> Terrible.

Not...

Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those looking
for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
period, whether Citizens or not.

I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...

> Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> Border Security and Immigration Reform

<snip>

Lol!!!!!!!!

If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul, then
obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician running
is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open borders...

Charles

I heard that you can register " Decline to State "
and can thus vote for whomeever.

Not sure if thats true in all states.

-T

-----------------


>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "James Sulinski"
> <b1ueemu@> wrote:
> >
> > Many, if not most, of us do support him. He also has a great deal of
> support
> > from the Republican Liberty Caucus in New Hampshire.
> >
> > He has also directly supported the FSP, speaking for at least one
of our
> > functions.
>
> I would cheerfully vote for him, but I doubt that I'll have the
> opportunity.  No way this side of hell would I declare myself a
> republican even temporarily, so they won't let me have a primary
> ballot, and if he somehow got the republican nomination I suspect he'd
> have an "accident" sometime before November.
>

New Hampshire's GOP
Challenge<http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1655767,00.html?xid=s\
ite-cnn-partner>

"Senator, I'm a dying breed, I'm a moderate Republican," Bob Warren, a
59-year-old insurance executive, of Bedford, New Hampshire said by way of
introduction to Senator Barack Obama at a small campaign gathering in town
earlier this week.

"There's just not that many of you left," Obama, the Illinois Democrat, said
drawing a laugh out of the crowd. "You might as well call yourself an
Independent."

"Well, I'm moving in that direction," he replied.

Warren's presence at Obama's event may have been good news for Democrats and
Obama in particular, but it also underlines a real problem for the GOP. As
candidates for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination try to prove
their conservative credentials and set their sights on the Granite State,
they are increasingly out of step with the voters who will decide the
coveted first-in-the-nation primary next January. A growing number of New
Hampshire Republicans are fiscal conservatives who are leery of the social
conservative arm of the party that they feel have steered the leadership
away from the GOP's roots in recent years. New Hampshire recently voted —
without too much drama — to allow gay civil unions. It's also one of the
most liberal states on abortion issues, perhaps a reflection of its
libertarian heritage, and has a growing high-tech economy that has brought
in more moderate or liberal-leaning voters from neighboring states like
Massachusetts. "One of the reasons that you're not seeing conservative
candidates doing well in our polling is that there's no one here to talk
to," said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey
Center . "New Hampshire has very low rates of church attendance."

All of which means candidates vying for the conservative mantle, such as
Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee or unofficial candidate former Tennessee
Senator Fred Thompson, could face an especially uphill battle there. "The
more conservative candidates are going to have a difficult time in New
Hampshire," said Smith. "In five to 10 years New Hampshire will be a
consistently Democratic state. It's already kind of that way."

The numbers certainly bear that out. Until 2000 the state was majority
registered Republican, but it's now 44% undeclared, 30% Republican and 26%
Democrat. In the 2006 elections, the GOP lost 91 state legislature seats,
six of their 16 state senate seats and both their congressional seats; no
wonder Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party called
it, a "tsunami." For the first time in more than a century the Democrats now
control all levels of New Hampshire government: both chambers of the
legislature and the governor's house. While Cullen stresses that tsunamis
recede — as recently as 2002 Republicans controlled the legislature, the
governor's House and the entire U.S. Congressional delegation — he
acknowledges the party needs to revitalize its approach. "The old Republican
campaign strategy — run as a Republican and turn out your base to get
elected — no longer holds. You have to be talking to voters about issues
rather than just appealing to partisanship."

That's not something a candidate like Mike Huckabee necessarily excels at.
The same afternoon as the Obama event, 18 miles away Huckabee was speaking
to a Rotary Club gathering at the Nashua Country Club. During the question
and answer session, Jim McCormick, a semi-retired consultant from Nashua,
challenged Huckabee on his stance on whether creationism should be taught at
schools.

"The President doesn't write eighth grade science books," Huckabee joked,
though it fell flat with the audience of about 100. The former Baptist
minister then took a different tack: "Look, I wasn't there when the world
was started. But I do know that however it was started God was behind it."

All McCormick, an independent voter who is candidate shopping for 2008,
heard was "heartless pandering to the religious right. It really is very
dangerous for a national leader to take chances like that, that is so out of
step with the sciences. In what other matter will religion count?"

The tough grilling didn't seem to discourage Huckabee who, in an interview
in the club's driveway, argued that he can appeal to New Hampshire voters.
Riding high after a surprisingly strong second-place showing at the Ames
Straw Poll in Iowa, Huckabee is trying to build momentum and even drawing
comparisons with Pat Buchanan's populist run in 1992. He pointed to his
popularity in Arkansas, a state that's 62% registered Democrat — though it
has voted twice for Bush. When asked if he might skip New Hampshire to focus
on more conservative states like Iowa and South Carolina, as suggested by my
colleague Joe Klein, Huckabee bristled. "Joe would be shocked at the kind of
response we're getting here. I fully expect that our campaign will do well
enough to win New Hampshire; I realize that's a bold, outlandish thing to
say, but I wouldn't bet against me out here," Huckabee said.

Despite his optimism, Huckabee is barely registering in recent UNH polls,
which have the two most moderate candidates, Romney and Giuliani, leading
Thompson and McCain. Much of the focus in the national Republican race, of
course, has been on the two vying frontrunners, but it's been primarily
concerned with whether they can convince the party's faithful that they are
true believers. But it was after watching the Republican debates — so
focused on social issues and light on policy — that Warren, who has never
voted for a Democrat, decided to check out Obama. Though he's not ready to
switch his party registration, he is considering voting for a Democrat.

"I'm one of these cynical people who, over the last 20 years, have become
cynical about politics and politicians and the ability of the federal
government to get anything done," Warren told Obama at the house party. "I
want to be inspired, can you inspire me?"

Warren left only half satisfied. "He's close, but he's not there yet," he
said. He plans on looking at the GOP candidates in the field before making
his final decision, but none of them light a fire under him the way Obama
does and he's already ruled out Huckabee and Thompson as too conservative.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting because they somehow forgot to mention Ron Paul. Clearly
designed to hit the Republicans rather than promote the solution.

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "James Sulinski"
<b1ueemu@...> wrote:
>
> New Hampshire's GOP
>
Challenge<http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1655767,00.html?xid=s\
ite-cnn-partner>
>
> "Senator, I'm a dying breed, I'm a moderate Republican," Bob Warren, a
> 59-year-old insurance executive, of Bedford, New Hampshire said by
way of
> introduction to Senator Barack Obama at a small campaign gathering
in town
> earlier this week.

The FSP wants to buy some bookmarks to help out with
recruiting efforts.

Can you help?

http://thefreestateproject.chipin.com/fsp-bookmarks-fund


It is time for a new direction:
www.ronpaulhq.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

Sure! How much do you want?  --Tim Condon



On 8/26/07, Chris Lawless <dreepa@...> wrote:
>
> The FSP wants to buy some bookmarks to help out with
> recruiting efforts.
>
> Can you help?
>
> http://thefreestateproject.chipin.com/fsp-bookmarks-fund
>
>
> It is time for a new direction:
> www.ronpaulhq.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who
> knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
anti-liberty and very scary.

In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
(albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:

Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
government interfere with the exercise of these rights?

Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."

He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.

BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
equally appalling views.

US Taino


--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
wrote:
>
> > Terrible.
>
> Not...
>
> Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
> experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
looking
> for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
> period, whether Citizens or not.
>
> I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
> full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
> ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
> amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
> to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
>
> > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> > Border Security and Immigration Reform
>
> <snip>
>
> Lol!!!!!!!!
>
> If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
then
> obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
running
> is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
borders...
>
> Charles
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a fence, but,
at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as such. There is a legal
method of immigration to the United States, and while it might be less than
ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It simply needs to be changed.

Remember, the Free State Project should not be considered 'libertarian', but
rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades, and many participants embody
them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade (albeit not a direct participant
of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%, can you really expect to?
He's at least around 90-95%, which is much better than any other
presidential candidate, and well within qualification for active support, in
my eyes.

Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue' participants.
While I can understand that this is what appeals to you most, you should
also recognize how inter-connected these issues are, and most do. A step
toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is nonetheless a step toward
liberty. This is why many of us support Ron Paul.

James

On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@...> wrote:
>
>
> I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
> notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
> of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> anti-liberty and very scary.
>
> In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
> (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:
>
> Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
> wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
> government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
>
> Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
> that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
> philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
>
> He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
>
> BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> equally appalling views.
>
> US Taino
>
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Terrible.
> >
> > Not...
> >
> > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
> > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
> looking
> > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
> > period, whether Citizens or not.
> >
> > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
> > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
> > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
> > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
> > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
> >
> > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Lol!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
> then
> > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
> running
> > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
> borders...
> >
> > Charles
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well being one of the first half dozen or so folks who moved to NH I don't
find
it curious at all tht we support Ron Paul and are actively working on his
campaign

I don't claim any of those titles, just know that we need to work to promote
freedom.  Titles put us in a box.  I'm not into boxes!

Truth is I'm pretty much into what Dr Paul has to say 100%, so call me what
you may!

Dave

On 8/27/07, James Sulinski <b1ueemu@...> wrote:
>
>   I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a fence,
> but,
> at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as such. There is a
> legal
> method of immigration to the United States, and while it might be less
> than
> ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It simply needs to be changed.
>
> Remember, the Free State Project should not be considered 'libertarian',
> but
> rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades, and many participants embody
> them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade (albeit not a direct participant
> of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%, can you really expect to?
> He's at least around 90-95%, which is much better than any other
> presidential candidate, and well within qualification for active support,
> in
> my eyes.
>
> Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue'
> participants.
> While I can understand that this is what appeals to you most, you should
> also recognize how inter-connected these issues are, and most do. A step
> toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is nonetheless a step
> toward
> liberty. This is why many of us support Ron Paul.
>
> James
>
> On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@... <tainohome%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
> > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
> > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> > anti-liberty and very scary.
> >
> > In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
> > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:
> >
> > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
> > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
> > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
> >
> > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
> > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
> > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
> >
> > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
> >
> > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> > equally appalling views.
> >
> > US Taino
> >
> >
> > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Terrible.
> > >
> > > Not...
> > >
> > > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
> > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
> > looking
> > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
> > > period, whether Citizens or not.
> > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
> > > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
> > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
> > > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
> > > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
> > >
> > > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Lol!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
> > then
> > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
> > running
> > > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
> > borders...
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree, this is just a hit piece on conservatives, and as for the Ron
Paul victimology, they didn't mention a lot of candidates, and in a
hit piece on conservatives, mentioning Ron Paul doesn't make much sense.



--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <simplulo@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting because they somehow forgot to mention Ron Paul. Clearly
> designed to hit the Republicans rather than promote the solution.
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "James Sulinski"
> <b1ueemu@> wrote:
> >
> > New Hampshire's GOP
> >
>
Challenge<http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1655767,00.html?xid=s\
ite-cnn-partner>
> >
> > "Senator, I'm a dying breed, I'm a moderate Republican," Bob Warren, a
> > 59-year-old insurance executive, of Bedford, New Hampshire said by
> way of
> > introduction to Senator Barack Obama at a small campaign gathering
> in town
> > earlier this week.
>

Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better outlet
for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who actually has a
chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old country boy that a
tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron paul espousalists.
Personally, yes I do believe he would make a better leader than the rest put
together, but all the thrashing about being done regaring him could actually
push a realistic contender over the top to win, instead of wasting votes on
a spoiler. My opinion only, before you all jump down my throat and verbally
eviscerate me for my personal beliefs. Peace, John Flynn McGondel.


>From: "David Mincin" <davemincin@...>
>Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?
>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:48:39 -0400
>
>Well being one of the first half dozen or so folks who moved to NH I don't
>find
>it curious at all tht we support Ron Paul and are actively working on his
>campaign
>
>I don't claim any of those titles, just know that we need to work to
>promote
>freedom.  Titles put us in a box.  I'm not into boxes!
>
>Truth is I'm pretty much into what Dr Paul has to say 100%, so call me what
>you may!
>
>Dave
>
>On 8/27/07, James Sulinski <b1ueemu@...> wrote:
> >
> >   I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a
>fence,
> > but,
> > at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as such. There is a
> > legal
> > method of immigration to the United States, and while it might be less
> > than
> > ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It simply needs to be
>changed.
> >
> > Remember, the Free State Project should not be considered 'libertarian',
> > but
> > rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades, and many participants
>embody
> > them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade (albeit not a direct
>participant
> > of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%, can you really expect
>to?
> > He's at least around 90-95%, which is much better than any other
> > presidential candidate, and well within qualification for active
>support,
> > in
> > my eyes.
> >
> > Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue'
> > participants.
> > While I can understand that this is what appeals to you most, you should
> > also recognize how inter-connected these issues are, and most do. A step
> > toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is nonetheless a step
> > toward
> > liberty. This is why many of us support Ron Paul.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@... <tainohome%40yahoo.com>>
>wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> > > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
> > > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> > > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
> > > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> > > anti-liberty and very scary.
> > >
> > > In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> > > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
> > > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11
>America:
> > >
> > > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> > > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
> > > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does
>any
> > > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
> > >
> > > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> > > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences
>of
> > > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral
>and
> > > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
> > >
> > > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
> > >
> > > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> > > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> > > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> > > equally appalling views.
> > >
> > > US Taino
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
>freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Terrible.
> > > >
> > > > Not...
> > > >
> > > > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
> > > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
> > > looking
> > > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
> > > > period, whether Citizens or not.
> > > >
> > > > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am
>in
> > > > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting
>illegals,
> > > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
> > > > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only
>applies
> > > > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
> > > >
> > > > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> > > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Lol!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
> > > then
> > > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
> > > running
> > > > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
> > > borders...
> > > >
> > > > Charles
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=\
42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encTyp\
e=1&FORM=MGAC01

John Flynn, who's your 'realistic' contender? If by realistic
contender, you mean we should be voting for one of the 'first tier'
candidates (i.e., either a socialist or a fascist), I don't see the
point of voting.

Enlighten me.
On 8/28/07, John flynn <jteacher1@...> wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better outlet
> for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who actually has a
> chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old country boy that a
> tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron paul espousalists.
> Personally, yes I do believe he would make a better leader than the rest put
> together, but all the thrashing about being done regaring him could actually
> push a realistic contender over the top to win, instead of wasting votes on
> a spoiler. My opinion only, before you all jump down my throat and verbally
> eviscerate me for my personal beliefs. Peace, John Flynn McGondel.
>
>
> >From: "David Mincin" <davemincin@...>
> >Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> >To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?
> >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:48:39 -0400
> >
> >Well being one of the first half dozen or so folks who moved to NH I don't
> >find
> >it curious at all tht we support Ron Paul and are actively working on his
> >campaign
> >
> >I don't claim any of those titles, just know that we need to work to
> >promote
> >freedom.  Titles put us in a box.  I'm not into boxes!
> >
> >Truth is I'm pretty much into what Dr Paul has to say 100%, so call me what
> >you may!
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >On 8/27/07, James Sulinski <b1ueemu@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >   I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a
> >fence,
> > > but,
> > > at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as such. There is a
> > > legal
> > > method of immigration to the United States, and while it might be less
> > > than
> > > ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It simply needs to be
> >changed.
> > >
> > > Remember, the Free State Project should not be considered 'libertarian',
> > > but
> > > rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades, and many participants
> >embody
> > > them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade (albeit not a direct
> >participant
> > > of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%, can you really expect
> >to?
> > > He's at least around 90-95%, which is much better than any other
> > > presidential candidate, and well within qualification for active
> >support,
> > > in
> > > my eyes.
> > >
> > > Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue'
> > > participants.
> > > While I can understand that this is what appeals to you most, you should
> > > also recognize how inter-connected these issues are, and most do. A step
> > > toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is nonetheless a step
> > > toward
> > > liberty. This is why many of us support Ron Paul.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@... <tainohome%40yahoo.com>>
> >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> > > > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
> > > > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> > > > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
> > > > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> > > > anti-liberty and very scary.
> > > >
> > > > In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> > > > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
> > > > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11
> >America:
> > > >
> > > > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> > > > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
> > > > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does
> >any
> > > > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
> > > >
> > > > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> > > > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences
> >of
> > > > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral
> >and
> > > > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
> > > >
> > > > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
> > > >
> > > > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> > > > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> > > > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> > > > equally appalling views.
> > > >
> > > > US Taino
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> >freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Terrible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not...
> > > > >
> > > > > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
> > > > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
> > > > looking
> > > > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
> > > > > period, whether Citizens or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am
> >in
> > > > > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting
> >illegals,
> > > > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
> > > > > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only
> >applies
> > > > > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
> > > > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Lol!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
> > > > then
> > > > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
> > > > running
> > > > > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
> > > > borders...
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route!
>
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=\
42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encTyp\
e=1&FORM=MGAC01
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Get your NH based Ron Paul tshirts right here:

www.ronpaulhq.com/paulmart.php



--- John flynn <jteacher1@...> wrote:

> Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more
> productive and a better outlet
> for outraged energy if people stood behind a
> candidate who actually has a
> chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old
> country boy that a
> tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron
> paul espousalists.
> Personally, yes I do believe he would make a better
> leader than the rest put
> together, but all the thrashing about being done
> regaring him could actually
> push a realistic contender over the top to win,
> instead of wasting votes on
> a spoiler. My opinion only, before you all jump down
> my throat and verbally
> eviscerate me for my personal beliefs. Peace, John
> Flynn McGondel.
>
>
> >From: "David Mincin" <davemincin@...>
> >Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> >To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?
> >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:48:39 -0400
> >
> >Well being one of the first half dozen or so folks
> who moved to NH I don't
> >find
> >it curious at all tht we support Ron Paul and are
> actively working on his
> >campaign
> >
> >I don't claim any of those titles, just know that
> we need to work to
> >promote
> >freedom.  Titles put us in a box.  I'm not into
> boxes!
> >
> >Truth is I'm pretty much into what Dr Paul has to
> say 100%, so call me what
> >you may!
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >On 8/27/07, James Sulinski <b1ueemu@...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >   I don't think that many people agree with his
> support to build a
> >fence,
> > > but,
> > > at least I, agree that criminals should be
> treated as such. There is a
> > > legal
> > > method of immigration to the United States, and
> while it might be less
> > > than
> > > ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It
> simply needs to be
> >changed.
> > >
> > > Remember, the Free State Project should not be
> considered 'libertarian',
> > > but
> > > rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades,
> and many participants
> >embody
> > > them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade
> (albeit not a direct
> >participant
> > > of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%,
> can you really expect
> >to?
> > > He's at least around 90-95%, which is much
> better than any other
> > > presidential candidate, and well within
> qualification for active
> >support,
> > > in
> > > my eyes.
> > >
> > > Many people come to the libertarian movement as
> 'single-issue'
> > > participants.
> > > While I can understand that this is what appeals
> to you most, you should
> > > also recognize how inter-connected these issues
> are, and most do. A step
> > > toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue,
> is nonetheless a step
> > > toward
> > > liberty. This is why many of us support Ron
> Paul.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@...
> <tainohome%40yahoo.com>>
> >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I find it curious that a Freestater would
> endorse any part of the
> > > > anti-immigration schemes of the country's
> reactionary statists. The
> > > > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state
> imposed exclusions,
> > > > restrictions and the construction of Berlin
> walls against the movement
> > > > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor,
> commerce, etc.--is, well,
> > > > anti-liberty and very scary.
> > > >
> > > > In Keep the Borders Open
> <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> > > > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom
> Foundation asks important
> > > > (albeit diifficult) questions about
> immigration in a post-9/11
> >America:
> > > >
> > > > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a
> border in search of work
> > > > to sustain his life, to open a business, to
> tour, or simply because he
> > > > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what
> moral authority does
> >any
> > > > government interfere with the exercise of
> these rights?
> > > >
> > > > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our
> founding principles, why
> > > > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned
> them, the consequences
> >of
> > > > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise
> to restore the moral
> >and
> > > > philosophical principles of freedom of our
> Founders."
> > > >
> > > > He suggests that the reexamination begin with
> immigration. I agree.
> > > >
> > > > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold
> a complete libertarian
> > > > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing
> to suggest that 1) the
> > > > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2)
> that all candidates have
> > > > equally appalling views.
> > > >
> > > > US Taino
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Terrible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not...
> > > > >
> > > > > Although the best way to combat the problems
> we are currently
> > > > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of
> illegal immigrants (those
> > > > looking
> > > > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to
> eliminate *all* welfare,
> > > > > period, whether Citizens or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have mixed feelings about physically
> securing our borders, but am
> >in
> > > > > full agreement with everything else - no
> amnesty, deporting
> >illegals,
> > > > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by
> the courts (the 14th
> > > > > amendment does *not* read the way it was
> interpreted - it only
> >applies
> > > > > to children of people who are here
> *legally*), etc...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Look at this despotic communist position
> from Ron Paul:
> > > > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Lol!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is the only thing preventing you
> from voting for Ron Paul,
> > > > then
> > > > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because
> no
=== message truncated ===


It is time for a new direction:
www.ronpaulhq.com



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

I do not believe that immigration policy is a direct concern of libertarianism.
I believe it to be more of a question of national self-determinism.

Although libertarianism may counsel what the right thing to do is, I believe
that ultimately it is a question of what the people of the nation collectively
wish to have as a policy without preceptional constraints from libertarianism.

I believe that even libertarians succumb to the allure of extremism, e.g., if
the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems begin to look like a nail.

There are some areas where libertarianism is incompetant to rule, and I believe
those areas relate to international relations which includes immigration policy.
Libertarianism may have some good commentary as a guide to what we should do in
international affairs, but Libertarianism really is in essence a domestic
governmental rule of law.

In the arena of national self-determination (with regard to other nations and
their peoples), I believe there are no absolute limits on what a nation's
populace collectively conclude to be correct policy, and libertarianism is no
bar to whatever they may conclude.

Gary Treistman

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: tainohome
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:32 PM
   Subject: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?



   I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
   anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
   notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
   restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
   of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
   anti-liberty and very scary.

   In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
   Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
   (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:

   Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
   to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
   wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
   government interfere with the exercise of these rights?

   Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
   succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
   that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
   philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."

   He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.

   BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
   view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
   issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
   equally appalling views.

   US Taino

   --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
   wrote:
   >
   > > Terrible.
   >
   > Not...
   >
   > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
   > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
   looking
   > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
   > period, whether Citizens or not.
   >
   > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
   > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
   > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
   > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
   > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
   >
   > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
   > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
   >
   > <snip>
   >
   > Lol!!!!!!!!
   >
   > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
   then
   > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
   running
   > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
   borders...
   >
   > Charles
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists.

I find it curious that a Freestater would not concede that refusing to
vote or support someone like Ron Paul based solely on his position on
this one 'issue' - when his principles and ethics are otherwise
*impeccable* - is tantamount to admitting that they will simply never be
able to support any politician, anywhere, at any time, because such an
attitude is in essence saying that you will only support a politician
that agrees 100% - with no exceptions - with your own personal political
views.

> The notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the
> movement of people -- and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc. -- is,
> well, anti-liberty and very scary.

I am not in favor of building a fence - and Ron has specifically said
that a fence is not a high priority, while eliminating incentives
(welfare, forcing states to provide free medical care, etc) is.

That said - I am in favor of controlling how many people can come here
to live and work - and I'm also in favor of deporting illegal aliens who
refuse to follow our established immigration rules.

I am adamantly against, however any intrusive mandates on employers to
make them some kind of immigration 'police' - our Constitutions do not
delegate any power to the government to require private employers to
check some government database before they can hire someone. In fact,
I'm totally against the requirement even for SSNs.

> Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences
> of that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the
> moral and philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."

Umm... we had immigration policies pretty much from the beginning...

> He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
>
> BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> equally appalling views.

I'll respond by repeating my above:

Anyone who refuses to vote or support someone like Ron Paul based solely
on his position on this one 'issue' - when his principles and ethics are
otherwise *impeccable* - is tantamount to admitting that they will
simply never be able to support any [electable] politician, anywhere, at
any time, because such an attitude is in essence saying that you will
only support a politician that agrees 100% - with no exceptions - with
your own personal political views.

John flynn wrote:
> but all the thrashing about being done regaring him could actually
> push a realistic contender over the top to win, instead of wasting votes on
> a spoiler.


Name a remotely historically, Constitutionally acceptable, (what you
consider to be) "realistic contender." And I should support someone
(make no mistake, /purely/) "because s/he can /win/?" So, fetid politics
as usual? Ya think this is a receptive group for that strategy, do ya?

If everyone acts on the basis of that strategy, rather than their own
principles, then yes, sadly and yet again, it will be true. And TPTB
will be pleased. However, if instead everyone acts on the basis of their
own principles, rather than the assumptions of the media and the
objectives of the entrenched power-brokers (or simply some twisted need
to "back the winner"), well...

Why not recommend, instead, that everyone /stop/ basing their support on
whom (they're told) their neighbors like? Hell, some of the polls even
bluntly ask, "Whom do you think will win?" -- i.e., "Whom do you think
your /neighbors/ will vote for?" -- rather than "Whom will /you/ vote
for?," pretty clearly implying that group-think is more important, and
should be a guide. Of what legitimate use is that, other than to
influence? Utterly absurd. Then, of course, there's always the "forcing
the debate" argument: he can't do that if he's not running. Oh, and
which is more accurate: the lazy-assed phone polls or the time- and
money-invested straw polls? <http://ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/>
These people clearly aren't paying attention to what they're "supposed"
to do. (And why isn't the media at all curious about why so many voters
apparently chose /not/ to vote after paying $35 to do just that in Ames?
Is it just me?)

Buying into the establishment's self-serving assertion that we have no
viable option but to choose the "lesser of 2 evils" from their own
designated candidates got us King George. Twice. That's not an option.
Ever again. Self-fulfilling, self-defeating prophecy is such a downer,
dude...

"Prediction is difficult. Especially about the future."
-Niels Bohr-


And while I'm here, no open borders concurrent with open entitlements.
First get rid of the welfare state, then we can talk about the borders.
There is a proper logical order to things. But a fence, well...  That's
just patently silly. Merely pushing them (at what cost?) from San Diego
County to Imperial County is hardly a victory. What's the perimeter of
the U.S.? And wouldn't ya really need a dome...?
--

--=  My life, my property, my decisions.  =--
--=      BikerBill=-            ©Ώ©¬      =--
--=       allemanse.com=-                 =--
--=        Who is Ron Paul                =--
--=  and why does he scare the media so?  =--

Well, as an "austro-econ" libertarian, I am a fan of Ron Paul. Problably he is
the best politician that have worked in the government since the founding
fathers. But when I saw his positions about imigration it really desappopinted
me.Make criminals of undocumented workers and pacific people seems like a stupid
socialist idea.
And how about the international participants of FSP? I am a brazilian and for us
it's very difficult to obtain any visa to go legally to US (individuals need an
arbitrary approval from a bureaucrat to not be a crimminal). My plan is to get a
tourist visa go to NH and never come back, becoming an illegal immigrant (fuck
the state). Now Ron Paul says that  "immigration officials must track visa
holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S.
law." And it's sad to see the greatests pro-liberty fitghers supporting such a
thing.
  The only thing that a libertarian have to say about immigration is the
(contradictory with the others) fourth proposition: "No welfare for illegal
aliens.  Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and
play by the rules.  But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use
hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services." but even in this one
he seems to forget that everyone inside U.S. pay tax when buy something. So, the
libertarian position must be only: "No welfare for anyone".
I know I sound extremely ideatist and, as a matter of fact, if I was in U.S. I
would problaby suport and vote for Paul. I just cannot understand how and why he
took these facists positions.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: David Mincin
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:48 PM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?


   Well being one of the first half dozen or so folks who moved to NH I don't
   find
   it curious at all tht we support Ron Paul and are actively working on his
   campaign

   I don't claim any of those titles, just know that we need to work to promote
   freedom. Titles put us in a box. I'm not into boxes!

   Truth is I'm pretty much into what Dr Paul has to say 100%, so call me what
   you may!

   Dave

   On 8/27/07, James Sulinski <b1ueemu@...> wrote:
   >
   > I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a fence,
   > but,
   > at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as such. There is a
   > legal
   > method of immigration to the United States, and while it might be less
   > than
   > ideal, it doesn't justify breaking the law. It simply needs to be changed.
   >
   > Remember, the Free State Project should not be considered 'libertarian',
   > but
   > rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many shades, and many participants embody
   > them. Ron Paul is an example of one shade (albeit not a direct participant
   > of the FSP). While I don't agree with him 100%, can you really expect to?
   > He's at least around 90-95%, which is much better than any other
   > presidential candidate, and well within qualification for active support,
   > in
   > my eyes.
   >
   > Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue'
   > participants.
   > While I can understand that this is what appeals to you most, you should
   > also recognize how inter-connected these issues are, and most do. A step
   > toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is nonetheless a step
   > toward
   > liberty. This is why many of us support Ron Paul.
   >
   > James
   >
   > On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@... <tainohome%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
   > > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
   > > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
   > > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
   > > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
   > > anti-liberty and very scary.
   > >
   > > In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
   > > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
   > > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:
   > >
   > > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
   > > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
   > > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
   > > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
   > >
   > > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
   > > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
   > > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
   > > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
   > >
   > > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
   > >
   > > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
   > > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
   > > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
   > > equally appalling views.
   > >
   > > US Taino
   > >
   > >
   > > --- In
freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
   > Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
   > > wrote:
   > > >
   > > > > Terrible.
   > > >
   > > > Not...
   > > >
   > > > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
   > > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
   > > looking
   > > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
   > > > period, whether Citizens or not.
   > > >
   > > > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
   > > > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
   > > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
   > > > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
   > > > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
   > > >
   > > > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
   > > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
   > > >
   > > > <snip>
   > > >
   > > > Lol!!!!!!!!
   > > >
   > > > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
   > > then
   > > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
   > > running
   > > > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
   > > borders...
   > > >
   > > > Charles
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can understand it, even while not really liking it. Politics. He can see
the immigration "issue" as something that can get him votes while not
straying too far from his real position. At least that's what I keep telling
myself :-)

Ron Helwig
103rd FSP Mover
http://nhlibertydollar.com

On 8/28/07, Fernando Chiocca <chiocca@...> wrote:
>
>  I know I sound extremely idealist and, as a matter of fact, if I was in
> U.S. I would probably support and vote for Paul. I just cannot understand
> how and why he took these fascist positions.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't like the immigration restriction either -- I'm an immigrant myself.
Ron Paul does say that in an ideal country where there was no welfare
issues, there would need to be no immigration restrictions. He is against
millions of immigrants arriving and voting in the welfare state from which
they fled in their home countries. New Hampshire residents should know what
that is like with the influx from Taxachussets.

At times Ron Paul sounds like an Austrian Anarchocapitalist, at others he's
more like a conservative. I do know that whatever his leanings, he would
bring the US closer to liberty than ANY other living politician bar none.

On 8/28/07, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@...> wrote:
>
>   I can understand it, even while not really liking it. Politics. He can
> see
> the immigration "issue" as something that can get him votes while not
> straying too far from his real position. At least that's what I keep
> telling
> myself :-)
>
> Ron Helwig
> 103rd FSP Mover
> http://nhlibertydollar.com
>
> On 8/28/07, Fernando Chiocca <chiocca@... <chiocca%40uol.com.br>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I know I sound extremely idealist and, as a matter of fact, if I was in
> > U.S. I would probably support and vote for Paul. I just cannot
> understand
> > how and why he took these fascist positions.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill wrote:
>If everyone acts on the basis of that strategy, rather than their own
principles, then yes, sadly and yet again, it will be true. And TPTB
will be pleased. <

John replies: "...their own principles"? You're just kidding, right?

Bill wrote (immed. following that):
>However, if instead everyone acts on the basis of their
own principles<

John replies: "There we go again about principles. How can one get to be as
old as this and not come to the conclusion that the vast, overwhelming
majority of the masses (carnivorous sheep) either have no personal
priciples/ethics, or pretend that they do ascribe to some set of socially
acceptable principles in order that they (the same carnivorious sheep) can
perform more fleecing on others than is being done to themselves on a daily
basis."

Bill wrote:
>Why not recommend, instead, that everyone /stop/ basing their support on
whom (they're told) their neighbors like?<

John replies, in an incredulous state:
"You mean like healthy debating or discussing the issues and candidates with
other citizens prior to forming a votable opinion?

Bill wrote:
>Self-fulfilling, self-defeating prophecy is such a downer,
>dude...<

John replies:
"One mans so-called self-defeating/fulfilling prophecy is another man's
realization that there are now, and have probably always been, certain
aspects of political agendizings that are not about to be allowed to become
changed very easily in the forseeable future. Like buying votes, slinging
mud, lying to taxpayers and voters, public masturbation, fraternizing with
lawyers (alright I already used masturbation sorry), accepting bribes,
blackmailing competitors, screwing the citizenry for recreation, laughing at
Joe Average American, and using the Constitution for the toilet paper it has
become. To you it's a self defeating attitude. To me it's just the way it is
and if one is to retain any semblance of one's sanity, one finds a way to
accept it without liking it, like mosquitos, aids, world hunger, the
organized mutililization of children, etc. and try to deal with it in such a
way as to be able to hold onto a sense of personal ethics while watching the
world sink rapidly down the evolutionary ladder like a monkey sliding down a
greased pole into hell."

Bill wrote:
>First get rid of the welfare state, then we can talk about the borders.
There is a proper logical order to things.<

John replied:
"Get rid of the welfare state? Yup, talk about a pipe-dream. We're in that
game for life old buddy. And as for borders? You are actually expecting us
to believe that you can apply a "logical order" to spending centuries
building a new, rich superpower on the backs of immigrants, and then using
logic to suddenly decide to halt immigration now that we as a nation are
done with sucking the blood from immigrants like so many capitalistic
vampires? Talk about a self defeating idea."

When all is said and done, and the smoke clears, and the next round of
chronic idiocy begings with new idiots starring as the players, people will
always be able to feel good about mouthing off and venting thousands of
gallons of verbal diarheadisguised as pseudo sophisticated political debate
in yahoo group rooms that function the way massage parlors do: they make you
feel good about something you should have been able to accomplish in private
and in a much shorter time-span. >chuckling out loud while family looks on<

Smile, its just yesterday coming around to say hello again...

John Flynn McGondel: "Peace Through Music"

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=\
42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encTyp\
e=1&FORM=MGAC01

As many prominent libertarians have noted, in a society
based largely on private property, individuals would
have the right to invite in or refuse to invite in
anyone they want.  Right now, the fact that these people
are "illegal" means that some employers welcome them in
BECAUSE their illegal status makes them accept lower wages.
If they were legal, they could demand better wages and
the employers would not be as welcoming. (Though sellers
of goods and landlords probably still would welcome many
of them.)

Just think like a free marketeer and many things come
clear...
CM

GTriest wrote:
>
>
> I do not believe that immigration policy is a direct concern of
> libertarianism.
> I believe it to be more of a question of national self-determinism.
>
> Although libertarianism may counsel what the right thing to do is, I
> believe that ultimately it is a question of what the people of the
> nation collectively wish to have as a policy without preceptional
> constraints from libertarianism.
>
> I believe that even libertarians succumb to the allure of extremism,
> e.g., if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems begin to
> look like a nail.
>
> There are some areas where libertarianism is incompetant to rule, and I
> believe those areas relate to international relations which includes
> immigration policy.
> Libertarianism may have some good commentary as a guide to what we
> should do in international affairs, but Libertarianism really is in
> essence a domestic governmental rule of law.
>
> In the arena of national self-determination (with regard to other
> nations and their peoples), I believe there are no absolute limits on
> what a nation's populace collectively conclude to be correct policy, and
> libertarianism is no bar to whatever they may conclude.
>
> Gary Treistman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tainohome
> To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:32 PM
> Subject: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?
>
> I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
> notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
> of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> anti-liberty and very scary.
>
> In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp
> <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp>> ,
> Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
> (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:
>
> Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
> wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
> government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
>
> Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
> succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
> that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
> philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
>
> He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
>
> BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
> view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
> issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
> equally appalling views.
>
> US Taino
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>, Simon Jester <tanstaafl@...>
> wrote:
>  >
>  > > Terrible.
>  >
>  > Not...
>  >
>  > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
>  > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
> looking
>  > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
>  > period, whether Citizens or not.
>  >
>  > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
>  > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
>  > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
>  > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
>  > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
>  >
>  > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
>  > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
>  >
>  > <snip>
>  >
>  > Lol!!!!!!!!
>  >
>  > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
> then
>  > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
> running
>  > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
> borders...
>  >
>  > Charles
>  >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

I agree with Taino about the immigration issue.  Free movement of
people is an essential component of freedom, and as such, I do not
believe that you can really support liberty while denying that.

However, I am strongly supporting Ron Paul in this election.  I am
working to help his campaign here in CA, and plan to temporarily re-
register as a Republican to vote for him in the primaries.

I disagree with his stance on borders, as well as his position on
abortion.  His faith makes me nervous.  But he's still (for me) about
75% good, and that's a damn sight better than any of the alternatives
put forth in the major parties.  Perfection is not available; I'm
willing to work and vote for 75% good, over 13% good (at best).

After the primary election, I will re-re-register as a Libertarian
again.  If Ron Paul does somehow win the Republican nomination, I
will gladly vote for him in the main event.  If anyone else wins the
Republican nomination, I will gladly vote for whoever the LP
nominates in the main election.

Yes, Ron Paul is a long shot, but he is by far and away the best
chance for advancement of the idea of liberty in government that we
have seen in a *very* long time.

PhilB

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "James Sulinski"
<b1ueemu@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think that many people agree with his support to build a
fence, but, at least I, agree that criminals should be treated as
such. There is a legal method of immigration to the United States,
and while it might be less than ideal, it doesn't justify breaking
the law. It simply needs to be changed.
>
> Remember, the Free State Project should not be
considered 'libertarian', but rather, 'pro-liberty'. There are many
shades, and many participants embody them. Ron Paul is an example of
one shade (albeit not a direct participant of the FSP). While I don't
agree with him 100%, can you really expect to? He's at least around
90-95%, which is much better than any other presidential candidate,
and well within qualification for active support, in my eyes.
>
> Many people come to the libertarian movement as 'single-issue'
participants. While I can understand that this is what appeals to you
most, you should also recognize how inter-connected these issues are,
and most do. A step toward liberty, even if not on your pet issue, is
nonetheless a step toward liberty. This is why many of us support Ron
Paul.
>
> James
>
> On 8/27/07, tainohome <tainohome@...> wrote:
> >
> > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
> > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists.
The
> > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
> > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the
movement
> > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
> > anti-liberty and very scary.
> >
> > In Keep the Borders Open
<http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp> ,
> > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks
important
> > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11
America:
> >
> > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
> > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply
because he
> > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority
does any
> > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
> >
> > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles,
why
> > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the
consequences of
> > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the
moral and
> > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
> >
> > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I
agree.
> >
> > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete
libertarian
> > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1)
the
> > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates
have
> > equally appalling views.
> >
> > US Taino

Since we are in an FSP forum, let's discuss how Ron Paul is relevant
to the FSP. Ron Paul will probably be speaking at the NH Liberty
Forum, 3-6 January:
http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum

Will there be any bigger events than LF at that time? If the New
Hampshire primary receives its historical attention, and if the LF
occurs just before the NH primary, we can expect quite a media circus,
a truly historical opportunity for the FSP to garner publicity. We
should take maximum advantage.

What are the chances that the NH primary could happen before LF?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/primary.calendar.schneider/
"By law, the New Hampshire primary must take place at least a week
before any similar event. That means Tuesday, January 8."

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070826/OPINION/708260339/-1/OPINION05
"if current trends hold true, then N. H. Secretary of State William
Gardner will set the primary date for Jan. 8 but the situation remains
fluid."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-
op.primary28aug28,0,4345234.story

-Steve

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "John flynn" <jteacher1@...>
wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
outlet
> for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who actually
has a
> chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old country boy that a
> tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron paul
espousalists. >

Seems clear enough to me as I said it.

It is also not a requirement of libertarianism that all property be private
property.
A very workable, and libertarian, system could involve public lands, where the
govt husbands the land for the people who care to pay for it, who are also the
people who have a collective say on how it is used, shared, tolled, fee'd and
administered in general.

Although this may not be what the average libertarian has in mind in moving
towards libertopia, in my opinion it acts as a great, indefinitely long,
transition method of what we have govt doing for us now, and how it should be
doing things under a libertarian system.

In either and every case, I believe that SOME collectivism is unavoidable in a
society; unlike some in the libertarian movement, I believe a national identity
is a useful concept for international practicable reasons, notwithstanding
natural patriotic psychology. Even for reasons of domestic libertarianism, a
national identity is important.
That is where national self-determination comes in. I believe that default laws
of immigration can be set to be anything the democratic republic concludes it
wants it to be.

However, I also do recognize where certain situations of the collectivist rule
of immigration law may conflict with the preemptive libertarian right to
associate with whomever one wants to. (This is where my analysis gets more
complex than what a simple sound bite would permit).

Under the circumstance of a libertarian society, that has democratically voted
to limit immigration, and where an individual still wants to associate/invite a
foreign nationale into his private property, then the citizen's right trumps
national law.

But to comport with the national law, said citizen must literally take on the
responsibility for hosting the foreign nationale, and basically be his visa for
staying, as well as being at least partially responsible for alien's actions if
they conflict with law.
I.e., the inviter is permitting the invitee into this country under his
authority as a citizen, but he is responsible for him as well.

That of course is if the national policy is more limiting than the individual's
desire to associate.
If national policy is open ended then no citizen need be such a sponsor.

Gary T




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:30 PM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] The limits of Libertarianism, in re immigration &
international policy


   As many prominent libertarians have noted, in a society
   based largely on private property, individuals would
   have the right to invite in or refuse to invite in
   anyone they want. Right now, the fact that these people
   are "illegal" means that some employers welcome them in
   BECAUSE their illegal status makes them accept lower wages.
   If they were legal, they could demand better wages and
   the employers would not be as welcoming. (Though sellers
   of goods and landlords probably still would welcome many
   of them.)

   Just think like a free marketeer and many things come
   clear...
   CM

   GTriest wrote:
   >
   >
   > I do not believe that immigration policy is a direct concern of
   > libertarianism.
   > I believe it to be more of a question of national self-determinism.
   >
   > Although libertarianism may counsel what the right thing to do is, I
   > believe that ultimately it is a question of what the people of the
   > nation collectively wish to have as a policy without preceptional
   > constraints from libertarianism.
   >
   > I believe that even libertarians succumb to the allure of extremism,
   > e.g., if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems begin to
   > look like a nail.
   >
   > There are some areas where libertarianism is incompetant to rule, and I
   > believe those areas relate to international relations which includes
   > immigration policy.
   > Libertarianism may have some good commentary as a guide to what we
   > should do in international affairs, but Libertarianism really is in
   > essence a domestic governmental rule of law.
   >
   > In the arena of national self-determination (with regard to other
   > nations and their peoples), I believe there are no absolute limits on
   > what a nation's populace collectively conclude to be correct policy, and
   > libertarianism is no bar to whatever they may conclude.
   >
   > Gary Treistman
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: tainohome
   > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   > <mailto:freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
   > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:32 PM
   > Subject: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?
   >
   > I find it curious that a Freestater would endorse any part of the
   > anti-immigration schemes of the country's reactionary statists. The
   > notion that "libertarians" are OK with state imposed exclusions,
   > restrictions and the construction of Berlin walls against the movement
   > of people--and, therefore, ideas, labor, commerce, etc.--is, well,
   > anti-liberty and very scary.
   >
   > In Keep the Borders Open <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp
   > <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp>> ,
   > Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks important
   > (albeit diifficult) questions about immigration in a post-9/11 America:
   >
   > Why shouldn't a person be free to cross a border in search of work
   > to sustain his life, to open a business, to tour, or simply because he
   > wants to? Or to put it another way, under what moral authority does any
   > government interfere with the exercise of these rights?
   >
   > Hornberger believes we should "reexamine our founding principles, why
   > succeeding generations of Americans abandoned them, the consequences of
   > that abandonment, and whether it would be wise to restore the moral and
   > philosophical principles of freedom of our Founders."
   >
   > He suggests that the reexamination begin with immigration. I agree.
   >
   > BTW: While no presidential candidate may hold a complete libertarian
   > view vis-a-vis immigration, it's another thing to suggest that 1) the
   > issue is somehow less than fundamental; or 2) that all candidates have
   > equally appalling views.
   >
   > US Taino
   >
   > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   > <mailto:freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>, Simon Jester <tanstaafl@..>
   > wrote:
   > >
   > > > Terrible.
   > >
   > > Not...
   > >
   > > Although the best way to combat the problems we are currently
   > > experiencing with the *wrong* kind* of illegal immigrants (those
   > looking
   > > for a free ride on the welfare train) is to eliminate *all* welfare,
   > > period, whether Citizens or not.
   > >
   > > I have mixed feelings about physically securing our borders, but am in
   > > full agreement with everything else - no amnesty, deporting illegals,
   > > ending the 'anchor-baby' loophole created by the courts (the 14th
   > > amendment does *not* read the way it was interpreted - it only applies
   > > to children of people who are here *legally*), etc...
   > >
   > > > Look at this despotic communist position from Ron Paul:
   > > > Border Security and Immigration Reform
   > >
   > > <snip>
   > >
   > > Lol!!!!!!!!
   > >
   > > If this is the only thing preventing you from voting for Ron Paul,
   > then
   > > obviously you're voting for nobody - because no other politician
   > running
   > > is for the purist libertarian idea of 100% totally free and open
   > borders...
   > >
   > > Charles
   > >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >

   --
   Carol Moore in DC
   http://carolmoore.net/
   http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
   http://youtube.com/carolmoore
   http://secession.net
   http://stopthewarnow.net
   http://whatwouldgandhido.net
   http://radicalbuttons.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "John flynn" <jteacher1@...>
wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
outlet
> for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who actually
has a
> chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old country boy that a
> tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron paul espousalists.

Well, it sort of depends on your definition of "productive".  So far
it looks like the choices next year will be Hitlery Clinton and Adolf
Giuliani.  I'll be in hell before I vote for either of those sacks of
fascist socialist crap.  Aside from Doctor Paul, what do you
recommend?  Since there isn't anybody in the top ten that doesn't use
the Bill of Rights for toilet paper.

>     Posted by: "John flynn" jteacher1@... platoeuclid
> Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
> outlet for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who
> actually has a chance of winning?

Some of us are working with other candidates.  I've endorsed Governor
Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary, and am working with his
campaign.  He's not a libertarian, but he doesn't support single payer
health care, he's signed medical marijuana into law in New Mexico, he
was endorsed by the NRA in his most recent election, he wants to repeal
No Child Left Behind, he tells people that the drug war isn't working,
and so on.  The biggest thing is that he wants to bring all the troops
home from Iraq now, leaving only enough to protect our embassy.  We
disagree on other issues, but as far as I'm concerned he's a heck of a
lot more pro-liberty then the former first lady.

He's also easily the most qualified candidate for the job.  He's
serving his second term as Governor of New Mexico, he's the former
ambassador to the UN (so he can TALK with other nations instead of
invading them), he served in Congress for 7 terms.

But your main point was to back someone "who actually has a chance of
winning."  Richardson is polling in third place here in New Hampshire.
He's a moderate Democrat who can pick up many votes from independents.
He's also electable in the sense that every President elected since JFK
in 1960 has been either a Vice President or a Governor.

John, I hope you'll take a look at his campaign.  His website is
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com - I'm convinced that he would be
a much better president then we've had for a while.

Now, as I prepare for the barrage of comments about flaws in his
platform, let me issue this challenge - when criticizing a position,
please identify another Democratic candidate who has a more pro-liberty
position.

Rep. Joel Winters
Manchester

Just to toss in my 2 cents, I saw Richardson speak here in Candia. While I'm
a strong Ron Paul supporter, I do think Richardson would make a pretty good
Secretary of State.

Most of us are pissed off because it seems very obvious that the old media
is dead set against Ron Paul getting any traction. That's the only thing we
see holding him back and preventing him from being the only front-runner in
either major party.

On 8/29/07, Joel Winters <homer1787@...> wrote:
>
>   > Posted by: "John flynn"
jteacher1@...<jteacher1%40hotmail.com>platoeuclid
> > Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
> > outlet for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who
> > actually has a chance of winning?
>
> Some of us are working with other candidates. I've endorsed Governor
> Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary, and am working with his
> campaign. He's not a libertarian, but he doesn't support single payer
> health care, he's signed medical marijuana into law in New Mexico, he
> was endorsed by the NRA in his most recent election, he wants to repeal
> No Child Left Behind, he tells people that the drug war isn't working,
> and so on. The biggest thing is that he wants to bring all the troops
> home from Iraq now, leaving only enough to protect our embassy. We
> disagree on other issues, but as far as I'm concerned he's a heck of a
> lot more pro-liberty then the former first lady.
>
> He's also easily the most qualified candidate for the job. He's
> serving his second term as Governor of New Mexico, he's the former
> ambassador to the UN (so he can TALK with other nations instead of
> invading them), he served in Congress for 7 terms.
>
> But your main point was to back someone "who actually has a chance of
> winning." Richardson is polling in third place here in New Hampshire.
> He's a moderate Democrat who can pick up many votes from independents.
> He's also electable in the sense that every President elected since JFK
> in 1960 has been either a Vice President or a Governor.
>
> John, I hope you'll take a look at his campaign. His website is
> http://www.richardsonforpresident.com - I'm convinced that he would be
> a much better president then we've had for a while.
>
> Now, as I prepare for the barrage of comments about flaws in his
> platform, let me issue this challenge - when criticizing a position,
> please identify another Democratic candidate who has a more pro-liberty
> position.
>
> Rep. Joel Winters
> Manchester
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 9:13 -0700 8/29/07, Joel Winters wrote:
>  >     Posted by: "John flynn" jteacher1@... platoeuclid
>>  Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
>>  outlet for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who
>>  actually has a chance of winning?
>
>Some of us are working with other candidates.  I've endorsed Governor
>Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary, and am working with his
>campaign.

Whenever polls give me the option of selecting a candidate in both
major parties, I always choose Richardson and Paul, and for precisely
the reasons Joel stated.

I have never voted for a Democrat for major office, but if by some
miracle Bill Richardson won his primary race and Ron Paul didn't, I
would vote for Richardson over Giuliani, McCain, or Thompson.

Seems clear to me too.  Well said.
C

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GTriest" <garyonthenet@...>
wrote:
>
> Seems clear enough to me as I said it.
>
> It is also not a requirement of libertarianism that all property be
private property.
> A very workable, and libertarian, system could involve public lands,
where the govt husbands the land for the people who care to pay for
it, who are also the people who have a collective say on how it is
used, shared, tolled, fee'd and administered in general.
>
(SNIP)
> But to comport with the national law, said citizen must literally
take on the responsibility for hosting the foreign nationale, and
basically be his visa for staying, as well as being at least partially
responsible for alien's actions if they conflict with law.
> I.e., the inviter is permitting the invitee into this country under
his authority as a citizen, but he is responsible for him as well.
>
> Gary T
>

Fred Thompson, Ward. He's not perfect, but no one else is either, including
Ron Paul. He's very good on taxes, federalism, the 2nd amendment, free
trade, and other areas. I'll be interested in seeing his online video
announcement of his candidacy within the next week or so. He's a Goldwater
conservative, with the bad lapse of McCain-Feingold.   ---Tim Condon

On 8/29/07, Ward Griffiths <wdg3rd@...> wrote:
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "John flynn" <jteacher1@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be more productive and a better
> outlet
> > for outraged energy if people stood behind a candidate who actually
> has a
> > chance of winning? Seems to this poor simple  old country boy that a
> > tremendous amount of energy is being lost due to Ron paul espousalists.
>
> Well, it sort of depends on your definition of "productive".  So far
> it looks like the choices next year will be Hitlery Clinton and Adolf
> Giuliani.  I'll be in hell before I vote for either of those sacks of
> fascist socialist crap.  Aside from Doctor Paul, what do you
> recommend?  Since there isn't anybody in the top ten that doesn't use
> the Bill of Rights for toilet paper.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]