The Next Ron Paul

[constituent]

Let me add some smilies to that so as to ensure that you realize I mean no disrespect...

<3

 

[constituent]

ahhhh....

what the hell... for good measure.

 

[W. E. Messamore]

Gary Johnson does not represent my principles any more than Huckabee or Palin.
RP represents my principals and so why the hell should RP take second fiddle to GJ

Your principles aren't limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional rule of law? Please at least listen to the interview tonight, or to the recording of it on the same page afterward. I'll be asking Johnson all about his principles so he'll get a chance to tell you what they are himself.

 

[klamath]

Your principles aren't limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional rule of law? Please at least listen to the interview tonight, or to the recording of it on the same page afterward. I'll be asking Johnson all about his principles so he'll get a chance to tell you what they are himself.

I know Gary Johnson's opinions and I know Palin's opinions. I agree with many of their opinions and disagree with some major ones.
RPis the only wne I don't have major issue disagreements with.

And again WHY should RP play second fiddle as Gary Johnsons VP if the aguement is he is too old to run. I find it very disrespectful for you to come to the RP forums state rp is too old to run so GJ should and then you say RP should run as Johnsons VP?

 

[RM918]

Stop there. Show me where I said that. Show me where I said it even once.

I stand by my statement about this discussion bearing fruit.



Show me one instance of my argument being that which you're trying to suggest here. Just one.

You seem to be for Johnson running and against Paul running, and while I'll admit I'm not readily seeing you pointing out that as the specific reason, you've pointed out no other reasons and that seems to be the prevailing argument against Paul running and for Johnson. As you've yet to supply me with another reason, I stuck with it.

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand my position enough to suggest that it is "pure-and-holy." If you believe that my choice to support Gary Johnson is anything but a bucket of compromise, then I suggest that you search my posting history concerning Gary Johnson. Devote particular attention to those posts dating back to the first rumblings that he might choose to run.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand wtf you're even trying to get at here...

Even if I did get the above wrong, you still haven't answered how whatever I've said somehow turns the arguer into anything resembling 'power-hungry'. The latter point was brought up because in order for a sole supporter of Paul in this context and be hungry for power would involve there to be power to hunger for. Is there some tangible benefit to supporting Paul in this context, or what anyone else argued, that would label them as power-hungry?

If I've heard it once... Disagreement is not disrespect, btw.

Mischaracterization of your opponent's argument to look right, however, is.

Consider this in the future when you formulate your positions, and we can avoid any unnecessary tension. I'll gladly return you the favor.

Accusing people of being power hungry or being solely politically motivated for seemingly no reason, is I think warranting the label of 'disrespect'. I'm trying to argue my point here, for why someone thinking that focusing all efforts on Johnson when there's no enthusiasm and no recognition is not defeatist, which is what you claimed in your first reply to me.

A misunderstanding sounds like a far better name for it, and even a misunderstanding does not warrant acting coy while tossing about baseless accusations like being power-hungry.

Now if you're just going to act incredulous and act like you don't understand anything I've just posted, perhaps we should start over: Why is what I said in my first post defeatist?

 

[constituent]

You seem to be for Johnson running and against Paul running, and while I'll admit I'm not readily seeing you pointing out that as the specific reason, you've pointed out no other reasons and that seems to be the prevailing argument against Paul running and for Johnson. As you've yet to supply me with another reason, I stuck with it.

Seem to be? This is just getting ridiculous.

Thanks for playing.

Even if I did get the above wrong, you still haven't answered how whatever I've said somehow turns the arguer into anything resembling 'power-hungry'. The latter point was brought up because in order for a sole supporter of Paul in this context and be hungry for power would involve there to be power to hunger for. Is there some tangible benefit to supporting Paul in this context, or what anyone else argued, that would label them as power-hungry?

...waxing intellectual ...yawn

Accusing people of being power hungry or being solely politically motivated for seemingly no reason, is I think warranting the label of 'disrespect'. I'm trying to argue my point here, for why someone thinking that focusing all efforts on Johnson when there's no enthusiasm and no recognition is not defeatist, which is what you claimed in your first reply to me.

huh?

A misunderstanding sounds like a far better name for it, and even a misunderstanding does not warrant acting coy while tossing about baseless accusations like being power-hungry.

omg, you're still going?

Now if you're just going to act incredulous and act like you don't understand anything I've just posted, perhaps we should start over: Why is what I said in my first post defeatist?

Now you want to go 'round in circles? I'm tempted to pass, but will say go ahead and quote it for me.

I'm actually quite confident that it will become quite obvious to you exactly what was defeatist about your post when you read it anew.

All of that said, I don't really even care if you're defeatist. I was just using your post to make a broader point.

 

[constituent]

I know Gary Johnson's opinions and I know Palin's opinions. I agree with many of their opinions and disagree with some major ones.
RPis the only wne I don't have major issue disagreements with.

In the interest of keeping the peace between the RP-only folks like yourself, and those who feel that supporting both candidates is the best way to advance liberty on the national stage, could you outline what those major disagreements are? It would be great if you provided the positions your ideal candidate would hold as a sort of foil.

Thanks klamath.

 

[jmdrake]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

Wes, that's life at RPF. On RPF and the main meetup forum some people attacked anyone who didn't sign on to "write in Ron Paul" even after Paul himself said he wasn't going to run. Some of this is, as you have implied, cult of personality. Some of it is policy puritanism. Some is "projection". (For instance I've seen candidates being attacked as not being "liberty candidates" for not supporting open borders when Ron Paul doesn't support open borders either unless America no longer has a welfare state "immigration magnet".

Yes we'll have to look beyond Paul at some point. I'm not sure if that point has been reached yet or if Johnson is the "next big liberty thing" but I'm keeping an open mind. Good your show! Glad you're picking up the ball on this! And remember to have a thick skin around here.

 

[Gaius1981]

Here's Gary Johnson's new YouTube channel. It's a few days old, but as there aren't any comments there yet, I figure few of you have discovered it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/OurAmericaUMe