Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will vote for the first candidate that will cut military spending to match reality. Plus I'd like to see an actual world war sometime in my lifetime. Or a zombie apocalypse
Edit: also didn't think that many republicans knew how to use the Internet! :-D
See, we were having a nice conversation here. You may think they're harmless, but please keep these kind of remarks out of this thread.
The reason I LOVE the Libertarians is that they really are the best of both worlds - without the worst of each.
They believe in a level of limited government and fiscal restraint that would make even most Republicans look positively wasteful; they want the US out of foreign wars and to have a military for national defense as prescribed in the Constitution that can protect this country; they believe in self-reliance and responsibility, yet also believe that citizens should be able to enjoy certain recreational drugs or marry someone of the same gender if they choose, because the government shouldn't be that intrusive.
It all boils down to liberty - the only things/actions that should be illegal are things that infringe upon or take away the rights of others.
The reason I LOVE the Libertarians is that they really are the best of both worlds - without the worst of each.
They believe in a level of limited government and fiscal restraint that would make even most Republicans look positively wasteful; they want the US out of foreign wars and to have a military for national defense as prescribed in the Constitution that can protect this country; they believe in self-reliance and responsibility, yet also believe that citizens should be able to enjoy certain recreational drugs or marry someone of the same gender if they choose, because the government shouldn't be that intrusive.
It all boils down to liberty - the only things/actions that should be illegal are things that infringe upon or take away the rights of others.
Too bad Gary Johnson could not get any traction or the media attention he deserves.
Quote:
Unlike Ron Paul, who attracted widespread support as a Republican during the Republican presidential primaries, Johnson opted to run as a Libertarian candidate in election 2012. It is nearly impossible for third party candidates to be a serious contender for the presidency in American politics, but it is certainly possible (think Ralph Nader) for them to impact the outcome of the election and tip the balance in one candidate or another's favor. If the 2012 election is as close as polls suggest, than Johnson could indeed play the role of spoiler.
Johnson is pro-marijuana legalization, antiwar, and fights for civil liberties and limited government instrusion in Americans' private lives. The former governor of New Mexico could have the biggest impact in the state of Nevada, where Obama and Romney are tied, but he also could cut support for Romney in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, all important swing states in the election.
The Big Two really have too much control over things... A major third party has all the cards stacked against it, regardless of how extra-Constitutional the "mainstream" parties have become. This should be an AMERICAN process, not a Democratic or Republican one.
That is cool and all, but people have to LOOK for that.... The Libertarian party is probably the 3rd "major" party and is growing. Their message should have been part of the nationally-televised presidential debates.
The two candidates carry plenty of negative "baggage," yet they both offer positive ideas that could help citizens in different ways. One candidate seems to genuinely understand the importance of balancing a budget and limiting frivolous funding for special interest groups. Our nation is facing economic disaster unless we act quickly to restore financial sustainability. Higher taxes are not appealing (How many of us are eager to give away more wealth when we need it most?), but they are inevitable if we continue to purchase debt with diminishing credit.
I have to assume you are referring to Obama.
Cause...you can't cut taxes 20% for everybody, AND increase spending on the military, AND balance the budget. It's simple math.
Doing what Romney proposes leaves us trillions of dollars of more debt.
Trillions.
If people really think the deficit is the biggest issue facing our country. The issue that will be our national downfall. Then do the patriotic thing and pay up. Save the country. Pitch in.
We have a trillion dollar war we haven't paid for. Trillions in tax cuts during a war we haven't paid for. The highest tax bracket after WWII was 90%.
Ninety percent.
Yeah, paying more in taxes is unappealing, but there is no way to cut the deficit otherwise.
No way.
What Obama pushed for during his Presidency (The Grand Bargain) would have reduced our debt by trillions.
It was blocked by a Republican house.
The Republican House of Representatives blocked the largest debt reduction proposal of our lifetime.
Where was all this talk of doom and gloom over our debt when Bush created so much of it? Or when Reagan did it?
How come conservatives only have a debt issue when a Democrat is President? How come the debt will only end this country forever if the money is spent here, instead of abroad?
Cause...you can't cut taxes 20% for everybody, AND increase spending on the military, AND balance the budget. It's simple math.
Doing what Romney proposes leaves us trillions of dollars of more debt.
Trillions.
If people really think the deficit is the biggest issue facing our country. The issue that will be our national downfall. Then do the patriotic thing and pay up. Save the country. Pitch in.
We have a trillion dollar war we haven't paid for. Trillions in tax cuts during a war we haven't paid for. The highest tax bracket after WWII was 90%.
Ninety percent.
Yeah, paying more in taxes is unappealing, but there is no way to cut the deficit otherwise.
No way.
What Obama pushed for during his Presidency (The Grand Bargain) would have reduced our debt by trillions.
It was blocked by a Republican house.
The Republican House of Representatives blocked the largest debt reduction proposal of our lifetime.
Where was all this talk of doom and gloom over our debt when Bush created so much of it? Or when Reagan did it?
How come conservatives only have a debt issue when a Democrat is President? How come the debt will only end this country forever if the money is spent here, instead of abroad?
Obama had a super majority for 2 and a half years and couldn't, no, wouldn't, pass a budget.
Id like to know too...I believe the house and senate has to agree in order to get it done...and when has that happened?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may think they're harmless, but please keep these kind of remarks out of this thread. 
