lets put an end to the strangle hold ....

[MasterOfPuppets]

that the 2 party system has on this country !!!



lets get a 3rd choice now !!!

[YOUTUBE]AqtfyaWgW74 [/YOUTUBE]

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front

just 5% ends the 2 party system FOREVER !!!

[MasterOfPuppets]

so tony..what do you know of this guy ? your former govna...

[tony hipchest]

this is what i posted to SCMom a few weeks back-

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

i voted for him twice as republican governor and many people (including myself) were bummed there were term limits and he couldnt run again. i am more than pleased to be voting for him again this election.

when i first voted for him i barely knew nothing about him. alot of people didnt as he was new to the political arena. my car broke down late on a friday evening in the middle of nowhere on the way home from albuquerque. lucky i was near a small town and able to pull off the highway to a convinience store.

i waited till i saw a construction worker in his work truck. i dont know shit about cars and saw he had a ton of tools. i asked him if he could check it out and help me. he said he would but i would owe him a favor. the problem was relatively minor and he was able to get me back on the road. very grateful i asked what i owed him.

he said "you have to vote for my boss for the governor of new mexico. he owns this construction company" as he pointed to his truck. "he is a grat boss, a great family man, and a great person. you will not regret your vote".

as a registered democrat, i might of just voted for the incumbent, but my word is my word. plus i was really impressed with the man who would do me such a huge favor and all he wanted in return was to help his business man boss.

johnson turned his handyman side jobs in college into one of the largest construction companies in new mexico. this man revered his boss like they were a small business with 10 employees.

i may not agree'd every bit with his republican platform, but he wasnt your typical republican. i guess he's kind of seen as a little radical. he is very socially liberal which is important to me. the biggest thing is he was a great people person. he was in touch with the state he was governing and the problems it faced.

he was the type of leader who even if you didnt agree with 100% you could get behind them and feel comfortable giving your support.

heres a nice synopsis from wiki-

In an interview in Reason magazine in January 2001, Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills."[23] Andrew Sullivan quoted a claim that Johnson "is highly regarded in the state for his outstanding leadership during two terms as governor. He slashed the size of state government during his term and left the state with a large budget surplus."[36] According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."[37] The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."[25] According to a profile of Johnson in the National Review, "During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined—750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times. He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico's budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico's government in half."[38] Johnson has "said his numerous vetoes, only two of which were overridden, stemmed from his philosophy of looking at all things for their cost–benefit ratio and his axe fell on Republicans as well as Democrats."[20] Johnson was term limited and could not run for a third consecutive term as governor in 2002.[39] In the 2008 presidential election campaign, Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination.[40] Johnson serves on the Advisory Council of Students for Sensible Drug Policy,[41] a student nonprofit organization that believes that the war on drugs needs to be reevaluated. As of April 2011[update], he serves on the board of directors of Students For Liberty, a nonprofit libertarian organization.[42]

i find him to be very likable. kinda dorky or geeky, but i dont think anyone could honestly call him shady or a shiester.

hes deinitely not a "smooth talker" and i mean that in a good way. pardon teh western expressions but he shoots from the hip and is a straight shooter.

he was an advocate of legalization of drugs when he knew it would probably destroy his political career. he doesnt (and didnt) back down from his convictions.

[steelax04]

Been touting this guy on my Facebook for a while... He's got my vote, for sure.

[MasterOfPuppets]

i never heard the guys name until a few days ago....
the corporate owned media protects their investments (politicians) very well.

i've been reading up on him and watching his speeches on youtube. he's pretty much in sync with ron paul , policy and voting wise.
end the wars , remove troops from other countries , end the fed , do away with the irs ,
end the war on drugs...etc
all stuff that makes sense to me...
the problem is , despite the fact that he wants to address all the things common folk should be on board with , the sheeple STILL will stick with the two parties that are destroying this country....
people think that they are "throwing away their vote" , voting for a 3rd party .... i think voting in the same old corrupt scumbags just with a different name is not only throwing away your vote , your also enabling the scumbags who are destroying the country.
i hear people (myself included) bitching that all you can do is try to pick the "lesser" of the 2 evils (vinny included) , so put up or shut up at the polls...vote for the 3rd option and send a message to the other 2 ...

just 5% could change things forever !!!

[ricardisimo]

Don't forget Rocky Anderson and the Jill Stein. There are numerous good candidates, just not in either major party.

[Vincent]

This presidential election is no different than any of the other 10 that I've voted in, in that it presents us with a very poor choice between evil and less evil.... Except that one could make the argument that its the most important in history.

The interests of the citizens would be better served if Gubnor Johnson's views were included.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine..._up_there.html

If Gary Johnson were up there on the podium we might have a real debate
Published: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 12:34 PM
Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

Over at Taki's blog, Jersey's own Andrew Napolitano has a piece arguing that Gary Johnson should be included in the presidential debates.

That would certainly liven things up.

As I noted in my Thursday column, there are major areas of policy that don't even arise in these debates.

For example, a recent Brookings Poll showed just 22 percent of Americans support arming the Syrian rebels.

Yet the Romney-Ryan ticket is advocating doing just that.

And the Obama-Biden ticket isn't putting up much of an argument against it.

Imagine if Johnson were up there arguing that we should just stop meddling in the Mideast, period. The other two would be tripping over their tongues trying to make a case for why we should stay.

And then there's the economy. Both parties plan debt to the horizon.

Here's what Napolitano has to say on that topic:

Why does the federal government now spend half a trillion a year in debt service? Because every president, Republicans as well as Democrats, from FDR to Obama has borrowed money in order to spend more than he collected and has let future generations deal with repaying the debt. Because the feds do not repay (they merely roll over) their debt, the cost of interest payments has skyrocketed. Romney’s ability to articulate the virtues of the free market and to dance around the issue of debt, while the president nearly fell asleep, are the reasons he did so well in the presidential debate last week.

Exactly. And he wouldn't have done well at all if Johnson had been raising the question Jim Lehrer wouldn't:

Just how long do you plan to continue deficit spending? The Ryan plan calls for more than 20 years of unbalanced budgets. Let Romney defend that.

He doesn't want to. That's why the Republicans are fighting so hard to keep Johnson off the ticket in key states. Fortunately they're failing. Here's a recent release from the Johnson campaign:

Republican President candidate Mitt Romney has likely lost his last hope for a victory in the electoral-rich state of Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge James G. Colins ruled late today that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania has filed nominating petitions containing more than the required 20,601 valid signatures and that the entire slate of statewide Libertarian candidates will remain on the November 6 general election ballot, including Libertarians two-term Governor Gary Johnson for President and Judge Jim Gray for Vice President.

The ruling was a stinging defeat for Republicans who waged a grueling and expensive 9-week battle to force their Libertarian Party competition off the November ballot.

Governor Johnson said, “It is a travesty of the democratic process that Libertarians were required to endure such a drawn-out, expensive and unnecessary attack on their right to be on the ballot. Voters in every state deserve real choices in this election, and it is clear that the Republican Party, not only in Pennsylvania, but in key states across the country, will go to any lengths to keep liberty, nonintervention and smaller government off the ballot.”

That certainly points to the value of Napolitano's conclusion:

Obama is either a Marxist who doesn’t believe in personal freedom or private property, or a nihilist who doesn’t believe in anything except his own ability to exercise governmental power. Romney sounds like another big-government Republican who wants to regulate part of the economy, fight wars on a credit card and let your grandchildren pay for it.

If you want a real debate—one that will explore the proper constitutional role of the federal government in our lives before it gets so big that we cannot safely challenge it—you will be disappointed, unless Gary Johnson is let in

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

just 5% ends the 2 party system FOREVER !!!

My belief is that Romney will win. My hope is that it will be by enough that that 5% is accommodated because it would be a mandate to pay attention and include, and set the stage to change the landscape.

There is a significant number among the electorate that approach these reality shows with the resignation that a vote for one is a vote against the other. There isn't conviction for either side. That is probably most the case on the R side. I think that a strong showing by a Gubnor Johnson would encourage a lot more on that side to vote their real position.

Me personally? This election is too important to not vote against the stalinist rat bastard.

[Vis]

The 2 party system doesn't end unless you change the constitution. It's the inevitable result of winner takes all elections and the way congress is elected and structured.. To have more than 2 parties you need proportionate representation found in parliamentary systems.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Vincent

This presidential election is no different than any of the other 10 that I've voted in, in that it presents us with a very poor choice between evil and less evil.... Except that one could make the argument that its the most important in history.

OK - I will take the bait - please make the argument this election is more important than the ... ummm ... 1860 election

If Mitt was an agent of bold change he would not have morphed into Mitt the Moderate during the first debate

Bottom line is both parties are owned by the interests that drove the economy off the cliff in 2008 and you are not going to get significant change until those circumstances change

There is an instructive column in today's New York Times regarding the new book by the former FDIC chairman that illustrates how Bush's Treasury Secretary and Obama's future Treasury Secretary (and arguably his worst appointment) knew who their real bosses were

It has become almost unpatriotic to question the many and munificent bank rescues of 2008 and beyond. If you have the temerity to do so, you’re likely to hear that the bailouts were the only thing standing between us and financial obliteration. You will also be told that, four years on, many of the bailouts have made money. ...

But Sheila C. Bair, former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, is well positioned to question the dogma of the bailout brigade. And she does so repeatedly in “Bull by the Horns,” her new book about the crisis. As one of the main participants in the battles surrounding the rescues, and perhaps the coolest head in attendance, Ms. Bair provides some straight talk that represents an important piece of history and a rebuttal to the conventional wisdom.

As described by Ms. Bair, the events of the fall of 2008 showed that many financial regulators were desperate to make anyone but those who created the crisis pay for its devastation. ...

But perhaps the most telling anecdote is from early October 2008, when Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, summoned Ms. Bair to his office. No reason was given for the meeting. When she arrived, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, was already there. Timothy F. Geithner, then the president of the New York Fed, was on the phone.

Handed a piece of paper, Ms. Bair saw that she had been ambushed. It was a script, prepared for her by the Treasury and the Fed, stating that the F.D.I.C. was moving to guarantee all the liabilities in the financial system. Astonishingly, the guarantee would cover all bank depositors and even protect unsecured claims against institutions. In short, the F.D.I.C. was being asked to back “everybody against everything in the $13 trillion banking system,” Ms. Bair writes.

Dumbfounded, she told the men she had to discuss the plan with the F.D.I.C. board. Over a few days, they came up with a better, less costly plan.

If she had gone along, Ms. Bair said in an interview last week, “everyone who held bank debt would have immediately gotten a windfall profit,” as their bonds and other bank securities rose in value on the F.D.I.C. backing. “Of course, I wasn’t going to do that,” she adds, “and we ended up with a program that only guaranteed the renewal of expiring debt, which is where the problem was. And we charged a fee.”

Ms. Bair didn’t know it at the time, but this was the first of many situations when the Treasury and the Fed hoped to leave the F.D.I.C. holding the bag

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/bu...l?ref=business

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

Gore Vidal - Matters of Fact and of Fiction: Essays 1973-1976

http://www.qotd.org/search/search.html?aid=2646&page=6