[subego]

Okay. He's lost this one. Why is he still pissing away money?

[turtle777]

Why not ?

I will still write him in. He's the only sane choice.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Well, optimistically, because he's principled, pessimistically, because he's trying to play the system to get enough delegates in the hopes of having influence at the convention.

[subego]

My analysis, before Santorum dropped out, was there isn't a chance in hell he could get enough delegates to influence squat.

Wouldn't the principled action in this situation be to fold and save your money for the next hand?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

He's the only sane choice.

The guy couldn't run a newsletter without it being overrun with crazy. He can't be trusted with something important.

And of course Paul introduced the We The People Act, which would have shredded the constitutional rights of Americans into nothingness.

The worst thing about the end of Santorum's campaign is now we will have to hear more from this old windbag.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The worst thing about the end of Santorum's campaign is now we will have to hear more from this old windbag.

Not in the media.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The guy couldn't run a newsletter without it being overrun with crazy. He can't be trusted with something important.

A vote for Ron Paul doesn't trust him with anything important. There is still no chance of him winning. What it does do is send a message to both parties that the ideals Paul stands for are valid, and there is political capital to be had from adopting them. Obviously any of these that do get adopted would be the more sane, centrist ideals, not the crazy ones.

Paul himself is too old to be president anyway. He looks like what presidents look like after they've been ravaged by the responsibilities of the office, not before.

[nonhuman]

While I agree with the critics that Paul shouldn't be president, and the newsletter debacle lives me with no choice but to consider the idea of a Paul presidency repugnant, I also agree with Uncle Skeleton. I would go so far as to say that for Paul to win the Republican nomination would be a very good thing for both the Republican Party and the country as a whole in the message that it would send.

The only candidate I could support in good conscience would be Gary Johnson. I can only hope that Democratic malaise and Republican dissatisfaction with Romney will open the door for a third party run, as unlikely as that obviously is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The only candidate I could support in good conscience would be Gary Johnson.

Johnson is not an option (anymore). The kind of stupid "foreign policy" that he pursues has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Put A Fork In Johnson's Foreign Policy in [Market-Ticker]

-t

[subego]

How dare he
not be
as ideologically
pure as me
Burma Shave

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

How dare he
not be
as ideologically
pure as me
Burma Shave

I have no idea what inspired that, but that was a nice pay off.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

How dare he
not be
as ideologically
pure as me
Burma Shave

Kudos for creativity, but the point you're making is bullshit.

A Liberitarian that is PRO foreign wars is more than just noy idiologically pure.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Kudos for creativity, but the point you're making is bullshit.

A Liberitarian that is PRO foreign wars is more than just noy idiologically pure.

How exactly are you defining "PRO foreign wars"?

[turtle777]

Reading the link would have helped you.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen

“So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not,” he suggested, taking an odd position for a supposed anti-war candidate.

Karl is right:

Let me be perfectly clear: No Libertarian can take the position that undeclared "wars" are legitimate other than in instances of "hot pursuit", which clearly does not apply here.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Reading the link would have helped you.

I did. Multiple times. I then assumed you were your own individual, and perhaps weren't going to be in absolute lock-step with a 2,000 word essay.

Any particular reason you're being pissy about it?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Any particular reason you're being pissy about it?

Uh, when is he not pissy?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I did. Multiple times. I then assumed you were your own individual, and perhaps weren't going to be in absolute lock-step with a 2,000 word essay.

Any particular reason you're being pissy about it?

WTF ? How am I pissy ?

I just said that Johnson is not an [Liberitarian] option (anymore), due his stance on foreign wars.
Why the hell you feel to have to question my opinion, as if I insulted your mom w/o proper documentation, is beyond me.

And yes, NOW I'm pissed.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why the hell you feel to have to question my opinion, as if I insulted your mom w/o proper documentation, is beyond me.

You've misinterpreted.

I didn't question your opinion, I questioned your behavior, which was to snidely accuse me of not reading your link.

To someone asking an informed question with an objectively valid purpose (finding out how much you agree with the essay), being admonished for it comes off as pissy.

[subego]

I asked this in the other thread. Is Karl a friend of yours?

We go way back. I want to know if it would be polite to character assassinate him.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Kudos for creativity, but the point you're making is bullshit.

A Liberitarian that is PRO foreign wars is more than just not ideologically pure.

-t

Ron Paul is pro life, does that make him not ideologically pure?
Protect All Human Life

[subego]

I'd say it depurifies him, but I also cut obstetricians slack on this.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I asked this in the other thread. Is Karl a friend of yours?

We go way back. I want to know if it would be polite to character assassinate him.

Neither friend nor acquaintance.

I also disagree with him quite a bit (on details), but he definitely gets things generally right.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ron Paul is pro life, does that make him not ideologically pure?
Protect All Human Life

I dunno, I'm personally Pro Life, but I would vote for Paul even if he was Pro Choice. It's not something that matters much to me in a politician.

I'd pick Pro Choice candidate with sound economic understanding over a Santorum any given day.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I dunno, I'm personally Pro Life

How would you translate that position into policy if given the chance?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

How would you translate that position into policy if given the chance?

That's above my pay grade.

I'll think about an answer if I ever run for office.

-t

[subego]

Okay, fair enough. Though I did read it as being above your gay parade.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though I did read it as being above your gay parade.

That's what I meant, sorry for the typo.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You've misinterpreted.

I didn't question your opinion, I questioned your behavior, which was to snidely accuse me of not reading your link.

To someone asking an informed question with an objectively valid purpose (finding out how much you agree with the essay), being admonished for it comes off as pissy.

See Dakar's accurate response.

It's just Turtle being emotional probably without intending to be.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's just Turtle being emotional probably without intending to be.

F*ck all of you armchair psychologists.

-t

[subego]

Dragging this back, IIRC, we were discussing whether wanting to withdraw from a mere 98% of foreign military ventures instead of 100% is a position deserving of excommunication from the Libertarian party.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Dragging this back, IIRC, we were discussing whether wanting to withdraw from a mere 98% of foreign military ventures instead of 100% is a position deserving of excommunication from the Libertarian party.

Or dragging it back even further: nonhuman didn't say "libertarian." All he said was that Johnson was the only palatable candidate. Even if he's only 10% libertarian, the statement is still accurate if all the other candidates range from 0-1% libertarian (assuming of course that libertarian leanings are the desired outcome).

I question the sanity of anyone who would accept 100% libertarianism anyway. The only reason libertarrhea is gaining popularity is for balance, against the over-dominance of big government from both major parties. It's not because we want to find the same unhealthy extreme on the other side of the pendulum.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I question the sanity of anyone who would accept 100% libertarianism anyway. The only reason libertarrhea is gaining popularity is for balance, against the over-dominance of big government from both major parties. It's not because we want to find the same unhealthy extreme on the other side of the pendulum.

I'm in agreement. I think it's the proper philosophical point to start from, but the shit breaks down (literally) the moment you try to apply it to a real world situation. It needs to be cut with something.

[lpkmckenna]

"libertarrhea"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

F*ck all of you armchair psychologists.

-t

Why not **** you for being so consistently unable to control your emotions? Why do we all have to suffer through this behavioral problem? You don't have to type out all of your snippy feelings consistently, picking fights with people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or dragging it back even further: nonhuman didn't say "libertarian." All he said was that Johnson was the only palatable candidate. Even if he's only 10% libertarian, the statement is still accurate if all the other candidates range from 0-1% libertarian (assuming of course that libertarian leanings are the desired outcome).

I question the sanity of anyone who would accept 100% libertarianism anyway. The only reason libertarrhea is gaining popularity is for balance, against the over-dominance of big government from both major parties. It's not because we want to find the same unhealthy extreme on the other side of the pendulum.

Agreed.

Besides, I'd argue that even semi-moderate Libertarianism can be impractical.

[Cold Warrior]

The bickering is taking us off topic.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. He's lost this one. Why is he still pissing away money?

The last thing we need is even less choice. I wouldn't be cheering for the loss of another candidate. It would be one thing if there were some other good runners up but what's left now is just the standard bribed/lobbied leaders for the lemmings sputing the same ol' bs, rallying everyone up lord-of-the-flies style. The one with the most corporate backing will be the winner, that's how it always is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why not **** you for being so consistently unable to control your emotions? Why do we all have to suffer through this behavioral problem? You don't have to type out all of your snippy feelings consistently, picking fights with people.

You're an armchair psychologist. You know what to do, I already gave instructions.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The last thing we need is even less choice.

I'll take less choice over the illusion of choice.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll take less choice over the illusion of choice.

1) why? Even if you were/are correct on this point whats the difference?

2) Everyone has the right to write in Ron Paul, and finally have a balanced government. The choice isn't an illusion; at least until everyone writes him in and i's proven an illusion. This would be more of a testament to the failure of this form of democracy. The mass chooses to blindly follow what the corporate powers tell them to. Paul was doing pretty well until fox news entertainment laughed at him and told everyone to just believe he's crazy.

For everyone saying some of Paul's ideas are crazy, the whole mind of the government had gone ape shit crazy at this point. Paul is exactly what we need right now to bring the middle ground back down to earth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You're an armchair psychologist. You know what to do, I already gave instructions.

-t

Rather than blowing off what I'm saying because I'm saying it, why not consider that many other people have also commented on your lack of emotional restraint.

Consider that for somebody that seems to be against trolling, it might make sense for you to do your part to keep conservations productive and on course, rather than forcing others to defuse your emotional rampages.

[turtle777]

Do you have issues Following instrUctions ? Can't tell me you don't Know how to do it.
You shOuld really try it, dUde.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you have issues Following instrUctions ? Can't tell me you don't Know how to do it.
You shOuld really try it, dUde.

-t

Emotional control, learn it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

1) why? Even if you were/are correct on this point whats the difference?

2) Everyone has the right to write in Ron Paul, and finally have a balanced government. The choice isn't an illusion; at least until everyone writes him in and i's proven an illusion. This would be more of a testament to the failure of this form of democracy. The mass chooses to blindly follow what the corporate powers tell them to. Paul was doing pretty well until fox news entertainment laughed at him and told everyone to just believe he's crazy.

For everyone saying some of Paul's ideas are crazy, the whole mind of the government had gone ape shit crazy at this point. Paul is exactly what we need right now to bring the middle ground back down to earth.

As I said in the OP, it's not happening this round. Period. This includes write-ins.

Since I like the idea of actual choice, I'd be happier if he saved the money he's spending and put it towards a bid which has more chance than the proverbial snowball in hell.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd be happier if he saved the money he's spending

Maybe it's an investment towards his upcoming career as a writer or pundit

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said in the OP, it's not happening this round. Period. This includes write-ins.

What other choice do you have ? Voting for the schmuck ? Or the loser in office right now ? Not hardly.

-t

[subego]

I'll see who the Libertarians pick, and if they aren't horrible like Barr was, they'll get my vote as a protest. However, I'm not under any illusion I'm voting for someone so they get elected. If you are interested in affecting that, you have your two choices and only your two choices.

[Cold Warrior]

If I could infraction Ron Paul, I would, but I had to settle for a couple off-topic ones here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

However, I'm not under any illusion I'm voting for someone so they get elected. If you are interested in affecting that, you have your two choices and only your two choices.

I agree, but voting Obama or Romney won't change shit. It's a guaranteed non-effectual choice.

-t

[subego]

I wouldn't quite say that. Romney could go either way.