Wednesday, August 1, 2012

The Case For Gary Johnson

Less crony capitalism. Less internationalism. Less interventionism. Less bureaucracy. Less divisive rhetoric. Less power to the military industrial complex. Less intrusion into our personal lives. Less concentrated power in Washington. Less power in the hands of lobbyists. Less power in the hands of the FED. Less political pandering. Less of a regulatory burden on small businesses. Less wasteful spending and pork. Less needless civilian casualties.......Sometimes less is more.......This is a man of high integrity, I think.
Posted by at

14 comments:

Dervish Z Sanders said...

The case against Gary Johnson: He has absolutely ZERO chance of winning. None at all. But I've got no problem with any Republican who wants to throw away their vote on him. And Will lives in a solidly Blue state, so if he wants to throw away his vote on Johnson I've got no problem with that either.

I wouldn't vote for him even if he did have a chance though.

August 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM
dmarks said...

" Less concentrated power in Washington."

Good! Decentralize. Privatize. Diversify. "Many payer", not "single payer".

August 2, 2012 at 3:55 AM
Les Carpenter said...

Bet you'd vote for him if he had a D behind his his name wd.

Good post Will. Sadly there will be by far too few people that will support him to even get him a place on the podium during the presidential debates.

August 2, 2012 at 5:06 AM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have a long history of voting 3rd party (Anderson, Perot, Nader, Weicker, that dude who ran against Blumenthal and McMahon, etc.) and this time I actually do like the fellow.

August 2, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Dervish Z Sanders said...

Will: I have a long history of voting 3rd party...

And none of the people you name won, right? Also, I still don't get why the hell you voted for Nader. He was the more Liberal candidate. While you voted against Blumenthal (I presume) due to the 3rd party guy being less Liberal... right?

And what does it say about this guy's chances (and how awesome Will thought he was) that Will can't even remember his name?

dmarks: Good! Decentralize... Diversify...

A good argument for breaking up the way too large corporations... like Walmart, Microsoft and GE for example. I support this 100 percent. Until then I say we need "big government" to push back against big corporations.

dmarks' way puts us completely at their mercy. Then they'll poison us, pollute our environment, underpay us (workers), and overcharge us (consumers) even more! All which is just fine by dmarks as these things would further enrich the wealthy elites he worships.

August 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM
dmarks said...

Totally wrong WD. The size of Walmart is not the ruling elites business. If you don't like it, don't go there. Problem solved.

And again WD is so confused about wages that he calls fair pay 'underpay'. He is so arrogant.

Thanks again, WD. You are the only one to come to this discussion entirely unprepared.

August 2, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Dervish Z Sanders said...

dmarks is the one who is unprepared. He doesn't realize that monopoly stifles competition... something those who believe in the magical "free market" SAY they support.

And businesses operate in the US with the PERMISSION of "we the people". They must follow our rules or we revoke their business license... so it most certainly is our business.

I've never called fair pay "underpay". But you're always insisting that underpay is somehow "fair pay" just because workers must accept what is offered or die.

Another example of dmarks' cluelessness is his support of a candidate whose tax plan would clobber everyone except the wealthy. He frequently SAYS he wants lower taxes for everyone but obviously he's lying. He, like Romney, really only want lower taxes for the wealthy elites... and he wants the rest of us to pay for their tax cut!

August 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Les Carpenter said...

the oracle wd says... "And businesses operate in the US with the PERMISSION of "we the people". They must follow our rules or we revoke their business license... so it most certainly is our business."

Delusional logic wd. Businesses are started my a individual or several individuals as the case may be. They have to operate under certain guidelines and fegulations or the gig brother government can pull their licenses and shut them down.

However, the business is the property of the idividual, individuals, or shareholders as the case may be.

Part of what makes it hard for US businesses to compete is people like you wd who apparently never saw a business tax or regulation you didn't like.

Class warfare seems to be the mantra of the day. From the sidelines I'd say there is certainly enough BS being slung by both major parties to fill a barn the size of Texas.

August 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Dervish Z Sanders said...

You misunderstand "Rational". I didn't mean the business belongs to anyone other than the stockholders/owners. I was responding to what dmarks wrote. He said it wasn't anyone else's business/not their concern.

A pretty dumb misunderstanding if you ask me. What I meant is EXACTLY what you wrote, so if you're calling me delusional you're calling yourself delusional.

August 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Eric Noren said...

Back to reality, a vote for Johnson = a vote for Obama. Third party votes are worthless.

August 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Les Carpenter said...

twist in the wind wd.

August 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Dervish Z Sanders said...

"Rational": twist in the wind wd.

Gibberish. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Possibly something about you misreading my comment but not be willing to admit it?

August 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Have you ever heard of a protest vote, wd?

August 2, 2012 at 8:45 PM
dmarks said...

WD said: "And businesses operate in the US with the PERMISSION of "we the people". They must follow our rules or we revoke their business license... so it most certainly is our business"

You are addled and confused. We were talking about businesses that get large because they serve the interest of we the people. Not because they break laws.

WD said: "Gibberish. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about."

The first word is a summary of so many of your comments. The rest of it is more proof of your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.

WD also said: "I've never called fair pay "underpay"."

You do all the time. Every time we discuss a fair wage being paid (one agreed on by the employer and employee) you apply your own personal standard to matters you don't know about in an extremely arrogant and ignorant matter and call it "unfair".

Sorry, WD. I believe the people making a deal as to whether or not it is fair. Not someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

"But you're always insisting that underpay is somehow "fair pay" "

I never have. I uppose underpay, which is when someone is paid less than they are promised. I hold that to be highly unfair.

"just because workers must accept what is offered or die."

Only if they are lazy sluggards. The rest, the vast majority of workers, will go elsewhere. Or improve their skills so their work will be worth more.

August 3, 2012 at 5:12 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)