GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2012, 04:49   #26
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Thank you for accepting the question at face value and giving an honest answer.
No problemo...




.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:29   #27
walt cowan
Senior Member
 
walt cowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: absurdistan
Posts: 9,999
if mitts going to win hands down....so why are you all so worried about johnson?
__________________
the nsa was the first to read this post. eric was the second.
walt cowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:38   #28
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
For the unimaginative, anything that's not right in front of their face is unimportant.
Bull. If your idea of imagination is the denial of reality, go draw anime. I prefer to live in the real world. Too many people who want to assume conditions that don't, can't and won't exsist so that they can peddle their own special brand of snake oil---the budget forecasts leap instantly to mind as a related example.

Imagination is wonderful, when it manipulates facts to produce innovation. You've glommed onto it as escapist fantasy. When you want to be serious and deal with the world, let me know.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:54   #29
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?
"...apart from his inability to get elected..."

Quintessential doper logic.
Snowman92D is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:59   #30
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Re: OP. I will vote for Romney b/c winning is the only thing that matter in November. The winners will be the deciders. The loosers will get to stand around and watch the winners do the deciding. Romney is the best means of conservatives and republicans winning in November. It's that simple. Whining about loosers who couldn't make it through the primary process is a waste of time.

In the future, those who want a more conservative candidate/executive will have to do a better job of convincing not only their faithful fringe supporters but the broader electorate. That's as it should be.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:25   #31
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Political Issues

This is the "clean" version of the thread...
You are correct. Problem is, that description is accurate - as in, there is no exit from the circle, other than giving up and giving the election to the side you dislike most.

To vote Libertarian, you have to agree to let Obama win (since Libertarian votes are, for the most part, people who would vote Republican, if forced to choose beteen D and R).
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 10-05-2012 at 09:48..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:49   #32
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,380


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
It's fascinating that the words "Gary Johnson" and "Ron Paul" appear identical to some.
They are more similar than Barry and Mittens.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:04   #33
Diesel McBadass
Tactically Epic
 
Diesel McBadass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,879
maybe people like romney better than johnson, ever think of that?
__________________
Rest In Peace Silent_Runner.
Diesel McBadass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 18:55   #34
Acujeff
Senior Member
 
Acujeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,871
As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress. Gun owners had to wait till Johnson left office to even get CCW. He publicly presented himself then as a non gun owner and had no desire to own one. Now that he’s running for President, he wants to own a gun. How is he good for gun owners?

Gary Johnson was a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for five months now.

Libertarians are just hypocrites when they come to gun forums to call gun owners sheep for voting Republican when they are voting Johnson for the sake of "their" party. Johnson has no chance of even winning one state! How is that good for gun owners?

If Libertarians were honest about helping the RKBA they would be helping Romney beat Obama rather than calling for splitting the vote and trying to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

How is another 4 years of Obama good for gun owners?

Most Libertarians realize that and are voting for Romney.
From Cato: Polls Show Romney Winning the Libertarian Vote
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-...ertarian-vote/

The benefits of President Romney platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama win and send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.
__________________
Read "America's 1st Freedom" NRA's monthly magazine:
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/first-freedom/

Get free NRA-ILA legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:
https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-...-informed.aspx
Acujeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:54   #35
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acujeff View Post
As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress. Gun owners had to wait till Johnson left office to even get CCW. He publicly presented himself then as a non gun owner and had no desire to own one. Now that he’s running for President, he wants to own a gun. How is he good for gun owners?

Gary Johnson was a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for five months now.

Libertarians are just hypocrites when they come to gun forums to call gun owners sheep for voting Republican when they are voting Johnson for the sake of "their" party. Johnson has no chance of even winning one state! How is that good for gun owners?

If Libertarians were honest about helping the RKBA they would be helping Romney beat Obama rather than calling for splitting the vote and trying to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

How is another 4 years of Obama good for gun owners?

Most Libertarians realize that and are voting for Romney.
From Cato: Polls Show Romney Winning the Libertarian Vote
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-...ertarian-vote/

The benefits of President Romney platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama win and send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.
Pointing out the hypocrisy in positions taken and lived by self-proclaimed "libertarians" does no good. Supporters excuse any behavior that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of what their candidate represents. It happened with Ronnie Earmarks, where his words and his deeds were quite far apart. It is happening with Gary Johnson. I appreciate the arguments you make, though, for those of us unfamiliar with Johnson's history. Some libertarians apparently either want to destroy the country (maybe hoping to build a libertarian utopia on the ash heap) or are really Odumbo supporters in libertarian clothing (which seems prevalent here on GT).
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:05   #36
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,532
Honestly, I like Libertarian domestic policy, but I would never vote for them for national office because their foreign policy amounts to: never do anything until it's too late and your enemies are in the middle of New York.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:24   #37
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,380


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel McBadass View Post
maybe people like romney better than johnson, ever think of that?
That was pretty evident in the primaries. RP & GJ were just not getting the votes. It's just simple reality.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:26   #38
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,380


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Honestly, I like Libertarian domestic policy, but I would never vote for them for national office because their foreign policy amounts to: never do anything until it's too late and your enemies are in the middle of New York.
Ditto. I've traveled too much to accept that neoisolationism is based on reality. It just won't work. Barry bent over and kissed their arses and they are burning him in effigy. You cannot appease them enough.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:35   #39
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post

If you didn't "belong" to a party,

and there was no Obama to kick out,

and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?
And I Had eggs for breakfast?

But not if the moon were full...

And the Rolling stones released another hit album in the next 30 days

but only if Apple canceled the new Mini IPAD?

Then….maybe Johnson.

On the other hand….


If your Aunt had balls would she be your Uncle?

Just hypothetically speaking.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJ...on%26Fence.png
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:46   #40
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,380


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.

Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?

The only thing that makes him worse than Romney is his foreign policy. IF you could meld GJ's domestic policy with Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, presence, ability to speak and belief in American exceptionalism, he'd be a good candidate.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:51   #41
onebigelf
Senior Member
 
onebigelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
The obvious seems to slip right by the fanatics.

Many of us had the chance to vote for other candidates, it is what we in good ole' USA on planet Earth call "The Primary"

That"s P R I M A R Y

Many of us didn't vote for Romney. Most of us were mature enough to accept that Romney won the P R I M A R Y, and as such we will support him to defeat Obama, rather than live in denial and keep voting for the candidates that lost, that is L O S T the P R I M A R Y.
This

If all you libertarians and conservative independents would get back in the party and back in the game, what comes out of the primary might be better choices. When you abandon the primaries to the moderates, what you get is more moderate choices. To then come back and whine, "If only you people would make better choices we wouldn't be in this mess..." .... yeah. Piss off.

John
onebigelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:56   #42
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The only thing that makes him worse than Romney is his foreign policy. IF you could meld GJ's domestic policy with Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, presence, ability to speak and belief in American exceptionalism, he'd be a good candidate.
Gary Johnson believes in a strong military and protecting America's foreign interests. He does not however believe in wasting money on nation building.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:58   #43
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post


The fringe Pauls and Johnson's are an irrelevance
So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:00   #44
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
No, I did not say that, Dishonest One.

Anything that does not help Romney fire Bongo, helps bongo.

Irrelevant as they don't have a prayer of ever winning themselves. Their sole purposes are to stroke their own ego, and perhaps be a spoiler by vote siphoning, out of childish vindictiveness. Which you know well.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJ...on%26Fence.png
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:54   #45
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
In the future, those who want a more conservative candidate/executive will have to do a better job of convincing not only their faithful fringe supporters but the broader electorate. That's as it should be.
Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?

Last edited by Gundude; 10-06-2012 at 11:56..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:56   #46
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
You are correct. Problem is, that description is accurate - as in, there is no exit from the circle, other than giving up and giving the election to the side you dislike most.

To vote Libertarian, you have to agree to let Obama win (since Libertarian votes are, for the most part, people who would vote Republican, if forced to choose beteen D and R).
Yes!!

At least you get it, whether or not you agree with it. Thanks.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:38   #47
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
I've already made my stupid vote on principal when I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and helped put Clinton in office.

One of my rewards was having Clinton fire my great boss and make one of the biggest morons I ever met in my life my new boss.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 10-06-2012 at 13:38..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:45   #48
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?
Because people who actually try to convince others that, all of a sudden, a third party messiah is going to come along and actually be elected, much less accomplish anything without having the backing of a political caucus on Capitol Hill, are rightly viewed as ...well...."Loony"
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:54   #49
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt cowan View Post
if mitts going to win hands down....so why are you all so worried about johnson?
My only worry is that in a fairly close race, he could draw enough R votes to reelect Obama, which is really his only possible impact on American politics.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:10   #50
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,375
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.

Example 1: Election of 1912. Teddy Roosevelt gets into a snit with President Taft and essentially splits the Republican party when he creates the Progressive "Bull Moose" party. Together TR and Taft pull 50.6% of the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson wins just under 42% of the popular vote and takes a whopping 435 electoral votes. You think Obama is a socialist? He's got nothing on Woodrow Wilson. The actual socialist candidate in that race, Eugene Debs, only got 6% of the popular vote and didn't win a single state, so he's not really a factor.

Examples 2 and 3: The elections of 1992 and 1996. Minature clown H. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected twice in 1992 and 1996.

Example 4: The election of 2000. Ralph Nader spoiled this one for Al Gore, hands down. Why? Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush's final victory margin over Gore after all of the hanging chads and divination of voter intent was 537 votes. I know people can legitimately argue about how votes for Perot might have split evenly- ish between Clinton and either of his GOP competitors in 1992 or 1996 and maybe not really affected the outcome, but does anyone seriously doubt that Al "Earth In The Balance" Gore wouldn't have won 90%+ of the votes of the type of enviroweenies dumb enough to throw their votes away to the Green party? If those people had functioning brain cells, Al Gore would have won Florida by well over 89,000 votes. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that over 90,000 bunny- huggers were dumb enough to vote their hearts instead of their heads. Can you imagine if Gore had been POTUS on 9/11?

Bottom line: We have the system we have. It's ultimately a lot stronger and more stable than multi-party systems that are always having to form various "coalition" governments after their elections are split 16 different ways. Protest votes in this country are for children. Civil libertardians should grow up.
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Dukeboy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:52.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,358
400 Members
958 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42