Libertarian case for Romney over Johnson

Dixie said:
Romney simply has not proposed an increase in spending. I don't even know how you can possibly spin what he has said into that. So your "rebuttal" begins with a blatant lie, and moves on from there. Kagen and Sotomayor are most certainly a threat to liberty, unless you think more governmental control of our lives is liberty. As far as abortion and gay marriage, you indicate a very LIBERAL viewpoint, not a libertarian one. As I said in another thread, Libertarians are very often confused Liberals. I think you are not confused at all, you are just a liberal who is too inept at arguing your principles to call yourself liberal. To avoid such awkward embarrassment, you call yourself a Libertarian. You're fine and dandy with government taking our freedoms and liberties, as long as they are upholding left-wing liberal ideas, like gay marriage and abortion. So-called "Libertarians" such as yourself, need to realize, not everyone agrees with your Liberal philosophies. Some Libertarians don't believe government should be deciding that abortion and gay marriage are morally acceptable, that should be left to the individual and their community to decide, not the federal government.

The one revealing redemption we can take from your commentary, as well as mudcan's interjections, is that a vote for Johnson is most certainly one less vote for Obama, and does't affect Romney.
Click to expand...

You're lying, again. He has promised to increase defense spending.

Kagan and Sotomayor CANNOT possibly threaten our liberty. All they can do is fail to stop some other agent of the state. They are likely to uphold Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, against DOMA and for marriage equality. Those are all libertarian positions. Those positions are represented on the platform and by Gary Johnson.

Where have I stated that I am fine with the government taking away our freedoms and liberty?

You are nothing but a fat lying pos. Now after you attack my integrity with blatant lies and misrepresentation of libertarian positions you will probably whine like a twit about how mean I am for pointing out your lies.

Just stfu before you convince me to vote for the lesser of two evils, ie, Obama.
 
Romney hasn't promised to increase spending, period. You are lying about that.

Federal encroachment on freedom and liberty is the same whether done in the name of liberal policy or conservative.

You are a LIBERAL! With a capital "L" and your continued rants about gay marriage and abortion, prove that. I don't know what Gary Johnson's platform is, but if he is endorsing federal control over our lives by implementing the liberal agenda, he is a fucking LIBERAL too!

A vote for Johnson is just one less vote for Obama, and does not affect Mitt Romney in the least. Have at it, "Libertarian Liberals!"
 
Dixie said:
Romney hasn't promised to increase spending, period. You are lying about that.

Federal encroachment on freedom and liberty is the same whether done in the name of liberal policy or conservative.

You are a LIBERAL! With a capital "L" and your continued rants about gay marriage and abortion, prove that. I don't know what Gary Johnson's platform is, but if he is endorsing federal control over our lives by implementing the liberal agenda, he is a fucking LIBERAL too!

A vote for Johnson is just one less vote for Obama, and does not affect Mitt Romney in the least. Have at it, "Libertarian Liberals!"
Click to expand...

You are lying.

http://m.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense

He wants to peg defense spending to gdp in order to make it difficult to ever deliver a peace dividend. He is less likely to cut government spending than Bush was and we see how that turned out. But you don't give a rat's ass about cutting spending. You want to see him roll back equal protection of the law.

You are not a libertarian. You oppose the platform and reject all of their candidates. Freedom and liberty adhere to the individual not to regionalized majorities. Libertarians support States rights as a method of dividing and delegating power but are opposed morally and politically to state tyranny.

You're a Nazi with a capital n. You don't even support States rights as you have argued in favor of DOMA, for constitutional amendments barring abortion, marriage equality and even a flag burning amendment. You support violent and extensive levels of government control over the individual and will settle for it at any level at which you can achieve it. You are moved to political action by a loss of power among white male Christians to force their will on others. You are not motivated by freedom or liberty.
 
How many gyrations has Dixie gone thru to justify his voting for Romney?

Glad I was gone for most of it.
 
More gyration away from the LIE that Romney wants to increase spending.

Like MANY Liberal Pinhead arguments, we have to run logic through several filters of myth and misconception before we apply it. We have to rely on emotive pleas to our understanding of words and phrases, and abandon reality first, then we can see where they are coming from in their argument. When Romney proposes a common sense policy of spending money based on GDP growth (spend what we make), it translates into a "increase in spending" and decried by the pinheads as such. Juxtapose this with the current policy of spending money we don't have, and increasing the rate each year a certain amount regardless of what we take in, or regardless of need and efficiency. The current policy is responsible for a $16 trillion national debt. Romney's policy would never increase debt, it's designed to spend what we take in.

Oh but now... Stringy CLAIMS he is a Libertarian who opposes Government interference in our lives! He's NOT a Liberal!
 
Dixie said:
How many gyrations are liberals doing to claim Romney wants to increase spending?

THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE!
Click to expand...

all republican presidents in the last 40 years have increased spending.
He just said he would not spend any more than Obama has. I guess that is not an increase so I may be wrong.
 
Dixie said:
More gyration away from the LIE that Romney wants to increase spending.

Like MANY Liberal Pinhead arguments, we have to run logic through several filters of myth and misconception before we apply it. We have to rely on emotive pleas to our understanding of words and phrases, and abandon reality first, then we can see where they are coming from in their argument. When Romney proposes a common sense policy of spending money based on GDP growth (spend what we make), it translates into a "increase in spending" and decried by the pinheads as such. Juxtapose this with the current policy of spending money we don't have, and increasing the rate each year a certain amount regardless of what we take in, or regardless of need and efficiency. The current policy is responsible for a $16 trillion national debt. Romney's policy would never increase debt, it's designed to spend what we take in.

Oh but now... Stringy CLAIMS he is a Libertarian who opposes Government interference in our lives! He's NOT a Liberal!
Click to expand...

Now? When have I claimed anything else? I don't use tortured logic like you to exclude from the definition of those government programs I like/expect to benefit from soon (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.) or government interference as long as it is dominated by and skewed in favor of my own demographics. I only support government programs/interference that protect the rights of individuals from impositions of force and fraud. My positions are totally consistent with libertarian ideals, the party platform and the majority of its candidates. Yours are not.

Romney's policy is designed not to create a ceiling for spending on military but rather a floor. By any measure Romney promises to increase spending. He has talked VERY vaguely about cutting spending relative to GDP, but his only real commitment is to an increase in spending, making it more difficult to decrease that amount and being more bellicose towards Iran, China and others.

GDP is not money "we" make as in money the government collects in revenues. If tax rates are maintained and GDP goes up one would expect revenues to increase but Romney has also supported tax cuts as long as they are revenue neutral. Therefore, he appears to believe it would be worthwhile to borrow from China to finance buying more instruments of war from his friends.

You have abandoned reality to pretend that Romney is anything more than a supporter of big government. You are hoping he will throw you a bone and allow supporters of authoritarian government, like you, to enact your will at the state level. That’s all you care about. You are not the least bit libertarian.

Racist dinosaurs like you are dying off. If Romney loses it will be solely due to the stench your rot has created around him. Fair or not, there is no way American voters would have given Obama another four years if not for Akin, Mourdoch and Santorum. Seeing it had a dud in Romney, the GOP should have used this election to clean itself up. But, instead it has assured that your infection will plague the party in coming elections.
 
Last edited:
Occupant said:
all republican presidents in the last 40 years have increased spending.
He just said he would not spend any more than Obama has. I guess that is not an increase so I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

He said he is committed to reducing the deficit. The deficit is the amount of money we spend each year that is more than we take in. It contributes to the national debt. Romney and Ryan have articulated a commonsense plan to base the budget on growth of GDP, meaning we could increase spending only if we increase GDP growth. In order for this plan to be effective at reducing the deficit, we will need to cut about $1.6 trillion from the budget first, and that isn't a spending increase.
 
Dixie said:
He said he is committed to reducing the deficit. The deficit is the amount of money we spend each year that is more than we take in. It contributes to the national debt. Romney and Ryan have articulated a commonsense plan to base the budget on growth of GDP, meaning we could increase spending only if we increase GDP growth. In order for this plan to be effective at reducing the deficit, we will need to cut about $1.6 trillion from the budget first, and that isn't a spending increase.
Click to expand...

No, they have not. You're lying and you have become completely unhinged from the truth in your desperate attempts to gain votes/support for Romney. Romney's intention in tacking military spending to GDP was to provide a floor in spending not a ceiling. Our GDP is starting to rise as it seems we might be finally in view of some better times ahead and our sepnding as a percentage of GDP should fall. It should be reduced even further by ending our involvement in foreign engagements. Romney wanst to stop that trend and increase defense spending because it benefits the real base of power in the GOP the neocons/military industrial complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top