Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
ren hoek
Footballguy
If having military bases stationed in over 130 countries and drone surveillance in others is a proper foreign policy, can I assume you'd be okay with foreign military bases on our soil, and drone surveillance in our airspace? Foreign troops in your neighborhood?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Please don't assume dickola.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Of course not. But I don't see why participating in a war means we need to set up a military base there for 70+ years. What do you guys see as the absolute worst case scenario if all US troops were brought home, military bases abroad were shut down, no more drones in foreign airspace, etc?
Dr. Gobbler
Footballguy
When the time comes that our government steps over that final line and we as a country have no choice but to do as our forefathers did, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ren Hoek as we b-slap tyranny.
Dr. Gobbler
Footballguy
The worst thing that would happen would be our economy would improve.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Foreign nations violating our sovereignty would not please you? If so, then what justifies US military presence in other countries? If the current "principles" dictate that we can do this to them but they can't do it to us, then they really aren't principles at all. If you believe having American military bases stationed abroad is okay, then I want to know why foreign countries installing military bases here is not okay.
17seconds
root of all aliai
You say that like every country in the world is equal economically, militarily, and politically. Apples and oranges.I'm sure if we were a small unstable country or a small country with a huge military ally it would be ok.
Fennis
Footballguy
some good articles/web postings"
Gov. Gary Johnson Endorses Judge Jim Gray For LP VP Nomination
Gary Johnson and the End of Marijuana As a Fringe Issue
A Likely Third-Party Candidate for 2012
a snip:
Q. What do you think of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama?
A. The only issue I have with Mitt Romney is I have no idea where he stands on any issues. Other than he’s going to cut the budget but he’s going to increase military spending. He’s going to cut the budget, but he’s going to save Medicare? Two sides of the mouth that really don’t end up talking about real solutions.
Q. And Mr. Obama?
A. To me, Obama’s been a real disappointment on civil liberties: marriage equality, getting out of the wars, getting out of Afghanistan — he doubled down on Afghanistan — drug reform, signing the National Defense Authorization Act with the caveat that now you and I as U.S. citizens can now be detained without being charged.
Q. Assuming you don’t win, whom do you think your candidacy will hurt the most?
A. You should vote for who you think is really going to best represent you and what you think. I’ve always believed that, so this isn’t a step out from that. Probably, it’s going to end up helping Romney. I’m probably going to take more Democrat votes — the whole civil liberties side of this. And I couple the civil liberties with, I think, the majority of Democrats — the majority of registered Democrats, not politicians, but just Democrats as a whole — understanding that monetarily, what we are doing is not sustainable.
Gov. Gary Johnson Endorses Judge Jim Gray For LP VP Nomination
Gary Johnson and the End of Marijuana As a Fringe Issue
A Likely Third-Party Candidate for 2012
a snip:
Q. What do you think of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama?
A. The only issue I have with Mitt Romney is I have no idea where he stands on any issues. Other than he’s going to cut the budget but he’s going to increase military spending. He’s going to cut the budget, but he’s going to save Medicare? Two sides of the mouth that really don’t end up talking about real solutions.
Q. And Mr. Obama?
A. To me, Obama’s been a real disappointment on civil liberties: marriage equality, getting out of the wars, getting out of Afghanistan — he doubled down on Afghanistan — drug reform, signing the National Defense Authorization Act with the caveat that now you and I as U.S. citizens can now be detained without being charged.
Q. Assuming you don’t win, whom do you think your candidacy will hurt the most?
A. You should vote for who you think is really going to best represent you and what you think. I’ve always believed that, so this isn’t a step out from that. Probably, it’s going to end up helping Romney. I’m probably going to take more Democrat votes — the whole civil liberties side of this. And I couple the civil liberties with, I think, the majority of Democrats — the majority of registered Democrats, not politicians, but just Democrats as a whole — understanding that monetarily, what we are doing is not sustainable.
Fennis
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
"I was on NPR's All Things Considered yesterday. The question was, 'You're on the torture rack, they're going to kill you, who are you going to vote for? Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama? I said, 'Look, I've climbed Mount Everest. I know how to do what it takes. Take this to the bank: I would rather die.'
Fennis
Footballguy
"I believe the majority of Americans are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. I believe the majority of Americans could care less about whether or not there is a gay individual working in the Romney campaign." Romney's newly hired foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell was openly gay, a fact that raised the ire of social conservatives, whose reaction resulted in Grenell's leaving the campaign.
"It speaks volumes to the intolerance that continues to be present in the Republican Party," Johnson said. He said he doesn't attach that intolerance to the majority of Republicans but to "the activists driving that agenda."
"That intolerance is why the world vilifies Republicans," Johnson continued. "It’s why I have never worn a Republican t-shirt in my life. There is a certain Republican dogma I just cannot defend. Homophobia is one of those issues."
"It speaks volumes to the intolerance that continues to be present in the Republican Party," Johnson said. He said he doesn't attach that intolerance to the majority of Republicans but to "the activists driving that agenda."
"That intolerance is why the world vilifies Republicans," Johnson continued. "It’s why I have never worn a Republican t-shirt in my life. There is a certain Republican dogma I just cannot defend. Homophobia is one of those issues."
ren hoek
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal FFA Gary Johnson is speaking for you!
Good Daily Beast article:
Don’t Forget Gary Johnson! How the Libertarian Could Shake Up 2012
The budget-busting, pro-gay marriage former governor got the Libertarian party’s nod at a Las Vegas convention this weekend. Michael Ames on why he’s shaping up to be a November spoiler.
"The Libertarian candidate is going to be the only candidate talking about gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence, about slashing welfare spending and warfare spending"
Good Daily Beast article:
Don’t Forget Gary Johnson! How the Libertarian Could Shake Up 2012
The budget-busting, pro-gay marriage former governor got the Libertarian party’s nod at a Las Vegas convention this weekend. Michael Ames on why he’s shaping up to be a November spoiler.
"The Libertarian candidate is going to be the only candidate talking about gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence, about slashing welfare spending and warfare spending"
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
921,128 votes
1.06%
1.06%
Fennis
Footballguy
so you're saying, as a percentage, each vote for Johnson counts a whole lot more than a vote for Romney or Obama.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Those are high water marks for the Libertarian Party. 1980 Ed Clark. The anti selective service candidate.However, if the primaries are any indicator of turnouts, it might be roughly accurate.so you're saying, as a percentage, each vote for Johnson counts a whole lot more than a vote for Romney or Obama.
NJDawgPound
Footballguy
I haven't voted Libertarian since Harry Browne in 2000, but may have my guy. Thanks Fennis.
Fennis
Footballguy
I think you’re probably right. However, the public is dying for a credible third party candidate, which is why Johnson polls in the 5-7% range when he’s included. At this point, his support in those polls are just a "none of the above" placeholder. But he will have an opportunity or two to turn that into real support. It doesn’t take a whole lot of support for it to make a difference in the winner and more importantly in policy.Those are high water marks for the Libertarian Party. 1980 Ed Clark. The anti selective service candidate.However, if the primaries are any indicator of turnouts, it might be roughly accurate.so you're saying, as a percentage, each vote for Johnson counts a whole lot more than a vote for Romney or Obama.
Fennis
Footballguy
I voted for Badnarik in 2004. I constantly rail against the GOP in threads, but I dont like the Dems either.
Brady Marino
Footballguy
I grudgingly voted Barr in 2008, but there will be no remorse for voting Johnson this year. Libertarians got it right. :thumbsup:
NJDawgPound
Footballguy
I constantly rail against the Dems in threads, but it's hard to like the GOP as well :thumbsup:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
I constantly rail against Tim in the threads, but its hard to like the GOP too.
ren hoek
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
There's only one man talking about freedom and watermelons.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
He was a republican until about 30 seconds ago.'Ren Ho3k said:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
And your point?
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Gallagher has ruined America.'Ren Ho3k said:
Brady Marino
Footballguy
Bob Barr he is most certainly not.
adonis
Footballguy
Gallagher?
ren hoek
Footballguy
In a world. Where freedom and watermelons have fallen victim to tyranny and oppression. One man. Will reign supreme.GJ 2012
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
But it has cool music and shows a watermelon exploding!
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
I think it's simple and cheesy enough to break the 3-second attention span of the average voter. I can't explain the weird appeal Johnson has but he seems to resonate with moderates and independents.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Email sent from earlier this week. Discussion about his global military thoughts came up earlier; I think this adds some additional color to his feelings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-johnson/afghanistan-war-end_b_1543964.html
Recent polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans believe we should bring our troops home from Afghanistan -- now. They are right. We should bring our young men and women home -- and vow to never again fight an 11-year war when our mission was complete in six months.
Many who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 believed he would extract America from Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps be more hesitant to involve us in foreign intervention. I, too, hoped that he might at least get us out of wars we couldn't afford and for which there was no clear American interest.
We've seen how that worked out. It took him three years to bring our troops home from Iraq. And Afghanistan? We're still there, ten years, too many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars longer than necessary.
And while we were at it, we spent hundreds of millions launching missiles into Libya to topple the leader of a sovereign nation. Gaddafi was not a guy I would want running my country, but we took him out with no clear understanding of what -- or who -- might follow. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney backed the expensive Libya venture.
This election year, if our choices are the Democrat Obama and the Republican Romney, without Dr. Ron Paul, where is the non-intervention option? Most Americans are hard pressed to find a difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to intervention. Obama claims we will be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Romney seems to think that is about right, depending on who's asking. Fortunately, there is a third way for America.
Obama says he wants to cut military spending, but after accounting for the reduced costs of finally withdrawing from Iraq and winding down in Afghanistan, his budgets propose that we actually spend more. And Romney? He says he wants to "cap" military spending at some percentage of GDP, but doesn't really have a plan to get there. In fact, he wants to buy the Navy more ships. Apparently we don't have enough.
Americans are looking for a non-intervention choice, and there is one. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. There was no threat that required an invasion, and there are a host of unintended consequences -- from an empowered Iran to a loss of standing with long-time allies.
I supported going in to Afghanistan to uproot al Qaeda. We did that, quite successfully, in a matter of months. The Taliban was humbled and al Qaeda scattered to the winds -- all within a year. But us? We stayed, and stayed, and are still staying. Losing lives, spending hundreds of billions, trying to build a nation that doesn't want to be built, all while those who attacked us on 9/11 had the good sense to leave. A President Gary Johnson would have declared mission achieved in 2002 and brought our troops home. And I defy anyone to make a case that either the U.S. or Afghanistan would be any worse off today had we done just that.
I pledge to reduce military spending by 43 percent -- to the disbelief of those who refuse to let go of interventionist, nation-building foreign policies. As I have said many times, if we stop playing offense and focus on defense, a 43 percent cut in military spending is not only feasible, it will still leave us as the preeminent military power on the globe.
Do we need hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe and Japan? Can we not get by with only enough nukes to eradicate mankind 8 or 10 times? Do we need to have a military base in every nook and cranny of the world? The answer to all these is no -- if we simply return to the constitutional notion that national defense actually means defense. Keeping America safe is government's most basic duty, and I support a strong national defense -- but one we can afford.
A policy of non-intervention, which Ron Paul has advocated, will allow us to return to an affordable level of defense spending, and will result in a safer America that is not constantly sowing seeds of hatred among those who would do us harm.
This is why I advocate the use of strategic alliances to allow military obligations and needs to be more equitably shared. We are bankrupt. We cannot continue to bear the burden of protecting the entire world. The only foreign aid we should offer is that which, in fact, produces savings and a positive cost-benefit for America.
Non-intervention is the constitutional and prudent policy America should adopt. That, however, is very different from isolationism. Our vast international economic interests and our imperative to remain vigilant in a dangerous world demand that the greatest nation on earth remain engaged beyond our borders. Relationships, however, do not require us to topple foreign leaders we don't like or build nations other than our own.
I am highly skeptical about the projection of military force abroad unless our immediate national interest is crystal clear. I do however recognize there may be extremely extraordinary circumstances where military action is required to stop a known attack on the United States. There are bad actors on the world stage, and we cannot be blind to the dangers they pose. I am not an Isolationist.
A principled policy of non-intervention does not require pledges to never ever send the military into conflict beyond our borders. I would like to think America would act to stop a Holocaust. If another Bin Laden strikes, I would order the military to kill him. But I would only do those things if absolutely justified, and only with constitutionally-required congressional authorization. And above all, I would level with the American people about the need and the price.
There is an alternative to the Obama-Romney foreign policy. America can be made safer without being the planet's police force or imposing our 'values' on the rest of the world.
There is a third option for voters in November.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-johnson/afghanistan-war-end_b_1543964.html
Recent polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans believe we should bring our troops home from Afghanistan -- now. They are right. We should bring our young men and women home -- and vow to never again fight an 11-year war when our mission was complete in six months.
Many who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 believed he would extract America from Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps be more hesitant to involve us in foreign intervention. I, too, hoped that he might at least get us out of wars we couldn't afford and for which there was no clear American interest.
We've seen how that worked out. It took him three years to bring our troops home from Iraq. And Afghanistan? We're still there, ten years, too many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars longer than necessary.
And while we were at it, we spent hundreds of millions launching missiles into Libya to topple the leader of a sovereign nation. Gaddafi was not a guy I would want running my country, but we took him out with no clear understanding of what -- or who -- might follow. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney backed the expensive Libya venture.
This election year, if our choices are the Democrat Obama and the Republican Romney, without Dr. Ron Paul, where is the non-intervention option? Most Americans are hard pressed to find a difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to intervention. Obama claims we will be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Romney seems to think that is about right, depending on who's asking. Fortunately, there is a third way for America.
Obama says he wants to cut military spending, but after accounting for the reduced costs of finally withdrawing from Iraq and winding down in Afghanistan, his budgets propose that we actually spend more. And Romney? He says he wants to "cap" military spending at some percentage of GDP, but doesn't really have a plan to get there. In fact, he wants to buy the Navy more ships. Apparently we don't have enough.
Americans are looking for a non-intervention choice, and there is one. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. There was no threat that required an invasion, and there are a host of unintended consequences -- from an empowered Iran to a loss of standing with long-time allies.
I supported going in to Afghanistan to uproot al Qaeda. We did that, quite successfully, in a matter of months. The Taliban was humbled and al Qaeda scattered to the winds -- all within a year. But us? We stayed, and stayed, and are still staying. Losing lives, spending hundreds of billions, trying to build a nation that doesn't want to be built, all while those who attacked us on 9/11 had the good sense to leave. A President Gary Johnson would have declared mission achieved in 2002 and brought our troops home. And I defy anyone to make a case that either the U.S. or Afghanistan would be any worse off today had we done just that.
I pledge to reduce military spending by 43 percent -- to the disbelief of those who refuse to let go of interventionist, nation-building foreign policies. As I have said many times, if we stop playing offense and focus on defense, a 43 percent cut in military spending is not only feasible, it will still leave us as the preeminent military power on the globe.
Do we need hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe and Japan? Can we not get by with only enough nukes to eradicate mankind 8 or 10 times? Do we need to have a military base in every nook and cranny of the world? The answer to all these is no -- if we simply return to the constitutional notion that national defense actually means defense. Keeping America safe is government's most basic duty, and I support a strong national defense -- but one we can afford.
A policy of non-intervention, which Ron Paul has advocated, will allow us to return to an affordable level of defense spending, and will result in a safer America that is not constantly sowing seeds of hatred among those who would do us harm.
This is why I advocate the use of strategic alliances to allow military obligations and needs to be more equitably shared. We are bankrupt. We cannot continue to bear the burden of protecting the entire world. The only foreign aid we should offer is that which, in fact, produces savings and a positive cost-benefit for America.
Non-intervention is the constitutional and prudent policy America should adopt. That, however, is very different from isolationism. Our vast international economic interests and our imperative to remain vigilant in a dangerous world demand that the greatest nation on earth remain engaged beyond our borders. Relationships, however, do not require us to topple foreign leaders we don't like or build nations other than our own.
I am highly skeptical about the projection of military force abroad unless our immediate national interest is crystal clear. I do however recognize there may be extremely extraordinary circumstances where military action is required to stop a known attack on the United States. There are bad actors on the world stage, and we cannot be blind to the dangers they pose. I am not an Isolationist.
A principled policy of non-intervention does not require pledges to never ever send the military into conflict beyond our borders. I would like to think America would act to stop a Holocaust. If another Bin Laden strikes, I would order the military to kill him. But I would only do those things if absolutely justified, and only with constitutionally-required congressional authorization. And above all, I would level with the American people about the need and the price.
There is an alternative to the Obama-Romney foreign policy. America can be made safer without being the planet's police force or imposing our 'values' on the rest of the world.
There is a third option for voters in November.
ElGatoLoco
Footballguy
Seriously thinking of voting for him for Governor.
Why does the host keep implying that "all the hardcore libertarians" are disciples of Murray Rothbard? An awful lot of hardcore libertarians think that Rothbard was an intellectually dishonest blowhard. In addition, an awful lot of hardcore libertarians side with Milton Friedman over Ludwig von Mises on monetary policy, and more generally with the Chicago school of economics over the Austrian school. To pretend that anyone who isn't a fan of Rotbbard or von Mises isn't sufficiently hardcore is kind of silly.Johnson did sound a bit Palin-esque at the end there, though, getting needlessly defensive about the stuff he hasn't read.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
