General Libertarians In Swing States: Can we risk 4 more Obama years by voting for Johnson?

[Agorism]

what does "least evil" mean?
he caused the worst problem for this country since the Depression!

(note that Obama forgot about the problems Carter caused when he talks about the problems Bush caused)

Volcker cost him the election basically. He was pretty good actually, but he lost his mojo during the reagan Regime.

 

[Agorism]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89943.html

Good for Jimmy
Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 19, 2011 12:44 PM
Jimmy Carter, the least-bad ex-president of my lifetime—recently in trouble for telling some truths about the Middle-East—now criticizes the monstrous war on drugs.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25999.html

re: Jimmy Carter Causes Neocon To Blow His Top
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 24, 2009 11:57 PM
Tom, I've long thought that Jimmy Carter was the least bad president of my lifetime, and the only decent ex-president--an actual peacemaker--but now that I know he has apparently been reading you and Ron Paul, well: Go, Jimmy!

 

[LibertyPA]

Who's we? I'm not in charge of the military.

You mean the corrupt politicians.

We meaning what you suggest --- you said the USA should not have nukes.
and no one would let other countries have them -- but they will keep them.....so that is the world you want to live in -- one where many other countries have nukes and this country does not?

 

[Dr.3D]

You asked why Russia and china never used them --- did you have another reason than fear that we would return fire and destroy them?

So it doesn't matter who the president is if somebody decided to send over a nuke. Whoever sent it would get at least ten more back. We don't need troops in hundreds of other countries to send back some nukes. Who the heck is saying we wouldn't have nuclear deterrents?

 

[LibertyPA]

Volcker cost him the election basically. He was pretty good actually, but he lost his mojo during the reagan Regime.

you didnt comment on the problems Carter caused for the country -- why are you ignoring this?

 

[Agorism]

We meaning what you suggest --- you said the USA should not have nukes.
and no one would let other countries have them -- but they will keep them.....so that is the world you want to live in -- one where many other countries have nukes and this country does not?

What's the point of nukes?

Just because another "government" would nuke one of our citizens, would that justify a relation by killing some other city of civilians?

Nope, but those civilians have corrupt leaders just as we do.

 

[LibertyPA]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89943.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25999.html

Under Carter: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment

doesn't sound too bad, does it?

 

[Agorism]

you didnt comment on the problems Carter caused for the country -- why are you ignoring this?

\

Voclker tightened monetary policy.

Why is this hard to understand?

 

[Agorism]

Under Carter: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment

doesn't sound too bad, does it?

Yep, solved by Volcker not Reagan.

 

[LibertyPA]

So it doesn't matter who the president is if somebody decided to send over a nuke. Whoever sent it would get at least ten more back. We don't need troops in hundreds of other countries to send back some nukes. Who the heck is saying we wouldn't have nuclear deterrents?

Well, people who are saying we cut spending on military spending and research is saying that in part. If we would have had less funding in this area decades ago, we wouldnt have the technology you are asking us to use today (in terms of defending the nukes).

as for the president pressing the button, I want other's to fear the USA in such a way that they dont send 1 in the first place. That fear keeps them away, or at least has up to this point.

 

[LibertyPA]

What's the point of nukes?

Just because another "government" would nuke one of our citizens, would that justify a relation by killing some other city of civilians?

Nope, but those civilians have corrupt leaders just as we do.

having nukes have kept us from being attacked by them -- we deter their use against us. because we would not just take out other civilians, we would target the other leaders and they know it.

or we can just welcome the attack and send them some flowers to say "please stop" -- is that what you suggest?

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, people who are saying we cut spending on military spending and research is saying that in part. If we would have had less funding in this area decades ago, we wouldnt have the technology you are asking us to use today (in terms of defending the nukes).

as for the president pressing the button, I want other's to fear the USA in such a way that they dont send 1 in the first place. That fear keeps them away, or at least has up to this point.

Yeah, same here. And that sir is what would keep Iran from ever using a nuke on the U.S.

 

[Agorism]

having nukes have kept us from being attacked by them -- we deter their use against us. because we would not just take out other civilians, we would target the other leaders and they know it.

or we can just welcome the attack and send them some flowers to say "please stop" -- is that what you suggest?

US is the only country to target civilians with the nukes.

 

[Agorism]

Reagan was worried about about losing the Libertarian vote to Ed Clark in 1980 so he campaigned on getting rid of selective service. Of course he was lying to get votes.
Same guy who said he wanted a blood bath right before Kent State.

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

 

[LibertyPA]

Yep, solved by Volcker not Reagan.

haha, you bruoght up Reagan -- I brought up the problem, caused by Carter and just like a Left Wing Nut, you ignore the problem from your fello Dems, and bring up an issue with another person.

Lets go back to the Carter numbers: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment
and you can tell me if that makes him the "lease evil" for such horrible numbers

 

[LibertyPA]

Yeah, same here. And that sir is what would keep Iran from ever using a nuke on the U.S.

good by me!!!!

 

[Agorism]

haha, you bruoght up Reagan -- I brought up the problem, caused by Carter and just like a Left Wing Nut, you ignore the problem from your fello Dems, and bring up an issue with another person.

Lets go back to the Carter numbers: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment
and you can tell me if that makes him the "lease evil" for such horrible numbers

I've never voted for a single democrat in my whole life.

In fact, I voted for Bush in his first term (when I was young and thought he was a conservative somehow)

 

[Dr.3D]

good by me!!!!

So we both agree there.... but Mitt wants to start a war with Iran anyway.

 

[LibertyPA]

Reagan was worried about about losing the Libertarian vote to Ed Clark in 1980 so he campaigned on getting rid of selective service. Of course he was lying to get votes.
Same guy who said he wanted a blood bath right before Kent State.

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

Really, so he was so worried about the Libertarian vote in 1980 that he lied....and somehow, did even better in 1984?!?! doesnt sound like he ignored many people in 1984 ... other than a few folks in Minn

But we are far off topic, I am okay chatting with you more about this Agorism, but can you start a new thread? just send me the link and i will join you there for a debate -- I would like to keep this to people in swing states and hearing them talk about their vote and reason for it.
Thanks!

 

[LibertyPA]

So we both agree there.... but Mitt wants to start a war with Iran anyway.

We do both agree as long as you are saying it's okay for us to keep the nukes and to impose fear on others.
I do not like war. Though I would support things such as WWII when Congress votes on it, even though I dont like seeing war.

and yes, we agree Mitt may start a war with Iran, but do we also both agree that obama DID start a war, in Libya?