The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
10 votes

Gary Johnson

Gary says he will end the war in Afghanistan, he was oppossed to Iraq, He wants to end foreign aid to Israel, he does not war with Iran, he told me personally 3 years ago that he would sign legislation to end the fed if submitted by congress. Yes he said he supports "humanitarian wars" and I think he made a mistake. He also said he would not support a war not decalred Constitutionally by conngress
. I have largely stayed out of the vote GJ debate mainly because I know he does not have a real shot at winning. I mean actually being elected. if he did I would have been all over that like flys on shite after Dr Paul left the stage. That said I take issue with blatant lies spread about Gary. I know people that are his friends and I kinow that he came onto the political stage in New Mexico and has a better economic track record in terms of results than anyone currently running for office . Gary is the only guy who has actually took a deficit and made it into a surplus. He is the only guy who has run Govt fiscallly conservatively in actual practice. To say he is a warmongeer or neo con is not just off base its a lie. To say there is nothing good in his past record is a lie.I take issue with these things not because I give a crap who you vote for. I dont care who you vote for as long as its not romney. I care about these things because Gary is a real person with real people that care about him and he does not deserve to be slandered with lies. Criticize his "humanitarian war " statement, attack his apparent misunderstanding of the fed..etc in other words use facts to criticize Gary Johnson not lies and insane talk of dark plots where there is no evidence for any of this. Yes doug turner is a member of the cfr(Garys campaign manager for Gov). This gave me pause when turner ran for gov but I also did not have a track record like Gary's to vett him with.I was an altar boy that does not mean I am a Vatican Assassin

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

If you were to ever jackoff in something other than your hand... might know.


Regardless of whether I jack

Regardless of whether I jack off or not... Thousands of sperm die in your sack every day.



~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

My intentions were "heavy

My intentions were "heavy set" meaning heavily dedicated to.

I see where the misinterpretation is, but I'm not allowed to do corrections to previous posts once they have been commented on.

My 1st child was aborted against my wishes.

Therefore this is a little more personal for me than for most.

I shouldn't have said what I did but until you have lived through the horror of your own child being murdered backed up by the lawlessness of those who claim to be our representative government... well you will never understand.


So why didn't you use protection?

Where was your responsibility?
Was it your body that was going to maintain a pregnancy for 9 months?
What right do you think you had over another persons choices?
And I am not pro-abortion.

Formerly rprevolutionist

Why use protection when you can just murder, huh?

Protection against what? A kid?

"Protection" itself is a lie.


You had unprotected sex....

You had unprotected sex.... you got a woman pregnant. She decided to abort. Her body, her choice.
Or she could have had the child and raised it while you paid a couple hundred bucks a month in child support. Wow, I bet you would even have tried to be a dad a weekend a month for the first few years. Then moved on with your life and married and pretty much forgot about the bastard child that someone else was raising alone.

Formerly rprevolutionist

And by the same reasoning then her body belongs to the child.

Why does the woman get to choose but the child and the father has no say at all?

Why don't we let the child grow up first and then tell us which they prefer?

These blood thirsty types on here pout and scream for their rights but when it comes to sticking up for those who can least defend themselves they are all for killing and murder of the innocent.

Oh but I do understand... I

Oh but I do understand... I will fight for your right to choose to keep your kid as your right to choose. I can only hope you will support my right to choose as well.

No government entity or individual should impair your own personal judgement.Government has grown to a point where they will choose one side over the other, and has taken out the possibilities of both. Collective opinion has taken over and destroyed personal opinion.

I will fight for your right to choose to keep your child as I hope you can do for me to choose my own opinion as well.

You don't have a right to murder your neighbor for his house.

You don't have a right to murder someone so as to live a better life style or to make a different more positive image of yourself.

A child is not a liability. A child is a blessing regardless of circumstance.


Are you a vegetarian? because

Are you a vegetarian? because you kill everyday to live a better life style for yourself... Humans are animals like everything else in the animal kingdom, where is the hard feelings when you eat away at dead cow and chicken?

At the early point when a baby is being developed in the womb, it has less intelligence than in ant.


you are ok with eating human babies? (by that same logic) :\

Humans have different natural rights than animals...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

-"humans have different

-"humans have different natural rights than animals..."
That is opinion, not a fact of nature...

You are..

substituting "divine" for "natural". The "natural" in "natural rights" is the same as "natural selection". Locke is considered THE founding empiricist of the Enlightenment (although he was profoundly religious also). Paine and Hume as atheists had zero problems building on Locke.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Animals are animals no matter

Animals are animals no matter what you call us or from what perspective you are in. We are animals. Subsequently there is not "natural rights" just personal desires from different species.


dogs a have a right to not be beaten and fed only jelly beans. Their nature cries out they need meat and some veggies and to be petted and loved. It is empirically visible. You don't understand natural rights...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Still your missing the

Still your missing the point... Natural right doesn't exist! Just preferences/desires and species limitations.

Natural Right does exist

Both in perspective and in law, it doesn't need to exist in the sense of being somehow enforced by nature - essentially nothing except the "laws" of physics do that; but to say that natural right doesn't exist simply because it has to be enforced by humanity is missing the point. That's like saying government doesn't exist because it's only a concept reinforced by a lot of people. It does exist in that sense, and it's very real. It has real consequences that can be measured empirically.

As it is, natural right dictates that we have the right to our life. The disconnect is that some people don't recognize that a fetus is a living being - either that or they don't recognize it as human.

If the fetus is a human and it is life, then it should **ideally** be protected by any law that prohibits violence against human life. If it is not a human then it should not be protected by laws that protect humans. If it is not life, then it should not be protected by laws that protect life.

According to the courts, it's not human life, and therefor is not protected, but the courts are just composed of people, and people are susceptible to their own and others' opinions - regardless of how much schooling or how much the Congress vets you (ha!) you might still be a biased person, and therefor the court might be entirely composed of biased people. Of course it is.

****The second, and more important problem though, comes in at the notion that it is only ideally so that human life should be protected. Implementation is of course a whole different issue, and enforcement is another.

Implementation is difficult because in any system where you're restricting options that might otherwise exist if people are left to freely transact in whatever manner they choose, the issue is subject to a wide array of perspectives on exactly what limitations or regulations should exist. There is also the matter of who enforces those regulations, who they are accountable to, how much it will cost, what its societal impacts will be (birth rate, black market abortions, etc.) so on and so forth. These are things government should not really effect in my view.

Enforcement is another sore issue, because of the array of opinions. Enforcement of anti-abortion laws means prohibiting activity of patients and doctors under the threat of some penalty. If the penalty is a fine, the fine can be unpaid. If the fine is unpaid, arrest will ensue. If arrest is resisted, violence will ensue, if violence is insufficient, a resistor will be maimed. This chain of cause and effect, regardless of whereupon it we begin, will always flow to violence and the threat of the initiation of violence. Therefor you are prohibiting perceived violence with violence that is unequivocally violent.

My stance is that abortion is an evil, violent act, but I also see it as problematic to enforce rules on abortion, or for government to prohibit abortion. Like Ron Paul, I think that if we want to get rid of abortion, we need to get rid of the attitude that allows it, and the only way we can do that is to persuade people, not try to force them.

So I guess the real question

So I guess the real question here is when we give something rights as a separate individual... I would say once it leaves the womb, and I'm assuming you would say before it leaves the womb.

The baby is you until it leaves your body, therefore the rights are yours and not a separate thing.

The baby is YOU?

So women are babies? I don't understand this argument at all.
If 'woman' = 'baby'
then 'baby' has to = 'woman'
Otherwise your logic collapses

I mean, you can say that you want rights to be dictated by something other than when they become distinct beings and that would make sense, but to say that they are the same being doesn't make any sense at all.
A fetus or a baby, is clearly not the mother that birthed that fetus or baby. Even if you want to treat the fetus like an object, the equivalent of an organ or something, then you still have to consider that this object is capable of living on its own after a certain point, outside of the woman's body, without any aid from her whatsoever.

And if it's not distinct from the mother, how can you possibly charge with double homicide a person who murders a pregnant woman?

Allow me to clarify... I

Allow me to clarify... I indicated that the baby was you, because it was dependent upon your eating to feed itself. Also, it grew inside your body so indeed it is your body. The point when the baby is not apart of you (physically), is when individual liberties should be granted.... This is the point I was trying to get at.

Summarize: I think individual liberties should be granted when the baby leaves the mothers body, not when it's inside her.

Otherwise you get into all sorts of complications with personal liberties like whether to have an abortion if giving birth would injure/kill the mother.

Not enough proof

You say, "I indicated that the baby was you, because it was dependent upon your eating to feed itself."

But that's not true ten minutes before it's born. Seems like a pretty imperfect doctrine.

Next was, "Also, it grew inside your body so indeed it is your body."

So if you become infected by a virus, parasite or bacteria, that is YOU? Even though it could be actively killing you, and is capable of living without any assistance from you?
What about a tapeworm that was birthed inside your body? Is that your body? Your argument doesn't work.

I don't think you've really proved that a fetus is the body of its mother.

From your argument, then

From your argument, then individual rights would be grant-able to everything that is independent within your body. Every cell in your body makes up your body... Even bacteria and viruses are apart of you.

Even if you make the argument that viruses are not apart of your body because they didn't originate there, then you would still have to make the argument for babies witch did originate from your body... just as cells did.

A baby is no different than every other cell that is made within your body... So in fact, the baby is you, just as every cell in your body is you.

Abortion is wrong, fetus=/=woman's body, get a new argument

Not everything 'independent' in your body can live independently of you. A skin or blood cell, outside of your body, is not a separate being, while a newborn baby is, just as a virus is.

If you think there's a difference between a baby two minutes after birth and a baby two minutes before birth, I'm not sure I can reason with you. My view is based on the belief that a fetus and a baby are not all that dissimilar, especially the closer to birth the fetus gets. After all, that is the entire purpose of pregnancy, to produce a separate being, and it strikes me as odd that you would insist that this separate being simply doesn't exist until you physically see it before your eyes. You can't see air. You can see the effect of it, can't you? Growth of her midsection... Also, you can see, with equipment, its shape and posture. It clearly exists, and you know what it is, so why not classify it correctly? It relies less on its mother to a point of zero literal reliance (yes, before it physically exits her body) and then it's a clearly physically distinct entity. Why would there ever be any debate about that?

Did you know that ideally humans would be in the womb another three months, because their heads haven't completely formed and their muscles are very weak and they're still living off of fat from their mother for that duration? But human mothers can only keep their babies for so long inside their body due to the difficulty of birthing them after they've grown too large. Why don't we push the line for morally permissible abortions back another three months since technically babies aren't that developed or survivable then - I mean, they still rely on their mothers completely for survival in a primitive sense, and if she doesn't want to submit her body for breastfeeding (it's her body, dammit!) they'll just wobble around like roly-polies until they starve to death in a helpless haze of tears and flailing. They can't even see, so why bother classifying them as a living being - a distinct entity from their mother - until it's no longer her body that requires service for their life. What's the difference? It's only an object, a part of her body.

Abortion is morally wrong. There's no way around it.
Like I said before, I am against prohibiting it, especially at the Federal level, for both implementation and enforcement reasons, but just because government shouldn't outlaw it doesn't mean it's right behavior to willfully destroy the exact equivalent of a premature newborn.

We share different

We share different definitions... Why do you feel you have to enforce your beliefs on abortion onto other people though? I say give the parent a right to choose for themselves, you don't have to have an abortion if you don't want to, but don't force other people to follow suit because its "moral" or "the right thing to do", because that is entirely subjective.

I'm absolutely tired of people enforcing their "beliefs" onto other people... I am NOT enforcing abortion onto you, yet you ARE enforcing no abortion onto me!

This country was NOT founded on people with collective opinions on things, it was founded on people who had widely diverse and even controversial opinions on things. The day you start ENFORCING opinionated laws onto people, is when we go from individualism to collectivism.

You may not agree with me on the definition of citizen... but to be a citizen you must get your birth certificate and social security number, granted when you are Born, not when you are "being born." We base everything citizenship wise based on birth day, not day of conception... So in fact individual liberties under the U.S. Constitution is based on whether you are born, and not "in the process of being born."

Insisting =/= enforcing

The primary thing your argument is hinged on is that I'm enforcing my beliefs, but I'm not.
I clearly stated that I do not want to enforce any abortion or anti-abortion laws. The government shouldn't be involved in it.

that DOES NOT mean-
1. a fetus doesn't or shouldn't have any rights (they do and should)
2. a fetus 2 minutes before birth is in any substantive way any physically, mentally, or often legally any different from a baby that has just been born.

According to your definitions, until the birth certificate is filled out, which could actually be filled out and/or certified long after the birth of the baby, the baby doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, but as far as defining my own perspective, I frankly don't give a damn how the government classifies birth or when life begins or should be recognized, but even if we are going to consider the government's stance, third-trimester abortions are generally held to a better moral standard, even in Roe v Wade, which makes exception and calls it, 'past the point of viability.'

Your argument is well put,

Your argument is well put, and I see where your coming from, but I would like to know when you consider a baby to "have rights"?

When the sperm gets to the egg?

In regards to your previous statement on the baby not being alive before being born and rights before then... I agree that the baby IS ALIVE before they are born, and have never said differently... The point that I was getting at, is that it makes for good public policy for rights to be granted when they are born, otherwise you get complications because a third party has to make decisions for the baby because the baby can't make decisions on it's own yet.

Example: lets say that the mother might die while giving birth to the baby due to some health complication... If the baby had rights, then it would be quite complicated because you either have the mother die, or the baby die. A third party would make this decision and not the mother based on the third party granting "liberties" (of whatever kind) to the baby.

So what I'm saying is, is that it is best to grant these individual liberties when the baby is born, so you don't take away the parents liberties, to choose her own life.

(this is just one example but I think you understand my point)






~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

By your standard maybe you need to go get your next meal...

...out of the dumpster at Planned Parenthood.

Then you can tell us if a baby tastes like chicken and answer your own stupid questions for yourself.