GARY JOHNSON will END the IRS

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpdTBt73st4

[Guest bkelm18]

No he won't. He can't.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

No he won't. He can't.

Why is it that you and many others on here have to be NEGATIVE NANCY! If you don't have something positive to add to the conversation then, you should see your way out of my threads. Thank You!

Edited July 11, 2012 by ArmyVeteran37214

[D3vo]

Looking at your post history you must be the campaign manager for Gary Johnson.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Looking at your post history you must be the campaign manager for Gary Johnson.

Your looking at my most recent post history. Look a little further back!!

I'm a supporter of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or any one else that will bring this country back to a Constitutional Republic.

[Caster]

No he won't. He can't.

Yeah BK, stop telling the truth. No one wants to hear that crap.

[mikegideon]

I'm voting for Dickie Weed. He promised to take a bunch of crop dusters and spray the entire country of Pakistan with bacon fat. I like that, so I'm gonna make him the president (he calls it King of the World).

[RobertNashville]

I call total Bovine Scatoloty on this.

I don't care what this guy wants, says or believes; the President doesn't have that power to begin with(and if this guy thinks the President does then it automatically disqualifies him from office because he clearly doesn't understand the powers of the Presidency) and the chance of getting Congress to do away with the IRS is such a non-starter that there are no adequate words to express how much of a non-starter it is.

[mikegideon]

I call total Bovine Scatoloty on this.

I don't care what this guy wants, says or believes; the President doesn't have that power to begin with(and if this guy thinks the President does then it automatically disqualifies him from office because he clearly doesn't understand the powers of the Presidency) and the chance of getting Congress to do away with the IRS is such a non-starter that there are no adequate words to express how much of a non-starter it is.

Doesn't matter. I'm voting for Dickie. Bring on the bacon!

[RobertNashville]

Your looking at my most recent post history. Look a little further back!!

I'm a supporter of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or any one else that will bring this country back to a Constitutional Republic.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how does supporting candidates with little (actually I'd say no) chance to be President can bring the country back to a Constitutional Republic.

Edited July 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest bkelm18]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how does supporting candidates with little (actually I'd say no) chance to be President can bring the country back to a Constitutional Republic.

Maybe he can be like Dorothy and click his heels together three times and it will bring us back. That has about as much chance of working as does supporting irrelevant candidates.

[daddyo]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how does supporting candidates with little (actually I'd say no) chance to be President can bring the country back to a Constitutional Republic.

I understand what you mean, but frankly, I don't see how supporting a RINO does either.

[Guest ThePunisher]

There is a lack of logic when supporting a third party candidate, when the ship is sinking fast and the third party candidate has no life preservers. Romney can at least patch up the hole to save the boat from sinking until we get to another election down the road, so maybe we can get a new ship.

[RobertNashville]

I understand what you mean, but frankly, I don't see how supporting a RINO does either.

I agree, supporting a RINO doesn't bring the country back to a Constitutional Republic but it may halt additional movement away from that republic as a RINO is more likely to make a good/right decision for the country than a liberal and I'm too much of a pragmatist to support someone who cannot win and/or would only serve to elect a liberal (or in the case of this November, a communist who truly seems to hate America).

I truly believe that this country will not survive two terms of BHO. As such, I WILL vote for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating him, RINO or not.

[Caster]

There is a lack of logic when supporting a third party candidate, when the ship is sinking fast and the third party candidate has no life preservers. Romney can at least patch up the hole to save the boat from sinking until we get to another election down the road, so maybe we can get a new ship.

Some might say let it sink. Let the undertow drown the ones who can't swim. Let the ones who have the testicular fortitude to persevere and make it back to shore build a new ship and be free from the burden that destroyed the first ship.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Many tough times in our republic called for patch repairing to salvage our nation from total ruination. Reagan proved that you don't have to sink the ship, and that their is hope of surviving with the good old patching principles of freedom, capitalism, work ethic, and less tax burden on the people. Save the old ship until we can build new ships like Reagan did.

[RobertNashville]

Some might say let it sink. Let the undertow drown the ones who can't swim. Let the ones who have the testicular fortitude to persevere and make it back to shore build a new ship and be free from the burden that destroyed the first ship.

It might come to that but I think it would be a bad decision to allow it to happen if we have a chance to avoid it.

[Caster]

It might come to that but I think it would be a bad decision to allow it to happen if we have a chance to avoid it.

History will tell the story and that point of view will likely not be remembered.

There were men; men with families who felt just the same as you. I'm sure they said to themselves:

"Life under the rule of the British Empire is not what we would dream of but to destroy it and build what we would consider ideal would be a bad decision and if we have a chance to avoid it, we should."

There were men who made a living under British rule and though they hated it, thought the idea of physically removing it was less than palatable. Only difference between now and then [other than the population increase] is that men were much more reasonable then.

The people that settled here disliked the european way of life and sought to be free of it. Now, it's back like a poorly treated STD and we are GOING to be just like all the other euro-trash crap holes.

[RobertNashville]

History will tell the story and that point of view will likely not be remembered.

There were men; men with families who felt just the same as you. I'm sure they said to themselves:

"Life under the rule of the British Empire is not what we would dream of but to destroy it and build what we would consider ideal would be a bad decision and if we have a chance to avoid it, we should."

There were men who made a living under British rule and though they hated it, thought the idea of physically removing it was less than palatable. Only difference between now and then [other than the population increase] is that men were much more reasonable then.

The people that settled here disliked the european way of life and sought to be free of it. Now, it's back like a poorly treated STD and we are GOING to be just like all the other euro-trash crap holes.

We don't have the option of moving to another, largely unsettled continent as did the early settlers (perhaps space travel will, in the future, offer such an option) and there are larger differences than just population size and reasonableness of men.

An armed rebellion would have us fighting against and killing not some huge military power from across the Atlantic but against brothers and sisters and friends and neighbors (that's already happened once on our soil and it didn't end well). We have an election process and a Constitution precisely so that the use of arms is unnecessary - it would be foolish to hasten the use of force while there is any chance to avoid it and still accomplish the same thing. I'd rather have history tell a story of rational thought and peaceful transition than one of of American's fighting and killing American's.

That said, supporting candidates for office who can not and will not win is not a position of rational thought.

Edited July 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

I understand what you mean, but frankly, I don't see how supporting a RINO does either.

Mitt ain't a RINO. He's right in the middle of mainstream GOP reality.

Matter of fact, most all the folks accused of being RINOs, aren't. At one time, sure, but not now -- they're right in the party bell curve norm. Anything right of them is the fringe party element. Which as I predicted is being absorbed and diluted.

It's a reflection of the actual voting citizenry. Mitt is about as conservative a prez that will have a chance to be elected for some time, maybe ever -- until we have undergone the inevitable society wide Big Pain.

- OS

[Defender]

Mitt ain't a RINO. He's right in the middle of mainstream GOP reality.

Matter of fact, most all the folks accused of being RINOs, aren't. At one time, sure, but not now -- they're right in the party bell curve norm. Anything right of them is the fringe party element. Which as I predicted is being absorbed and diluted.

It's a reflection of the actual voting citizenry. Mitt is about as conservative a prez that will have a chance to be elected for some time, maybe ever -- until we have undergone the inevitable society wide Big Pain.

- OS

Much truth here in what OhShoot said. They arent RINOS so much as not very conservative. But my butt will be out there voting for him all the same. Unless there is a rtrmendous groundsweel of support for a third partier, it is GONNA be either Mitt or Obama. I aint a huge fan of Mitt, but I'll take over Obama anyday!

[daddyo]

Mitt ain't a RINO. He's right in the middle of mainstream GOP reality.

Matter of fact, most all the folks accused of being RINOs, aren't. At one time, sure, but not now -- they're right in the party bell curve norm. Anything right of them is the fringe party element. Which as I predicted is being absorbed and diluted.

It's a reflection of the actual voting citizenry. Mitt is about as conservative a prez that will have a chance to be elected for some time, maybe ever -- until we have undergone the inevitable society wide Big Pain.

- OS

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Mitt sure as shootin' ain't gonna bring us back to constitutional principles and he ain't no friend of the Second Amendment OR gun owners.

I'll stand by my original assessment.

Edited July 11, 2012 by DaddyO

[sigmtnman]

Come on DaddyO, you're not supposed to stand for or by anything anymore. Real men waffle these days in hopes that things will get better the next go around.

[enfield]

No he won't. He can't.

What he said.

[daddyo]

Come on DaddyO, you're not supposed to stand for or by anything anymore. Real men waffle these days in hopes that things will get better the next go around.

Yeah, I know.... I'm supposed to shut up and just bend over and take it up the rear.

Edited July 11, 2012 by DaddyO