Ron Paul's failed to communicate his message? That's news to me, since thanks to him, nation-building, monetary policy, and the Fed are now all mainstream political issues....Hey I'm Gary Johnson, I'm just like Ron Paul except even more of a failure at effectively communicating my message.
If Paul was such a failure, the GOP wouldn't have disenfranchised delegates and barred him from speaking to avoid any possibility of him being nominated from the floor....
If people don't vote for who they like and agree with, we're stuck with the fecal duality forever. Me, I'll vote for the guy i like and agree with (at least halfway) over the evil of two lessers, every time.
also, he's not just like Ron Paul. Two different dudes, man. Gary Johnson is pro-choice. He isn't anti-immigrant. Those are two big differences..
Ron Paul isn't anti-immigration. He just doesn't think you should go into foreign countries and with people and force them to live under a democracy. I just laugh at these war mongers that spread fear and lies about the bad guys in the Middle East. These ers that come over to America and do terrorism only do it because of blowback. It's not about America's freedoms. They don't like it when America goes into their country and forces them to do it the American way. I mean seriously, how many of these Neo-cons would like it if China came over to America and had troops and bases and was in America to liberate us from the bad guys?
I don't give a about Obama or Romney. They can eat if you ask me. I'm voting for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul as a write in. the GOP and Democrats.
"force them to live under a democracy"
bull . US invades, murders in foreign countries to make the world safe for US corporations, not to promote democracy.
We don't need a scorched Earth policy. Those countries implode once their people see weakness in the regimes. Sure they become unstable and, for a time, worse for their own people but that's their problems.
Right, and the risk of cancer is still there regardless of the treatment/prevention but not nearly as great with the treatments/preventions as without.In the meantime, the risk of one er slipping through Mexico is still there. Heck, they were one sloppy guy away from blowing up Times Square.
If you were there, you'd have an easier time agreeing I think. Better that bombs are hitting their buildings instead of hitting ours. Sure the will come back, but that could be happening here instead of there.I just can't agree with the notion that 'we took the fight there'... they're not really interested in fighting. They'll disappear... then they'll come back and hide again... and keep stretching this much like they did with Russia. The difference obviously is that it costs millions per day to the US, and it costs them next to nothing to pull that off.
We aren't there to fix them. We are there to disrupt them. When these countries get some semblance of order, they become dangerous. They aren't nearly as dangerous to us when they are killing each other with car bombs. Other than oil, there's nothing there we want/need.And the bottom line is that nobody likes us there. Iraq is halfway back into the hole it was, and it'll only get worse. Now they're helping Iran sidestep the imposed sanctions...
You don't do without boots on the ground. Intelligence work got us 9/11. Now their countries are in shambles and they see our jets and helicopters on a daily basis. They see our men on the ground on a daily basis. You cannot pull out and declare victory, it doesn't mean anything to villagers with no national pride.Get the boots off the ground and put that money on more intelligence work, and get that over with. Declare victory and move on.
No, you cannot use that because it doesn't work. My point has nothing to do with "do nothing". I think we are doing something, and that something needs to be done. It's naive to think taking the liberal approach on these issues will improve the situation because it wont. We cannot allow porous borders. We cannot allow people to benefit from breaking the law. Sure I would do the same if I was born in Mexico, but Mexico isn't our problem. If our immigration policy is too tough, revise it to make sense. We aren't a charitable organization and a good number of these people are just milking the out of a system they never intend on contributing to.
If someone breaks into my home because they are hungry, I would feed them if I didn't kill them first, however I don't want the laws changed to allow them to do that.
Baloney. Those guys were fighting well before we got there, and will be fighting after we're gone. That's simply what their culture has been since pretty much forever. Be it due to religious cir stances or otherwise, that's simply who they are. And they hate our guts because we're buddies with Israel, among other things.
What does that has to do with the fact our borders are still porous as and being in the Middle East doesn't change one iota over that?
The point I think you're completely missing is that they don't care. Their buildings were being hit before we got there, and they'll find a way to start another conflict after we're gone. They just don't give a . On the other hand, they do know *we* care. London cares. Madrid cares. Israel cares.
Disrupting doesn't work because there's simply no end to it. Only one side goes through attrition and it's not them. The US simply cannot afford to stay there running operations forever. This isn't conventional war, where one side surrenders, the US installs a few bases and moves on. I thought Israel figured this out a long time ago. It's a futile proposition to go on a long term campaign. There's also too many actors that are more complicated to go against (ie: Pakistan).
And they saw Russians before our guys. Then they saw the Russians leave and had their own civil war. Now they're seeing us, and will see us GTFO sooner or later. They absolutely don't care and won't stop.
The 'declaring victory' part was meant for the americans, who needs to feel warm and fuzzy about such military interventions. I don't expect the Middle East in general to give a crap either way.
Well he is trying desperately to be the new Ron Paul. Just listen to the guys ad...
Romney isn't anymore anti immigrant than Johnson. They both propose expanding legal immigration. The only difference I can see between them is Romney claims he'll build a fence (something I don't believe he actually means to do, a pander to the tea party). Johnson avoids the issue of amnesty or path to citizenship enitirely from what I have seen on his website. Same goes for border security.
Well he's "sort of" prochoice.Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.
Well, that's what Roe vs Wade established... including the 'viability' wording... To me that sounds he's fine with Roe vs Wade and that would put him in the pro-choice camp...
Well maybe that's what he means. Seriously, how hard is it for a person that thinks they should lead this country to put a little more than one or two sentences explaining their views.
On the other hand, we have entire websites full of empty words...
I just went to his website and it has a page with bulletpointed explanations for each of his issues. Are you looking in the wrong place?
My understanding, although I could be wrong, is that he was a pretty good govenor as well. Popular and succesful.
So....in a "safe" state like Texas...is it cool to "waste a vote" on Gary Johnson? Seriously, their platform is a lot closer to my beliefs than either of the classic 2.
This has been my thought process ever since I started voting. I would like to think that if I lived in a swing state I would still vote for the best option, but I can't guarantee that I wouldnt fall into the trap of "lesser of two evils".
Thank you for your interest in writing for The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages. Unfortunately, the op-ed you submitted does not meet our present needs.
We hope that you will be able to place it elsewhere.
Cordially,
Editorial Features Staff
CC, it was a great letter regardless. Props.
derp, derp, the VRWC is ed and un able, derp
gfy
Well given the fact that it is highly unlikely that Romney will win I don't think it really matters. Although it would be nice if Obama loses the popular vote. I don't think it would change how he governs but it might make the rest of the party do a little introspection.
I'll do as I always do and vote R at the top of the ticket and L down ticket when there's that option. What really needs to happen is the formation of a libertarian leaning version of the tea party to try and move the GOP by being active in primaries and change the party at the local level.
Isn't that what the tea party was supposed to be and then it was immediately co-opted by social conservatives?
Not exactly, but that's what I had hoped it would be. The TEA party started out of dissatisfaction with both parties but it wasn't organized or founded with any particular set of principles wich made it an easy target to be "co-opted".
The problem with libertarians is they tend to be idealogical purists which mean they have one foot in my world and the other foot firmly planted in crazy land.
Non idealogical moderates (i.e. normal people) on the other hand tend to bounce around in supporting different parties so they are unlikely to ever form an organized effort to change the GOP.
Bingo.... the Tea Party was a Ron Paul movement, until gross neocons like Armey, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin got their hands all over it.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
