Romney chooses Ryan

[mrjarrell]

broken link.

Ummm...it shows up on the page. It's embedded for those of us using modern technology.

 

[KG1]

I think this thread, like so many others about political candidates, has long abandoned meaningful discussion. Every thread that features similar topics, a member of the INGO anarchist league continues pretty much the same tripartite theme.

1. If you're not voting for <insert extremist libertarian anarchist nobody who everyone else thinks is nuts> you're voting for tyranny.
2. The nobody candidate is only a nobody because non-libertarian anarchists are all sheep and have no principles.
3. It doesn't matter that we're wasting our vote on a nobody because we've rationalized the devastating impact Obama has on this country away by saying that Republican = Democrat, unless of course the Republican is Ron Paul, the god of not Republican.

On the other side, is our tired but mostly true (in my opinion) insistence that a vote for a third party nobody who has zero chance of winning is a vote to get to a worse place faster. To which the reply is best summarized, as "so?"

I pretty much liken most of these types of threads anymore to the OC/CC rehash threads. Neither one of which I chose to participate in with any type of regularity the way I used to.

The road has been well worn and the ruts render them nearly impassable.

 

[Yup!]

Ummm...it shows up on the page. It's embedded for those of us using modern technology.

When I click the "play" button it says "this video has been removed by the user"

 

[Citizen711]

Nope. Looking over this thread and others, you folks seem truly desperate to change the minds of those who choose not to vote the status quo and kick the disaster can down the road. I've never seen so many people so desperate to garner even a single vote for such a bad candidate. Just admit you guys chose poorly, (not that you had a lot to choose from, with 2 exceptions). Your loss in November will be easier to take that way.

Look again. When you see someone talking up Romney, it's typically in self-defense after being ridiculed for mentioning him in the first place. Seems to me it's the anti-Romney crowd working the hardest here.

That said, Romney is my presidential candidate of choice in the current election, not my family or even my local sports franchise. While the latter two may deserve blind support, the former most certainly does not. Why on earth would you think a person would stick to their initial chosen candidate after being swayed the other way??

 

[Citizen711]

Ummm...it shows up on the page. It's embedded for those of us using modern technology.

IE9 says:

 

[mrjarrell]

Not sure why it was removed, it was there a couple of minutes ago. Oh, well. Let's try this one instead. Same video, different link.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgJEd6grx8[/ame]

 

[John Galt]

The way I see it, America is going to crash. Someday, I don't know when, but there are several factors that lead me to this conclusion:
1) Our banking/financial system is totally corrupt. There is blatant fraud and deceit in our banking/financial system that is being allowed to continue, and even increase.
2) Our debts and obligations are far too great to even think about paying. There are so many obligations that are "off the books" that any serious talk about fiscal responsibility is an insult to rational logic.
3) There are too many Takers living off of an ever decreasing number of Makers. Too many people have been conditioned to believe that they have a "right" to the things that I worked very hard to achieve.

Both national parties are virtually the same, they are only telling different versions of the SameLie. Knowing this, I will be voting for Romney, as at least that will buy me more time to get my affairs in order before the BigBang. Anything else leaves Obama, the GreatestThreatToAmerica, in charge, and that is simply unacceptable for Liberty!
Be smart and live to fight another day ....

 

[findingZzero]

Ryan is a conservative. A neo-con (which is basically calling him a jew lover) is someone who used to be a democrat but grew up. Ryan is a hardcore conservative who has NEVER been a leftwinger.

I haven't read the whole thread, but am I the only one offended by this rhetoric?

 

[Yup!]

Not sure why it was removed, it was there a couple of minutes ago. Oh, well. Let's try this one instead. Same video, different link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgJEd6grx8

Perfect! I hope Pres. Obama watches this, perhaps he will vote for Romney as well!

 

[buckstopshere]

I think this thread, like so many others about political candidates, has long abandoned meaningful discussion. Every thread that features similar topics, a member of the INGO anarchist league continues pretty much the same tripartite theme.

1. If you're not voting for <insert extremist libertarian anarchist nobody who everyone else thinks is nuts> you're voting for tyranny.
2. The nobody candidate is only a nobody because non-libertarian anarchists are all sheep and have no principles.
3. It doesn't matter that we're wasting our vote on a nobody because we've rationalized the devastating impact Obama has on this country away by saying that Republican = Democrat, unless of course the Republican is Ron Paul, the god of not Republican.

On the other side, is our tired but mostly true (in my opinion) insistence that a vote for a third party nobody who has zero chance of winning is a vote to get to a worse place faster. To which the reply is best summarized, as "so?"

The truth in your opinion is different than the truth of my opinion. I try to bring forth my thoughts in such a way as to not be offensive unless I read a post from someone who clearly has no respect for someone else's viewpoint.

What it boils down to with these discussion is the same old tired thing. Libertarians bring forth a bunch of reasons why they like their candidate who stands for freedom, fiscal responsibility, ending wars, etc....the Romney supporters justify his weak positions because he's more popular and his name isn't Obama and then throw out the wasted vote comments or flat out calling the whole group a bunch of idiots.

I think the other point is, at least for me, I'm not really looking at the R or D anymore. Just measuring how one votes against what the constitution says. I've asked this question before without much of an answer: If Washington or Jefferson were flung into todays world, would either of them (or any of our founding fathers) support Romney or Obama. Heck no they wouldn't. So why should we?

Those guys were in the minority as well. Lots of Americans supported the crown and the status quo. If not for the actions of the minority, we wouldn't be the great country we are today.

 

[Trooper]

I think this thread, like so many others about political candidates, has long abandoned meaningful discussion. Every thread that features similar topics, a member of the INGO anarchist league continues pretty much the same tripartite theme.

1. If you're not voting for <insert extremist libertarian anarchist nobody who everyone else thinks is nuts> you're voting for tyranny.
2. The nobody candidate is only a nobody because non-libertarian anarchists are all sheep and have no principles.
3. It doesn't matter that we're wasting our vote on a nobody because we've rationalized the devastating impact Obama has on this country away by saying that Republican = Democrat, unless of course the Republican is Ron Paul, the god of not Republican.

On the other side, is our tired but mostly true (in my opinion) insistence that a vote for a third party nobody who has zero chance of winning is a vote to get to a worse place faster. To which the reply is best summarized, as "so?"

I think that you put it much clear than I did.

I do get upset with the label "neocon". It is used to easily but people who are not thinking but merely using buzzwords. Plus most who use it have no clue as to what conservatives believe. And libertarians are just as clueless as are leftwing progressives.

 

[buckstopshere]

I think that you put it much clear than I did.

I do get upset with the label "neocon". It is used to easily but people who are not thinking but merely using buzzwords. Plus most who use it have no clue as to what conservatives believe. And libertarians are just as clueless as are leftwing progressives.

I think many libertarians, especially newer ones, understand very well as to what it means to be a conservative seeing as how they flocked away from the republican party for redefining what a conservative is.

 

[Trooper]

I think many libertarians, especially newer ones, understand very well as to what it means to be a conservative seeing as how they flocked away from the republican party for redefining what a conservative is.

Not everyone who calls themselves conservative actually walks the walk. And if libertarians gain power then you will have the BS group in that party as well. Remember that the Democrats were the original libertarians (Jeffersonian-Democrats).

Conservatives are Classic Liberals (per Glenn Beck this morning). Our basic beliefs are based on faith, family, freedom, firearms and living the self disciplined lifestyle. The rank and file hold these beliefs. Not everyone who says they are conservative (ie RINOs) are conservative.

But then what do you do with moderates like John Gregg or Joe Donnelly who do back room deals because they believe in nothing other than being popular?

 

[buckstopshere]

The way I see it, America is going to crash. Someday, I don't know when, but there are several factors that lead me to this conclusion:
1) Our banking/financial system is totally corrupt. There is blatant fraud and deceit in our banking/financial system that is being allowed to continue, and even increase.
2) Our debts and obligations are far too great to even think about paying. There are so many obligations that are "off the books" that any serious talk about fiscal responsibility is an insult to rational logic.
3) There are too many Takers living off of an ever decreasing number of Makers. Too many people have been conditioned to believe that they have a "right" to the things that I worked very hard to achieve.

Both national parties are virtually the same, they are only telling different versions of the SameLie. Knowing this, I will be voting for Romney, as at least that will buy me more time to get my affairs in order before the BigBang. Anything else leaves Obama, the GreatestThreatToAmerica, in charge, and that is simply unacceptable for Liberty!
Be smart and live to fight another day ....

Is that what John Galt would do, or should I say, is that what Ayn Rand would have him do?

 

[buckstopshere]

Not everyone who calls themselves conservative actually walks the walk. And if libertarians gain power then you will have the BS group in that party as well. Remember that the Democrats were the original libertarians (Jeffersonian-Democrats).

Conservatives are Classic Liberals (per Glenn Beck this morning). Our basic beliefs are based on faith, family, freedom, firearms and living the self disciplined lifestyle. The rank and file hold these beliefs. Not everyone who says they are conservative (ie RINOs) are conservative.

But then what do you do with moderates like John Gregg or Joe Donnelly who do back room deals because they believe in nothing other than being popular?

I agree with your definition and I find that Gary Johnson aligns himself more with those values than Romney. If that's what you subscribe to as well, I find it interesting that you would use the term "walk the walk" and then cast a vote for Romney who is clearly a more modernized conservative.

 

[jamil]

The truth in your opinion is different than the truth of my opinion. I try to bring forth my thoughts in such a way as to not be offensive unless I read a post from someone who clearly has no respect for someone else's viewpoint.

My thoughts exactly. No one believes everything exactly as anyone else. In that respect we all are a party of one.

What it boils down to with these discussion is the same old tired thing. Libertarians bring forth a bunch of reasons why they like their candidate who stands for freedom, fiscal responsibility, ending wars, etc....the Romney supporters justify his weak positions because he's more popular and his name isn't Obama and then throw out the wasted vote comments or flat out calling the whole group a bunch of idiots.

See, there's the opinion. In your version your side is much less offensive. In my version, it's the opposite. Human nature at work there.

I think the other point is, at least for me, I'm not really looking at the R or D anymore. Just measuring how one votes against what the constitution says.

I quit voting party line in '92. Unfortunately, voting for Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton. At the time others told me I was throwing away my vote. I stood for "principle" and voted against Bush1. And then kicked myself when Clinton won. Not again. I've become more pragmatic since then. It doesn't mean I've abandoned "principle" but have developed a more detailed understanding of what are my principles. I've also gotten better at recognizing a nutball, which Perot certainly was.

I've asked this question before without much of an answer: If Washington or Jefferson were flung into todays world, would either of them (or any of our founding fathers) support Romney or Obama. Heck no they wouldn't. So why should we?

Ok, I'll answer that, but I'm not sure you'll find much of an answer. I'm not them and neither are you. All we can do is read their ideas, aggregate their noted reactions, and extrapolate what that might mean for today. And after all that, even expert historians wouldn't pretend to know with certainty what they would do. Our heroes don't always behave like we imagine.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Something everyone needs to realize is that Libertarians are NOT right wing and NOT extremists. I think some of this misconception is hurting their reputation needlessly in the eyes of moderates and centrists.

Think of a square standing on one corner. Centrists in the middle (duh), liberals on the left corner, conservatives on the right, Statists (big government) on the bottom and Libertarians on the top.

Take the test here: Advocates for Self Government

 

[buckstopshere]

My thoughts exactly. No one believes everything exactly as anyone else. In that respect we all are a party of one.

See, there's the opinion. In your version your side is much less offensive. In my version, it's the opposite. Human nature at work there.

I quit voting party line in '92. Unfortunately, voting for Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton. At the time others told me I was throwing away my vote. I stood for "principle" and voted against Bush1. And then kicked myself when Clinton won. Not again. I've become more pragmatic since then. It doesn't mean I've abandoned "principle" but have developed a more detailed understanding of what are my principles. I've also gotten better at recognizing a nutball, which Perot certainly was.

Ok, I'll answer that, but I'm not sure you'll find much of an answer. I'm not them and neither are you. All we can do is read their ideas, aggregate their noted reactions, and extrapolate what that might mean for today. And after all that, even expert historians wouldn't pretend to know with certainty what they would do. Our heroes don't always behave like we imagine.

I appreciate your response. I wish we could agree but like the fact that it can be agree to disagree without any name calling.

I think you can let yourself off the hook regarding Perot. I don't believe he cost Bush1 the election. Raising taxes and a poor economy did him in. I posted a link in this thread somewhere about that.

The nice thing about the heroes that were our founding fathers is they wrote down what they believed and how we are supposed to run the country they made for us. Heroes are men so they're imperfect and will definitely let you down. They just had the good sense to spell out their intentions. If you measure their intentions with the candidates of today, I think they'd call the French, not that they would answer this time.

 

[jamil]

Something everyone needs to realize is that Libertarians are NOT right wing and NOT extremists. I think some of this misconception is hurting their reputation needlessly in the eyes of moderates and centrists.

Think of a square standing on one corner. Centrists in the middle (duh), liberals on the left corner, conservatives on the right, Statists (big government) on the bottom and Libertarians on the top.

Take the test here: Advocates for Self Government

Libertarians are not all extremists. The purists and anarchists (possibly the same people) seem to be.

 

[mrjarrell]

(per Glenn Beck this morning)

And that says it all. Now we know where you're getting your misconceived notions from, at least.