12 votes

GJ robocall disappoints

I got a robocall from Gary Johnson's campaign yesterday. Two out of the first three things mentioned that were supposed to get me to vote for him was "legalization of marijuana" and his being "pro-choice". Right after the first three things, the speaker says Johnson is very close to Ron Paul's views, going on to mention more mainstream liberty topics like shrinking govt.

I was turned off that pot legalization was the first thing mentioned. Yes, I want to see the drug war ended, but things like cutting back the govt. and auditing the Fed and stopping the wars really ought to be mentioned first in a call like this. If it had to lead off with the drug issue, I wish that the caller had said something like "end the failed war on drugs" instead of "legalize marijuana. Also, the abortion issue is the main reason I am *not* voting for Johnson. And right after the caller said "pro-choice", he said that Johnson is very close to Ron Paul's views. Would a listener associate "pro-choice" with Ron Paul? It was said after "pro-choice," and I'm sure it was really meant to refer to the things said after that, but I still think it was poor word placement that could possibly mislead.

I'm not planning to vote for him anyway, but I was rather disappointed in the call even so.

Comment viewing options

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

There is no reason to think, that...

Johnson's candidacy wouldn't be infiltrated and co-opted in much the same way that Ron Paul's was.

In other words, there is an infinite amount of money and resources available to those who would want to hurt GJ and the liberty movement by intentionally wording key issues like the drug war in a way that makes him, us, and them look like a bunch of kooks.

So who wrote that robocall script anyway?

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look back at 40 years of PANDA diplomacy next Pandaline

unlike ron paul

Johnson doesn't need to be infiltrated or to get co-opted. He doesn't even have a base, in his own robo calls he needs to name drop in hopes of getting votes and even then he does that incorrectly.

Is jesse benton helping out in the johnson camp now or something?

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana, strain reviews and other related topics.

Live and Let Live

First of all, "Life begins at conception" is a religious BELIEF.

Are miscarriages and ecotopic pregnancies given religious burials by any church? If the soul is what distinguishes us from animals, can it exist with nothing but a bundle of cells no more complex than an earthworm? Is this not more than a bit absurd? After all, if DNA is the determinant, then a patch of skin cells could just as easily be considered "human".

So, exactly WHEN does a "human life" begin? I do not know, do you?
I BELIEVE a "human life" begins when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb, when is exactly what Gary Johnson says when he goes to lengths to explain his "unhesitatingly pro-choice" position. He does believe a women has the right to choose whether or not to carry a child until that child becomes viable outside the womb and that decision should not restricted to rape, incest or saving the life of the mother. If your "pro-life" beliefs make that unacceptable, I must ask you if you really believe in "free will" or are you simply willing to sacrifice one sacrosanct belief for another?

So, if I wreck my car into a pregnant woman

and she loses her fetus, why as I going to be charged with vehicular manslaughter if there is no "man/person" killed? HMM? Sounds like the courts treat the fetus as a human being.

And if I cause the death of an unborn...

... is it just like I popped a girls pimple without her permission?

Religion and a soul do not have to be applied. The issue is Liberty for the unborn.

Why and when does an unborn fetus become something more precious than a pimple? I'd say because it becomes a human being at conception. I would agree with you if we were talking about a sperm, an egg, or a pimple.

Would you be upset if a pregnant relative's unborn baby was killed (or 'destroyed' if you don't like 'killed') without her permission? If so, why? Isn't it just like a pimple?

Unique DNA scientific fact

I believe that killing an innocent is a crime that should not be sanctioned or paid for by the state. Miscarriage and abortion that is actively sought are two completely different situations. Viability gets earlier and earlier, doesn't it? A skin patch from you would have distinct DNA from a patch from your baby. Yes, it is scientific fact that a new life has started at conception, because of the presence of unique DNA. What people are really arguing about is not whether there is life, but whether or not to protect that life. GJ does not want to put protecting life first, and that is my problem with him.

Now, part of the reason for my post is the robocall's careless use of RP's name in a call that touts GJ being pro-choice as a major credential. Regardless of your personal beliefs or mine, we know that Ron is pro-life. Yes, RP's name is mentioned after the pro-choice part of the call, but that won't matter much to a listener that is against abortion. The association between GJ's belief and RP's name is made just from the fact that RP is mentioned in this call at all.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

See this is it right here!

Gary Johnsons number one issue is NOT ending the Federal Reserve, and it should be!

Why? Why will he not publicly attack the bankers like Ron Paul did? WHY???

This is all about educating people about the Repressive Debt based fractional reserve central banking system.

If we dont end the FED, NOTHING CHANGES!!

I see this as another example of Gary Johnson being used to discredit Ron Paul's name, and simply continue to spread the ignorance.

I still can not get past thinking that Gary Johnson is a shill. Just like the rest of them.

You have provided a fine example...

...of why our country is in such dire straights.

You have no desire to see freedom and liberty for all. You are only interested/care about the "freedoms" that affect you directly. If you truly believed in liberty, you would have a problem with what's going on.

The largest prison population in world history is made up of 50% non-violent offenders, who are being beaten, raped, and enslaved on a daily basis for a completely victim-less crime.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Look in the mirror

I said I don't want to see the drug war continue, but that is exactly how the call should have put it - this is about the failed drug war and liberty, and those are the terms that would have been more effective. I would have had less of a problem with it if it were midway or at the end of the call, but to lead off with "legalize marijuana" would turn off a lot of potential republican fence sitters who don't want to vote for Romney but aren't awake enough to know that legalizing marijuana is about liberty.

i also do have a big, huge problem with a million unborn babies being slaughtered every year. Do you care about them? Ripped apart bodies, heads crushed, maybe burned by saline (do they still do that kind of abortion?) They are the most non-violent offenders out there - "offenders" for being inconveniently conceived. Ron understands that in order to fight for liberty we must first and foremost respect and fight for the right to life itself. GJ doesn't seem to if he's pushing "prochoice" as a positive credential, as one of his top three positive credentials. I also say I have a problem with the call mentioning RP's name while touting GJ's "prochoice" cred, when Ron is unabashedly pro-life. Oh, they don't matter as much as those in prison? Now who has no desire to see freedom and liberty for all?

If GJ wants to get true freedom-lovers on board, he shouldn't use terms that are going to alienate people right off the bat.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Voting for a candidate does

Voting for a candidate does not endorse every action they have ever taken or ever will take.

Certainly, the alternatives Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will be no better on the abortion front.

End result? Gary Johnson is a net gain. But that doesn't really matter, you totally side-stepped the issue.

You are complaining about his use of the phrase "legalize marijuana". That is your argument for not voting for him. It's political, rhetorical, bullshit, and when people STOP basing their vote on what the candidate SAYS and START basing it on what they actually DO, then we may actually see progress towards liberty.

As it stands, I don't know if you can tell or not, but we're definitely NOT headed in that direction. For all the inroads we've made as a movement, we are headed faster than ever before in the direction of TYRANNY. Despite that, it feels like the majority of the movement would much rather wait around for another perfect candidate to come along.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

"Obama phone" world


I am not avoiding voting for GJ because he wants to legalize marijuana. I take no issue with the fact that imprisonment for possession of a substance that should be legal, and all the abuses that go with that imprisonment, are a terrible wrong that needs to be righted. My main issue is that he is pro-choice (though I have others with his foreign policy as well). You are the one who says you want freedom for all, yet you completely sidestepped the idea of freedom for the most innocent among us when I called you on that.

I'm complaining about the way this robocall approached the issue of legalization. If I were a republican fence sitter who still embraces the "just say no", miami vice mindset, I would be put off by the phrase "legalize marijuana." It was the first item listed on the call, so I would immediately be put off with the thought "oh this guy just wants to legalize drugs." *You and I* know this is about individual liberty, but I'm talking about your average undecided conservative who may not have woken up about this. I'm trying to say it would have been more effective to frame the issue in terms of a "failed drug war", because that phrase has more connection to the idea that our govt. is not doing the right things in this area. Now if I'm that fence sitter that has this idea that GJ's main issue is legalizing drugs and drug use and now see him in a negative light, next he pulls in Dr. Paul's name. No matter what else is in this call about smaller govt. and auditing the Fed, etc., I'm probably going to make my negative association of legal drug use with Dr. Paul as well as GJ.

I agree people should base their vote on what candidates do and their record, instead of what they say. But this isn't that kind of world. It's "Obama phone" world. Phrases used to pitch your candidate in a quick call unfortunately do matter. Most people out there would associate other things such as the TSA, NDAA, or UN gun grabbing with an overreaching govt. and loss of liberty much more quickly than legalizing marijuana.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

First, I'd like to hear this

First, I'd like to hear this "robocall" and judge for myself. Johnson has been saying all the right things lately and if you are a one issue voter (abortion), then, of course, Johnson can never win you over. I happen to be pro-choice myself but I still enthusiastically supported Ron.

Oh...if you are offended by this robocall, I was also offended by some of the Jesse Benton immigrant bashing ads for Ron but I still kept my eyes on the big picture.

Shouldn't have mentioned RP

Planned Parenthood has been making a *big* push this election to make abortion a front and center issue. It seemed by highlighting it as one of the first three things he is for, perhaps Gary is trying to dovetail with that. Seems to me if he really thinks it should be a state issue, why alienate the pro-life side by bringing it up at all, or at most why not just say "Gary Johnson thinks the issue should be decided by the states?" No, here he is definitely representing himself as strongly pro-choice.

Secondly, I did find it offensive that they included Dr. Paul's name in the call. 'Legalize Pot', 'Abortion rights', then 'Dr. Paul' in rapid succession (yes I now paraphrase because that seems to be the thought process this call could (wanted to?) elicit). It was at least poor word choice, and at worst perhaps a deliberate attempt to associate Dr. Paul with what came *before* his name. Not saying that a libertarian who agrees with those first things would see them as a negative association, but what about others who don't want to vote for Romney and would be receptive to the shrinking govt. part, but be real turned off by 'legalize pot' and 'abortion rights?' This second reason is why I posted about this call at all - I think it could damage Dr. Paul, and there's just no need for it.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

This is like a Ron Paul robo call smear campaign

This is like a Ron Paul robo call smear campaign, they should not mention the Dr.'s name at all

It would be interesting to

It would be interesting to know whether or not it was even a Libertarian Party robo call or from some other nefarious party or PAC...

Seems anyone can do robo calls these days?

I hate to see Dr. Paul's name in the trash, and I hate to see Dr. Paul's name used to get support for GJ unless of course Dr. Paul were to come out and publicly verbally without question endorsement for Gary Johnson. But he has not done so, and there must be a reason why.

RP & GJ both want the states to decide on the abortion issue

GJ mentioned on Twitter he would appoint pro-life Judge Napolitano to SCOTUS.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Don't make me get started :)

Now Legalize, that is not true. Ron Paul introduced Sactity of Life Act at the Federal Level in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]



How is it that Gary Johnson and Ron Paul support the same idea

when Ron Paul believes life begins at conception and introduces such legislation.

and Gary Johnson believes that murder of human life is acceptable up until viability and supports the supreme courts rulings as such instead of removing the determination from the supreme and district court jurisdiction?


Legalize, I have no problem with you supporting Gary Johnson and promoting his support, the only issue I take is when Ron Paul's position on life is twisted to be the same as that of Gary Johnson's opinion.

GJ differs from Ron Paul on is the vey essential element to protecting liberty. RP says "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

Gary Johnson says: http://www.vokle.com/events/74213-gary-johnson-ron-paul-revo... question number 37 at 53 minutes.


the reason he proposed personhood

was so that it could be a state issue. The effect of personhood would make it a state issue and each state could choose the punishment.

And to contradict the conception thing Ron Paul said he would be ok with essentially a morning after pill (shot of estrogen in his case) in certain cases knowing full well conception might have already happened. So it isn't all cut and dried.

Let Gary Johnson stand on abortion on his own 2 feet

& leave Dr. Paul out of it.

When Dr. Paul says speaks about a shot of estrogen, he qualifies it within 24 hours of rape and with one has no way of knowing if there is even a pregnancy.


Additinally if at a national level with the Sanctity of Life Act if a person is a person at conception, then the states will decide if they will allow murder of an innocent person. It is termed with the words of "PROTECT the lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life_act#Findings

"Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges."

Read the bill at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096: and know what Ron Paul proposed. And know that not a single member of congress would cosponsor the legislation with him: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hr1096:


Ron Paul wants to send it to the states because that will appeal Roe vs Wade. Gary Johnson supports Roe vs Wade


Ron Paul sees abortion as a violent act. Gary Johnson agrees for a doctor to commit this violent act if a woman so chooses and supports the National Law of the Land. Gary Johnson says so at : http://www.vokle.com/events/74213-gary-johnson-ron-paul-revo... question number 37 at 53 minutes. He advocates abortion up until the viability of the fetus, which is about 24-28 weeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal)#Legal_definitions. A known life at 24 - 28 weeks is a far cry from a 24 hours after rape shot of estrogen when one does not even know if a pregnancy exists.

My contention is with the title of a comment, "RP & GJ both want the states to decide on the abortion issue," which places Gary Johnson within the same framework as Ron Paul on abortion which cannot be further than the truth. If Gary Johnson supporters would like Gary Johnson to be president that is fine. But I wish they would do so without dragging the Good Dr.’s name thru the mud with their candidate.

Let Gary Johnson stand on abortion on his own 2 feet.


I feel like I have a pretty full understanding of Dr. Paul's philosophy and I believe his position is that abortion is more of a moral issue rather than something that should be pursued through legislation. Personaly I have always believed in the morality of the people and I think this issue is dramaticized by the media and "rouge activists", and the amount of cases of mothers and doctors doing crazy shit to end of the spectum that Dr. Paul has described is not as widespread to the extent that some people seem to like to argue about the issue. Trying to draw a solid line through a gray area that most people aren't even looking to cross is only going to hinder the freedom movement.

Well, Bum Alcohol 2 Party

What you fail to understand is that there is no difference between a baby crying in a bucket and a baby being sliced and diced and evicted at 8 weeks. Both are human life and when humans begin to cannibalize (diminish) other humans it is destructive to humanity which is why we have a very low regard for life on the continent of Africa as people starve to death as well as in the Middle East where innocent lives are being droned. All 3 are different spectrums of death by the will of the living.

Your comment:
“I feel like I have a pretty full understanding of Dr. Paul's philosophy and I believe his position is that abortion is more of a moral issue rather than something that should be pursued through legislation.”

indicates that you also fail to understand that Ron Paul addressed the issue legislatively. While in Congress, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, Ron Paul introduced Sanctity of Life Act at the Federal Level in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

I am not an "abortion activist." But I am not going to remain silent when comments are made regarding life. Your life as well as my life is at stake along with the unborn and those being tormented around the world, and because of that, it is a very necessary and productive debate.

The statement that I took issue with was "RP & GJ both want the states to decide on the abortion issue." That is not a true statement and I have the right to say so and factually prove it.


Overly emotional, perpetual nonsense

So are you arguing for prohibition of abortion services from doctors, or the use of public funds, or what? It is not clear what the Sanctity of Life Act would do if passed. It's seems to me more like Dr. Paul once again using the political platform to spread an idea. Prohibition doesn't work and some vocal pro-lifers seem to want to push the issue to the end of the spectrum, murder. Free market solutions vs interventions and prohibitions.

Regardless of race age, sex, health, defect or depependency

I am arguing that life [human personhood] begins at conception regardless of race, age, sex, health, defect or condition of dependency which is exactly what Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act does:

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency

You tell me, what education does that afford when speaking in terms of doctors and funds and abortive services?

The fact that you refer to this as "Overly emotional, perpetual nonsense" tells me that you failed to get an education from Dr. Paul in regards to his statement:

"Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."


As close as

Life and Death

No mention of pushing a repeal of Obamacare?

That should have been the number one topic but again he disappoints.