Why is Ron Paul more favored than Gary Johnson?

I have to say it's really bizarre. some kind of gut emotional response. or maybe its the slander he gets from conservative talk radio. hard to say for sure

 

Stunning rebuke. Really.

You would have come off as less of a joke if you wouldn't have replied at all. Just sayin'.

 

Hannity agrees with Paul on economics. He doesn't agree with his foreign policy views, and some of his social policies.

Right, everyone who isn't a libertarian is a statist.

It's no wonder Paul and his supporters have bigger egos than Obama.

 

Watch out for those evil Muslims! And RP is a racist. lol

Go for a long walk downtown in any city in America after dark and see if it Muslims that you need to be afraid of!

 

I don't hate him. I like a lot of his views, actually. There are some that put him beyond the scope of electability, though, for a lot of people.

 

Nice non-sequitur.

 

Just have heard it all before.
The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming. Want to take over the world. Dominoe theory. So they sent me to Vietnam. BS.
Now, the Muslims are coming. The Muslims are coming.
Blah, blahl, blah.

The Nazis, the commies, the muslims. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Blah, blah, blah.

How easy people are to manipulate.
Just sayin.....

 

....because of blowback? Those aren't Paul's words, those are the words of the CIA's expert on Osama Bin Laden and the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission... Paul is just repeating their conclusions. Becuase it makes sense. Why else do you think we were attacked on 9/11?

Explaining our enemy's motivations for attacking us is not the same thing as "blaming America" or "hating America", or however you want to twist it.

Islamic fascists? Why do they hate us? They didn't hate us in the 1930s before we started (*)(*)(*)(*)ing around in the Middle East. Why all of a sudden are they targeting America?

It's not a threat, it's a religion. Religions and ideas cannot be threats. Only people can be threats.

I don't see what it has to do with being Muslim. There are plenty of Muslims who love America. I think you're confusing "Muslim" with "Arab".

Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you lived in Pakistan or Afghanistan and the US was indiscriminately dropping bombs on you, killing your friends and family?

Wouldn't you be pissed off if you were a Palestinian Arab and the US was financing Israel and your Palestinian Arab Army so they could kill each other more effectively?

Wouldn't you be pissed off if you were a Persian and the United States overthrew your democratically elected leader, installed a brutal dictator, financed both your Iranian Army and Saddam's Iraq Army to kill each other more efficiently in the Iran-Iraq War, and then told your country that it couldn't develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from nations like the US (which is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons)?

Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you were an Iraqi and the US built up Saddam Hussein so that he could more effectively kill your friends and family with chemical WMDs given to him by the US, lay waste to the entire country (for oil) when Iraq decided to invade Kuwait, and then lay waste to the entire country again (for oil) when it decided that Saddam must give up the WMDs that he didn't even have anymore?

Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you were Syrian and President Barack Obama told the leader of your independent soveriegn country to step down...or else?

Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you were Libyan and you found out that the CIA / US govt / White House was backing a radical Islamic group to take power?

I know I'd be pretty pissed off.

Gross exaggeration. That ***-hole wasteland part of the world is still 2000 years in the past. At least they woudn't be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with the United States.

 

No need to read the rest of your post. Although the word was notin widespread use, libertarianism was the virtual mainstay of the founding fathers. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Or anything by Thomas Jefferson?

Ever heard the words "give me liberty or give me death"? Any of that ruing a bell....

....all of it was pre Civil war.

I will bet you can take a history course at your local high school to catch up with the rest of us.

 

Gary Johnson is not well known. He doesn't have the funds and the media censors him, like they do with Ron Paul, except even more.

In addition, Gary Johnson's persona is lacking. His resume is bar none and he would make an excellent President, but he doesn't have an attractive persona. He is a great guy, but sort of an awkward person. He definitely wouldn't make people weak in the knees and send shivers up their leg like Obama did with progressive liberals.

Unfortunately, many Americans are more attracted to lofty rhetoric and ideals than they are attracted to substance and experience.

 

Oh really? I didn't realize the Founders were libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[17][18][19] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[20]

Please show me where the term "Libertarian" was used before 1857 to describe any of the Founders while they were still alive. Have fun.

 

Unfortunately, I think you are absolutely correct.

 

The founders were Classical Liberals, or Libertarians. Virtual synonyms. People nowadays use the term Libertarian to mean they're extremely fiscally conservative and socially Liberal. As a Christian I am not a social liberal but I support the right of the states to decide what kind of culture best suits them...

There is a reason I used these words. Ron Paul is not really running for president of the United States as a candidate. He's declaring war on it and quite frankly doesn't give a rats ass if he is elected, so long as the seed is planted. The seed of Civil War.

 

Only a few were. George Washington and Hamilton were huge statists and this can be validated with the Whiskey Rebellion which is a stain on American history.

Thomas Paine was a Georgist with very progressive views.

 

True, but really this isn't a history lesson, the only reason I brought that up was to prove that libertarians existed prior to the civil war.

 

You are bored, but the first libertarians were probably mutualists, not this Ayn Rand freak show.

 

Tell me, why is it that Muslims, and only Muslims, are the only group today that seem to be at war with every one of their neighbors, no matter where they are in the world? Obviously they are at war with Israel, but they are also murdering non-Muslims in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, China, Africa, Russia, and even in the West. Is all of this "blowback" as well?

Muslims and violence have been joined at the hip since the very beginning of the religion. Violent conquest to spread Islam, in particular, has been a cornerstone of their faith.

If you want to use Osama's stated reasoning to form your argument on why we were attacked, why not use his entire letter? Could it be that he starts off the letter with this?

He quotes the Qur'an several more times to justify his war against America. He later calls us to accept Islam.

Shortly after his letter to America, he wrote this letter to his followers:

You are simply wrong when you say Islam has nothing to do with what happened. Your obvious desire to blame yourself and America for 9/11 blinds you.

There is a long bloody history between the Islamic world and the West. The fact that they didn't have the ability to attack the US in the 30's does not change that. They see the world as Muslims vs non-Muslims, as taught in the Qur'an.

That doesn't make sense. Religious belief has influenced millions if not billions throughout the years to take up arms and fight. Supremacist ideologies and fascist ideologies have done the same. Without these ideas, people who otherwise would be threats would not be threats.

No, I'm not. There have been plenty of white converts to Islam who have become just as radical as their Arab coreligionists. Christian Arabs are not causing problems like Muslim Arabs. The ideology is the problem.

The US has not been "indiscriminately dropping bombs", so your entire premise is bogus.

It's very touching that you have so much sympathy for Islamic terrorists and identify so closely with their cause.

What scares me most about your rant is that you want Iran to have nuclear weapons so that they can "defend themselves against the US." What kind of a suicidal lunatic are you?

Yes, it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)-hole wasteland part of the world stuck 2000 years in the past. Their religion keeps them that way. As Winston Churchill said,

 

I'm rejoining this thread to apologize to the OP for calling him stupid or whatever...I was drinking. lol.

Anyways, fiscal conservatives, give me an estimate on these extremely beneficial wars overseas, and tell me how good of a job we are doing on actually protecting our borders from suicide bombers strutting into the nation?

Our federal government has been compromised by globalists and corrupt crony capitalists (read fascists). Wake up or be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed to what we have seen happen over the past decade. Obama is not a liberal, he is a corrupt Chicago globalist CFR-chosen piece of pig(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Like I said, I don't disagree with ending these wars. The major problem with Paul and his supporters can be summed up pretty well by Dr Righteous' post, which I just responded to. There's a big difference between expressing a desire to see these wars ended, and sympathizing with our enemies around the world and lamenting that they do not have the nuclear arsenal to fight against us. Big difference.

 

Are you still drinking? WTF does this have to do with the topic at hand? Gary Johnson is opposed to the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

 

I would love to see your statistics on this. I am a Ron Paul supporter for primarily his domestic and economic positions, and I certainly do not sympathize with our enemies and want them to get nuclear arsenals to use against us.

 

That is a very good question. Why is Ron Paul more popular than Gary Johnson. Ron Paul is not a popular person. He needs to retire so we'd never had to deal with his sorry ass every again.

Gary Johnson should be able to replace his Presidential ticket.

 

My understanding is it it his belief that America does not have the right to go around telling everyone else what to do.

And that if America and other countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons - why not others?
Especially countries that offer no direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States - like Iran. Are they a threat to Israel? Probably. But that is Israel's problem...not America's.
They are no direct threat to America's sovereignty.

Say they get nukes and somehow develop ICBM's to launch them at America? Say they launch them? Then what? America shoots some of them down (maybe all of them) and then completely obliterates Iran.

Yeah...like Iran is going to do that - develop ICBM's specifically to target America so they can obliterate themselves in America's retaliation?

Ahhh...not likely...in the extremis.

 

They were talking about war profiteering, something you defended in your original post and held against Ron Paul for telling the truth about our preemptive war nation.

You Ron Paul haters have no good argument against him, just some lame excuses and outright blind hatred, like Miss NeoCon Jonelyn.

 

You calling me a NeoCon because Ron Paul is a pathetic human being?