Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Re: Anyone voting for Ron Paul?

Expand Messages
  • James Sulinski
    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
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • David Mincin
      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
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • Fernando Chiocca
        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
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
        • John flynn
          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
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
          • Chris Lawless
            Get your NH based Ron Paul tshirts right here: www.ronpaulhq.com/paulmart.php ... === message truncated === It is time for a new direction: www.ronpaulhq.com
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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
            • Jon Isaac
              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
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Simon Jester
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > 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.
                • Bill
                  ... Name a remotely historically, Constitutionally acceptable, (what you consider to be) realistic contender. And I should support someone (make no mistake,
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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=- ©¿©¬ =--
                    --= allemanse.com=- =--
                    --= Who is Ron Paul =--
                    --= and why does he scare the media so? =--
                  • Ron Helwig
                    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
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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]
                    • Jon Isaac
                      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
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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]
                      • John flynn
                        ... principles, then yes, sadly and yet again, it will be true. And TPTB will be pleased.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
                        • wolzybk
                          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
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 28, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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
                          • Steve
                            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:
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 29, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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. >
                            • Ward Griffiths
                              ... outlet ... has a ... Well, it sort of depends on your definition of productive . So far it looks like the choices next year will be Hitlery Clinton and
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 29, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- 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.
                              • Tim Condon
                                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
                                Message 15 of 27 , Aug 29, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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]
                                • Dale in L.A.
                                  What makes Ron Paul stand out from everyone else is not his positions. It s that he s not for sale and he s proven it over the decades. He won t compromise his
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Aug 30, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    What makes Ron Paul stand out from everyone else is not his positions. It's
                                    that he's not for sale and he's proven it over the decades. He won't
                                    compromise his principles to get elected. No one else in recent history is
                                    even in the ballpark when it comes to those character traits and that's
                                    what's making him a viable candidate despite a failing attempt at a media
                                    blackout on his candidacy. He's talking about the BIG issues like our FIAT
                                    currency and the Federal banks and their strangle hold on our economy or
                                    the trillion dollars a year we spend to stick our noses in other people's
                                    business and piss them off or the cost and massive harm caused by the war
                                    on drugs. It's hard to give a crap what any standard politician is saying
                                    when they ignore such overt abuses in favor of little pet issues built
                                    around appealing to various special interest groups.

                                    --- Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                                    > Fred Thompson, Ward. He's not perfect, but no one else is either,
                                    > including Ron Paul.


                                    Dale in L.A.





                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    Need a vacation? Get great deals
                                    to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
                                    http://travel.yahoo.com/
                                  • Jon Isaac
                                    Mcain feingold was not a lapse. It was unconstitutional dictatorialism. George Bush, an economic, small govt. lapsed, and we have the largest budget
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Sep 2, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mcain feingold was not a "lapse." It was unconstitutional dictatorialism.
                                      George Bush, an economic, small govt. "lapsed," and we have the largest
                                      budget deficit in history, a police state, and imperialism overseas. Any
                                      politician who won't stand on principle (and Fred Thompson is one of them)
                                      will fall with the rest. What is it about this character that makes you
                                      swoon, Tim? His gritty TV persona? His gravelly southern voice?

                                      Tim, sorry for the caustic, bitter tone of this email, but you're living in
                                      the same la-la-land I was 7 years ago when I almost campaigned for George
                                      Bush. In a factual comparison of presidencies, Clinton was a right wing
                                      conservative compared to George Bush. And yet we all favored "our"
                                      candidate.

                                      Dump this partisan crap, and let's start basing our decisions on fact.


                                      On 8/29/07, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > 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@... <wdg3rd%40comcast.net>>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.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]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • James Sulinski
                                      Jon, I really like the below comment, it s a very good and valid point (but then, so was the first paragraph). While I don t know that Clinton was a right
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Sep 2, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jon,

                                        I really like the below comment, it's a very good and valid point (but then,
                                        so was the first paragraph). While I don't know that Clinton was a 'right
                                        wing conservative', he was assuredly more fiscally conservative, and that's
                                        at least one half of the puzzle. We need to stop judging on partisan grounds
                                        and look for people who are pro-liberty from -any- party or faction.
                                        Seconded!

                                        James

                                        On 9/2/07, Jon Isaac <jon.isaac@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > You're living in the same la-la-land I was 7 years ago when I almost
                                        > campaigned for George
                                        > Bush. In a factual comparison of presidencies, Clinton was a right wing
                                        > conservative compared to George Bush. And yet we all favored "our"
                                        > candidate.
                                        >
                                        > Dump this partisan crap, and let's start basing our decisions on fact.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.