-2 votes

To Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters - GROW UP!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcu-N6JnO1U

I did not make this video, I am merely re-posting it here because I agree with it 100%. I plan on voting Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like Gary Johnson too, and think that his campaign is a plus for the liberty movement. I would support either of them in the general election. Johnson has flaws, so does Paul. But regardless of what Johnson supporters try to smear on Ron Paul does not mean that Johnson agrees or endorses it...and every time on this forum someone bashes Johnson, then they are guilty of the very thing that they are accusing Johnson supporters of.

Lets hold the moral high ground. Our candidate is a stronger candidate anyways.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

First of all ...

If you are not a Johnson supporter, ignore him.

He is insignificant.

His name recognition is nil.

He will not cost RP a single percentage point.

Except for in New Mexico.

Carry on.

Ideas have consequences!

I find both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson appealing but wish they were both pro choice on the abortion issue. I know so many of us here are also anti abortion and do wish this issue could be discussed in a rational manner.

I sympathize with Ron Paul's feelings about abortion having witnessed one up close as a medical student myself. I am religious in my own way having been raised with exposure to the Hebraic tradition although I was not orthodox despite attending an orthodox school.

I was enlightened by the works of scientists throughout history as I read astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians as well as the Old Testament, Greek mythology and philosophers who were either pro reason or irrational.

Historical accounts of the treatment of non believers by those who profess brotherly love in the case of the Holy Roman or Spanish (Christian) Inquisitions or outright genocide as in the pogroms throughout Europe even after the Enlightenment are revealing.

The treatment of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copernicus by the Church who refused to even look through a telescope offered the opportunity by Galileo exposes these leaders of the Faith as utterly anti reason.

Existence exists and life evolved in the universe to the point where there are human beings who possess the capacity for conceptual thought and a faculty of consciousness which enables them to think on the conceptual level. In fact their survival depends on their ability to wonder, question, doubt and to think, judge and make up their own minds.

One may be taught that the universe requires a creator but Existence includes all causes and there can be no cause before or outside of Existence. Existence exists which is the natural state of affairs. Existence does not require an explanation and certainly not a supernatural one.

One may be taught that humans possess a soul by which is meant something other than your faculty of consciousness and awareness. One is certainly not conscious prior to having developed a brain and nervous system embryologically.

A fertilized ovum is a microscopic single cell which possesses the information in the form of genetic material from ones mother and father moments after a sperm enters the ovum carrying a complement of genetic material from the father which together with that of the mother will lead to the development of a new human being after implantation in the uterus and several months of embryological growth and development.

It is meaningless to refer to a microscopic fertilized ovum as a person or as a human being at that point. It is certainly a potential human being but not an actual human being as is the mother who should not be forgotten nor taken for granted.

It is in fact her responsibility and choice to determine whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or not and it is not the business of anyone else but hers. Only her wishes in the matter do matter as it is her life and her body. She has a right to her own life and she is not the means to the ends of others against her will.

Ron Paul argues that when he is responsible as a pregnant woman's obstetrician for the well being of the fetus he is talking about a situation in which the pregnant woman wants to have the baby. Yes he could be held responsible if he does anything to harm the wanted baby before it is born.

But in the case of a woman who does not want to carry to term and is still in the first trimester long before the embryo or fetus would be viable outside the womb and before it would make any sense to think of the embryo or fetus as being conscious at all, then it ought to be acceptable for the pregnancy to be terminated in accordance with the wishes of the pregnant woman.

The religious position that a soul has entered at the moment of conception is purely a religious assertion unverifiable and merely an article of faith. It is wrong, as Ron Paul has acknowledged, for anyone to impose their own religious beliefs on another.

It is unfortunate that so many babies are carried and delivered by women who really don't want to be pregnant nor to have a baby but do so because they were raised to believe that they have no choice in the matter. Not to mention the guilt that they behaved in a manner which led to their pregnancy if not married.

Still more tragic is the case of married women who already have more children than they can handle or support who become pregnant within marriage and do not consider that termination of the pregnancy is open to them because of their religious beliefs.

An embryo and a fetus are not human beings, rather they are merely potential human beings. To be a potential something is not to be that something yet. Terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester or before viability outside the womb is not murder as the antiabortionists contend.

I wish Ron Paul would change his position and that his supporters would do so as well. I think his position is inconsistent with a rational pro freedom position on this issue because the freedom of the pregnant woman is at stake.

I know Ron Paul is willing to be opposed to the freedom of the woman to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses to do so because he believes the life of the baby takes priority. In the first trimester the embryo or fetus is not yet a baby or a human being rather still a potential one and ending its life is not murder.

The freedom of the pregnant woman is still the priority and it is wrong to impose the religious beliefs of others upon her.

Other than that I am in agreement with Ron Paul that the Constitution is to be adhered to as written but has been misinterpreted by those who want powers not granted in it.

The oath of office is violated by almost all our Senators and Congressman and they should be held responsible and replaced by enlightened voters.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

I agree, to an extent.

See my post under your original post, comments on it are greatly appreciated. Thank you!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I find both Ron Paul and Gary

I find both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson appealing but wish they were both pro choice on the abortion issue. I know so many of us here are also anti abortion and do wish this issue could be discussed in a rational manner.

I sympathize with Ron Paul's feelings about abortion having witnessed one up close as a medical student myself. I am religious in my own way having been raised with exposure to the Hebraic tradition although I was not orthodox despite attending an orthodox school.

I was enlightened by the works of scientists throughout history as I read astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians as well as the Old Testament, Greek mythology and philosophers who were either pro reason or irrational.

Historical accounts of the treatment of non believers by those who profess brotherly love in the case of the Holy Roman or Spanish (Christian) Inquisitions or outright genocide as in the pogroms throughout Europe even after the Enlightenment are revealing.

The treatment of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copernicus by the Church who refused to even look through a telescope offered the opportunity by Galileo exposes these leaders of the Faith as utterly anti reason.

Existence exists and life evolved in the universe to the point where there are human beings who possess the capacity for conceptual thought and a faculty of consciousness which enables them to think on the conceptual level. In fact their survival depends on their ability to wonder, question, doubt and to think, judge and make up their own minds.

One may be taught that the universe requires a creator but Existence includes all causes and there can be no cause before or outside of Existence. Existence exists which is the natural state of affairs. Existence does not require an explanation and certainly not a supernatural one.

One may be taught that humans possess a soul by which is meant something other than your faculty of consciousness and awareness. One is certainly not conscious prior to having developed a brain and nervous system embryologically.

A fertilized ovum is a microscopic single cell which possesses the information in the form of genetic material from ones mother and father moments after a sperm enters the ovum carrying a complement of genetic material from the father which together with that of the mother will lead to the development of a new human being after implantation in the uterus and several months of embryological growth and development.

It is meaningless to refer to a microscopic fertilized ovum as a person or as a human being at that point. It is certainly a potential human being but not an actual human being as is the mother who should not be forgotten nor taken for granted.

It is in fact her responsibility and choice to determine whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or not and it is not the business of anyone else but hers. Only her wishes in the matter do matter as it is her life and her body. She has a right to her own life and she is not the means to the ends of others against her will.

Ron Paul argues that when he is responsible as a pregnant woman's obstetrician for the well being of the fetus he is talking about a situation in which the pregnant woman wants to have the baby. Yes he could be held responsible if he does anything to harm the wanted baby before it is born.

But in the case of a woman who does not want to carry to term and is still in the first trimester long before the embryo or fetus would be viable outside the womb and before it would make any sense to think of the embryo or fetus as being conscious at all, then it ought to be acceptable for the pregnancy to be terminated in accordance with the wishes of the pregnant woman.

The religious position that a soul has entered at the moment of conception is purely a religious assertion unverifiable and merely an article of faith. It is wrong, as Ron Paul has acknowledged, for anyone to impose their own religious beliefs on another.

It is unfortunate that so many babies are carried and delivered by women who really don't want to be pregnant nor to have a baby but do so because they were raised to believe that they have no choice in the matter. Not to mention the guilt that they behaved in a manner which led to their pregnancy if not married.

Still more tragic is the case of married women who already have more children than they can handle or support who become pregnant within marriage and do not consider that termination of the pregnancy is open to them because of their religious beliefs.

An embryo and a fetus are not human beings, rather they are merely potential human beings. To be a potential something is not to be that something yet. Terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester or before viability outside the womb is not murder as the antiabortionists contend.

I wish Ron Paul would change his position and that his supporters would do so as well. I think his position is inconsistent with a rational pro freedom position on this issue because the freedom of the pregnant woman is at stake.

I know Ron Paul is willing to be opposed to the freedom of the woman to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses to do so because he believes the life of the baby takes priority. In the first trimester the embryo or fetus is not yet a baby or a human being rather still a potential one and ending its life is not murder.

The freedom of the pregnant woman is still the priority and it is wrong to impose the religious beliefs of others upon her.

Other than that I am in agreement with Ron Paul that the Constitution is to be adhered to as written but has been misinterpreted by those who want powers not granted in it.
The oath of office is violated by almost all our Senators and Congressman and they should be held responsible and replaced by enlightened voters.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

Do you see the hypocrisy? We

Do you see the hypocrisy? We either need to stop charging doctors for malpractice when they kill babies accidentally, or start charging people for the same crime when they have abortions. Personally, I don't give a sh*t either way. Just choose a position that isn't hypocritical and I'll respect it.

Two points, as to persecution, and rights

1) The Inquisitors also went after believers in Jesus who differed from the 'party line' of the Catholic Church. Their action of persecuting anyone is in violation of the NT itself.

"Love those hate you, do good to those who persecute you, pray for those who spitefully use you." is what the founder of Christianity said. Alas and alack, too often the face of Christ has been turned into a monster's face by the very ones who claim His name.

2) As to the question of abortion, I fully agree that the woman has the responsibility to determine whether she wants to terminate the pregnancy or not.(The right? that can be debated another time.) She should also be given the right to an informed choice, fully made aware of both the consequences of a live birth and of an abortion.

This is where Planned (un)Parenthood really lets its true color show. The Elliot Institute has done studies of thousands of women who had undergone abortions, and they report:
67% felt pressured to abort, but had no counseling beforehand;

79% were not told of any alternatives,

and the real shocker (or maybe not)...

84% said they were not given enough information to make an informed choice!

Now, that is one thing, giving Planned (un) Parenthood tax dollars to deny women vitally needed information is something I can only hope, as a Libertarian, you do not support. I hope you can also agree that,

"To compel a man (or lady) to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he (or she --my note) disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical!" ~~Thomas Jefferson

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

"don't let the actions of any

"don't let the actions of any candidate you like be what determines how you feel about that candidate". In other words, just listen to what they say, and ignore what they DO. Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me. I'm afraid I have the opposite opinion. Words are worthless without some action in support of them.

I felt like that was a mis-speak...

He had several "mis-speaks" (and elementary math errors) throughout the rant, like 9% being for liberty so 81% to go...um...?

I think he meant something to the effect of: look at the candidates themselves and what they stand for, not what their supporters are saying or doing. If he meant exactly what he said (which you quoted) obviously that would be ridiculous...but I'm going to just give him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW...do you disagree with his general message: there are a TON of people who don't support the liberty movement at all, and that is who we should focus on?

I wholeheartedly agree with that core message.

Can you show me somewhere

Can you show me somewhere where Johnson is critical of Keynesian monetary policy? In my opinion, that's what the liberty movement is all about. I've heard him call for more oversight but nothing about reversing the top down approach to economics. Without that, his message doesn't really support liberty. I would contend that he and Paul are actually delivering opposite messages if Johnson is only advocating more oversight to a top down economic approach.

But I agree he probably mis-spoke.

Gary Johnson is talented and

Gary Johnson is talented and has a unique appeal to democrats. I am anxious to see what kind of support he will drum up in his campaign. I give him props for succeeding at the state level and winning a blue state. He will be helpful in spreading our message. Nothing wrong with that.

...in the meantime I will con't on the Ron Paul front. Ron Paul is an anomaly. Never was there a candidate like Ron Paul and most likely never will there be another.

Johnson supporters need to

Johnson supporters need to grow up!

Well Said

They should not even be mentioning him here. The only reason to give him much service was if Ron Paul was not running, well ne know he is, so Gary is now off my mind and will only enjoy seeing him in the debates.

And to come around bashing thinking people on here give a crap about an article written about him vs Paul.