can not see the difference.

Your beliefs don't mean a damn thing when they are persecuted by the government.

When that happens only God CAN save you.

The COTUS has every mother loving bearing in the world to do with the fact that it's legal or illegal to worship your God the way YOU see fit and you are either to naive or to stubborn to recognize that this right is not enjoyed by every other country and it CAN be taken away if you fail to defend the COTUS.

For some reason you think Republicans support you but they can't find a single conservative candidate to promote. We know the Democrats aren't worried about morals or principles and by your very words we know you don't have a clue what Libertarians represent.

For some reason you insist on playing the pawn instead of the free thinker.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 19:32
When asked about taxes Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's (the money of the time had Ceasar's image on it, sound familiar).

He also taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. The Libertarian platform is all about money and if it feels good do it (what you think "freedom" means).

I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, it takes a relationship with GOD to understand the teachings of the Bible. Just reading it won't suffice.

So wanting a percentage of someones money, for the state, a big gigantic state that loves to take as much of peoples earnings as possible, you endorse? isn't greedy?

It's you who have it mixed up. You have a love for other peoples money, and are greedy and envious of what people own, so you are happy when the state steps n to make things "fair."

Libertarians want people to keep as much of their OWN money as possible.

You are the greedy one. You want to take money from people at the barrel of a gun and tax future workers to pay for services that our federal government has no business providing.

Who loves money more again, you, who thinks taking another persons money is OK, or someone who thinks a person should keep most of their money?









:rofl: Wow, kettle meet pot.

You are the kind of voter that scares me to be honest. You are a Barry voter with a serious religious bent. You are fine with big government intervention, whether social or economic.

With repulician voters like yourself, who needs democrats.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:37
Apparently someone didn't take much heed to the history behind Jesus and Pontius Pilate.



The government doesn't give a damn about your freedom of religion. The COTUS does and you denounce it.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:38
Sad... As if the rule of man has no affect on Gods followers. Keep working with that.

G-19
05-06-2012, 19:39
So wanting a percentage of someones money, for the state, a big gigantic state that loves to take as much of peoples earnings that you endorse isn't greedy?

It's you who have it mixed up. You have a love for other peoples money, and are greedy and envious of what people own, so you are happy when the state steps n to make things "fair."

Libertarians want people to keep as much of their OWN money as possible.

You are the greedy one. You want to take money from people at the barrel of a gun and tax future workers to pay for services that our federal government has no business providing.

Who loves money more? You, who thinks taking another persons money is OK, or someone who thinks a person should keep most of their money?









:rofl: Wow, kettle meet pot.

Wow, you threw all the RP talking/slander points out there.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:44
Wow, you threw all the RP talking/slander points out there.

The truth sure can hurt at times and it didn't need to be RP to make those points. It could be anyone that supports freedom and liberty. RP just happens to be one of the best disciples in the running.

It's not the man it's the message.

G-19
05-06-2012, 19:46
Your beliefs don't mean a damn thing when they are persecuted by the government.

When that happens only God CAN save you.

The COTUS has every mother loving bearing in the world to do with the fact that it's legal or illegal to worship your God the way YOU see fit and you are either to naive or to stubborn to recognize that this right is not enjoyed by every other country and it CAN be taken away if you fail to defend the COTUS.

For some reason you think Republicans support you but they can't find a single conservative candidate to promote. We know the Democrats aren't worried about morals or principles and by your very words we know you don't have a clue what Libertarians represent.

For some reason you insist on playing the pawn instead of the free thinker.

You really don't understand what believing in Christ means. How can anyone take away my belief? Make it illegal, sure, but you can never take it away. Even if they killed me, it would not change the fact I am a Christian.

You are right about the repub. candidates, they are all a poor lot. Once again left with a lesser of three evils to choose from. Romney is a Mormon, he is not of my faith, but his overall principals closely match mine. RP may claim to be a Christian but his, words and actions deny that claim.

chickenwing
05-06-2012, 19:47
Wow, you threw all the RP talking/slander points out there.

Like I thought, nothing.

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 19:47
Let's see...Ron Paul works within his own party (remember, he's been elected 12 times as a Republican) to influence it to a return to constitutional principles and he gets blamed for the success of a third party? Right.

Has his long career as Republican politician working within his own party accomplished anything, or has Ron Paul been a complete and utter failure, an impotent backbencher and primadonna gadfly with a list of accomplishments shorter than a gnat's eyelash?

:okie:

4 u iliterati:

primadonna = "a vain or undisciplined person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team ..."

gadfly =One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad. 3. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

backbencher = a member of the House of Commons who is not a party leader.

impotent = Lacking in power, as to act effectively; helpless

gnat = any of various small fragile biting dipterous insects of the suborder Nematocera, esp Culex pipiens (common gnat), which abounds near stagnant water

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:51
You really don't understand what believing in Christ means. How can anyone take away my belief? Make it illegal, sure, but you can never take it away. Even if they killed me, it would not change the fact I am a Christian.

You are right about the repub. candidates, they are all a poor lot. Once again left with a lesser of three evils to choose from. Romney is a Mormon, he is not of my faith, but his overall principals closely match mine. RP may claim to be a Christian but his, words and actions deny that claim.

You really don't know what being able to defend the right to Believe and Worship what Jesus Christ taught really means.

You take that for granted. I'm not questioning your faith. I'm telling you that you jeopardize the very act of worship.

The only thing that permits you to worship as you see fit is the COTUS. The GOP did not present you with a candidate the abides by the core principles. There are better options but you are hung up on "team" not improvement.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:52
Has his long career as Republican politician working within his own party accomplished anything, or has Ron Paul been a complete and utter failure, an impotent backbencher and primadonna gadfly with a list of accomplishments shorter than a gnat's eyelash?

:okie:

4 u iliterati:

primadonna = "a vain or undisciplined person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team ..."

gadfly =One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad. 3. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

backbencher = a member of the House of Commons who is not a party leader.

impotent = Lacking in power, as to act effectively; helpless

gnat = any of various small fragile biting dipterous insects of the suborder Nematocera, esp Culex pipiens (common gnat), which abounds near stagnant water

I don't know what to say here. Are you sure you shouldn't have include an emoticon of a smiley beating a horse with a hammer?

It's not as if you had anything else noteworthy to speak of.

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 19:55
I guess it's up to me to celebrate Ron Paul's long history of successes....

Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law – a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%. The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009)
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Elections

:yawn:

G-19
05-06-2012, 19:56
Like I thought, nothing.

Ok, since you got your feelings hurt I did not respond to your lunatic rant, here you go.


Like I thought, same old stuff. "You hate freedom/COTUS, you steal money" blah blah blah. It is getting stale.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:57
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Elections

:yawn:

It must suck to not be able form a coherent argument without smileys or Wiki.

I mostly glance over what you have to post, very little substance.

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 19:57
I don't know what to say here.

pcipc

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 19:59
Ok, since you got your feelings hurt I did not respond to your lunatic rant, here you go.


Like I thought, same old stuff. "You hate freedom/COTUS, you steal money" blah blah blah. It is getting stale.

You act like those aren't solid talking points while defending more of the same so stale must be a great flavor.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:01
pcipc


:yawn:

:deadhorse:

:pjmn:

:honkie:

:wavey:

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 20:03
It must suck to not be able form a coherent argument without smileys or Wiki.

I mostly glance over what you have to post, very little substance.

No, you mostly troll and hijack and insult, without discussing the topic. You comment on posters, not posts.

Thank God people like you are very few in number, and will always be denied political power by people like me.


You'll be lucky if you ever see a Libertarian candidate place as high as 3rd because it's obviously a dying party; even Ron Paul knows this.
You better hope Nader doesn't get on the ballot, or Johnson will be lucky to come in 4th.
:nutcheck:

certifiedfunds
05-06-2012, 20:03
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.


Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."


Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.


I can just hear those words coming out of Romney's mouth. Can you?

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 20:06
The only thing that permits you to worship as you see fit is the COTUS.

Typical athiest nonsense, idolizing a creation instead of the Creator who actually permits believers to worship.:supergrin:

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:10
No, you mostly troll and hijack and insult, without discussing the topic. You comment on posters, not posts.

Thank God people like you are very few in number, and will always be denied political power by people like me.


You'll be lucky if you ever see a Libertarian candidate place as high as 3rd because it's obviously a dying party; even Ron Paul knows this.
You better hope Nader doesn't get on the ballot, or Johnson will be lucky to come in 4th.
:nutcheck:

Aw look how cute he is when he gets taken for what he is :wavey:

Almost two full paragraphs. Big boy!

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:12
Typical athiest nonsense, idolizing a creation instead of the Creator who actually permits believers to worship.:supergrin:

I'm not an atheist. I do know based on historical evidence what it takes to permit the freedom of religion and it ain't the crusades there scooter.

G-19
05-06-2012, 20:15
I'm not an atheist. I do know based on historical evidence what it takes to permit the freedom of religion and it ain't the crusades there scooter.

No man or government permits me to believe in or worship GOD. They could punish/kill me for doing so, but they can never permit me. That power is from GOD only. You are sorely misunderstanding what it means to be a Christian.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:17
No man or government permits me to believe in or worship GOD. They could punish/kill me for doing so, but they can never permit me. That power is from GOD only.

And they have.. I bet you can count at least two or three points in history where that happened can't you?

Guess what keeps that in check here?

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:19
Here's a hint.. it's not the GOP.

G-19
05-06-2012, 20:22
The COTUS makes it legal for me to worship the way I choose, but it don't permit me to worship.

Russia banned religion for years, guess what? It never stopped it. Even with being jailed/killed people still worshipped GOD. Even in strong Muslim countries, people worship the Christian GOD.

syntaxerrorsix
05-06-2012, 20:25
The COTUS makes it legal for me to worship the way I choose, but it don't permit me to worship.

Russia banned religion for years, guess what? It never stopped it. Even with being jailed/killed people still worshipped GOD. Even in strong Muslim countries, people worship the Christian GOD.


Exactly. If I were to cast a vote I'd place it towards the candidate most likely to defend said COTUS.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Very well said.

I've got an early flight so I'll retire.. 'Nite.

G-19
05-06-2012, 20:35
It boils down to I will vote for the candidate that is closest to my beliefs everytime. My dedication is to GOD, and there are a lot of people that feel the same way. That is why I can not vote for RP.

I have not hid the fact that I am a state employee, and it may surprise you that I always vote republican, even though they are most likely to affect my job/wages. I don't vote "For my JOB', I vote for my principals/morals and the repubs at least try and take a moral stand. I am not answerable to man, but there will come a day I have to answer to GOD.

G23Gen4.40
05-06-2012, 21:14
I agree with G-19. I will vote for the politician who most closely reflects my religious beliefs, and Obama and Paul don't.

I honestly feel that our decline as a nation is a direct result of our, as a nation, turning our back on GOD. Israel is a great example of what happens when a nation turns away from GOD. Every time they turned away from Him, GOD let them fall, and it was not until they returned to him did they prosper.

I am sure there will be some atheists come along to say I am wrong. I will not argue this point, as I see them as part of the problem.

RC-RAMIE
05-06-2012, 21:47
I agree with G-19. I will vote for the politician who most closely reflects my religious beliefs, and Obama and Paul don't.

I honestly feel that our decline as a nation is a direct result of our, as a nation, turning our back on GOD. Israel is a great example of what happens when a nation turns away from GOD. Every time they turned away from Him, GOD let them fall, and it was not until they returned to him did they prosper.

I am sure there will be some atheists come along to say I am wrong. I will not argue this point, as I see them as part of the problem.

Your wrong.


....

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 23:25
Your wrong.


....


Did you mean you're wrong?

:nutcheck:

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 04:49
The COTUS makes it legal for me to worship the way I choose, but it don't permit me to worship.

Russia banned religion for years, guess what? It never stopped it. Even with being jailed/killed people still worshipped GOD. Even in strong Muslim countries, people worship the Christian GOD.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you really arguing that because religion survived violent persecution in the USSR, that it's ok to suppress it here?

The COTUS permits you to worship, but it does not mandate that you do. That's a little more accurate.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 04:52
Your wrong.


....

Ironically, you have both a lack of words and a display of incorrect word usage at the same time. Just because you don't like religions other than your own, is no reason to be disrespectful to people of other religions.

RC-RAMIE
05-07-2012, 10:20
Ironically, you have both a lack of words and a display of incorrect word usage at the same time. Just because you don't like religions other than your own, is no reason to be disrespectful to people of other religions.

But it is ok for him to be disrespectful of atheist? It is a internet forum, really does not bother me that I missed a ' when posting.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 10:33
But it is ok for him to be disrespectful of atheist? It is a internet forum, really does not bother me that I missed a ' when posting.

I think everyone should be respectful of religions (including atheism). No reason not to be. Until we're dead, none of us know for sure.

Just teasing on the word usage thing. No big.

Paul7
05-07-2012, 11:42
GJ is tough in immigration and did good for the great state of New Mexico. He's pro gun, pro individual rights, and anti big government. His record as governor is a helluva lot better than Obamney's.

But he has no chance to win. I value my vote too much to waste it.

Stubudd
05-07-2012, 12:44
If he makes it onto my ballot, I'll have one more choice to vote against.

Anybody expect him to do better than Michael Badnarik?
(4th in 2004, behind Ralph Nader and the two real candidates).


Or will he get more than Bob Barr's half-million votes in 2008?
(another typical Libertarian 4th place behind Ralph Nader; why do they still pretend to be the third party when they do no better than 4th?):tinfoil:

Or Harry Browne, 5th place in 2000 behind the usual 3rd place Nader but also 4th place Buchanan.:rofl:


Or Harry Browne (:yawn:), 5th place in 1996 behind Ralph Nader who got bumped into 4th place by anti-GOP Ross Perot (Clinton's secret weapon).

Or Andre Morreau, 4th place behind anti-GOP Ross Perot in 1992 (Clinton's secret weapon). Nader didn't run.:popcorn:

Maybe it's time to restore the long-lost glory days of the great Libertarian Party with a return to a very, very distant and totally insignificant THIRD PLACE!!!:cheerleader:

Unless Ralph Nader chooses to humiliate them again.:nutcheck:


wtf is this

reveling in the reps and dems' stranglehold on the political system, just gleeful about it, while they grind him into the dust

lick your masters' boots some more

pathetic

ChuteTheMall
05-07-2012, 12:54
wtf is this

reveling in the reps and dems' stranglehold on the political system, just gleeful about it, while they grind him into the dust

lick your masters' boots some more

pathetic

I'm gleeful that the Libertarian Party hasn't scored even a third place victory since the 1980's, so they would certainly be hypocrites to claim to be the third party. :animlol:

G23Gen4.40
05-07-2012, 15:01
Are you really arguing that because religion survived violent persecution in the USSR, that it's ok to suppress it here?

The COTUS permits you to worship, but it does not mandate that you do. That's a little more accurate.


I am not saying it is ok to suppres it, I am saying the COTUS says I have a right to worship how I want, and that is nice that it does. However, it really don't matter what it says. No man or man made law can tell me who or how to worship. Man's law is second fiddle to GOD's law as far as I am concerned.

My comment about the USSR was to show that the government can not control how a person worships. No matter how they try. To say the COTUS permits me to worship is ridiculous, it may make it easier, but it can never permit me.

G23Gen4.40
05-07-2012, 15:03
Your wrong.


....


Time will tell.

aspartz
05-07-2012, 15:54
This kind of stuff is why the libertarians will never get in the Oval Office. Sure the economy is bad and needs fixed, but the majority of conservatives will never get behind legalizing drugs, gay marriage, etc.

Why can't you see that to most people social issues are just as important as monetary issues? There are millions of Bible believing conservatives out there, and most will not support a candidate who does not share their moral beliefs.

To most Christians GOD comes before country.
So your moral crusade is more important than making government smaller?

If you value a fiscal conservative path, you need the libertarians. You cannot run out the people who value freedom over theocracy and expect to win either.

Mostly because the COTUS doesn't regulate morals.
+1

ARS

G-19
05-07-2012, 16:09
So your moral crusade is more important than making government smaller?



Yep, it sure is. My "moral crusade", as you call it is more important to anything else. Trying to follow GOD and his teachings are the top priority to me and my family. If you want me to rank my priorities:

1. GOD/JESUS
2. Family
3. Church
4. Friends
5. Work
That's good enough for now, but don't worry Country is somewhere down the list.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 16:13
Yep, it sure is. My "moral crusade", as you call it is more important to anything else. Trying to follow GOD and his teachings are the top priority to me and my family. If you want me to rank my priorities:

1. GOD/JESUS
2. Family
3. Church
4. Friends
5. Work
That's good enough for now, but don't worry Country is somewhere down the list.

Since you think the list is right, fine. It's an opinion.


My opinion is, it sucks. I've seen way too many people choose faith over the real world stuff like family and kids.

See, we can agree to disagree. I don't care about your choices and you shouldn't care about mine or anyone else's.

Don't infringe on my rights, and I'll do likewise.

G-19
05-07-2012, 16:29
Since you think the list is right, fine. It's an opinion.


My opinion is, it sucks. I've seen way too many people choose faith over the real world stuff like family and kids.

See, we can agree to disagree. I don't care about your choices and you shouldn't care about mine or anyone else's.

Don't infringe on my rights, and I'll do likewise.
If voting for a politician that supports my beliefs and hopefully will write laws that follow that belief offends you, so be it. Your opinion of what "sucks" don't mean a whit to me.

Gary W Trott
05-07-2012, 17:02
Smart move on their part. Johnson stands an excellent chance of winning New Mexico and if he does that will put the Libertarian Party on the map since they will be the first third party since 1968 to actually win electoral votes.

G29Reload
05-07-2012, 18:00
Smart move on their part. Johnson stands an excellent chance of winning New Mexico

One rare chance that a 3P might work against BHO.

NM has been drifting from marginally left to Left and not a lot of folks are counting on it for Romney. So, if the R's can't win it, nothing wrong with denying it to BHO. And if BHO loses by that margin, all the funnier.

Then for the next 4 years the media will hunt down Johnson relentlessly on his creds, look for his birth cert, etc,, anything to shoot him down.

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 18:13
This kind of stuff is why the libertarians will never get in the Oval Office. Sure the economy is bad and needs fixed, but the majority of conservatives will never get behind legalizing drugs, gay marriage, etc.

Why can't you see that to most people social issues are just as important as monetary issues? There are millions of Bible believing conservatives out there, and most will not support a candidate who does not share their moral beliefs.

To most Christians GOD comes before country.

You can't separate Them.

Your God doesn't want you to be free?

Restless28
05-07-2012, 18:17
If voting for a politician that supports my beliefs and hopefully will write laws that follow that belief offends you, so be it. Your opinion of what "sucks" don't mean a whit to me.

And yours means nothing to me. See, we're even.

The GOP religious right is destroying the party. Most Libertarians are fiscal conservative and social liberal. Folks like you have driven these "independents" as the media likes to call them to the Democrats.

Since most elected Dems and Repubics are fiscally liberal, it comes down to their views on personal freedom. The religious right is driving libertarians, conservatives and/or independents away.

hogfish
05-07-2012, 18:21
Yep, it sure is. My "moral crusade", as you call it is more important to anything else. Trying to follow GOD and his teachings are the top priority to me and my family. If you want me to rank my priorities:

1. GOD/JESUS
2. Family
3. Church
4. Friends
5. Work
That's good enough for now, but don't worry Country is somewhere down the list.

Hi. Wondering if you would be so kind as to answer this: Is the country of Israel anywhere on your list? If so, is it above or below the U.S.A.?

Thanks.

juggy4711
05-07-2012, 18:35
In the most traditional and etymological meaning of the word. Atheism is not (or if one prefers does not need to be) a religion no matter how much anyone wants it to be for the sake of argument on one side or the other.

atheism - noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

religion - noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

To claim atheism to be a religion is disingenuous at best and out right deceitful at worst. To me any such statement is nothing but new speak.

However, I could be accused of doing the same thing with the word God, as I have admitted many a time, that neither theist or atheist would agree with my view point. I should create/invent a word/term to represent my concept so as not to be guilty of the same.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 19:48
In the most traditional and etymological meaning of the word. Atheism is not (or if one prefers does not need to be) a religion no matter how much anyone wants it to be for the sake of argument on one side or the other.

atheism - noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

religion - noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

To claim atheism to be a religion is disingenuous at best and out right deceitful at worst. To me any such statement is nothing but new speak.

However, I could be accused of doing the same thing with the word God, as I have admitted many a time, that neither theist or atheist would agree with my view point. I should create/invent a word/term to represent my concept so as not to be guilty of the same.



We might not want to get to far into this, but disbelief is an action. Atheists believe there is no deity. They have no proof of this. They just have faith that there is no deity.

Religion is a system of beliefs based on ardor and faith.

If you strongly believe that there is no deity, and you have no proof, then it is a religious belief, by definition. It is a belief that many others are based on, whether we were made, or just happened. It is a fundamental belief. Belief in the supernatural is not necessary to fit the websters definition of religion. Neither is organized meeting and doctrine. Calling atheism a religion is not a sign of disrespect, but an honest objective exercise in reading comprehension. It fits both the literal and (if you'll pardon the word) spirit of the term.

As an agnostic, it's pretty easy to see.

atheism<<atheistic agnosticism<<Agnosticism>>theistic agnosticism>>theism.



There's a very lllllllooooooooonnnnnnnng thread in religious issues on the issue. Here's a link to page 45. http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18940627#post18940627

G-19
05-07-2012, 19:54
Hi. Wondering if you would be so kind as to answer this: Is the country of Israel anywhere on your list? If so, is it above or below the U.S.A.?

Thanks.

If forced to choose I would choose Israel. GOD said he will bless those that bless Israel and curse those that curse Israel. So by my faith I must support Israel.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 19:56
If forced to choose I would choose Israel.

Now we know where you stand as far as the love of the United States of America.

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 19:57
If forced to choose I would choose Israel.

So that whole "I Pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America......" thing......you aren't big on it huh?

I think some folks disdain for Ron Paul is becoming clearer.

G-19
05-07-2012, 19:58
Now we know where you stand as far as the love of the United States of America.

No you don't. I love this country, but I love GOD more and will follow his teachings.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 19:59
Security? In order.

Family, city, state, country, self.....................long pause..... nationals of other countries.

G-19
05-07-2012, 19:59
So that whole "I Pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America......" thing......you aren't big on it huh?

I think some folks disdain for Ron Paul is becoming clearer.

Not compared to my devotion to GOD.

Yeah, my disdain comes from not agreeing with his immoral values.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 20:02
Not compared to my devotion to GOD.

Yeah, my disdain comes from not agreeing with his immoral values.

Pat Robertson loves you.

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 20:16
Not compared to my devotion to GOD.

Yeah, my disdain comes from not agreeing with his immoral values.

Which immoral values are those?

Ruble Noon
05-07-2012, 20:31
Which immoral values are those?

:popcorn:

G-19
05-07-2012, 20:32
Which immoral values are those?

Pretty much all of his immoral values.

Ruble Noon
05-07-2012, 20:45
Pretty much all of his immoral values.

Care to list them?

Stubudd
05-07-2012, 23:11
Pretty much all of his immoral values.

:rofl:

jtull7
05-08-2012, 17:43
This thread started out about Gary Johnson and inexplicably turned into an argument about religion. You religious guys never let up, do you?

BORNGEARHEAD
05-08-2012, 18:53
Jesus Christ, Jesus! :)

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 21:07
Pretty much all of his immoral values.

Such as?

Can't wait to hear this.

Would it have anything to do with ceasing subsidies to Israel, your first allegiance?

G19G20
05-09-2012, 13:09
I like Gary and I hope he sticks around.

He lost to "No Preference" in the NC primary yesterday. Badly. That was among registered Libertarians only. Not a good sign for him.

RyanSBHF
05-09-2012, 20:11
Ok, now we have a 3rd option, which is better than Obamney.

What say ye, GT?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-race-gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-nod-202018822.html


My honest opinion? Every four years, the Libertarians waste limited money and resources on a Presidential contest they have zero chance of winning. They should start focusing on winning House races, then move on to Senate and Governor races.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 22:04
Such as?

Can't wait to hear this.

Would it have anything to do with ceasing subsidies to Israel, your first allegiance?

Crickets...

certifiedfunds
05-09-2012, 22:48
My honest opinion? Every four years, the Libertarians waste limited money and resources on a Presidential contest they have zero chance of winning. They should start focusing on winning House races, then move on to Senate and Governor races.

Your point not withstanding, he was the governor of NM.

syntaxerrorsix
05-10-2012, 04:07
My honest opinion? Every four years, the Libertarians waste limited money and resources on a Presidential contest they have zero chance of winning. They should start focusing on winning House races, then move on to Senate and Governor races.


There is some validity to getting more local seats filled. I don't however feel putting forth a presidential candidate is a waste of money. It's much like paying for advertising.