Gary Johnson Video: "The Vote For Freedom Is Never Wasted"

[Erik L]

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

Similar to his last video. Think what you want about the guy, but I would imagine most of you would agree with the general points he makes. If these ads become popular, maybe they can help bring anti-partisanship into public debate.

 

[PierzStyx]

Which is why I'm voting Ron Paul 2012.

 

[Liberty_Mike]

I definitely like Gary's past two videos. His campaign is stepping it up.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Did anybody catch the subliminal line when the lightning struck at the end of the video?

 

[Nathan Hale]

Which is why I'm voting Ron Paul 2012.

 

[Liberty_Mike]

Subliminal message at the end "Obamney is the new Bradgelina".

 

[Respect38]

Which is why I'm voting Ron Paul 2012.

Robamney thanks you for the half-vote.

EDIT: Unless you mean voting for him if he's on the ballot, which is a given for everyone here, and isn't worth mentioning.

 

[Travlyr]

Lincoln changed America for the better? Lincoln's treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase started counterfeiting operations within 6 months after they took office, Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and committed genocide on native tribes as well as imprison people who spoke out against those atrocities. ... wow. Roosevelt? He's got to be kidding. Teddy was the leader of the progressive movement. Wow. Just Wow.

 

[Joseph]

I'm probably voting for Gary Johnson in 2012. Of all the people who will be on the ballot he is the best.

 

[pcgame]

..........

 

[cheapseats]

Lincoln changed America for the better? Lincoln's treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase started counterfeiting operations within 6 months after they took office, Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and committed genocide on native tribes as well as imprison people who spoke out against those atrocities. ... wow. Roosevelt? He's got to be kidding. Teddy was the leader of the progressive movement. Wow. Just Wow.

Did he just say Roosevelt and Lincoln had principle?

Did Gary Johnson have ANY say in whose mug would grace Mt. Rushmore? No, he did not.

"For every face carved into Mt. Rushmore, there was a man willing to put his principles before his party. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt, each one of them ran for office as an outsider, and each one of them changed America for the better."

Gary Johnson did NOT "have to" add the bit about each one of them changing America for the better. That does smack of POLITICAL POSTURING . . . presumably because the Mt. Rushmore figureheads are unthinkingly accepted as American Political Superstars by, ooooh, gobs and gobs and gobs of Americans.

I find THAT political posturing to be DRAMATICALLY less offensive than kissing Republican ass and endorsing Mitt Romney.

 

[king_nothing_]

Why on Earth would a so-called libertarian utter the statement "Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt...each one of them ran for office as an outsider, and each one of them changed America for the better"? That's just awful, and there's no way you can spin it to make it sound alright.

 

[cheapseats]

Why on Earth would a so-called libertarian utter the statement "Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt...each one of them ran for office as an outsider, and each one of them changed America for the better"?

Gary Johnson did NOT "have to" add the bit about each one of them changing America for the better. That does smack of POLITICAL POSTURING . . . presumably because the Mt. Rushmore figureheads are unthinkingly accepted as American Political Superstars by, ooooh, gobs and gobs and gobs of Americans.

I find THAT political posturing to be DRAMATICALLY less offensive than kissing Republican ass and endorsing Mitt Romney.

That's just awful, and there's no way you can spin it to make it sound alright.

Not as awful as endorsing Mitt Romney in June, on Hannity, with the kicker of expressed intent to campaign for him. There is NO WAY to spin that to make it sound alright, either...except to REPUBLICAN LOYALISTS.

 

[TheTexan]

Why on Earth would a so-called libertarian utter the statement "Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt...each one of them ran for office as an outsider, and each one of them changed America for the better"? That's just awful, and there's no way you can spin it to make it sound alright.

Just more proof he's talking out of his ass. He's pandering to us. Not very often candidates pander to us, and apparently it's actually quite easy. He's probably got little note cards that say "debt is bad", "Federal reserve is bad", "spending is bad", "war is bad", "drugs are good".

Maybe not the last one, "drugs are good". He's probably got that one memorized fairly well by now

 

[TheTexan]

The comments make me sad. So many people buy his bullshit. So many

 

[Sam I am]

Lincoln changed America for the better? Lincoln's treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase started counterfeiting operations within 6 months after they took office, Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and committed genocide on native tribes as well as imprison people who spoke out against those atrocities. ... wow. Roosevelt? He's got to be kidding. Teddy was the leader of the progressive movement. Wow. Just Wow.

Gary Johnson admires Roosevelt? Sign me up!!

 

[Travlyr]

Gary Johnson admires Roosevelt? Sign me up!!

The Delano Family

Drugs for fun and profit.

 

[TheTexan]

What do Gary Johnson and Herman Cain have in common?

If they actually meant the things that they said, they'd make half decent presidents

 

[cheapseats]

Just more proof he's talking out of his ass. He's pandering to us...

...So many people buy his bullshit. So many

You talkin' about Gary Johnson, or RAND PAUL?

Shock: Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney

by THE BLOG on JUNE 8, 2012


...Though the younger Paul has supported his father’s campaign since he was eleven, and still considers him “his first pick”, he endorses the former Governor because of the nominating process. Senator Paul also adds that he and Romney agree on several issues like deregulation, energy, internet freedom, and auditing the Federal Reserve...

Regarding war powers, Senator Paul holds that Romney “will be a very responsible Commander in Chief [not] reckless [or] rash” and will have a sound Foreign Policy.

...Large factions of the Liberty Movement — be the Republicans, Tea Partyers, or Libertarians — are skeptical of Paul the Younger, and they have been for some time, holding that he doesn’t hold strong-enough on the issues; with the advent of his endorsements some are calling him anything from “crazy” to a “traitor.”

Full article:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2012/06/shock-rand-paul-endorses-mitt-romney/

Is Rand Paul Right About Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy?

By DANIEL LARISON • June 8, 2012



Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney isn’t all that surprising. I doubt that it will sway many of his father’s supporters to vote for Romney in the fall if they weren’t already willing to support the party nominee. Endorsements are most important as signals of party unity, and so in that sense it is useful for Romney. What interested me was this quote from Sen. Paul during his Hannity interview:

"[Romney and I] had a very good and I think honest discussion about a lot of these [foreign policy] things; and I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief, I don’t think he’ll be reckless, I don’t think he’ll be rash, and I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don’t rush willy-nilly into, and I came away feeling that he’ll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy."

I have no idea what it was that Romney could have said to Sen. Paul that would leave him with the impression that Romney’s foreign policy views were mature or that Romney is averse to starting unnecessary wars. Whatever it was, it must have been something very different from what Romney has said during his campaign. I think we have to assume that Romney just said what he knew Paul wanted to hear...

Full article:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/is-rand-paul-right-about-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy/

Rand Paul's baffling support for Mitt Romney's cowboy foreign policy

The Kentucky senator is supposed to inherit his father's libertarian mantle. Instead, he seems to be endorsing a return to Bush-era recklessness

DANIEL LARISON POSTED ON JUNE 14, 2012


Did Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) betray his father's political movement by endorsing Mitt Romney last week? No... but the content of Rand's endorsement ought to be alarming for the supporters of Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) presidential campaigns, and for anyone interested in a more restrained and prudent foreign policy. While Rand is not as strictly non-interventionist as his father, no one could confuse him for a hawk in the mold of Florida's Marco Rubio. When the Kentucky senator praised Romney for his "mature" foreign policy and asserted that the Republican nominee believed war should be a last resort, he hurt his reputation with his strongest supporters and undermined the critique of Republican foreign policy that has been central to his father's message. No less important, Rand provided Romney with valuable political cover for a foreign policy that appears to be every bit as reckless as that of George W. Bush.

During an interview with Sean Hannity, Sen. Paul described his meeting with Romney by saying, "I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief. I don't think he'll be reckless. I don't think he'll be rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don't rush willy-nilly into. And I came away feeling that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy."

Full article:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/2...upport-for-mitt-romneys-cowboy-foreign-policy

 

[Nathan Hale]

What do Gary Johnson and Herman Cain have in common?

If they actually meant the things that they said, they'd make half decent presidents

I don't know where this whole meme of "Gary Johnson is inauthentic" came from, but I can guarantee it came from a Johnny-come-lately libertarian who had no idea about the movement before that fateful day in 2007 when Giuliani called out Ron Paul and libertarianism went mainstream.

That's what astounds me about this whole thing. To the majority of us who have been libertarians, who were aware of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson before 2007, this entire conflict is so obviously trumped-up bullshit. Honestly, it's akin to bizarro world. If I traveled back to 2002 or 2004 and told a libertarian that in 2012 supporters of Gary Johnson and supporters of Ron Paul would be in a divisive hate-fest, that libertarian would ask me where I got my drugs.