A Vote For Obamney Is a Wasted Vote, Gary Johnson Only One Who Stands for Liberty

I wouldn't vote for Gary Johnson if his name was the only one on the ballot.

So youre saying you love war, dead children in the middle east, spy drones, uncharged citizens being indefinitely detained, destruction of the dollar, and the sellout of America to the globalists? I don't get it.

Nice loaded statement.

How about you (L)ibertarians try to get a grassroot movement going, win some local elections, maybe even control some states before you serve up a presidential candidate whos only purpose is to make it easier for democrats to further increase the power of the state?

I swear most of you are democratic plants.

1. Rand Paul was elected U.S. Senator 2 years ago. Ron Paul was elected to Congress 11 times. Gary Johnson was elected Governer in New Mexico.

2. Gary Johnson takes votes from both sides. He was elected governor in a Democrat state that was 2 to 1 Democrat.

3. I don't care if he takes votes away from either one because they have the same policies. Did you not see the long list of similarities between the two?
 
Not a big fan of the bolded portion. How can you hope to have a discussion with people after saying that?

You may be in fact right, that isn't the most effective approach.

However, there's 4 choices in this years election: Vote for Obama (Fascist), Romney (Fascist), Gary Johnson (Liberty), not voting (complying with and allowing Fascism to thrive).

Do the math.

You really have no idea what a facist really is, dont you?

Obama is a statist, not a facist. Romney is less of a statist, and hopefully a federalist.

Gary Johnson, on the other hand is a fucking pipe dream.

Actually they really are both fascists, if you define fascism as essentially being the same thing as corporatism as Mussolini did.
 
@Kevin_Kennedy

Is the system rigged? Yes, both the two-party dictatorship and the media manipulation of mass public opinion work to keep the status quo in power. However, you can use the system against them. You can use their system to turn out big numbers for Gary Johnson by voting in their election process.

Seeing Johnson get 5% or 15% says that people can and will vote against the two-party dictatorship and vote for freedom. If Johnson gets 0.5%, that sends a message that no one supports Johnson or freedom, that they are complicit in two-party dictatorship. It is a sign of defeat rather than progress for the liberty movement.
 
@Kevin_Kennedy

Is the system rigged? Yes, both the two-party dictatorship and the media manipulation of mass public opinion work to keep the status quo in power. However, you can use the system against them. You can use their system to turn out big numbers for Gary Johnson by voting in their election process.

Seeing Johnson get 5% or 15% says that people can and will vote against the two-party dictatorship and vote for freedom. If Johnson gets 0.5%, that sends a message that no one supports Johnson or freedom, that they are complicit in two-party dictatorship. It is a sign of defeat rather than progress for the liberty movement.

Well then be prepared for a "sign of defeat," because Johnson won't get 1%.
 
in other words im going to tell you all if you dont agree with me you are stupid ignorant people.

No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.

thank you democrat waiting to happen.

You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.
 
in other words im going to tell you all if you dont agree with me you are stupid ignorant people.

No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.

thank you democrat waiting to happen.

You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.

i make no sense, you are voting for someone whos not going to win, thats it thats the system we all allowed to happen. read this carefully we ALL allowed it to happen.

Yes Democrat and Libertarian are close, they are really different by monetary views.



Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor.[5] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[6][7][8] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system.
Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism, and some express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[9] Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."[10] In the United States people commonly associate the term libertarian with those who have "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).[11]
 
in other words im going to tell you all if you dont agree with me you are stupid ignorant people.

No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.

thank you democrat waiting to happen.

You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.

u should consider if you are old enough for this talk. there might be other sites that could use your skills elsewhere.
 
in other words im going to tell you all if you dont agree with me you are stupid ignorant people.

No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.

thank you democrat waiting to happen.

You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.

u should consider if you are old enough for this talk. there might be other sites that could use your skills elsewhere.

So are you ever going to address the issues or are you going to just bring up irrelevant assumptions about my age. I'd say people old enough to vote are old enough to talk politics, then again I have seen 16 year olds who are 20x more knowledgeable about politics than 30+ adults. Take the Obama-phone lady for example. She literally has no clue.

If you really must know, I'm in my mid 20s.
 
in other words im going to tell you all if you dont agree with me you are stupid ignorant people.

No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.



You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.

i make no sense, you are voting for someone whos not going to win, thats it thats the system we all allowed to happen. read this carefully we ALL allowed it to happen.

Yes Democrat and Libertarian are close, they are really different by monetary views.



Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor.[5] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[6][7][8] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system.
Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism, and some express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[9] Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."[10] In the United States people commonly associate the term libertarian with those who have "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).[11]

Nonsense.
 
Gary Johnson is the only name on the ballot I can vote for.
Since voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

I knew I should have trademarked that! :lol:

Anyway...you can vote for one of the evils or you can vote for a propellerhead.

Tough call.

Or you can join the 47% who are not voting at all. That sends a message, too. A message that says, "You fuckers didn't EARN my vote."






.
 
Gary Johnson is the only name on the ballot I can vote for.
Since voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

I knew I should have trademarked that! :lol:

Anyway...you can vote for one of the evils or you can vote for a propellerhead.

Tough call.

Or you can join the 47% who are not voting at all. That sends a message, too. A message that says, "You fuckers didn't EARN my vote."






.



sadily at the end of the day they wont care.
 
No, I explicitly stated reasons why Obama and Romney are the same and why they are bad. You failed to refute either proposition.



You are uttlerly insane if you think Libertarian = Democrat. So youre telling me that Rand Paul is a Democrat? Gtfo. You make no sense.

u should consider if you are old enough for this talk. there might be other sites that could use your skills elsewhere.

So are you ever going to address the issues or are you going to just bring up irrelevant assumptions about my age. I'd say people old enough to vote are old enough to talk politics, then again I have seen 16 year olds who are 20x more knowledgeable about politics than 30+ adults. Take the Obama-phone lady for example. She literally has no clue.

If you really must know, I'm in my mid 20s.



we can ramp it either way and we can do this and we can do that, but HOW you presented your statement was so pathetic it gave that presence of stalin, you will do as i say and thats all there is to it. Sorry doesnt work that way in america, well now a days it does but there was a day it didnt.

I am addressing how u presented your case and while u can point out all the points that YOU think are clear reasons why to vote for someone, THOSE reasons to NOT apply to others.

I may be wrong in my thinking of voting for Romney instead of Johnson because Romney has a better chance of knocking Obama out, and FOR this country to not just tap the breakes but flat out use them I think Romney will do that compared to Obama whos shown the initiative to drive thsi country off the cliff in a big big way.
 
Sure dumbfuck. :eusa_whistle:

Idiots like you voted for your nerd friend for HS student body president then whined only 5 people in the school voted for him and his pet toad.

Voting for Romney and Obama is a complete waste. If you don't vote for Gary Johnson, you are automatically a de facto fascist.

1. Obamney will win regardless. You vote has a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of altering an election, even in a swing state. Even if your one vote helps a candidate win a swing state and thus an election, it still doesn't matter because Obama and Romney are essentially the same and don't tell me otherwise.

2. Voting for Gary Johnson, win or lose, shows the establishment and the ignorant masses that there people who support freedom. It sends a powerful message and paves the way for stronger 3rd party support in the future. People who vote Obamney not only have essentially zero impact, they are also giving their signature of approval of fascism.

3. Obama and Romney are not the same you say? False.

- They both support wars.
- They both support giving taxpayer money to Al Queda terrorists in Syria.
- They both support drone strike terrorism overseas and spy drones domestically.
- They both refuse to abolish the IRS and income tax.
- They both support the Drug War.
- They both support the Patriot Act.
- They both support foreign aid.
- They are both funded by Goldman Sachs.
- They both support destroying American soveriegnty and are backed by the globalists.
- They both support NDAA legislation allowing the President to indefinitely detain and assassinate Americans without charge or fair trial.
- They both support destruction of the dollar through mass inflation, spending, and bailouts.
- They both support the genital groping, radiation TSA thugs.
- They both support going to war with Iran.
- They both support a Federal healthcare system. (Yes, Romney said he would replace Obamacare with his own health care plan)
- They both support turning the Internet into Chinese style Internet fascism with the Cybersecurity Act.

No one here can justify a vote for Obamney.
 
Sure dumbfuck. :eusa_whistle:

Idiots like you voted for your nerd friend for HS student body president then whined only 5 people in the school voted for him and his pet toad.

Ad populum fallacy. Popularity doesn't determine what is right.

If you lived in Germany in the 40s you would be saying we should vote for Hitler because he is the most popular and the opposing decent candidate is an unpopular nerd.
 
Sure dumbfuck. :eusa_whistle:

Idiots like you voted for your nerd friend for HS student body president then whined only 5 people in the school voted for him and his pet toad.

Ad populum fallacy. Popularity doesn't determine what is right.

If you lived in Germany in the 40s you would be saying we should vote for Hitler because he is the most popular and the opposing decent candidate is an unpopular nerd.

as a politician Hilter was really good, this usually freaks out our teachers, but because he was a good politician he was a popular choice and at the time Germany, much like us, ignored evidence and went with the feel good but in hilters case , a good politician.
 
Sure dumbfuck. :eusa_whistle:

Idiots like you voted for your nerd friend for HS student body president then whined only 5 people in the school voted for him and his pet toad.

Ad populum fallacy. Popularity doesn't determine what is right.

If you lived in Germany in the 40s you would be saying we should vote for Hitler because he is the most popular and the opposing decent candidate is an unpopular nerd.

as a politician Hilter was really good, this usually freaks out our teachers, but because he was a good politician he was a popular choice and at the time Germany, much like us, ignored evidence and went with the feel good but in hilters case , a good politician.

Hey, way to point out the obvious. Of course Hitler was a great politician. He was a master at manipulating the masses, gained near unanimous support, executing every policy he desired, of course he was good at it, he was a masterful politician. He was also a murdering eugenecist monster fascist dictator funded by the Rothschild's and Bush's.
 
Ad populum fallacy. Popularity doesn't determine what is right.

If you lived in Germany in the 40s you would be saying we should vote for Hitler because he is the most popular and the opposing decent candidate is an unpopular nerd.

as a politician Hilter was really good, this usually freaks out our teachers, but because he was a good politician he was a popular choice and at the time Germany, much like us, ignored evidence and went with the feel good but in hilters case , a good politician.

Hey, way to point out the obvious. Of course Hitler was a great politician. He was a master at manipulating the masses, gained near unanimous support, executing every policy he desired, of course he was good at it, he was a masterful politician. He was also a murdering eugenecist monster fascist dictator funded by the Rothschild's and Bush's.

It's BUUUSSSHHHHH'S fault!!!!!
 
as a politician Hilter was really good, this usually freaks out our teachers, but because he was a good politician he was a popular choice and at the time Germany, much like us, ignored evidence and went with the feel good but in hilters case , a good politician.

Hey, way to point out the obvious. Of course Hitler was a great politician. He was a master at manipulating the masses, gained near unanimous support, executing every policy he desired, of course he was good at it, he was a masterful politician. He was also a murdering eugenecist monster fascist dictator funded by the Rothschild's and Bush's.

It's BUUUSSSHHHHH'S fault!!!!!

Prescott Bush, yes. Fact is fact.
 

Forum List

Back
Top