Did you vote for liberty or tyranny?

[Liberty]

It is perfectly ok to vote for Johnson.

But voting for him over Mitt doesn't mean that you are voting for Liberty over Tyranny.

It does mean that you are voting for the guy you prefer (even though he has no chance of winning) and it also means that the (possible) consequences of voting like that matter very little to you.

Fair enough...Mitt is still a big government bank-owned puppet though. His goal is to make the elites richer just in a neocon way. Different means. Same end.

 

[Liability]

The Supreme Court doesn't have nearly as much power as you neocons think it does.

Not everybody who disagrees with your practically mindless narrow view is a "neocon," you bombastic simpleton.

And the SCOTUS has enough power to permit ObamaCare to stand despite the fact that there is no valid Constitutional basis for it.

 

[Liability]

It is perfectly ok to vote for Johnson.

But voting for him over Mitt doesn't mean that you are voting for Liberty over Tyranny.

It does mean that you are voting for the guy you prefer (even though he has no chance of winning) and it also means that the (possible) consequences of voting like that matter very little to you.

Fair enough...Mitt is still a big government bank-owned puppet though. His goal is to make the elites richer just in a neocon way. Different means. Same end.

Mitt is not a big government bank-owned puppet. You SAYING it and it being true are not even distantly related.

And his goal is NOT to make elites richer. That class warfare bullshit rhetoric makes you sound like a mindless lib drone.

Your use of the term "neocon" is also divorced from reality.

Tossing off a bunch of your hyperbole and hackneyed phrases together does nothing to buttress ANYTHING you say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Supreme Court doesn't have nearly as much power as you neocons think it does.

What?

The SCOTUS IS the Constitution in this country. They can invent a "right to privacy" or revoke the right to private property (Kelo v. New London) at a whim. The dictatorship of the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government with zero checks or balances. The court does whatever it pleases with no regard for law, constitution, or the will of the people.

 

[Liberty]

It is perfectly ok to vote for Johnson.

But voting for him over Mitt doesn't mean that you are voting for Liberty over Tyranny.

It does mean that you are voting for the guy you prefer (even though he has no chance of winning) and it also means that the (possible) consequences of voting like that matter very little to you.

Fair enough...Mitt is still a big government bank-owned puppet though. His goal is to make the elites richer just in a neocon way. Different means. Same end.

Mitt is not a big government bank-owned puppet. You SAYING it and it being true are not even distantly related.

And his goal is NOT to make elites richer. That class warfare bullshit rhetoric makes you sound like a mindless lib drone.

Your use of the term "neocon" is also divorced from reality.

Tossing off a bunch of your hyperbole and hackneyed phrases together does nothing to buttress ANYTHING you say.

Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

If you think these big banks donate money just because they are nice and expect nothing in return, you are in a fantasy world. Incoming TARP 2.0. neocons use fear to garner support, look back at romney over the past year, see how many times he has said "radical violent jihadists" or other phrases to scare his supporters into thinking we need to invade more countries. Give me a break...

 

[Liberty]

The Supreme Court doesn't have nearly as much power as you neocons think it does.

What?

The SCOTUS IS the Constitution in this country. They can invent a "right to privacy" or revoke the right to private property (Kelo v. New London) at a whim. The dictatorship of the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government with zero checks or balances. The court does whatever it pleases with no regard for law, constitution, or the will of the people.

Well then we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. It shouldn't be hard. the SCOTUS cant rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional if it passes and becomes part of the constitution...

 

[Murf76]

I did not vote for Johnson who would (and has) promoted a different kind of tyranny and who I believe lacks thew connections, temperament, and ability to address the worst problems of our nation right now. And he was my very satisfactory governor for eight years and I know him personally, so I am pretty sure of my assessment there. Not everybody is well suited to be President of the United Stated. Also, any conservative who votes for Johnson has given Obama a vote. All the liberals, however, are strongly encouraged to vote for Johnson. Good choice there.

So... did he cheat on his wife or what?
I've never found more than one reference which said that he "broke her heart", and that he'd divorced her and she died soon after. But Libertarians never answer my question on that. Just curious. I've already voted, and not for Johnson.

 

[Liability]

The Supreme Court doesn't have nearly as much power as you neocons think it does.

What?

The SCOTUS IS the Constitution in this country. They can invent a "right to privacy" or revoke the right to private property (Kelo v. New London) at a whim. The dictatorship of the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government with zero checks or balances. The court does whatever it pleases with no regard for law, constitution, or the will of the people.

Well then we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. It shouldn't be hard.

Which would be "interpreted" by the same SCOTUS that invented the alleged "right to privacy" to justify, among other things, legalization of abortions in almost all cases.

There ARE ways to reign in a lawless SCOTUS. Checks and balances do not stop at the Judicial Branch.

The trouble is, they don't get applied.

 

[Liberty]

What?

The SCOTUS IS the Constitution in this country. They can invent a "right to privacy" or revoke the right to private property (Kelo v. New London) at a whim. The dictatorship of the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government with zero checks or balances. The court does whatever it pleases with no regard for law, constitution, or the will of the people.

Well then we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. It shouldn't be hard.

Which would be "interpreted" by the same SCOTUS that invented the alleged "right to privacy" to justify, among other things, legalization of abortions in almost all cases.

There ARE ways to reign in a lawless SCOTUS. Checks and balances do not stop at the Judicial Branch.

The trouble is, they don't get applied.

So your solution is to circumvent the constitution by employing justices to claim power for your side, instead of fixing the actual problem. great. Good luck with that.

 

[Liability]

Fair enough...Mitt is still a big government bank-owned puppet though. His goal is to make the elites richer just in a neocon way. Different means. Same end.

Mitt is not a big government bank-owned puppet. You SAYING it and it being true are not even distantly related.

And his goal is NOT to make elites richer. That class warfare bullshit rhetoric makes you sound like a mindless lib drone.

Your use of the term "neocon" is also divorced from reality.

Tossing off a bunch of your hyperbole and hackneyed phrases together does nothing to buttress ANYTHING you say.

Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

If you think these big banks donate money just because they are nice and expect nothing in return, you are in a fantasy world. Incoming TARP 2.0. neocons use fear to garner support, look back at romney over the past year, see how many times he has said "radical violent jihadists" or other phrases to scare his supporters into thinking we need to invade more countries. Give me a break...

Holy dull and plodding pointless argument, Batman.

First off, since you CLEARLY don't have the first fucking clue as to what a "neocon" actually is, you should refrain from using that term as a talisman. It makes your effort at making any points even weaker.

The fucking election cost in the BILLIONS. There is a problem there.

The liberals' answers to that problem include their ceaseless effort to limit free speech.

Your proposed answer is what? To reject any candidate who gets money from a place (like a bank or a major industry) that HAS money? You are no better than the libs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well then we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. It shouldn't be hard. the SCOTUS cant rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional if it passes and becomes part of the constitution...

Do you have ANY idea what it takes to get a constitutional amendment ratified? And the SCOTUS can do anything they like.

If the SCOTUS rules tomorrow that the 1st Amendment offers no right to speech that offends the government, then what would anyone do? What would congress do? Scream that it does so? It wouldn't alter the fact that the 1st amendment would be gone, based on the whim of the court.

 

[lefty_rosenthal]

When in doubt, vote for the Tranny! lol

most negative political ad ever!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzdhEKxgGXg]Romney Clubs Seals - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Well then we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. It shouldn't be hard.

Which would be "interpreted" by the same SCOTUS that invented the alleged "right to privacy" to justify, among other things, legalization of abortions in almost all cases.

There ARE ways to reign in a lawless SCOTUS. Checks and balances do not stop at the Judicial Branch.

The trouble is, they don't get applied.

So your solution is to circumvent the constitution by employing justices to claim power for your side, instead of fixing the actual problem. great. Good luck with that.

No, ya dolt. You can't even grunt out whatever it is you seem to think you're trying to say. You are incapable of telling me what my solution" is. Obviously.

I have NEVER suggested, argued, contended, implied or even thought that it might be a good idea to have SCOTUS justices claiming ANY powers that aren't already properly entrusted to them under the Constitution. So, stop trying to pretend that you have any right or ability to speak for me. You don't; AND you suck at it anyway.

 

[Oddball]

It is perfectly ok to vote for Johnson.

But voting for him over Mitt doesn't mean that you are voting for Liberty over Tyranny.

It does mean that you are voting for the guy you prefer (even though he has no chance of winning) and it also means that the (possible) consequences of voting like that matter very little to you.

Meh...Given the current cast of soft socialist establishmentarian carnie barkers currently running the RNC circus side show, here isn't enough of a disparity in the "consequences" for me to ever vote (R) again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Meh...Given the current cast of soft socialist establishmentarian carnie barkers currently running the RNC circus side show, here isn't enough of a disparity in the "consequences" for me to ever vote (R) again.

If Obama wins reelection, future elections may well be single party affairs - AND mandatory.

 

[Oddball]

Meh...Given the current cast of soft socialist establishmentarian carnie barkers currently running the RNC circus side show, here isn't enough of a disparity in the "consequences" for me to ever vote (R) again.

If Obama wins reelection, future elections may well be single party affairs - AND mandatory.

They're single party affairs right now....Federal politics isn't different from pro rasslin' anymore.

 

[rightwinger]

I voted against tyranny

Obama!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I voted against tyranny

Obama!

You voted for the Tranny, Obama?

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly have had my quarrels with the Republican Party and a lot of the Republicans in it. So I do understand those voting their conscience for a third party candidate. But I lost a lot of respect for the Paulbots aka Johnson supporters, and lost a lot of respect for Gary Johnson when they chose to attack Romney instead of Obama. As I see it, that seriously calls their motives and/or patriotism and/or intelligence into question.

 

[rightwinger]

Gary Johnson is politically impotent. A vote for Johnson would encourage tyranny