The Official Gary Johnson Thread

[SilentSnow 1]

I think you need to start reading a source other than DNC press releases. Seriously. Nonsense. Liberals are getting exactly what they signed up for. Liberals want more government running more things. That's what they got with Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The only reason liberals claim it isn't what they wanted is the delusion that giving all this power to government will work out in their favor, this time for sure, despite a century of evidence otherwise. I can't tell if it's naivete or just ideological blindness that the liberals keep supporting the people who are actively working against their interest.If you ask for big government, you are going to get it, good and hard. Don't start whining after the fact that you didn't want THAT big government. When your rights go up for sale, they will go to the highest bidder. Either you support small government, or you support corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, and the trampling of your rights. Make up your mind, just don't whine when YOUR big government guys show their true colors.

The CBO is non-partisan and the most respected authority on budgetary issues. For you to think that the DNC is synonymous with liberals shows how completely clueless you are. Liberals have disagreed with most of what the DNC/Obama have done over the last decade. So we were supposed to be mind readers and figure out in advance that Obama was going to break most of his campaign promises? It doesn't take much mind reading ability to know that you have no interest in a reasonable discussion. You just want to get your Libertarian talking points in, bash everyone who doesn't agree and ignore the massive amounts of contrary evidence to your position. I'm sure your rant sounded good in your head but in the real world it is just crazy. The US is an extreme outlier when it comes to inequality, corporate influence over government and military spending. Nearly every rich country in the world has a "big government". Nearly every rich country in the world spends heavily on health care and social spending. There is no reason in the world to believe that the US is incapable of becoming more like every other rich country. To pretend that no types of government spending can be separated from each other is absolutely insane. No one believes this- not Republicans, not Democrats, not Liberals and not even most Libertarians.

[hblask 1]

The CBO is non-partisan and the most respected authority on budgetary issues. For you to think that the DNC is synonymous with liberals shows how completely clueless you are.

Please stop trolling.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Please stop trolling.

I think you meant to quote BG.

[Balloon guy 158]

. The US is an extreme outlier when it comes to inequality, corporate influence over government and military spending. Nearly every rich country in the world has a "big government". Nearly every rich country in the world spends heavily on health care and social spending. There is no reason in the world to believe that the US is incapable of becoming more like every other rich country. To pretend that no types of government spending can be separated from each other is absolutely insane. No one believes this- not Republicans, not Democrats, not Liberals and not even most Libertarians.

Part of me hopes that we divert the money we spend on the military to free healthcare for everyone in America, just so we can watch all the rest of the world's socialist countries collapse into bankruptcy and starvation on a massive level when they realizer that America isn't protecting their borders for them anymore.But then I remember that unlike liberals, I feel responsible for our actions and watching millions of people starve and die isn't an acceptable response to the idiots liberals who have absolutely no clue why socialism works anywhere else.Of course its possible that China and Russia will immediately de-arm once America does. Its also possible that Obama can not blow his re-election chances by running on hope and change again.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

qft.

Well, if there's one thing a lawyer would know about, it's all the ways to fluff up billable hours.

[SilentSnow 1]

Part of me hopes that we divert the money we spend on the military to free healthcare for everyone in America, just so we can watch all the rest of the world's socialist countries collapse into bankruptcy and starvation on a massive level when they realize that America isn't protecting their borders for them anymore.But then I remember that unlike liberals, I feel responsible for our actions and watching millions of people starve and die isn't an acceptable response to the idiots liberals who have absolutely no clue why socialism works anywhere else.Of course its possible that China and Russia will immediately de-arm once America does. Its also possible that Obama can not blow his re-election chances by running on hope and change again.

So you're suggesting that if we cut our military spending then China, France or Russia will try to take over the world? Seriously? I'll pretend for a second that you aren't just trolling even though it would be pretty embarrassing if you weren't. The US spends as much on the military as every other country put together. There is only one country in the world who has the military size to go around invading random countries. If we cut our military spending by 90% then maybe China would invade Taiwan, but even that is not too likely. If the large countries have learned anything whatsoever from the USSR and US they would know that large militaries are a huge waste and are most effective at bankrupting your country.

[Balloon guy 158]

So you're suggesting that if we cut our military spending then China, France or Russia will try to take over the world? Seriously? I'll pretend for a second that you aren't just trolling even though it would be pretty embarrassing if you weren't. The US spends as much on the military as every other country put together. There is only one country in the world who has the military size to go around invading random countries. If we cut our military spending by 90% then maybe China would invade Taiwan, but even that is not too likely. If the large countries have learned anything whatsoever from the USSR and US they would know that large militaries are a huge waste and are most effective at bankrupting your country.

Yea, I was kind of reaching...thinking that a strong nation would have any desires to take over a weaker neighbor.Or that any leader would want to expand his kingdom.I must be watching too much Hollywood. Or reading history books from the beginning of mankind ( 6,000 years )And you are right, screw Taiwan... No Blood for Soy..I am with you.Of course the fact that you lumped France in with any country remotely capable of waging war shows how little you understand the english language, logic, and history.

[SilentSnow 1]

Yea, I was kind of reaching...thinking that a strong nation would have any desires to take over a weaker neighbor.Or that any leader would want to expand his kingdom.I must be watching too much Hollywood. Or reading history books from the beginning of mankind ( 6,000 years )And you are right, screw Taiwan... No Blood for Soy..I am with you.Of course the fact that you lumped France in with any country remotely capable of waging war shows how little you understand the english language, logic, and history.

I put them there to help show how absurd your opinion is. France has the third largest military budget in the world.

[Balloon guy 158]

I put them there to help show how absurd your opinion is. France has the third largest military budget in the world.

Which means nothing when you realize that they are not capable of offensive operations, nor defensive.Of course that might be the history books talking.Or the CFR

To achieve this, resources are shifting away from French formations and weapons systems designed for the Cold War environment of state-to-state warfare. This means slimming down armored units, artillery, and infantry divisions, along with some elements of the French navy and air force designed primarily for defense against conventional attack. The decision on whether to construct a second nuclear aircraft carrier, for instance, has been put off for five years, while the construction of more nuclear submarines continues.The size of the uniformed component of the French army, now the largest in the European Union, is in line to drop by 24 percent over the next several years, a continuation of a trend which began at the end of the Cold War and picked up pace when France ended its national draft in 2001.Since 1989, according to Defense Ministry figures, the army has decreased from nearly 500,000 to just about 250,000 today (including reserves), and will fall to 225,000 under the new plan. The combat-ready force will shrink to 88,000. This force will be organized into smaller, more rapidly deployable ground units--again, a reform the U.S. and British militaries already have made. New investments are planned in human espionage efforts, spy satellites, and homeland security efforts. The "slimming" of the current force will also alleviate readiness and reliability problems, which have become serious. An internal defense document described appalling maintenance problems across all services in 2008.

Edit: This is no ways implies that the COS is not an effective and worthy fighting force, nor that their participation in any military activities would not be a plus.

[hblask 1]

So you're suggesting that if we cut our military spending then China, France or Russia will try to take over the world? Seriously?

Reading comprehension, FTL.You admit we spend more on defense than all other countries combined.Why do we do that, you might ask? The answer is to protect all those pussy socialist allies that are too busy giving their citizens third-rate health care to pay for their own defense.So yeah, if we made those countries pay their own way, they would collapse under their own corrupt system. I mean, they will anyway, but it would accelerate the process dramatically.But maybe you've never heard of the PIIGS problem. (Wouldn't surprise me).

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Reading comprehension, FTL.You admit we spend more on defense than all other countries combined.Why do we do that, you might ask? The answer is to protect all those pussy socialist allies that are too busy giving their citizens third-rate health care to pay for their own defense.So yeah, if we made those countries pay their own way, they would collapse under their own corrupt system. I mean, they will anyway, but it would accelerate the process dramatically.But maybe you've never heard of the PIIGS problem. (Wouldn't surprise me).

This is the biggest piece of bullshit that is spouted by right wing Americans ever.The reason the US spends so much money on defense in 98% internal so that the US can have their Empire and also because of the ingrained military-industrial complex that has to be continually fed.To equate it to other countries having sensible health care systems that spend less public money than the US system does is total crap and you have spouted that line multiple times and you are just so wrong.Yes the US is the World's Policeman but the reason is not to protect other countries and their LOL Socialism so much as to protect US interests around the World.

[akoff 0]

This is the biggest piece of bullshit that is spouted by right wing Americans ever.The reason the US spends so much money on defense in 98% internal so that the US can have their Empire and also because of the ingrained military-industrial complex that has to be continually fed.To equate it to other countries having sensible health care systems that spend less public money than the US system does is total crap and you have spouted that line multiple times and you are just so wrong.Yes the US is the World's Policeman but the reason is not to protect other countries and their LOL Socialism so much as to protect US interests around the World.

nice...seldom do you get angry Bob!! you should try it more often, you do it well. The truth lies somewhere in middle of course but that isn't important for this conversation...spew on!!

[FCP Bob 1,312]

nice...seldom do you get angry Bob!! you should try it more often, you do it well. The truth lies somewhere in middle of course but that isn't important for this conversation...spew on!!

Don't get me wrong. American Allies benefit from US Defense spending. For a country like Canada we benefit both from having an increased level of security and also we're able to get away with spending less money on defense. But the reason the US spends the money is almost purely out of American self interest and internal dynamics and if tomorrow the US cut their defense spending drastically it wouldn't mean that Canada would all of a sudden have to spend a lot more in today's World.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is the biggest piece of bullshit that is spouted by right wing Americans ever.The reason the US spends so much money on defense in 98% internal so that the US can have their Empire and also because of the ingrained military-industrial complex that has to be continually fed.To equate it to other countries having sensible health care systems that spend less public money than the US system does is total crap and you have spouted that line multiple times and you are just so wrong.Yes the US is the World's Policeman but the reason is not to protect other countries and their LOL Socialism so much as to protect US interests around the World.

Does America spend money so Canada can spend less on their military and more on health care? NODoes Canada spend less on military BECAUSE they are in the best neighborhood in the world? YESDoes this free up more money for their 'other' programs? YESIs health care one of their largest budgetary line items? YES ( have not looked, don't care)Would a complete collapse of America result in Canada having to pony up more money for national defense? YESDoes this equate 100 times more important when you border Russia/China/North Korea/any other country run by atheist? 100% YESWe pay out less than 5% of our GDP on military. For a multitude of reason.1. To help politicians get more campaign contributions from the mighty military manufacturing firms ( unlike Europe who doesn't have any influence from military manufacturing firms (cough AEDS cough))2. To maintain protection for our own borders3. Because wars are good for re-election campaigns in general. ( not for generals, in general...confusing, I know )4.Momentum, we've been doing this a long time, hard to change direction of this big of a ship.5.Because we learned a lesson from WW1 to WW2 and the problem with isolationismNot sure if we actually learned from #5, more that the republicans and the military hierarchy did, the dems have a convenient ability to forget recent history, or are just dumb with regards to peace through strengthSo saying this is the dumbest thing to say that our military spending helps other countries spend money on health care is kind of hyperbole.I think we say WAY dumber things than that, especially since it is defensible.

[Balloon guy 158]

Don't get me wrong. American Allies benefit from US Defense spending. For a country like Canada we benefit both from having an increased level of security and also we're able to get away with spending less money on defense. But the reason the US spends the money is almost purely out of American self interest and internal dynamics and if tomorrow the US cut their defense spending drastically it wouldn't mean that Canada would all of a sudden have to spend a lot more in today's World.

American self interest includes other countries being healthy and war free so they can buy and sell to help further our economy.So yes, it is in America's best interest for Canada to have a vibrant and healthy economy.But that 'almost purely self interested' motive is pretty nice for you guys too.

[SilentSnow 1]

Why do we do that, you might ask? The answer is to protect all those pussy socialist allies that are too busy giving their citizens third-rate health care to pay for their own defense.But maybe you've never heard of the PIIGS problem. (Wouldn't surprise me).

Not much I could add to that to make you look more absurd. Your quote stands on its own. Of all the things you could attempt to use for supporting evidence and you pick that? Oh the irony. Ireland says hi. You may know them as one of the top ranked countries on the Index of Economic Freedom and used in the recent past as an example of a libertarian success story.

[Balloon guy 158]

Let me see if I can explain this in a way Bob and other Canadians can understand.Let's say that you live in a nice house next to a really wealthy... Maple syrup magnate.Now one day a guy comes to your front door asking for a couple pounds of back bacon.You only want to give him a single pound, so that you can have a hearty breakfast because you have to shovel 4' of snow that fell last night during a hockey game.Your neighbor's Rottweilers come up to the fence and the start barking their heads of because they have not been allowed to kill anything for days.This frightens the guy off your porch, so he goes down the road to Middle Avenue East where they don't even have back bacon, but they do have lots of Leafs fans.So the question is, does the Rottweiler keeping Leaf's fans out of your neighborhood give you more back bacon to shovel snow with or not?

[Balloon guy 158]

Not much I could add to that to make you look more absurd. Your quote stands on its own. Of all the things you could attempt to use for supporting evidence and you pick that? Oh the irony. Ireland says hi. You may know them as one of the top ranked countries on the Index of Economic Freedom and used in the recent past as an example of a libertarian success story.

Stupid Henry, using data and opinions from leading world economist, international bond analysts and financial news organizations around the world.You showed him what for with your poll...done by a travel group!

[SilentSnow 1]

Stupid Henry, using data and opinions from leading world economist, international bond analysts and financial news organizations around the world.You showed him what for with your poll...done by a travel group!

Do you even know what the Index of Economic Freedom is? I'll give you a hint- it's pretty much the sole evidence that Henry used to "refute" all of my posts back in the Obama tracking thread. Are you trying to say that the Heritage Foundation is hopelessly biased and irrelevant?I can certainly agree with you there if that's what you are implying.

[Balloon guy 158]

Do you even know what the Index of Economic Freedom is? I'll give you a hint- it's pretty much the sole evidence that Henry used to "refute" all of my posts back in the Obama tracking thread. Are you trying to say that the Heritage Foundation is hopelessly biased and therefore irrelevant?I can certainly agree with you there if that's what you are implying.

Wait...so the source of your data validates the data?But Henry's source is irrelevant because you want to not like it?I'm confused..how do we determine truth again?Subjectively, or empirically?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Let me see if I can explain this in a way Bob and other Canadians can understand.Let's say that you live in a nice house next to a really wealthy... Maple syrup magnate.Now one day a guy comes to your front door asking for a couple pounds of back bacon.You only want to give him a single pound, so that you can have a hearty breakfast because you have to shovel 4' of snow that fell last night during a hockey game.Your neighbor's Rottweilers come up to the fence and the start barking their heads of because they have not been allowed to kill anything for days.This frightens the guy off your porch, so he goes down the road to Middle Avenue East where they don't even have back bacon, but they do have lots of Leafs fans.So the question is, does the Rottweiler keeping Leaf's fans out of your neighborhood give you more back bacon to shovel snow with or not?

So can we smother the Rottweiler in maple syrup while we eat it ?

[Balloon guy 158]

So can we smother the Rottweiler in maple syrup while we eat it ?

If it helps you digest it of course.Sure we are a world tyrant, but we're an agreeable world tyrant.

[SilentSnow 1]

a)Would a complete collapse of America result in Canada having to pony up more money for national defense? YESDoes this equate 100 times more important when you border Russia/China/North Korea/any other country run by atheist? 100% YESb)We pay out less than 5% of our GDP on military. For a multitude of reason.1. To help politicians get more campaign contributions from the mighty military manufacturing firms ( unlike Europe who doesn't have any influence from military manufacturing firms (cough AEDS cough))2. To maintain protection for our own borders3. Because wars are good for re-election campaigns in general. ( not for generals, in general...confusing, I know )4.Momentum, we've been doing this a long time, hard to change direction of this big of a ship.5.Because we learned a lesson from WW1 to WW2 and the problem with isolationism6.Not sure if we actually learned from #5, more that the republicans and the military hierarchy did, the dems have a convenient ability to forget recent history, or are just dumb with regards to peace through strength7.So saying this is the dumbest thing to say that our military spending helps other countries spend money on health care is kind of hyperbole.I think we say WAY dumber things than that, especially since it is defensible.

a.Despite what you think this is pretty unlikely. If there is one lesson to learn from the 20th century it's how expensive and unprofitable military invasions are. The USSR couldn't defeat Afghanistan. How much worse would today's much smaller Russian military do against Canada? Even if a country was mostly defenseless, let's not forget the profitability factor. There are very few countries like Kuwait that would have enough resources to be worth the bother to invade. b.Put that way it seems small. But 5% of a massive number is still a massive amount. Our debt currently is around 14 trillion. We have spent about that much in defense over the last 60 years. Don't forget the trillions in interest that defense spending also cost us. 1-4. Well at least you are willing to partially admit the truth. 2 would be more accurate if you pointed out that our borders could easily be defended with 10% of the current spending. But you left out a couple other primary reasons.-Many Americans are easily fooled by propaganda, and no one seems to be able to effectively propagandize better than the military industrial complex. -Most Americans wildly overestimate the benefits of our global empire and hugely underestimate the costs. 5.Unfortunately we haven't learned a lesson about the futility of largescale military invasions from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, this argument is extremely misleading based on past history. We were able to scale up our military very quickly for WW2. If a global threat ever emerged we could do this again. 6.It's precisely because I remember history that I am so opposed to our militaristic culture. History has countless stories of countries that overreached militarily and then collapsed/were defeated. The US seems determined to go down the same path. 7.You haven't even begun to make a reasonable case that some other country would try to take over the world if the US cut their military spending to sane levels.

[digitalmonkey 929]

LOL @ those suggesting USA actions are anything other than self-serving.The superpower lacks a superego.

[hblask 1]

For a country like Canada we benefit both from having an increased level of security and also we're able to get away with spending less money on defense.

This is what I said that you called bullshit. I'm confused.....