PDA

View Full Version : An Anti-War Candidate Announces for President



BoomerJack
4/27/2011, 09:17 AM
Tuesday 26 April 2011
by: Robert Naiman, Truthout

http://truthout.org/anti-war-candidate-announces-president/1303823158

Last week, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson announced his candidacy for president of the United States.

This was a historic event, because 1) Johnson wants to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and 2) Johnson is a Republican. He also wants to slash the military budget.

Johnson is also opposed to the "war on drugs," which he has called "an expensive bust [4]." Indeed, as The Hill noted [5]:

Last year, he teamed up with singer Melissa Etheridge and actor Danny Glover for a Hollywood rally in favor of Proposition 19 - an initiative that would have legalized marijuana in California.

This suggests that Johnson can play well with others around issues of common concern.

It is tremendously important that there be at least one Republican candidate for president who is against the war in Afghanistan.

Polls show that Republican voters have turned against the war. But the majority of Republican voters who want US troops out of Afghanistan are, so far, almost totally unrepresented by Republican officials in Washington. Johnson's campaign could break through the national Republican wall, because as a candidate for president, Johnson will be able to get into the media and the national Republican Party leadership - "the party's ruling class [5]," as The Hill put it - won't be able to silence him. Even if he doesn't get a dime from Lockheed or Raytheon, they won't be able to keep him off the stage in the early Republican debates, and that will change the discussion.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll [6] in March found that 56 percent of Republicans [7] think the United States should "withdraw a substantial number of U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan this summer." That is, the majority of Republican voters are ahead of the Obama administration, which hasn't yet committed to a substantial withdrawal this summer.

But the high-water mark in the House so far for Republican support on any initiative against the indefinite continuation of the Afghanistan war is nine votes. That's about 5 percent of the Republicans in the House. Five percent versus 56 percent - that's a pretty big gap. The enforcement of the will of the Republican Party's "ruling class" against the will of the majority of Republican voters is a key pillar sustaining the war.

This pillar of the war must be attacked. The candidacy of Johnson is a weapon for doing so.

Of course, Johnson's candidacy faces obstacles. He is not a billionaire. He is not backed by the party establishment - no candidate against the war will be. He will not be backed by the establishment media.

On the other hand, Johnson's candidacy has a potential X weapon: Americans who typically don't vote in Republican primaries and caucuses who want to end the war.

After all, we all want to support democracy in Cairo and Madison. Why not support democracy in the Republican Party on the question of the war?

Now, some may be thinking, what does this have to do with me? I am not a "Republican."

But whether you are a "Republican" or not, you have to live with the consequences of the fact that the national Republican Party is not representing the majority of Republican voters who want to see US troops come out of Afghanistan, because this is a key buttress of the continuation of the war.

Corporations back Republicans and Democrats, as it suits their perceived interests. So do labor unions, environmentalists, women's groups and gay rights groups. Why should peace advocates be any different? What one does in November in one thing; what one does in the primary season is another. If there is no Democratic primary for president, if there is no anti-war primary for Congress where you live, why waste your anti-war vote in an uncontested primary?

Many states have open primaries: any voter can vote in any primary. In other states, you have to register with a given party in order to participate in that party's primary. New Hampshire - a critical, early state, where the Eugene McCarthy campaign showed the Lyndon Johnson administration the depth of anti-war sentiment - is in between: if you register as an "undeclared [8]" voter, you can vote in any primary.

But even if you live in a state with a "closed primary" - check with local authorities for rules and deadlines - political parties in America are squishy things. Who's to say you're not a "Republican"? You are if you say you are. In the future, you can say something else.

Of course, many people will consider the temporary assumption of a "Republican" identity, even for a day, as a bridge too far.

But consider: if you could stop the killing in Afghanistan by temporarily assuming a "Republican" identity, would that not be morally justified?

In Jewish law, the protection of human life takes precedence over all. Therefore, voting in a Republican primary to end the war is a mitzvah.

And what would Jesus do in this situation? Wouldn't Jesus vote in a Republican primary to end the war? As the Bible says:

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

[1] http://truthout.org/print/1503
[2] http://truthout.org/printmail/1503
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/robotclaw/3446290579/
[4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0421/Gary-Johnson-declares-for-president-Is-he-the-next-Ron-Paul
[5] http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/156893-known-for-stance-on-pot-johnson-readies-2012-bid-
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_03142011.html
[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-partisan-reactions-to-afghanistan-and-optimism-on-government/2011/03/14/ABBRokW_blog.html
[8] http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm
[9] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
******************************
Anybody think this guy can get on the Oklahoma primary ballot? If he does, I might have to register as a Republican.

The
4/27/2011, 09:18 AM
Gary Johnson is awesome. That is all.

The Profit
4/27/2011, 09:19 AM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.

The
4/27/2011, 09:21 AM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.


Decriminalized marijuana in NM.

The Profit
4/27/2011, 09:30 AM
Decriminalized marijuana in NM.




YES!!! Another good reason to like this guy.

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 09:34 AM
Never heard of him...I'm guessing the next nominee will be some little known person that comes out of the blue...like Carter....:)

Mongo
4/27/2011, 09:41 AM
melissa etheridge? why cant political canidates get cool bands? maybe get the remaining members of Pantera

yermom
4/27/2011, 09:42 AM
how different is that from Ron Paul's platform?

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 09:44 AM
melissa etheridge? why cant political canidates get cool bands? maybe get the remaining members of Pantera

Of all the possible choices you chose...Pantera?

The
4/27/2011, 09:44 AM
how different is that from Ron Paul's platform?


He's not bat **** crazy nor a racist?

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 09:44 AM
He's not bat **** crazy nor a racist?

lol....

Mongo
4/27/2011, 09:46 AM
Of all the possible choices you chose...Pantera?

Hall and Oates?

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 09:48 AM
how different is that from Ron Paul's platform?

He's not running against the 14th Amendment, probably is a fan of civil rights. You know... the little things.

I really like Johnson. I expect though, that we'll end up with the right wing fringe selecting someone like Palin or Bachman as their nominee, and I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Obama.

If we had a nominee like Johnson, I could really back a Republican, and in a general election, I'll be he'd have a shot.

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 09:48 AM
Hall and Oates?

Ya killin me....

The
4/27/2011, 09:49 AM
He's not running against the 14th Amendment, probably is a fan of civil rights. You know... the little things.

I really like Johnson. I expect though, that we'll end up with the right wing fringe selecting someone like Palin or Bachman as their nominee, and I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Obama.

If we had a nominee like Johnson, I could really back a Republican, and in a general election, I'll be he'd have a shot.


Knowing just what I remember about him from his governorship, I'd vote for him.

http://i.imgur.com/jKCNy.jpg

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 09:49 AM
He's not running against the 14th Amendment, probably is a fan of civil rights. You know... the little things.

I really like Johnson. I expect though, that we'll end up with the right wing fringe selecting someone like Palin or Bachman as their nominee, and I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Obama.

If we had a nominee like Johnson, I could really back a Republican, and in a general election, I'll be he'd have a shot.

If Palin gets the nom then as a society we are doomed...

okie52
4/27/2011, 09:49 AM
For what's stated I could vote for him. But winning the primaries would be tough.

Couldn't really find much about him on issues other than his agreement with governor's conventions policies.

The
4/27/2011, 09:50 AM
For what's stated I could vote for him. But winning the primaries would be tough.

Couldn't really find much about him on issues other than his agreement with governor's conventions policies.


The Clinton Effect.

okie52
4/27/2011, 09:52 AM
The Clinton Effect.

Maybe not a bad strategy at this point.

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:00 AM
"If ever there was a time for someone like Gary Johnson, it's now."

A 57-year-old fitness fanatic who climbed Mt. Everest in 2003, Johnson chooses the New York Athletic Club on Central Park South as the venue for our interview. Besuited and with reading glasses dangling around his neck, he answers almost every question with a smile and, sometimes, an idiosyncratic, wide-eyed expression. The overall effect is of a courtly, mildly eccentric uncle. This, in itself, makes him seem like a misfit in today's aggressively orthodox -- and virulently partisan -- GOP

.

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 10:03 AM
Climbed Everest...he is either fearless or a dumbazz...he will need to be both to make it in DC....

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:08 AM
Ignorance is bliss.

yermom
4/27/2011, 10:10 AM
He's not running against the 14th Amendment, probably is a fan of civil rights. You know... the little things.

since those aren't really going anywhere, i don't think that's really that big of a deal


I really like Johnson. I expect though, that we'll end up with the right wing fringe selecting someone like Palin or Bachman as their nominee, and I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Obama.

If we had a nominee like Johnson, I could really back a Republican, and in a general election, I'll be he'd have a shot.

that's probably how it will go trying to end the wars...

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:11 AM
Oops....just moved down a bunch IMO:



On other issues, Johnson doesn't bother to hide his disdain for his party's hard-liners. Take the incendiary new immigration law passed in Arizona, for instance:

"I just don't think it's going to work," he says. "I think it' s going to lead to racial profiling. I don't how you determine one individual from another -- is it color of skin? -- as to whether one is an American citizen or the other is an illegal immigrant."

Johnson favors an expansive guest worker program and is uncomfortable with the idea of mass deportations. What about the idea of increasing security by means of a border wall?

"I have never been supportive of the wall," he replied. "A 10-foot wall [just] requires an 11-foot ladder."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/05/gary_johnson_most_interesting_republican

yermom
4/27/2011, 10:12 AM
a pragmatist? he MUST be crazy

The
4/27/2011, 10:12 AM
Oops....just moved down a bunch IMO:


Why? That makes sense.

Jammin'
4/27/2011, 10:15 AM
Oops....just moved down a bunch IMO:


Why? That makes sense.

I agree. I'm going to go switch to Republican so I can vote for him the the primaries.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:18 AM
So some of you morons think Ron Paul is a racist, because he has the cajones to admit we botched our civil rights legislation...that's telling.

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:22 AM
Why? That makes sense.

He is basically saying he is an open borders guy and will give amnesty to all of the illegals.

Won't ever stop illegal immigration until you secure the border and prosecute those who knowingly hire illegals.

And, for our labor people, importing labor will artificially suppress wages in those industries. For a labor force that often decries outsourcing of jobs this is an absolute contradiction.

The
4/27/2011, 10:22 AM
So some of you morons think Ron Paul is a racist, because he has the cajones to admit we botched our civil rights legislation...that's telling.

The fact that you don't think what Ron Paul has said is racist is even more telling.

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 10:23 AM
^
It's more that Paul would probably tend to believe that slavery is a state's rights issue.

yermom
4/27/2011, 10:24 AM
He is basically saying he is an open borders guy and will give amnesty to all of the illegals.

Won't ever stop illegal immigration until you secure the border and prosecute those who knowingly hire illegals.

And, for our labor people, importing labor will artificially suppress wages in those industries. For a labor force that often decries outsourcing of jobs this is an absolute contradiction.

at least people working inside the borders buy stuff here

where do you get all of that from "guest worker program"?

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:24 AM
The fact that you don't think what Ron Paul has said is racist is even more telling.

Touche? No. Wait...FAIL.

The
4/27/2011, 10:25 AM
He is basically saying he is an open borders guy and will give amnesty to all of the illegals.

Won't ever stop illegal immigration until you secure the border and prosecute those who knowingly hire illegals.

And, for our labor people, importing labor will artificially suppress wages in those industries. For a labor force that often decries outsourcing of jobs this is an absolute contradiction.

You can't secure the border without militarizing it, and that would cost billions.

If you're really concerned with illegal immigration, legalize drugs. (This is a off topic topic that would take a while. Let's not cloud this thread up, eh?)

The
4/27/2011, 10:25 AM
Touche? No. Wait...FAIL.


Or how about "Disagree"? That sounds more mature.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/27/2011, 10:26 AM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.


Based on what little I've heard, I'll vote for him in the primary if he also supports the Ryan plan. Even in spite of the gun control and abortion positions, since gun control is dead as an issue in this country and abortion is not a legislative issue.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:27 AM
^
It's more that Paul would probably tend to believe that slavery is a state's rights issue.

You are exhibit number1 in the case for why we should just kiss our asses goodbye.

The
4/27/2011, 10:27 AM
since gun control is dead as an issue in this country and abortion is not a legislative issue.

Valid.

yermom
4/27/2011, 10:28 AM
i missed the pro-gun control thing. lame. i'm not really a fan of pro-choice either, but that isn't going anywhere either.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:28 AM
Or how about "Disagree"? That sounds more mature.

Please. Speak to me of maturity.

The
4/27/2011, 10:29 AM
Please. Speak to me of maturity.

Apparently someone needs to. Teenagers used "FAIL" 5 years ago. Grown men shouldn't.

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:30 AM
Oh, Lord. People who are here illegally are a huge drain on the governmental infrastructure...as would be guest workers.

Do you think employers would hire guest workers, mostly unskilled, because they want higher wages?

And illegals send most of their money home. That's why bums like Fox are so adamant about open borders.

The
4/27/2011, 10:32 AM
Oh, Lord. People who are here illegally are a huge drain on the governmental infrastructure...as would be guest workers.

Do you think employers would hire guest workers, mostly unskilled, because they want higher wages?

And illegals send most of their money home. That's why bums like Fox are so adamant about open borders.


So, you'd vote for someone like Trump or Palin because this guy isn't EXTREME CONSERVATIVE enough for you?

Unfortunately, that's probably while he'll lose the primary. And the republicans will nominate a mouthbreather that'll get destroyed by Obama.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:32 AM
Based on what little I've heard, I'll vote for him in the primary if he also supports the Ryan plan. Even in spite of the gun control and abortion positions, since gun control is dead as an issue in this country and abortion is not a legislative issue.

I would agree, but those issues certainly speak to the character of a man.

The
4/27/2011, 10:33 AM
I would agree, but those issues certainly speak to the character of a man.


That he has his own opinions and isn't just another mouthpiece for a political party?

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:35 AM
You can't secure the border without militarizing it, and that would cost billions.

If you're really concerned with illegal immigration, legalize drugs. (This is a off topic topic that would take a while. Let's not cloud this thread up, eh?)

No problem with decriminalizing drugs. I have a problem with decriminalizing illegal immigration.

You dry up employment opportunities and bring our troops home and let them guard the border. Better yet, mine the border.

And, FTR, I want a smaller population in this country rather than a larger one.
150,000,000 would be a good number and achievable in a few generations if
the country focused on such a goal. Tax penalties for over one child should be in place.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:37 AM
Apparently someone needs to. Teenagers used "FAIL" 5 years ago. Grown men shouldn't.

As much as I'm sure you would enjoy being able to police my words, that is not currently within your abilities.

That is just a joke, really. I think you just were in a pompous mood.

sappstuf
4/27/2011, 10:37 AM
No problem with decriminalizing drugs. I have a problem with decriminalizing illegal immigration.

You dry up employment opportunities and bring our troops home and let them guard the border. Better yet, mine the border.

And, FTR, I want a smaller population in this country rather than a larger one.
150,000,000 would be a good number and achievable in a few generations if
the country focused on such a goal. Tax penalties for over one child should be in place.

The good lord knows that is the truth! :)

We really do need to start a thread on acceptable ways to guard the border.. Mines, moats, and of course catapults could be brought back into the discussion.

yermom
4/27/2011, 10:38 AM
No problem with decriminalizing drugs. I have a problem with decriminalizing illegal immigration.

You dry up employment opportunities and bring our troops home and let them guard the border. Better yet, mine the border.

And, FTR, I want a smaller population in this country rather than a larger one.
150,000,000 would be a good number and achievable in a few generations if
the country focused on such a goal. Tax penalties for over one child should be in place.

um, yeah, good luck with all that

The
4/27/2011, 10:38 AM
No problem with decriminalizing drugs. I have a problem with decriminalizing illegal immigration.

You dry up employment opportunities and bring our troops home and let them guard the border. Better yet, mine the border.

And, FTR, I want a smaller population in this country rather than a larger one.
150,000,000 would be a good number and achievable in a few generations if
the country focused on such a goal. Tax penalties for over one child should be in place.


If you end prohibition, the Mexican Civil War ends, and they because a functioning country again.

Since Calderon declared war, most illegal immigrants would more rightly be classified as refugees rather than job seekers.

And for that other stuff, the population will never sink, barring Captain Trips or WWIII.

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:38 AM
So, you'd vote for someone like Trump or Palin because this guy isn't EXTREME CONSERVATIVE enough for you?

Unfortunately, that's probably while he'll lose the primary. And the republicans will nominate a mouthbreather that'll get destroyed by Obama.

Wow...what a leap. Try to be a little less ideological about the issues.

Where does supporting pro choice, negative population growth, legalizing pot, etc... throw me in with Palin.

I am very conservative on immigration, particularly because I think it is harmful and I want negative population growth.

The
4/27/2011, 10:41 AM
Wow...what a leap. Try to be a little less ideological about the issues.

Where does supporting pro choice, negative population growth, legalizing pot, etc... throw me in with Palin.

I am very conservative on immigration, particularly because I think it is harmful and I want negative population growth.


Sorry, misread your post.

delhalew
4/27/2011, 10:43 AM
Wow...what a leap. Try to be a little less ideological about the issues.

Where does supporting pro choice, negative population growth, legalizing pot, etc... throw me in with Palin.

I am very conservative on immigration, particularly because I think it is harmful and I want negative population growth.

Welcome to the Great Disconnect. It is not for you to define your beliefs. It's best to just let The pigeon hole you were he sees fit.

Edit: I am willing to pull back on that in the spirit of reciprocity.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/27/2011, 10:43 AM
No problem with decriminalizing drugs. I have a problem with decriminalizing illegal immigration.

You dry up employment opportunities and bring our troops home and let them guard the border. Better yet, mine the border.

And, FTR, I want a smaller population in this country rather than a larger one.
150,000,000 would be a good number and achievable in a few generations if
the country focused on such a goal. Tax penalties for over one child should be in place.


Decreasing population would destroy the welfare state - corporate and social. No politician wants that since that is how they derive their power.

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 10:44 AM
You can't secure the border without militarizing it, and that would cost billions.

If you're really concerned with illegal immigration, legalize drugs. (This is a off topic topic that would take a while. Let's not cloud this thread up, eh?)

I agree with Okie...it ain't rocket science...build a double fence...cameras every 1/2 mile or so...a manned outpost every 20 or 30 miles with views to the cameras...Hummer with a 50 cal at each outpost...you should be able to decrease the manning that is currently used to chase the cockroaches once they get entry...

Fine the snot out of those that hire the illegals...mandatory checks on status...

Or something like that...

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:45 AM
If you end prohibition, the Mexican Civil War ends, and they because a functioning country again.

Since Calderon declared war, most illegal immigrants would more rightly be classified as refugees rather than job seekers.

And for that other stuff, the population will never sink, barring Captain Trips or WWIII.

We've already got 12,000,000 refugees working in the US. We sure don't need anymore. Funny thing is many of these go home and return because of our incredible border security. Calderon gets a standing ovation from our dems in congress for his opposition to the AZ law. He11, he even has provinces aiding illegals in crossing the border.

And being an ostrich won't change the real problems in the world. 1 billion is better than 9 billion just about any way you slice it.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/27/2011, 10:47 AM
I would agree, but those issues certainly speak to the character of a man.

It does, but I don't look to a politician for character these days.

The
4/27/2011, 10:49 AM
Is this now an immigration thread?

Bourbon St Sooner
4/27/2011, 10:49 AM
I agree with Okie...it ain't rocket science...build a double fence...cameras every 1/2 mile or so...a manned outpost every 20 or 30 miles with views to the cameras...Hummer with a 50 cal at each outpost...you should be able to decrease the manning that is currently used to chase the cockroaches once they get entry...

Fine the snot out of those that hire the illegals...mandatory checks on status...

Or something like that...


Yes, because we need more gov't nazis digging into the workings of small businesses across this country.

okie52
4/27/2011, 10:55 AM
So, you'd vote for someone like Trump or Palin because this guy isn't EXTREME CONSERVATIVE enough for you?

Unfortunately, that's probably while he'll lose the primary. And the republicans will nominate a mouthbreather that'll get destroyed by Obama.

Still don't know why you would make such a leap. Palin is out for me but I would never pull the lever for an EXTREMIST like Obama which evidently you had no problem in doing.

It all comes down to priorities on the issues. So far you have demonstrated you are lockstep with the left of the dems and will probably always vote that way.

The economy, debt reduction and energy indepedence are the top 3 for me and I believe they are all interconnected. Illegal immigration would probably be 4th.

So are you an open borders guy? Want them to "come out of the shadows", pathway to citizenship, etc...?

The
4/27/2011, 11:07 AM
Still don't know why you would make such a leap. Palin is out for me but I would never pull the lever for an EXTREMIST like Obama which evidently you had no problem in doing.

It all comes down to priorities on the issues. So far you have demonstrated you are lockstep with the left of the dems and will probably always vote that way.

The economy, debt reduction and energy indepedence are the top 3 for me and I believe they are all interconnected. Illegal immigration would probably be 4th.

So are you an open borders guy? Want them to "come out of the shadows", pathway to citizenship, etc...?


Obama? An Extremist? Surely, surely you jest. Obama is a confirmed corporatist that has failed to deliver on most of his rather modest promises.

Lockstep with the democrats? I only vote democratic because they are the lesser of two evils. They don't let people I'd actually feel good about voting for run for office.

The sooner we do away with borders altogether the better. It's coming, albeit much too slowly.

okie52
4/27/2011, 11:10 AM
Johnson holds fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal libertarian views,[56] and a philosophy of limited government.[57]

Johnson is in favor of simplifying and reducing taxes.[58] During his governorship, Johnson didn't increase taxes once and cut them fourteen times.[59] Due to his stance on taxes, David Weigel described him as "the original Tea Party candidate".[60]

Johnson supports balancing the federal budget immediately.[61] He supports "slashing government spending", include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.[58] His plans include cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43% and turning them into block grant programs, with control of spending in the hands of the states to create "fifty laboratories of innovation".[61] He advocates passing a law allowing for state bankruptcy and expressly ruling out a federal bailout of any states.[57]

He is opposed to the United States' involvement in the War in Afghanistan and the Libyan Civil War.[62] Having opposed the Iraq War from the start,[57] he has called for the continued American presence in the country to end.[63]

So far, other than illegal immigration, his positions seem pretty good. I voted for W and he was weak on illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, this guy may not be electable even in a national election. Anybody, even though he would be correct, that mentions slashing medicare and SS are not going to have a chance because many Americans will not face the truth.

okie52
4/27/2011, 11:15 AM
Obama? An Extremist? Surely, surely you jest. Obama is a confirmed corporatist that has failed to deliver on most of his rather modest promises.

Lockstep with the democrats? I only vote democratic because they are the lesser of two evils. They don't let people I'd actually feel good about voting for run for office.

The sooner we do away with borders altogether the better. It's coming, albeit much too slowly.

Obama ran as an anti oil, nuke, pro illegal, anti energy indepedence, environmental (global warming) candidate. He may have moved more to the
center once his political capital waned but ideologically he is a far lefty.

Annex Mexico? Now there is some sound thinking.

I only vote Repub because of the poor alternatives.

The Profit
4/27/2011, 11:17 AM
Still don't know why you would make such a leap. Palin is out for me but I would never pull the lever for an EXTREMIST like Obama which evidently you had no problem in doing.

It all comes down to priorities on the issues. So far you have demonstrated you are lockstep with the left of the dems and will probably always vote that way.

The economy, debt reduction and energy indepedence are the top 3 for me and I believe they are all interconnected. Illegal immigration would probably be 4th.

So are you an open borders guy? Want them to "come out of the shadows", pathway to citizenship, etc...?



Okie, you lose all credibility when you refer to Obama as an "extremist." I remember when right wingers called Bill Clinton an extremist. Obama, like Clinton, is a moderate democrat. Obama is hardly as liberal as Kukenenich(sic), Pelosi, Durbin, etc. His ratings would be in the 60's if he was more liberal than he has shown to be.

okie52
4/27/2011, 11:28 AM
Okie, you lose all credibility when you refer to Obama as an "extremist." I remember when right wingers called Bill Clinton an extremist. Obama, like Clinton, is a moderate democrat. Obama is hardly as liberal as Kukenenich(sic), Pelosi, Durbin, etc. His ratings would be in the 60's if he was more liberal than he has shown to be.

Lets see...Obama wanted to give driver licenses to illegals, even Hillary backed off of that one. Obama wanted the EFCA, but his popularity fell so fast that he didn't even try that one. Obama shut down Yucca without any explanation (even though his own secretary of energy supported it 8 months earlier). Obama wanted to commit the US to a cap and trade mandate that wouldn't have included China or India. He was against offshore drilling in the US but loaned Brazil $10,000,000,000 to develop their own offshore reserves.


Sounds pretty extreme to me unless you are a far lefty.

SouthCarolinaSooner
4/27/2011, 12:22 PM
.

Annex Mexico? Now there is some sound thinking.


How did you get that out of "doing away with borders completely"?

delhalew
4/27/2011, 12:45 PM
There is no point in trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with a person who will deny what has been happening in this country and keep defending the democratic agenda of socialism or the republicans agenda of empire building.

The rest of you, please keep your eye on the ball.

pphilfran
4/27/2011, 12:54 PM
There is no point in trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with a person who will deny what has been happening in this country and keep defending the democratic agenda of socialism or the republicans agenda of empire building.

The rest of you, please keep your eye on the ball.

After listing your standards the only person left for you to debate is you...

delhalew
4/27/2011, 12:59 PM
After listing your standards the only person left for you to debate is you...

There might be a few others.:D

Does the futility of listening to parrots play tennis not begin to grate on you?

87sooner
4/27/2011, 01:02 PM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.

sounds like he needs to change parties....

delhalew
4/27/2011, 01:08 PM
sounds like he needs to change parties....

You meant to say panties, didn't you?

okie52
4/27/2011, 01:27 PM
How did you get that out of "doing away with borders completely"?

Since most would probably move here it would be about the same thing.

soonercoop1
4/27/2011, 02:54 PM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.

right a liberal/progressive repub....thats exactly what we need...not sure why he is wasting his and everyone else's time...:D

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 02:56 PM
You are exhibit number1 in the case for why we should just kiss our asses goodbye.

Is it true or not that Ron Paul has said that the civil war was unnecessary and that the federal government should have simply purchased the slaves from their owners.

Of course, in suggesting that, Paul showed his ignorance. There had been several plans like that on the table, but the Democrats wouldn't let 'em see the light of day.

That's the 13th Amendment.

He's also generally against the 14th Amendment, which has done more to ensure liberty than just about any other part of the Constitution. Throwing out substantive and procedural due process would do more to erode our civil liberties than just about anything else.

okie52
4/27/2011, 03:03 PM
Is it true or not that Ron Paul has said that the civil war was unnecessary and that the federal government should have simply purchased the slaves from their owners.

Of course, in suggesting that, Paul showed his ignorance. There had been several plans like that on the table, but the Democrats wouldn't let 'em see the light of day.

That's the 13th Amendment.

He's also generally against the 14th Amendment, which has done more to ensure liberty than just about any other part of the Constitution. Throwing out substantive and procedural due process would do more to erode our civil liberties than just about anything else.

Hadn't heard that. You got a link?

texaspokieokie
4/27/2011, 03:45 PM
i'm kinda tired of our guys fighting.

especially in Afghanistan.

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 03:54 PM
Hadn't heard that. You got a link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0

jbOE4Ip7In0

okie52
4/27/2011, 03:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0

jbOE4Ip7In0

Sorry, didn't mean Paul's position but where the repubs 150 years ago were supporting the government buying the slaves.

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 04:08 PM
If you aren't really up on history, that's cool. Just Google it. It's not as if I'm referring to something which is historically obscure.

okie52
4/27/2011, 04:11 PM
If you aren't really up on history, that's cool. Just Google it. It's not as if I'm referring to something which is historically obscure.

My history is pretty fair. And its fairly obscure. I did try to google it and got nothing.

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 04:38 PM
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lincoln+buying+slaves

okie52
4/27/2011, 04:54 PM
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lincoln+buying+slaves

LOL...thats your link where lincoln wanted to buy northern slaves a year after the war had started. He11, lincoln couldn't even get that to fly in the north with their own slaves.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html

Doesn't sound like a very good deal for the south.

lets find that offer before the war and not just some suggestion by a couple abolitionists that would never have authority to make it happen.

Midtowner
4/27/2011, 05:03 PM
It had been brought up before the war, but only conceptually. The Democrats would never have let that happen as slavery was basically the fuel that made the South work, but economically and culturally.

And you're right, it was a no-go, but your hero seems to think it would have flown "if only" Lincoln had suggested it.

If Paul had been in charge of the Republican Party in 1860, we might still have slavery today. Or maybe a Confederate States of America.

SoonerStormchaser
4/27/2011, 05:06 PM
Slashing military? Nope...sorry.

okie52
4/27/2011, 05:08 PM
It had been brought up before the war, but only conceptually. The Democrats would never have let that happen as slavery was basically the fuel that made the South work, but economically and culturally.

And you're right, it was a no-go, but your hero seems to think it would have flown "if only" Lincoln had suggested it.

If Paul had been in charge of the Republican Party in 1860, we might still have slavery today. Or maybe a Confederate States of America.

Ron Paul isn't my hero. I like some of his stances but not all of them.

I just don't believe that there was ever a serious effort made to compensate southerners for their loss of slaves...and there wasn't. And the southerners probably wouldn't have accepted the offer since slavery was so ingrained in their culture as it was economically.

soonercoop1
4/27/2011, 05:18 PM
Okie, you lose all credibility when you refer to Obama as an "extremist." I remember when right wingers called Bill Clinton an extremist. Obama, like Clinton, is a moderate democrat. Obama is hardly as liberal as Kukenenich(sic), Pelosi, Durbin, etc. His ratings would be in the 60's if he was more liberal than he has shown to be.

Clinton is tame when compared with Obama....Obama is extremist which is backed up by his associations and agenda....many of us knew this before the election....

soonercoop1
4/27/2011, 05:21 PM
If you end prohibition, the Mexican Civil War ends, and they because a functioning country again.

Since Calderon declared war, most illegal immigrants would more rightly be classified as refugees rather than job seekers.

And for that other stuff, the population will never sink, barring Captain Trips or WWIII.

Mexico will never become a functioning country again until they have their own revolution....we can speed that up by sending all our illegals back and closing our border with them...

delhalew
4/27/2011, 05:28 PM
Ron Paul isn't my hero. I like some of his stances but not all of them.

I just don't believe that there was ever a serious effort made to compensate southerners for their loss of slaves...and there wasn't. And the southerners probably wouldn't have accepted the offer since slavery was so ingrained in their culture as it was economically.

You're wasting your time with this one. What we do know is that Lincoln was far less concerned with abolishing slavery than exerting "national authority" over the south. That they would have the audacity to secede, is why we had war.
In his own words http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/lin_greeley.html

okie52
4/27/2011, 05:33 PM
You're wasting your time with this one. What we do know is that Lincoln was far less concerned with abolishing slavery than exerting "national authority" over the south. That they would have the audacity to secede, is why we had war.
In his own words http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/lin_greeley.html

Saving the Union was always his primary mission. Slavery was a sideshow.

SouthCarolinaSooner
4/27/2011, 06:37 PM
Slashing military? Nope...sorry.
You can have a small government or a large military...choose one.

cccasooner2
4/27/2011, 07:05 PM
Well, we hear about how much STEP likes a big Johnson, so I would guess he gets one vote at the least.

soonercruiser
4/27/2011, 08:20 PM
A repbublican I could consider voting for--anti war, pro choice, pro gun control.

That's because he's really a Demoncrat!
:rolleyes:

yermom
4/27/2011, 09:50 PM
You can have a small government or a large military...choose one.

he chooses a paycheck. imagine that.

SouthCarolinaSooner
4/27/2011, 10:33 PM
he chooses a paycheck. imagine that.
Are you implying anything more than that?