Gary Johnson Announces Run for President

[kwc57]

Gawd your comprehension is poor. What are you doing here anyway? When challenged about who Rabbi has backed as a candidate, he said he backed Reagan. I reminded him that that was 30 years ago. It had nothing to do with name recognition over the past 30 years. Do try to keep up.

Just like booze, drugs and prostitution, I don't gamble either. I put my money to better uses than that.

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here?

What Rabbi does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.

Just admit you don't have enough confidence in your man Johnson and keep your integrity intact.

He ahs no integrity. No Narco-Libertarian does. They want to be able to do what they want when they want and everyone else can go to hell.

What new laws would you like to pass to restrict people's freedoms you socialist conservative?

 

[kwc57]

So, we know that Lonestar Logic and The Rabbi want to continue on with the known nanny state social conservative status quo and would prefer not to educate themselves about any new candidates with real solutions. You guys stick with Sarah, Newt and Mitt, OK?

Anybody want to actually have an adult discussion about what Gary Johnson brings to the table.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Gawd your comprehension is poor. What are you doing here anyway? When challenged about who Rabbi has backed as a candidate, he said he backed Reagan. I reminded him that that was 30 years ago. It had nothing to do with name recognition over the past 30 years. Do try to keep up.

Just like booze, drugs and prostitution, I don't gamble either. I put my money to better uses than that.

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here?

What Rabbi does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.

Just admit you don't have enough confidence in your man Johnson and keep your integrity intact.

What am I doing here? I started the thread you moron.

So you get in pissing contests for integrities sake? I bet you piss into the wind too.

You don't gamble but you get into pissing contests. Interesting.

Fact is numbnuts, I responded with a factual comment that your man Johnson has no national name recognition and then you go off on a tangent like a little boy.

Grow the fuck up!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, we know that Lonestar Logic and The Rabbi want to continue on with the known nanny state social conservative status quo and would prefer not to educate themselves about any new candidates with real solutions. You guys stick with Sarah, Newt and Mitt, OK?

Anybody want to actually have an adult discussion about what Gary Johnson brings to the table.

In other words, you're taking your ball and going home.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are you too fucking stoopid to read any of the 7 links in the post you responded to? Oh yeah, it's LL, of course you are. You like to act "conservative", so you might want to get off of your ass and educate yourself on the best and actually most conservative candidate to throw his hat in the ring for the last 30 years. That would be Gary Johnson.

Well I don't know about him being the most conservative candidate in the last 30 years. He's certainly less conservative than Ron Paul.

Depends on how you define conservatism. For many conservatives, it means being "socially" conservative which means mixing their relgion with their politics and legislating morality. If you include that in conservatism, then you are correct, Johnson isn't as conservative as some other candidates. For me, social conservatism is just the flip side of social liberalism.....most commonly known as socialism. Any time either side has a social agenda and seeks to use the gubmint to enforce it, it is socialism. Doesn't matter if it is liberal or conservative. For me, conservative means supporting liberty and freedom even when it isn't to our personal liking. Personally, I don't like abortion, drugs or prostitution. Politically, I believe it is up to each person to decide what they want to do as long as it doesn't encroach on another person's freedoms. For me, libertarianism is the ultimate conservatism as it demands personal responsibility for oneself and allows you the freedoms enshrined in our constitution. Any time either side looks to limit those freedoms, that is not conservative in my books.

Just because one is socially conservative doesn't mean they're attempting to use government force to push their ideas. Ron Paul is a social conservative, and a libertarian who doesn't try to use the government to push his social conservative ideals on anybody else.

I would also disagree that libertarianism is the "ultimate conservativism," because conservatives don't necessarily view the state in the same way a libertarian might. Namely as the enemy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I doubt you are more than 25.
Seeing things as black and white is the sign of an immature mind. Do you support the right to murder? To steal? To cheat? If not then you support restrictions on freedom. Get over it.

Stealing, murdering, and cheating aren't freedoms, and as someone under 25 that seems pretty obvious to me.

Laws against those things do not constitute abridgement of freedom? If you're free then yo are free to do anything you want.

No, because I don't have a right to murder or steal. One can only have a right to do something that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, and therefore we can't say that it's an abridgment of one's freedoms to have laws against murder or theft.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gawd your comprehension is poor. What are you doing here anyway? When challenged about who Rabbi has backed as a candidate, he said he backed Reagan. I reminded him that that was 30 years ago. It had nothing to do with name recognition over the past 30 years. Do try to keep up.

Just like booze, drugs and prostitution, I don't gamble either. I put my money to better uses than that.

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here?

What Rabbi does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.

Just admit you don't have enough confidence in your man Johnson and keep your integrity intact.

He ahs no integrity. No Narco-Libertarian does. They want to be able to do what they want when they want and everyone else can go to hell.

Here we go with this nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Think of Gary Johnson as the Phil Jackson of politics. "I really think that life is about being in a state of zen," the newly minted contender for the GOP nomination says. "If I might describe zen for you, it's being in the moment. The thing that gets someone there might be music, art, golf, reading, writing. It might be a job that you have. For me, I've found it in athletics. And I've also found it in politics."

His answer was unlike any I'd heard to the question, "What appeals to you about running for president?" People seeking high-powered jobs tend to be all about ego, power, intensity, and ambition. To value the destination more than the journey. Yet here was a man in a suit, prepping for a presidential bid, musing on the zen of sports and politics. The former made sense. Every high school athlete knows that feeling of being in the zone, performing in the moment. Mere sports fans grasp that Phil Jackson was able to coax that quality from his players.

The Zen of Gary Johnson - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[The Rabbi]

Stealing, murdering, and cheating aren't freedoms, and as someone under 25 that seems pretty obvious to me.

Laws against those things do not constitute abridgement of freedom? If you're free then yo are free to do anything you want.

No, because I don't have a right to murder or steal. One can only have a right to do something that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, and therefore we can't say that it's an abridgment of one's freedoms to have laws against murder or theft.

Who says you don't? Why is the non-infringement on someone else's rights the definition of what is permitted?

 

[The Rabbi]

So, we know that Lonestar Logic and The Rabbi want to continue on with the known nanny state social conservative status quo and would prefer not to educate themselves about any new candidates with real solutions. You guys stick with Sarah, Newt and Mitt, OK?

Anybody want to actually have an adult discussion about what Gary Johnson brings to the table.

If anyone cared enough why would you be part of it?
Obviously you are incapable of rational discussion and resort to name calling. On to iggy you go, my lad.

 

[kwc57]

so, we know that lonestar logic and the rabbi want to continue on with the known nanny state social conservative status quo and would prefer not to educate themselves about any new candidates with real solutions. You guys stick with sarah, newt and mitt, ok?

Anybody want to actually have an adult discussion about what gary johnson brings to the table.

if anyone cared enough why would you be part of it?
Obviously you are incapable of rational discussion and resort to name calling. On to iggy you go, my lad.

View attachment 13251

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who the hell is Gary Johnson?

Are you too fucking stoopid to read any of the 7 links in the post you responded to? Oh yeah, it's LL, of course you are. You like to act "conservative", so you might want to get off of your ass and educate yourself on the best and actually most conservative candidate to throw his hat in the ring for the last 30 years. That would be Gary Johnson.

Not stupid (unlike those that don't know how to even spell the word), just uninterested.

Name recognition means a lot. And your pal Johnson has done nothing in the last 30 years that would make lifelong conservatives like myself remember him. Now I suppose if I lived in New Mexico it would be a different story. Locally people know him but nationally, the name means nothing.

Every life long conservative that does not rely solely on MSNBC for news has heard of him, and most liberals that do rely on MSNBC have also heard of him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gawd your comprehension is poor. What are you doing here anyway? When challenged about who Rabbi has backed as a candidate, he said he backed Reagan. I reminded him that that was 30 years ago. It had nothing to do with name recognition over the past 30 years. Do try to keep up.

Just like booze, drugs and prostitution, I don't gamble either. I put my money to better uses than that.

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here?

What Rabbi does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.

Just admit you don't have enough confidence in your man Johnson and keep your integrity intact.

He ahs no integrity. No Narco-Libertarian does. They want to be able to do what they want when they want and everyone else can go to hell.

Narco-libertarian, is that a person who thinks the only reason the government is still in the drug war is that they view it as a source of revenue, a way to amass power, and an excuse to take away civil rights?

If so, why isn't everyone a narco-libertarian?

 

[The Rabbi]

I could ask you the same, what are you doing here?

What Rabbi does or doesn't do is of no consequence to me.

Just admit you don't have enough confidence in your man Johnson and keep your integrity intact.

He ahs no integrity. No Narco-Libertarian does. They want to be able to do what they want when they want and everyone else can go to hell.

Narco-libertarian, is that a person who thinks the only reason the government is still in the drug war is that they view it as a source of revenue, a way to amass power, and an excuse to take away civil rights?

If so, why isn't everyone a narco-libertarian?

Because most people don't do drugs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He ahs no integrity. No Narco-Libertarian does. They want to be able to do what they want when they want and everyone else can go to hell.

Narco-libertarian, is that a person who thinks the only reason the government is still in the drug war is that they view it as a source of revenue, a way to amass power, and an excuse to take away civil rights?

If so, why isn't everyone a narco-libertarian?

Because most people don't do drugs?

I don't do drugs, or drink, and I think they both should be legal. What's your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

Narco-libertarian, is that a person who thinks the only reason the government is still in the drug war is that they view it as a source of revenue, a way to amass power, and an excuse to take away civil rights?

If so, why isn't everyone a narco-libertarian?

Because most people don't do drugs?

I don't do drugs, or drink, and I think they both should be legal. What's your point?

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Laws against those things do not constitute abridgement of freedom? If you're free then yo are free to do anything you want.

No, because I don't have a right to murder or steal. One can only have a right to do something that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, and therefore we can't say that it's an abridgment of one's freedoms to have laws against murder or theft.

Who says you don't? Why is the non-infringement on someone else's rights the definition of what is permitted?

Most libertarians would hold to natural rights theory, which is why we don't see laws against murder or theft as infringing on anybody's rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because most people don't do drugs?

I don't do drugs, or drink, and I think they both should be legal. What's your point?

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because I don't have a right to murder or steal. One can only have a right to do something that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, and therefore we can't say that it's an abridgment of one's freedoms to have laws against murder or theft.

Who says you don't? Why is the non-infringement on someone else's rights the definition of what is permitted?

Most libertarians would hold to natural rights theory, which is why we don't see laws against murder or theft as infringing on anybody's rights.

Yes. Even though they cannot describe what those rights are, where they came from, what they include or don't include and what happens when you violate them.
IOW they might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't do drugs, or drink, and I think they both should be legal. What's your point?

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.