Gary Johnson and William Weld are fake libertarians miseducating the public

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

http://www.redstate.com/diary/southernconstitutionalist/2016/05/28/gary-
johnson-and-william-weld-are-fake-libertarians-miseducating-the-public/


From RedState in May. Put succinctly. Gary is to stoned to know what he's
talking about.

In case you haven't heard, the Libertarian Party national convention is
taking place this weekend. It is hard to tell who will emerge as the
nominee, but the three frontrunners are Austin Petersen, John McAfee, and
2012 nominee, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

If Johnson is the nominee, I will not be able to support him, even though
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are downright awful. I can't support
Johnson because his role as a minor party candidate is not necessarily to
win, but to be a spokesman for libertarian principles. As a libertarian
myself, I certainly want more Americans to hear and understand the
libertarian philosophy.

Johnson is an inarticulate and boring communicator. But that isn't his
biggest problem. Unfortunately, he never bothered to actually learn what is
means to be a libertarian. If you ask Johnson what it means to be a
libertarian, he will say "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."
Another way of putting that is half Republican and half Democrat.


But that sloppy soundbite couldn't be more misleading. David Boaz of the
CATO Institute describes libertarianism this way:


“Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life
in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property –
rights that people possess naturally, before governments are created. In
the libertarian view, all human relationships should voluntary; the only
actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the
initiation of force against those who have themselves used force – actions
like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.”

The role of a libertarian in politics is to maximize freedom and minimize
government. While being fiscally conservative (if defined as being for
lower taxes and lower spending) is something a libertarian should support,
it still misses the larger point of the philosophy.

A quick rundown on Johnson's fiscal record as governor: when he entered
office the state budget was $4.397 billion and when he left it was $7.721
billion. Johnson claims to have balanced the budget each year, which isn't
impressive by itself because the state constitution mandates it. But thanks
to some off-budget gimmicks, Johnson actually was able to run deficits.
James Spiller of National Review notes: "In fact, Johnson inherited a debt
of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase
unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for
presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of
Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007. During every year that Johnson, as
he says, balanced the budget, he added to the debt."

Johnson's fiscal policies also apparently include government-funded prizes
for science and paying U.N. dues, two things he brought up during the
recent debate hosted by TheBlaze and moderated by Penn Jillette.

The more objectionable view of Johnson is that social liberalism is
essential to libertarianism. In fact, it is distinct, if not in opposition
to the philosophy. The great libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard put it
like this:


"There are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of
alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm
adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are
libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the
disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who
have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of
rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal
moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that
each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral
principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest
political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal
scale of values."

Johnson's embrace of social liberalism has gotten him into trouble with the
base of the party. It reveals him to be not a libertarian, but a libertine
and an authoritarian, which are qualities today well-represented by the
Democratic Party.

Like Democrats, Johnson is in favor of legalizing only marijuana.
Libertarians are in favor of all drugs being legal. Like Democrats, he is
in favor of government-sponsored gay marriage. Libertarians oppose
government involvement in marriage. Like Democrats, he believes that
businesses must cater (literally-he believes Jews should have to bake Nazi
cakes) to anyone and everyone. Libertarians believe in freedom of
association and freedom of conscience/religion. Like Democrats, he supports
funding for Planned Parenthood. Libertarians oppose government
subsidization of private organizations. Like Democrats, Johnson is in favor
of some gun control. Libertarians oppose restrictions on gun ownership.

The more I read about Johnson, the less libertarian I realize he is. Others
are coming to the same conclusion.

Recently, Johnson affirmed his true beliefs when he selected former
Massachusetts Gov. William Weld as his running mate, another self-described
libertarian who also erroneously believes the philosophy means "fiscally
conservative and socially liberal." In particular, Weld is proud to be pro-
LGBT and pro-abortion, two hallmark positions of social liberalism.

Jesse Walker of Reason listed some anti-libertarian positions held by Weld,
including support for an assault weapons ban, eminent domain, and foreign
intervention, and summed up Weld as "more of a moderate "socially liberal,
fiscally conservative" type, with "fiscally conservative" defined by
Massachusetts standards and with "socially liberal" defined in terms a
Michael Bloomberg could embrace."

Conservative Review also notes Weld's support of EPA regulations and
affirmative action. In addition, Weld endorsed Obama in 2008, Romney in
2012, and Kasich in 2016 before linking up with Johnson.

At the LP convention, Johnson defended his pick by proclaiming Weld "the
original libertarian."



A chorus of boos then rightly rained down on him. Weld is no Harry Browne.
He is no Ron Paul. Neither is Johnson. In fact, Bob Barr is more
libertarian than Johnson and Weld.

As it stands today, I urge the libertarian activists at the LP convention
to not nominate the Johnson/Weld ticket. If they are nominated, I urge
libertarians across the country to join me in condemning them as frauds.
The lies, half-truths, and stereotypes handed down from the authoritarians
in the media and the other parties are bad enough. We cannot afford to have
the public miseducated by people who are supposedly our own.


--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

[bigdog]

You're wasting your time. Do you think libertarians are going to turn to Donald Trump because Gary Johnson isn't an ideological pure libertarian? He certainly is more libertarian than Bob Barr was. The Libertarian Party has a spectrum just like the major parties do. There are moderate libertarians and there are extremist libertarians, the latter being borderline anarchists. It isn't a matter of all or nothing when it comes to libertarianism. Gary Johnson is almost certain to be the most successful Libertarian Party candidate ever in terms of percentage of the vote. He will also have far more people paying attention to him than any Libertarian candidate before him. Only in our wildest dreams do we think he can be elected but it is about getting our message out to the public. Johnson will do that. We are in this for the long haul. This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon. If the major parties continue to offer voters choices as bad as they have given us this time, it is only a matter of time before their supporters start to splinter away and look to alternatives.

You can denigrate Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party all you want. We aren't going to support Trump just to keep the Clintons out of the White House. We don't give a shit whether the Republican Party wins or loses. When the GOP nominated Trump, they told the libertarians they could win without us. We are going to give them every chance to prove that they can.

[bigdog]

It might have been nice if the author of this article had put his/her name to it. I suspect this is just some Republican operative posing as a libertarian to try to sway other libertarians to abandon Johnson and vote for Trump.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:203aa5ed-03b1-47b0...@googlegroups.com:

> perty �€"

The only thing the LP is a paid arm of the Democrat Party. You no sooner
believe your own tripe than i do. You've already admitted your goal is to
get HRC elected. That makes you despicable.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c2161a5c-ad3c-4e10...@googlegroups.com:

The truth is the truth no matter whose mouth it comes from.

[bigdog]

Really? I haven't got my check yet. Where do I go to collect?

> You no sooner
> believe your own tripe than i do. You've already admitted your goal is to
> get HRC elected. That makes you despicable.
>

Do you think repeating that lie will make it come true. I challenge you to QUOTE one statement I made to that effect. Notice I said quote and not paraphrase. Paraphrasing allows you to twist what I actually said.

Time to put up or shut up, chief. Of course I know you can't do the one and won't do the other.

[Governor Swill]

True.

That said, socially liberal and fiscally conservative pretty much fits
my shoes.

Swill
--
#imwithher #strongertogether
Just because I found this fascinating reading . . .
"Can Conservatives...or Liberals... Govern?"
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-conservativesor-liberals-govern.html

[bigdog]

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:30:01 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 06:45:20 -0700 (PDT), bigdog wrote:
>
> >It might have been nice if the author of this article had put
> >his/her name to it. I suspect this is just some Republican
> >operative posing as a libertarian to try to sway other
> >libertarians to abandon Johnson and vote for Trump.
>
> True.
>
> That said, socially liberal and fiscally conservative pretty much fits
> my shoes.
>

Mine too.

I believe strongly in all ten amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights. Liberals and neo-cons disagree on which of those amendments they would like to jettison.

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 13:15:54 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
wrote:

>The only thing the LP is a paid arm of the Democrat Party.

Which makes no sense since according to rightists, Democrats are
always up in our business, telling us what to do, expanding government
and budgets and raising taxes. All the very opposite of what
Libertarians stand for.

>You no sooner
>believe your own tripe than i do. You've already admitted your goal is to
>get HRC elected. That makes you despicable.

Libertarians have historically supported Republican candidates based
on the GOP claim that they support smaller government and less
intrusion in our lives. That this has been proven time and again to
be a lie is for another discussion.

For this discussion, the issue is that the GOP nominee is so
objectionable, that, for the first time, a Libertarian candidate, who,
btw, is a former Republican, is gaining some traction with the
electorate.

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 13:17:17 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
Vendettas <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:

>bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:c2161a5c-ad3c-4e10...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> It might have been nice if the author of this article had put his/her
>> name to it. I suspect this is just some Republican operative posing as a
>> libertarian to try to sway other libertarians to abandon Johnson and
>> vote for Trump.
>
>The truth is the truth no matter whose mouth it comes from.

And it never comes from yours.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:02:14 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 13:15:54 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
> wrote:
>
> >The only thing the LP is a paid arm of the Democrat Party.
>
> Which makes no sense since according to rightists, Democrats are
> always up in our business, telling us what to do, expanding government
> and budgets and raising taxes. All the very opposite of what
> Libertarians stand for.
>
> >You no sooner
> >believe your own tripe than i do. You've already admitted your goal is to
> >get HRC elected. That makes you despicable.
>
> Libertarians have historically supported Republican candidates based
> on the GOP claim that they support smaller government and less
> intrusion in our lives. That this has been proven time and again to
> be a lie is for another discussion.
>

That was the reason I used to support Republicans and don't anymore. When it comes to reducing the size of government, the GOP talks a good game but they've proved they are just as proficient at growing government as their Democrat counterparts. It makes me wonder why Republicans think libertarians should support their candidates. On fiscal issues Republicans don't mean what they say and are at cross purposes with libertarians on social issues.

> For this discussion, the issue is that the GOP nominee is so
> objectionable, that, for the first time, a Libertarian candidate, who,
> btw, is a former Republican, is gaining some traction with the
> electorate.
>

Given that a sizeable percentage of the electorate would never consider voting for a third party candidate because they think they would be wasting their vote, if Johnson could go north of 10% it would be an accomplishment. If only half of the electorate is willing to consider a third party candidate, Johnson would have to get 20% of them to get 10% overall.

[Dänk 42Ø]

On 2016-09-12 18:02, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 13:15:54 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
> wrote:
>
>> The only thing the LP is a paid arm of the Democrat Party.
>
> Which makes no sense since according to rightists, Democrats are
> always up in our business, telling us what to do, expanding government
> and budgets and raising taxes. All the very opposite of what
> Libertarians stand for.
>
>> You no sooner
>> believe your own tripe than i do. You've already admitted your goal is to
>> get HRC elected. That makes you despicable.
>
> Libertarians have historically supported Republican candidates based
> on the GOP claim that they support smaller government and less
> intrusion in our lives. That this has been proven time and again to
> be a lie is for another discussion.
>
> For this discussion, the issue is that the GOP nominee is so
> objectionable, that, for the first time, a Libertarian candidate, who,
> btw, is a former Republican, is gaining some traction with the
> electorate.
>
> Swill

Which is why I stopped my lifetime practice of voting LP since my first
election when they nominated "former" Republican Bob Barr in 2008,
casting a protest ballot in disgust for the Green candidate.

Just to refresh your memory, Bob Barr was the chief architect of the
Reagan-era drug war, drafting the laws that were responsible for
millions of minor drug offenders still rotting in prison today. He
also drafted the DOMA bill, signed by Democrat president Bill Clinton,
which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Now suddenly he
believes in legalized drugs and gay marriage.

The LP has a serious image problem, mostly caused by its infiltration
by Tea Party Republicans, who have hijacked its original libertarian
agenda and transformed it into the theofascism that the mainstream
Republican Party is trying to distance itself from.

Just remember that "small-government" Republicans expanded the gov't
the most since the FDR era after 9/11. They didn't raise taxes,
though, they just borrowed $10 trillion from China to pay for
everything. I wouldn't expect anything different from a Libertarian
government controlled by "former" Republicans.

In Gary Johnson's defense, as Republican governor of New Mexico he did
openly express his support for the legalization of marijuana. But he
has broken with the official LP platform of legalizing ALL drugs,
saying that drugs like heroin should remain illegal.

[Governor Swill]

The alt right would prefer to dump them all.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 12 Sep Dänk 42Ř wrote:
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> For this discussion, the issue is that the GOP nominee is so
>> objectionable, that, for the first time, a Libertarian candidate, who,
>> btw, is a former Republican, is gaining some traction with the
>> electorate.

>Which is why I stopped my lifetime practice of voting LP since my first
>election when they nominated "former" Republican Bob Barr in 2008,
>casting a protest ballot in disgust for the Green candidate.
>
>Just to refresh your memory, Bob Barr was the chief architect of the
>Reagan-era drug war, drafting the laws that were responsible for
>millions of minor drug offenders still rotting in prison today. He
>also drafted the DOMA bill, signed by Democrat president Bill Clinton,
>which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Now suddenly he
>believes in legalized drugs and gay marriage.
>
>The LP has a serious image problem, mostly caused by its infiltration
>by Tea Party Republicans, who have hijacked its original libertarian
>agenda and transformed it into the theofascism that the mainstream
>Republican Party is trying to distance itself from.
>
>Just remember that "small-government" Republicans expanded the gov't
>the most since the FDR era after 9/11. They didn't raise taxes,
>though, they just borrowed $10 trillion from China to pay for
>everything. I wouldn't expect anything different from a Libertarian
>government controlled by "former" Republicans.

The alt right is going to have to go somewhere, especially if Trump
loses the election. They don't have any big money backers and it's
unlikely they can get sufficient funding for major party status from
the rank and file. They may well take over the Lib party but where
will the true Libs go?

>In Gary Johnson's defense, as Republican governor of New Mexico he did
>openly express his support for the legalization of marijuana. But he
>has broken with the official LP platform of legalizing ALL drugs,
>saying that drugs like heroin should remain illegal.

I agree with that. The FDA was created precisely because of the
freewheeling marketing of drugs like cocaine and heroin that destroyed
lives. Laudanum, once prescribed as a cough suppressant and pain
killer, really little more than a feel-good drug, addicted millions.
It's now heavily controlled and may be banned entirely soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

[bigdog]

The people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs chose to destroy their lives. In a free society, they should be allowed that choice. I also don't believe society has any obligation to save them from their self destructive behavior any more than society has an obligation to save me from behavior which contributes to my obesity such as eating too many donuts or drinking too much beer. The purpose of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence was to preserve the unalienable rights of the people. Being a nanny to everyone does not fall within that purpose.

[Governor Swill]

If half the electorate decided to vote third party, Johnson would win
the election. ;)

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:05:34 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:

Until one of *your* kids dies of an overdose. Then you'll want to
know why somebody didn't stop that from happening.

>I also don't believe society has any obligation to save them from
>their self destructive behavior any more than society has an obligation
>to save me from behavior which contributes to my obesity such as
>eating too many donuts or drinking too much beer.

Otoh, the health of the nation depends on the health of its
individuals. Thus the public health becomes a government concern.
Good health for each is good health for all.

>The purpose
>of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence was to
>preserve the unalienable rights of the people. Being a nanny
>to everyone does not fall within that purpose.

In your opinion.

[bigdog]

I wouldn't be blaming the government if that were to happen. It's not the purpose of government to stop people from engaging in self destructive behavior. It not only shouldn't do that but it can't do that. Narcotics use is illegal and people are still doing it and some are dying and no law is going to change that. It is just throwing money down a rat hole. Drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. If anybody is going to stop someone from using dangerous drugs, it needs to be those closest to them but if someone is determined to throw their life away there's not much anyone can do about it.

> >I also don't believe society has any obligation to save them from
> >their self destructive behavior any more than society has an obligation
> >to save me from behavior which contributes to my obesity such as
> >eating too many donuts or drinking too much beer.
>
> Otoh, the health of the nation depends on the health of its
> individuals. Thus the public health becomes a government concern.
> Good health for each is good health for all.
>

Horseshit. My health impacts me, not society. Some will argue that unhealthy behavior drives up health care costs and affects everyone. The facts don't support that. Most healthcare expenditures are made during the last 6 months of a person's life and that is true whether they die young or old. Unhealthy people simply reach that stage earlier than the healthy ones. If anything, they will live fewer years and use less of the nation's healthcare resources.

> >The purpose
> >of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence was to
> >preserve the unalienable rights of the people. Being a nanny
> >to everyone does not fall within that purpose.
>
> In your opinion.
>

I'm pretty sure that was the opinion of those who ratified it as well. This country existed for over 100 years before the nanny state mentality started taking over.

[Bert]

In news:t1ittb90h72q0onpe...@4ax.com Governor Swill

<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Until one of *your* kids dies of an overdose. Then you'll want to
> know why somebody didn't stop that from happening.

When one of your kids turns out to be unfit to live in human society,
you will of course deny any personal responsibility for the way he
turned out.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Alan Fitzgerald]

"Bert" wrote in message news:XnsA68860AF533...@127.0.0.1...

#####
If I had a child that suddenly became stupid, of course I would blame
someone else.
I never taught my kids to use drugs or commit crimes.
If I saw them using/doing it, I would have placed them into "A CENTER", and
have then strapped down for a few.
If they continued being stupid... Fine! Let them go! let them die in the
gutters, where they deserve to rot.
No loss to me.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, they aren't. They're not perfectly libertarian, but Johnson at
least is good enough.

Every American citizen who loves and values liberty should vote for
Johnson and Weld.

[bigdog]

The Libertarian Party has something in common with the major parties. It has moderates and extremists. In the Libertarian Party, the extremists are borderline anarchists in that they want almost no government whatsoever. Johnson and Weld represent the other end of the spectrum. They have libertarian leanings but are not fully committed to the libertarian philosophy. A perfect example is Johnson's position on drugs. He's for legalizing marijuana but not hard narcotics like cocaine and heroin. The purely libertarian position is that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others to do the same. Therefore it should be legal for people to partake in whatever drugs they choose because they are harming only themselves. While I disagree with Johnson's position on hard drugs he still is the candidate who best represents my core beliefs on a wide range of issues and therefore he will get my vote.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> on or about
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT) did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

He represent you when it comes to his belief that handguns are
worse than Assault rifles?
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

[Bert]

In news:2r33ub52bdjs7iao0...@4ax.com pyotr filipivich

<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> He represent you when it comes to his belief that handguns are
> worse than Assault rifles?

That was Weld, not Johnson.

Weld was hit on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and has recanted.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 3:38:37 PM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Let the Record show that bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> on or about
> Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT) did write, type or otherwise
> cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
> >On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 1:01:48 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> No, they aren't. They're not perfectly libertarian, but Johnson at
> >> least is good enough.
> >>
> >> Every American citizen who loves and values liberty should vote for
> >> Johnson and Weld.
> >
> >The Libertarian Party has something in common with the major parties. It has moderates and extremists. In the Libertarian Party, the extremists are borderline anarchists in that they want almost no government whatsoever. Johnson and Weld represent the other end of the spectrum. They have libertarian leanings but are not fully committed to the libertarian philosophy. A perfect example is Johnson's position on drugs. He's for legalizing marijuana but not hard narcotics like cocaine and heroin. The purely libertarian position is that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others to do the same. Therefore it should be legal for people to partake in whatever drugs they choose because they are harming only themselves. While I disagree with Johnson's position on hard drugs he still is the candidate who best represents my core beliefs on a wide range of issues and therefore he will get my vote.
>
> He represent you when it comes to his belief that handguns are
> worse than Assault rifles?
> --

I believe that was Weld who said that.

[RD Sandman]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:2r33ub52bdjs7iao0...@4ax.com:

They are used in a lot more crimes.....of course, there are also a lot
more of them.

--

RD Sandman

I once knew a girl who was so flat chested that she
had a tattoo on her stomach that read:

"In case of rape, please place this side up."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> on or
about Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:22:41 -0500 did write, type or otherwise

So, because something is used in a crime, we should ban it?

[RD Sandman]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in

news:5sa6ubt6f8cvamg99...@4ax.com:

Where did you get that idea? Do you always have that much trouble
reading with comprehension?

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> on or

about Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:40:28 -0500 did write, type or otherwise

How else does he intend to reduce the number of times guns are
used in a criminal fashion?
What is his (Or your) chain of thought about how "They are used in
a lot more crimes" and are worse than AR-15s avoid banning them?

Or is it just tut-tut-ing over how things happen?

But, as it was said by Johnson's choice for VP, not as critical as
the problem with religious liberty in the US.

[RD Sandman]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in

news:6m49ub1pqs488frbm...@4ax.com:

The point was that using "use in crime" is a stupid reason for trying to
ban assault rifles when so many more crimes are done with handguns.
Personally, I don't believe any gun should be banned. The crime is
committed by the person, the gun used was just along for the ride.

> But, as it was said by Johnson's choice for VP, not as critical
> as
> the problem with religious liberty in the US.



--

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 19 Sep Bert wrote:
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> Until one of *your* kids dies of an overdose. Then you'll want to
>> know why somebody didn't stop that from happening.
>
>When one of your kids turns out to be unfit to live in human society,
>you will of course deny any personal responsibility for the way he
>turned out.
>
>It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

Parents typically blame themselves, wonder what they did wrong, when
one of their kids goes bad.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 19 Sep "Alan Fitzgerald" wrote:
>If I had a child that suddenly became stupid, of course I would blame
>someone else.
>I never taught my kids to use drugs or commit crimes.
>If I saw them using/doing it, I would have placed them into "A CENTER", and
>have then strapped down for a few.
>If they continued being stupid... Fine! Let them go! let them die in the
>gutters, where they deserve to rot.
>No loss to me.

Out of curiosity, why do you keep changing your nym? Do you think
nobody notices?

[Governor Swill]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:09:52 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

To borrow your usage, horseshit. Your health impacts your employer,
your customers, your family, neighbors, employees and clients, even
the government you pay taxes to. Like a typhoon in the Philippines
affects wave patterns off the California coast, everything everybody
does affects everybody else.

>Some will argue that unhealthy
>behavior drives up health care costs and affects everyone. The facts don't
>support that.

Yes, they do but you don't want to believe it because that fact would
interfere with your belief system.

>Most healthcare expenditures are made during the last 6
>months of a person's life and that is true whether they die young or old.
>Unhealthy people simply reach that stage earlier than the healthy ones.
>If anything, they will live fewer years and use less of the nation's
>healthcare resources.
>
>> >The purpose
>> >of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence was to
>> >preserve the unalienable rights of the people. Being a nanny
>> >to everyone does not fall within that purpose.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>>
>I'm pretty sure that was the opinion of those who ratified it as well.

But they're all dead so the only opinions that matter are the ones of
voters today. Besides, if that was their opinion, it wouldn't have
become the United States, it would have remained the British colonies
in America.

>This country existed for over 100 years before the nanny state
>mentality started taking over.

Yes, it existed when women dying in childbirth was common. When life
expectancy was 40 unless you were rich in which case you might make it
to 60. It existed before electricity, phone, radio, television,
internet, iow, before all sorts of instant communications and high
speed transportation made the entire globe as close and immediate as
the village down the road.

Technology changes things and if you can't accept that, maybe Ted
Kaczynski's shack in the woods is still available and you can go be
responsible for yourself only.

[bigdog]

I'm retired now so I have no employer. When I was working, if I wasn't able to perform my job, my employer would have found somebody who could. Everybody is expendable. In any case, my health is no concern of the government. If we were to really extend your argument, people shouldn't be allowed to use seat belts and air bags because that makes them more likely to survive an accident which means they will need healthcare that wouldn't have been necessary had they been killed. By surviving the accident they drive up insurance costs for everybody.

> >Some will argue that unhealthy
> >behavior drives up health care costs and affects everyone. The facts don't
> >support that.
>
> Yes, they do but you don't want to believe it because that fact would
> interfere with your belief system.
>
> >Most healthcare expenditures are made during the last 6
> >months of a person's life and that is true whether they die young or old.
> >Unhealthy people simply reach that stage earlier than the healthy ones.
> >If anything, they will live fewer years and use less of the nation's
> >healthcare resources.
> >
> >> >The purpose
> >> >of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence was to
> >> >preserve the unalienable rights of the people. Being a nanny
> >> >to everyone does not fall within that purpose.
> >>
> >> In your opinion.
> >>
> >I'm pretty sure that was the opinion of those who ratified it as well.
>
> But they're all dead so the only opinions that matter are the ones of
> voters today. Besides, if that was their opinion, it wouldn't have
> become the United States, it would have remained the British colonies
> in America.
>

How do you figure that? They stated those opinions in the DOI which was the document that broke the bonds with Great Britain. They broke those bonds because the crown had become too overbearing. As the DOI stated it, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.".

> >This country existed for over 100 years before the nanny state
> >mentality started taking over.
>
> Yes, it existed when women dying in childbirth was common. When life
> expectancy was 40 unless you were rich in which case you might make it
> to 60. It existed before electricity, phone, radio, television,
> internet, iow, before all sorts of instant communications and high
> speed transportation made the entire globe as close and immediate as
> the village down the road.
>

Other than the internet which was a cast off of the US military, those technological advances advances were the result of private enterprise. So too were many of the advances in health care. Its preposterous to think if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done. In most cases the best thing government can do is get the hell out of the way.

> Technology changes things and if you can't accept that, maybe Ted
> Kaczynski's shack in the woods is still available and you can go be
> responsible for yourself only.
>

I'll pass on that since I have a 1760 home in the woods. I paid for it myself with no help from the government.

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:20:06 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:09:52 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

>> >This country existed for over 100 years before the nanny state
>> >mentality started taking over.
>>
>> Yes, it existed when women dying in childbirth was common. When life
>> expectancy was 40 unless you were rich in which case you might make it
>> to 60. It existed before electricity, phone, radio, television,
>> internet, iow, before all sorts of instant communications and high
>> speed transportation made the entire globe as close and immediate as
>> the village down the road.
>>
>Other than the internet which was a cast off of the US military, those
>technological advances advances were the result of private enterprise.
>So too were many of the advances in health care. Its preposterous to
>think if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done. In most cases
>the best thing government can do is get the hell out of the way.

Yet government regulations gave us the dominant global communications
network. Government funded universities and university projects gave
us much of the technology we have now. Anybody who believes we'd be
as powerful and technologically advanced without government is
deluding themselves.

>> Technology changes things and if you can't accept that, maybe Ted
>> Kaczynski's shack in the woods is still available and you can go be
>> responsible for yourself only.
>>
>I'll pass on that since I have a 1760 home in the woods.
>I paid for it myself with no help from the government.

More delusional, Lib screed? Aren't you tired of repeating that
turdbucket by now?

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'm retired now so I have no employer.

So the world should do what you want and to hell with everybody else?

>When I was working, if I wasn't able to perform my job, my employer
>would have found somebody who could. Everybody is expendable.

Certainly.

>In any case, my health is no concern of the government.
>If we were to really extend your argument, people shouldn't be allowed
>to use seat belts and air bags because that makes them more likely to
>survive an accident which means they will need healthcare that wouldn't
>have been necessary had they been killed. By surviving the accident
>they drive up insurance costs for everybody.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swill0

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 1:35:00 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:20:06 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:09:52 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> >> >This country existed for over 100 years before the nanny state
> >> >mentality started taking over.
> >>
> >> Yes, it existed when women dying in childbirth was common. When life
> >> expectancy was 40 unless you were rich in which case you might make it
> >> to 60. It existed before electricity, phone, radio, television,
> >> internet, iow, before all sorts of instant communications and high
> >> speed transportation made the entire globe as close and immediate as
> >> the village down the road.
> >>
> >Other than the internet which was a cast off of the US military, those
> >technological advances advances were the result of private enterprise.
> >So too were many of the advances in health care. Its preposterous to
> >think if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done. In most cases
> >the best thing government can do is get the hell out of the way.
>
> Yet government regulations gave us the dominant global communications
> network. Government funded universities and university projects gave
> us much of the technology we have now.

Really? I thought Steve Jobs was a college dropout. So was Bill Gates.

> Anybody who believes we'd be
> as powerful and technologically advanced without government is
> deluding themselves.
>

I guess I'm deluding myself. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started Apple in a garage. Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft with nothing but an idea for creating personal computer software. Thomas Edison's work was funded by private investors, principally J.P. Morgan. They created General Electric which is now one of the largest and most diverse conglomerates in the world.

> >> Technology changes things and if you can't accept that, maybe Ted
> >> Kaczynski's shack in the woods is still available and you can go be
> >> responsible for yourself only.
> >>
> >I'll pass on that since I have a 1760 home in the woods.
> >I paid for it myself with no help from the government.
>
> More delusional, Lib screed? Aren't you tired of repeating that
> turdbucket by now?
>

Not as long as it is the truth.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
> <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm retired now so I have no employer.
>
> So the world should do what you want and to hell with everybody else?
>

No, I should be able to do what I want as long as I don't infringe on anybody else's right to do the same.

> >When I was working, if I wasn't able to perform my job, my employer
> >would have found somebody who could. Everybody is expendable.
>
> Certainly.
>
> >In any case, my health is no concern of the government.
> >If we were to really extend your argument, people shouldn't be allowed
> >to use seat belts and air bags because that makes them more likely to
> >survive an accident which means they will need healthcare that wouldn't
> >have been necessary had they been killed. By surviving the accident
> >they drive up insurance costs for everybody.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>

As Rush Limbaugh has observed, you point out absurdity by being absurd. Your argument was that my actions have a ripple effect that affects everybody else. So what? That shouldn't be the litmus test for what I am allowed to do and what I should be required to do. Just because a choice by me negatively affects somebody else is no reason my choice should be restricted.

I'll give you one example. In my little berg of Utica, OH we had locally owned Ben Franklin franchised store. It was essentially what use to be called a dime store. It was a convenient place to pick up various odds and ends at a reasonable price without having to drive to the big box stores in the near by larger towns of Mt. Vernon and Newark. Last year a Dollar General store opened up in town and it too offered the same type of merchandise as the Ben Franklin story and slightly lower prices. Unable to compete, the Ben Franklin store went out of business within a year. The woman who owned the franchise was negatively affected by the Dollar General store but that doesn't mean her rights were infringed upon. Her right was to compete. No one has a right to succeed.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT), bigdog

While they were in college.

>Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft with nothing but an idea for
>creating personal computer software.

While they were in college.

>Thomas Edison's work was funded by private investors, principally J.P. Morgan.
>They created General Electric which is now one of the largest and most diverse
>conglomerates in the world.

Edison is long dead and he accomplished the miracles of his lab with
the best educated and skilled engineers and technicians of his age.
Much of his work was fueled by Nicola Tesla whose genius made Edison
look like a drudge.

And in case you'd forgotten, it was Tesla and Westinghouse who
developed the power system that became adopted for every power grid on
the planet.

>> >> Technology changes things and if you can't accept that, maybe Ted
>> >> Kaczynski's shack in the woods is still available and you can go be
>> >> responsible for yourself only.
>> >>
>> >I'll pass on that since I have a 1760 home in the woods.
>> >I paid for it myself with no help from the government.
>>
>> More delusional, Lib screed? Aren't you tired of repeating that
>> turdbucket by now?
>>
>Not as long as it is the truth.

But it's not. Nobody does anything alone.

[bigdog]

With no help from the government.

> >Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft with nothing but an idea for
> >creating personal computer software.
>
> While they were in college.
>

With no help from the government.

> >Thomas Edison's work was funded by private investors, principally J.P. Morgan.
> >They created General Electric which is now one of the largest and most diverse
> >conglomerates in the world.
>
> Edison is long dead and he accomplished the miracles of his lab with
> the best educated and skilled engineers and technicians of his age.
> Much of his work was fueled by Nicola Tesla whose genius made Edison
> look like a drudge.
>

Exactly. It was the private sector with no help from the government.