Bleeding Heart Libertarian

Why is this guy "unelectable"? It is insane.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...source=twitter

I found out last election anyone is electable after stating otherwise 100 times or more ..

but to make a side point, if GJ had the campaign $ and super PAC's behind him the Romneys in this world have, his presence and more importantly his platform would be faaaaaaaaar better known and increase his chances X $700 million or so ....

Johnson’s utopian approach to foreign policy is completely unrealistic. It would give rise to even greater problems (economic, political and military) for the U.S. in the foreign arena. “Avoiding foreign entanglements” isn’t the passive activity most liberals and libertarians imagine it to be.

Actually if you examine history opposite is true. Our involvement has caused a lot more problems than solved. Read that book Blowback and watch the videos 'dying to win' on youtube.

Actually if you examine history opposite is true. Our involvement has caused a lot more problems than solved. Read that book Blowback and watch the videos 'dying to win' on youtube. Originally Posted by bmrdriver

Study the origins of WWI, WWII and Korea. You'll discover the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum and pacifism doesn't work.

I don't think Libertarians are against all wars. I think we would have opposed Hitler. It's all these stupid mini-wars that are started to profit the defense machine we oppose.

Why is this guy "unelectable"? It is insane.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...source=twitter Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Good candidates routinely fail because MOST VOTERS ARE IDIOTS. I'm guessing your question is rhetorical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyA1JKg4ias

I don't think Libertarians are against all wars. I think we would have opposed Hitler. It's all these stupid mini-wars that are started to profit the defense machine we oppose. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Which of the following would you not define as a mini-war? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria? The Japanese invasion of Indochina? What about when Italy invaded Ethiopia, Albania and Greece? But then there were the Nazis. Remember when Germany marched into Austria, the Sudentenland and the Saarland? Wasn’t the German invasion of Poland a “mini-war”? It didn’t last long, and surely the U.S. had no interests in Poland. When Germany invaded France, it was another short, “mini-war”. Wasn’t it a “mini-war” of sorts when Germany bombed England? What about the German invasion of the Soviet Union?

In each of the instances listed above, the official U.S. position was not to get involved in those “mini-wars” – and, in the long run, that pacifism didn’t work.

Study the origins of WWI, WWII and Korea. You'll discover the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum and pacifism doesn't work. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hey there is a thought out there that we should not have entered any of those wars. and would be way better off had we not.

We have never tried true pacifism. In fact we are behind the scenes working one side or the other in all the places you have mentioned. Your portrayal of pacifism is more like limited engagement. Again, I doubt we have ever really practiced true pacifism.

Hey there is a thought out there that we should not have entered any of those wars. and would be way better off had we not. Originally Posted by WTF

Lest you forget: U.S. entry into WWII was brought about by Japan's attack against the U.S. and Hitler declared war on the U.S. a few days later. U.S. entry into WWI was brought about not only by Germany's unrestrained use of U-Boats, but also by Germany's petitioning Mexico to start the U.S.along its southern boarder. Finally, North Korea attacked U.S. forces even as the U.S. was withdrawing forces from the region.

We have never tried true pacifism. In fact we are behind the scenes working one side or the other in all the places you have mentioned. Originally Posted by WTF

What you claim to be "working one side or the other" is also known as "commercial trade". Please describe how the U.S. can shun the entanglements of world trade and continue to exist as an independent, modern state.

Lest you forget: U.S. entry into WWII was brought about by Japan's attack against the U.S. and Hitler declared war on the U.S. a few days later. U.S. entry into WWI was brought about not only by Germany's unrestrained use of U-Boats, but also by Germany's petitioning Mexico to start the U.S.along its southern boarder. Finally, North Korea attacked U.S. forces even as the U.S. was withdrawing forces from the region. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Lest you forget , Japan did not just attack us for no God Damn reason. If I hit you in the nose and you hit me back in the nuts, just who started what? War is a transfer of wealth from millions of taxpayers to a select few industries. That is a fact. We can argue all day if it is/was needed but it is hard to argue that our pacifism was a cause of any of these wars. If there are resources to be had, this country is not pacifist in going about getting them. I would hardly call the CIA a pacifist organisation.

http://www.amazon.com/The-final-secr.../dp/B0006ATV54

In "The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor:The Washington Contribution To The Japanese Attack" 1954 by Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, we have incontrovertible facts that the highest office in the land (President Roosevelt) knew about the impending attack and did nothing to prevent the deaths of 3,303 lives and 1,272 wounded! Why? This book was written by someone who was not only in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack, but was a high ranking officer of the U.S.N. In 1941 the U.S. was still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression and the average American (remember the country then was still primarily Anglo-Saxon), was not interested in getting involved in another overseas war (the sense of isolationism and avoiding the problems of the outside world were very real back then). Especially after the bitter experience of WWI 1914-1918 (the U.S. entered that war in 1917, after much coaxing and propaganda from the government). However, Wall Street and the bankers that really own this country saw it differently! So to that end Roosevelt and Churchill (as agents of the Anglo-American Empire), fought tooth and nail to get the U.S. officially involved in WWII. Since Germany wanted to avoid at all costs any conflict with the U.S. (the U.S. consistently provoked Germany with acts of war, eg. - the U.S. sank German merchant vessels in the north Atlantic, and was aiding Great Britain and Russia), the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands, conspired to get Japan to declare war on the U.S. (by freezing Japanese assets and a complete and total economic encirclement by July and August 1941). They also made unattainable demands of Japan (her complete withdrawal from Indo-China and Southeast Asia). They kept vital 'magic' (decoded Japanese messages), from the Naval and Army High Command in Hawaii. But thanks to the Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, Japan), any war between the U.S. and Japan, meant war with the Axis Powers! Now here some may say, well if we didn't get involved in WWII, Germany would have won and conquered the world! Wrong!! Millions of lives would have been spared, and instead the U.S. could have supported the underground democratic movement in Germany (the majority of Germans were not the crazed Nazis that Hollywood and the media would like you to believe) that would have eventually toppled Hitler from power. Most people are not aware of the fact that wars are caused by those who profit from them (bankers and their recipient clients). Germany was broke, this war could have been avoided! The U.S. and the European powers knew about the camps as early as 1935 (the Nuremberg laws), and what this meant for the Jewish people and others. But this intelligence was kept secret or ignored. Why? Q: Why didn't the U.S. and Great Britain do anything about what they knew then? Why did they give Germany more time to build-up their armaments program?

What you claim to be "working one side or the other" is also known as "commercial trade". Please describe how the U.S. can shun the entanglements of world trade and continue to exist as an independent, modern state. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And "commercial trade" benifits who the most? I would say oil companies at that time and poorer countries at present (while still benifiting the oil industry and our multinationals) . It has lowered the wages in this country while raising wages in poorer countries. There has been a huge shift in income disparity in this country, a long term horrific thing for a nation. It leads to exactly what we have now, Crony Capitalism.

So while you may prefer a more limited peek at history, I like to pull back to a much more broader version.

Lest you forget , Japan did not just attack us for no God Damn reason. If I hit you in the nose and you hit me back in the nuts, just who started what? War is a transfer of wealth from millions of taxpayers to a select few industries. That is a fact. We can argue all day if it is/was needed but it is hard to argue that our pacifism was a cause of any of these wars. If there are resources to be had, this country is not pacifist in going about getting them. I would hardly call the CIA a pacifist organisation. Originally Posted by WTF

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931; FDR was elected in 1932 and Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. Yeah, those two conspired conspired to make Japan "look like" the aggressor.

And "commercial trade" benifits who the most? I would say oil companies at that time and poorer countries at present (while still benifiting the oil industry and our multinationals) . It has lowered the wages in this country while raising wages in poorer countries. There has been a huge shift in income disparity in this country, a long term horrific thing for a nation. It leads to exactly what we have now, Crony Capitalism.

So while you may prefer a more limited peek at history, I like to pull back to a much more broader version. Originally Posted by WTF

You didn't explain how the U.S. can shun the entanglements of world trade and continue to exist as an independent, modern state.

Which of the following would you not define as a mini-war? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria? The Japanese invasion of Indochina? What about when Italy invaded Ethiopia, Albania and Greece? But then there were the Nazis. Remember when Germany marched into Austria, the Sudentenland and the Saarland? Wasn’t the German invasion of Poland a “mini-war”? It didn’t last long, and surely the U.S. had no interests in Poland. When Germany invaded France, it was another short, “mini-war”. Wasn’t it a “mini-war” of sorts when Germany bombed England? What about the German invasion of the Soviet Union?

In each of the instances listed above, the official U.S. position was not to get involved in those “mini-wars” – and, in the long run, that pacifism didn’t work. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

that wasn't pacifism.. that was isolationism.

the major power at the time dealing with all this was Great Britain. this was thier problem, not the U.S. and the U.S wasn't even a major power during this period. The U.S. was a Navy power and that was about it.

Should we have gotten involved some of these european/african conflicts? absolutely not. It wasn't our fight to begin with.

Heck, FDR did some stupid things like starting a secret naval war against the german navy as that would provoke germany to declare war against U.S. that policy didn't work.

oh btw, we did get involved with china before the war by using the Flying Tigers as a proxy air force piloted by americans in P-40's.

I wouldn't call this Pacifism by any stretch of any ones imagination.

Somebody needs to take Gary Johnson out back and beat the crap out of him. Sorry ass piece of shit knows he can cost Romney the Electorial College but he still insist on running is ill advised dipshit "look at me" campain.

And I feel the same way about any dumbass dipshit moron who would vote for him and help re elect President Obama.

And I feel the same way about any dumbass dipshit moron who would vote for him and help re elect President Obama. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I feel ya 'bro. It's the same way i feel about the dumbass dipshit morons who would vote for Mitt Romney.