• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections Gary Johnson at 12% (3% away from debates), potential game changer

Jack V Savage said:
Well, that's the only way it has ever worked or could be expected to work. But cool fantasy world, bro. Someday, right?
Click to expand...

So whether or not customers decide to buy something has no bearing on whether its produced? Thats extremely weird even coming from you.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Collective property rights of the nation? Doesn't sound very libertarian, but right-wing libertarianism is an incoherent ideology anyway.
Click to expand...
To get to the real debate you must first do away with the welfare state, which is non-consensual theft by force.
 
Rex Kwon Do said:
Johnson is a BLMer? Oh, no. That won't do.

I'm assuming he's an open border guy, too? I know that's a libertarian tenet, but it won't work so well if you're the only country in the world with an open border. Oh, and if you still have pretty generous welfare programs in place, yeah...
Click to expand...

He's only a BLMer because they hate hilary and trump, so he hopes it's an easy chunk of 12% of the population.
 
It is really difficult for me to trust someone that doesn't at least have a part of their being that is anarchist or at the very least libertarian. The idea that somehow the incompetent people that made it to office knows more about what to do with your body and your money and your property than you yourself is, at the very least dangerous and a sign of ignorance.
 
Trotsky said:
lol

Congrats on not watching cable news. I am glad to see that you are simply uninformed as opposed to being misinformed.



So you'd like to argue semantics to undermine actions towards indigenous people that are objectively atrocious? How else would you categorize the raping, enslaving, and mass execution of a people, given respite only when they were banished and marginalized from their homes and from resources. Hell, even Hitler acknowledged the extermination of the Native Americans as a remarkably efficient genocide. In three years alone, Columbus oversaw the death of 5 million indigenous Caribbeans and had countless mass executions by mass hangings and roasting of Natives.

In the century following European settlement, the Native population had been reduced by 80%, and now has been reduced by more than 95% from the original 12 million Native inhabitants. I don't know what else you would like to call it.
Click to expand...

Who is arguing semantics? Did I attempt to nit pick the language you used? I did not. I said I'd like to hear a greater fleshing out of your position. where were these "mass executions" you're talking about? That's the "fleshing out" of your position that I was referring to. Don't just make generic statements like that, actually explain what you're talking about.

Columbus oversaw the death of 5 million indigenous Caribbeans and had countless mass executions by mass hangings and roasting of Natives.
Click to expand...

LOL, I see we have another Howard Zinn acolyte who thinks he knows something about real history. That's what I figured was going on. Columbus never at anytime had anything more than 120 to 300 soldiers, maybe. On an island that at most had 60,000 Natives on it. So go ahead and explain to me how exactly the man was able to kill 5 million freaking people. Go ahead, I'll wait. (P.S., destroying Letist Howard Zinn bots like you on the subject of Columbus is one of my personal favorite past times.)


Yes, the Native population in the US was greatly reduced in the century following European arrival. That was in large part due to disease brought to the New World from Europe that killed Natives with zero immunities to them by the thousands and intermarrying with European settlers, even the most Liberal historians will tell you that.
 
MyOwnSummer12 said:
Why? Did you come to own your house by force?
Click to expand...

Threat of force, which is essentially the same. And so does everyone.

The primary reason that nobody has ever come along and killed me and taken my house is that, if they did, they would subsequently be shot or captured and placed in a cage by government employees, who only do that job because they are paid with tax money that you claim is immoral rape.
 
MyOwnSummer12 said:
Every gang rape is committed by a voting majority. Does that magically make it moral?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Not sure how this applies to our consent to taxation. Happy we don't live in a rape-based economy, I guess?
 
Sakuraba808 said:
Another lefty leaning BLM and illegal immigrant apologist being passed off as an "outsider". Eat a dick Gary Johnson, even this clown thinks Trump is RACIST waaaah waaah.
Click to expand...

Trump not racist? Not sure if serious..
 
How can I help this man get into the televised debates? I want it to be interesting. What can I do?
 
lfd0311 said:
Who is arguing semantics? Did I attempt to nit pick the language you used? I did not. I said I'd like to hear a greater fleshing out of your position. where were these "mass executions" you're talking about? That's the "fleshing out" of your position that I was referring to. Don't just make generic statements like that, actually explain what you're talking about.



LOL, I see we have another Howard Zinn acolyte who thinks he knows something about real history. That's what I figured was going on. Columbus never at anytime had anything more than 120 to 300 soldiers, maybe. On an island that at most had 60,000 Natives on it. So go ahead and explain to me how exactly the man was able to kill 5 million freaking people. Go ahead, I'll wait. (P.S., destroying Letist Howard Zinn bots like you on the subject of Columbus is one of my personal favorite past times.)


Yes, the Native population in the US was greatly reduced in the century following European arrival. That was in large part due to disease brought to the New World from Europe that killed Natives with zero immunities to them by the thousands and intermarrying with European settlers, even the most Liberal historians will tell you that.
Click to expand...

People like you are just plain pathetic. Excuses to justify horrific events.
 
I watched him on Maher's show and he's barely coherent. Don't see him doing very well in debates.
 
VulcanNervPinch said:
Threat of force, which is essentially the same. And so does everyone.

The primary reason that nobody has ever come along and killed me and taken my house is that, if they did, they would subsequently be shot or captured and placed in a cage by government employees, who only do that job because they are paid with tax money that you claim is immoral rape.
Click to expand...

Taking by force and keeping by force aren't viewed the same morally. If something is unclaimed and you claim it there is no force. If you've claimed it and someone wants to take it then which use of force is usually considered morally superior?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,046
Messages
58,410,473
Members
176,031
Latest member
Golden Rhino

Share this page

Back
Top