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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.