Trolling the ship channel?

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I really like Ron Paul. If the LP can find a man like him who is pro-life and deeply appreciates (and can elucidate) the important distinctions between state and federal powers, he would likely have my vote in 2016 and beyond.

As it is now, my biggest concern with the LP is that they will allow federal power to grow in ways that impose "libertarian" principles on the states where they can get congressional support or foolish fiats from the federal courts.

Ron Paul staunchly opposed that kind of folly and abuse of federal power.

Most other libertarian candidates are not so principled.

I think you should have a closer look at Gary Johson, It's candidates like him who not only espouse "less government" but actually acted on those thoughts and did it when he was a gov. That's the type of person that we should be looking to. IMO.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I think you should have a closer look at Gary Johson, It's candidates like him who not only espouse "less government" but actually acted on those thoughts and did it when he was a gov. That's the type of person that we should be looking to. IMO.

Gary Johnson advocates the ongoing legalization of the murder of unborn children. Ron Paul is pro-life.

Under his "leadership" the LP has abandoned the key recognition of the importance of federalism and separation of state from federal powers. It certainly appears that Johnson would advocate for the feds running roughshod over state powers and rights if they can successfully force states to implement "libertarian" policies regardless of the desires of those state legislatures.

Ron Paul was clear that recreational drug use is bad, but the federal government should not criminalize it any more than other unhealthy behaviors. Gary Johnson, in contrast, is an actual dope smoking hippie type. It is one thing to support the candidacy of a man whose preferred policies allow marijuana use. It is another to support a man whose judgment is impaired by drug use. It's the difference between voting for a health guru who thinks that the government banning trans fats is absurd and voting for Gov. Chris Christie.

I am also uncomfortable with the way Gary Johnson's first marriage ended. If a man can't be trusted to keep the most sacred vows to his wife, how can he be trusted to be faithful to his oath of office? Ron Paul's faithfulness in marriage gains the trust of voters in a much more convincing manner.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Under his "leadership" the LP has abandoned the key recognition of the importance of federalism and separation of state from federal powers. It certainly appears that Johnson would advocate for the feds running roughshod over state powers and rights if they can successfully force states to implement "libertarian" policies regardless of the desires of those state legislatures. Not sure how you see this being the case, in consideration of the fact that his main message has been a significant reduction in government overall. (and he actually reduced "government" in new mexico by over 10%) But if that's the way you feel... okay.

Ron Paul was clear that recreational drug use is bad, but the federal government should not criminalize it any more than other unhealthy behaviors. Gary Johnson, in contrast, is an actual dope smoking hippie type. True he is a dope smoker, who has climbed Everest (as well as a good number of the world other tallest mountains) Started from the ground up New Mexico's largest Construction Company, and successfully turned the state of New Mexico around by being known as Veto Gary when he vetoed over two hundred bills that included any expansion to government in that state. Guess he is a complete failure because he has used MJ and thinks it's not such a big thing.

I am also uncomfortable with the way Gary Johnson's first marriage ended. If a man can't be trusted to keep the most sacred vows to his wife, how can he be trusted to be faithful to his oath of office? Ron Paul's faithfulness in marriage gains the trust of voters in a much more convincing manner. Divorce happens, sometimes people grow apart. I would rather have a person willing to deal in reality, than one who believes that both people must suffer for a lifetime rather than realize they no longer fit together.

Labeling someone based on pre-conceived notions has long been considered folly. Honestly to some extent we are all guilty of it. Some of the most educated, interesting, world changing people in this world have been; Dope smoking hippies, white trash, N######, Democrap's, Republitard's, Libtard's etc.

We all know that we should not judge people based on their appearance or personal choices... we should have an opinion of people based on their results and there previous conduct.

As a nation we would most benefit by teaching tolerance and working together for our common good. Teaching people to continue to distrust others who have different opinions / looks / values than we do is a road to ruin, paved with good intentions.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

We all know that we should not judge people based on their appearance or personal choices... we should have an opinion of people based on their results and there previous conduct.

WHAT? Of course, we need to judge potential leaders based on their personal choices.

Gary Johnson CHOSE to smoke weed in violation of Federal law and knowing it would set a horrible example to the nation's youth!

Gary Johnson CHOSE to divorce his wife of 27 years.

As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE to run on a platform advocating that the US unilaterally abandon longstanding international commitments promised under duly passed treaties. As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE for the LP platform to exclude clear delineations of state and federal powers.

He's a man who chooses not to keep his promises and does not believe it is necessary for the US to keep our longstanding, duly passed agreements.

This is a character problem. The President should be more than a good manager. The president should be a person deeply committed to the oath of office, a person who keeps promises.

Are you REALLY OK with what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and how he lied about it under oath? Do you really believe these kinds of choices do not matter?

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

WHAT? Of course, we need to judge potential leaders based on their personal choices.

Gary Johnson CHOSE to smoke weed in violation of Federal law and knowing it would set a horrible example to the nation's youth!

Gary Johnson CHOSE to divorce his wife of 27 years.

As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE to run on a platform advocating that the US unilaterally abandon longstanding international commitments promised under duly passed treaties. As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE for the LP platform to exclude clear delineations of state and federal powers.

He's a man who chooses not to keep his promises and does not believe it is necessary for the US to keep our longstanding, duly passed agreements.

This is a character problem. The President should be more than a good manager. The president should be a person deeply committed to the oath of office, a person who keeps promises.

Are you REALLY OK with what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and how he lied about it under oath? Do you really believe these kinds of choices do not matter?

So your version where we label people based on personal biases is better?

The founder's of this nation CHOSE to break from their sworn allegiance with Britian. Shall we judge them as harshly as you choose to judge a modern day person who is not willing to accept the status quo?

I do not agree with many of the policies that were enacted in the Clinton years (Nafta is quite possibly the most henious example of our governments stupidity)

However i could give exactly two ****'s less where Bill Clinton's **** and his cigar's have been.

I am not interested in attempting to get a reincarnated jesus christ to run for office in this country, Because the fact's are when a perfect candidate is found that has the moral's of a Saint, He will still happily follow the current blue and red policies of selling the american people out to corporate interests.

I am very interested in someone running for office who has shown his ability to restrict government, encourage free trade and industry (without sucking off big business and their lobbying groups), and enact policies which strongly benefit his constituants.

Ron Paul is not a bad guy either, The concerns that i have of him stem more from his close relationship with mega business.

I have little or no doubt that if the "closets" of america's presidents were collectively "aired" out... there would be more than enough scandal. I simply prefer the scandal and the scoundrel that i know... rather than the one who is best able to hide his past.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

However i could give exactly two ****'s less where Bill Clinton's **** and his cigar's have been.

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I am very interested in someone running for office who has shown his ability to restrict government, encourage free trade and industry (without sucking off big business and their lobbying groups), and enact policies which strongly benefit his constituants.

Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?



Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

If you're math skills are in line with your logic, you should consider changing your name from MathGeek to AriopsisFelis.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1384539237.404731.jpg

Logic - instead of honing my skills to catch redfish with artificials (hard heads rarely take compared to natural baits), let's do a study on what to throw that will deter them. Conclusion? Magnetized Hooks.

None of your fears are backed by any legitimate evidence, just like your arguments on legalizing pot.

Do any libertarians advocate eliminating age limits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco?

Do any libertarians push to eliminate all breathalyzers and field tests for those that show evidence of alcohol intoxication?

Do any libertarians advocate decriminalizing marijuana and making it rampant and accessible to youths?

Do any libertarians support eliminating drug tests in industries where they are most needed? No, the only push is for drug tests that are accurate in determining safe levels that can prove drugs weren't done on the job, or in a time frame that proves the effects are hazardous. Anyone in the oilfield is susceptible to alcohol tests on site, and I don't hear anyone opposed to them. I've had random breathalyZers done for a crew of 100 and never thought of it as an infringement.

Get real mg, and leave your emotions at home where they belong.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex? Because politicians don't lie about anything do they?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?

Politicians that DON'T lie under oath, have sex at work with subordinates (and or conduct various other innappropraite things, are the Rule now a days... not the Rarity..) Lie, Deception, Misuse of government power... those are are rules.. not exceptions.

Thus my like of Gary Johnson, He has shown that he is not from that same mold.



Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

So your disdain for the libertarian party comes from a "hunch"? Well so much for the old scientific method arguement.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

I believe i am a true Libertarian, I view the the platform to be one of less government involvement, but when there is a need for government involvement it is of a nature to protect the People from other interests ie. (Mega business lobbying, squandering of the nation's national resources for the financial benefit of a few rather than the good of the whole country) etc.

As far as your drug arguments above i never stated any of those things in our other discussion.. and to the best of my recollection no one else said so either... so what the heck is your point.

Are we once again degraded to your viewpoint that potheads are incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way whatsoever?

Do i agree 100% with every single point listed in the Libertarian Platform.... no.... but by and far they represent a very large percentage of what changes could occur that would quickly bring this country back to it's rightful position as leader of the free world.

For example... i will even give you a freebee.... i'm sure you will happily use it to call me a commie socialist or something.

The libertarian policy in regards to Healthcare is that the insurance industry market should be stripped of government and protectionism. Selling over state lines should be allowed as should collective bargaining agreements with groups of like minded consumer... ie. switch to a true free market system with a Laissez faire mindset toward the economic's portion of it.

I do believe that would work to some extent.... and it would certainly be a HUGE improvement over the joke that is our current healthcare system.

However... My personal belief's differ from the LP on this subject, I believe that we should in fact switch to a 100% socialized health care system. With appropriate governmental regulation. Set up in similar fashion to successful socialized health care plans currently in place in many of this worlds countries.

I believe this because personally i believe basic solid healthcare (no boobjobs or such allowed) is a human right. I also believe it because these countries have shown that they can provide more doctors and more hospital beds and better service accross the board resulting in longer healthier lives for their countries citizens.

Honestly i could care less which route we take, as long as we quickly extricate ourselves from the current quagmire of health care law which has been written by the health care and pharma lobbying groups.

I quite seriously doubt that you or any one else will ever agree with any party's opinion 100%.....

But you go with what most closely matches your mindset. Yes?