Hey coooolll. Two slurs against a guy in one silly post.

Look, let me help you lefties out. If you want to compete with Ron, you don't try and associate him with "black helicopters" (besides, that is more of a left thing) or "neo-nazi's" but you field candidates that communicate non-violence as liberty as well does he. Final answer.

That is, unless you want MoJo to be the Sean Hannity of the left?

Hey now, these guys are
wearing the black plastic
hitler-hats, not the regulation silver space-domes,
SOMEbody's out of uniform...
Do people ever get to like,
just go for a ride in these
black helicopters? Who pays
for them? Do they run on
biodiesel? Are they thinly
disguised flying saucers?
Has anyone seen or talked
to Klortn@#$thuu? Heshe left
with MY saucer last week,
hasn't been back, and somehow
I think my new CELLSAT phone 'slipped' into hisher pocket, wonder how THAT happened, and the GAS card seems to have also
mysteriously vanished. So,
if you see something black
and fast hot-lapping the
local Wal-Mart at about 1,000 feet or so, ask the store
clerk to make up a big sign
that says PHONE HOME...

Ron Paul won't be getting ALL of the "black helicopter" vote, not even all of the libertarian vote.

Libertarians are pro-choice among other things.

Thanks

You forgot the com-trails (the white streaks in the sky left behind by CIA planes). Sorry, I watched a lot of community access television in Austin back in the day.

["Libertarians are pro-choice among other things."]

oh, really?

speaking for all the Libertarians now, are we?

got data?

----------------------
Libertarian Party News, July 1998:
----------------------
"Abortion: It's considered one of the "fault-line" political issues of our time -- dividing Americans on medical, religious, and legal grounds. So, too, is it with Libertarians. This month's Pulse question -- "Should the LP be pro-choice, pro-life, or something else?" -- drew the largest response ever and some of the most passionate answers.
The results of this unscientific poll confirmed what the LP Platform states: That "libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides [of the abortion debate]." Using arguments based on Libertarian philosophy, the U.S. Constitution, and simple pragmatism, Libertarians were sharply split on this issue.

A firm "pro-choice" position was the plurality favorite, but with only 35.2% of the vote. Another 30.2% took a solidly "pro-life" position. And 18.6% said that the party should take no political position on this issue."
lp.org/lpn/9807-pulse.html

-------------------
-2-time Libertarian party presidential candidate, the late Harry Browne said:
-------------------
"Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.

We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.

In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times."
harrybrowne.org/articles/Abortion.htm

------------------
and for those (l)ibertarians who feel the (L)ibertarian party speaks for them, the party's platform statement says, essentially, government should keep it's enormous probiscus entirely out of reproductive issues..., ALL reproductive issues (consistent with their position on all other personal issues):
-------------------
I.8 Reproductive Rights

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients, or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

Transitional Action: We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws."
--------------------

given the understanding that Dr. Paul, presonally, falls among that 30% or so of libertarians who hold a pro-life view, he nonetheless is consistent in the libertarian view that it is not the business of the federal government to require adherance by the American people to any such view as his, nor to any contrary view.
he's answered that question often enough already, i'd say

So libertarians are anti-abortion or you agree with my post, eh?

You can't have it both ways.

Talk about strawmen, the issue was whether libertarians are pro-choice - which they are - who pays for it is another question altogether.

Next we'll hear the "states rights" meme -(southern code for the reversal of civil rights granted in the '60's).

Thanks for documenting and proving my point.(on both counts)

libertarians simply don't use that stupid 'abortion litmus test' in choosing a candidate, as you purport

that's liberal/conservative nonsense, and as Harry Browne said so well:
"We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions."

it seems you just want to ignore the 30+% of (L)ibertarians who responded to the party's survey with strong pro-life positions... PERSONALLY, vs. ~35% who identify themselves as pro-choice
but that's about what i've come to expect you to do with facts that don't support your contentions

{southern code for the reversal of civil rights granted in the '60's}

Who 'granted' anyone rights in the '60's?

Does government 'grant' you your rights? Or do they exist apart from government, and. as the man observed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Anyway, was that the 1860's, when the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments along with the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 (& 1871) made it clear that All Americans possessed the same Natural Rights, regardless of race?
Or the 1960's, when some high-profile politicians decided to cash in on the substantial progress being made in the civil rights movement by courageous blacks and sympathetic non-blacks? Did their Window Dressing by passing a NEW civil rights law, without bothering to address 100 years of federal government's failure to enforce the Constitution and existant laws?

Oddly, 80% or better of Republicans supported the various versions of 1960's bill, while the best the Democrats could muster on any version was 68%, yet somehow, today's Democrat is convinced that the Republicans fought it tooth-and-nail and ONLY overwhelming Democratic support pushed it through.

Rep. Paul Introduces Three Pro-Life Bills – The following is a statement delivered in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 2, 2003, by Congressman Ron Paul, M.D.

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion.

“First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 (H.R. 1548) prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.

“Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003 (H.R. 1545). This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure.

“Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 (H.R. 1546) provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.

“Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.” [emphasis added]

Ron Paul Introduces 3 LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Bills!
Yep.
That's what he says, and that's what he does.

Every one of those bills amounts to Keeping Federal government and Federal taxpayer dollars OUT of the old abortion mix, and every one based on a principle I support.

"That's what he says, and that's what he does."

Except when it comes to abortion, then RIP Ron want the federal government inside every womb. (no room in the womb for the feds)

Read

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:h.r.392:

"H.R.392
Title: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life."

Add the other three RIP Ron:

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

*****

That'd make RIP Ron anti-choice and bigger government - just for this one item.

Smaller government and pure "constitutional" yet anti-abortion and making anti-choice an amendment doesn't comport with all the blather about liberty, freedom and smaller government.

But - hey if that floats your boat - vote for Paul.

More power to ya.

Yep. Back in 1981 Ron Paul and several other congressmen and senators submitted identical bills.

However, given that Ron Paul has reminded the Congress and the American people (often) that the Constitution empowers the federal government to pursue and prosecute exactly THREE crimes and no others, (treason, piracy and counterfeiting) a Ron Paul presidency would not be pursuing any criminal prosecutions re: abortion, even IF the 1981 proposals had gotten out of committee, which they did not. No 'bigger government' would result from it under Ron Paul.

It would still have fallen to the States to decide how abortion was to be handled.
And that's his position. Regardless of his personal feelings, stemming from experiences as a doctor having direct involvement in abortions being performed, it's a matter for the States, not to be dictated from inside the Beltway.

It's not just an 'academic' matter with Ron Paul, either, like I'm sure it is with you and me and most of the shouting faces on both sides of the issue, who so love to "spout contrary slogans" at each other.
Dr. Paul is intimately familiar with the subject and the process.
His opinion on the matter is worthy of respect, even if we disagree.

Have no doubt, he IS the guy i've been backing with money, word of mouth, and soon enough, with a vote.

I would HOPE you're expending as much effort supporting your own preferred candidate as you apparently WASTE on detracting from this "never gonna' happen anyway" guy...?

Tell us why YOUR guy ought to be the one we support, once in a while.
What's GOOD about Him? Better than the other choices?

Or are you strictly a "Negative Campaigning" kind of guy?

Not about me, and still not about me. No reason for the petty pathetic personal attacks.

I post facts and let everybody read for themselves. You want to tell people what to think.

That is not an effective way to bring people to your cause.

If RIP Ron's history is a negative to you - that says more than anything I could ever post.

Thanks again!

Right. I point out Ron Paul's amazing consistency on the Constitution, to counter your "Ron Paul wants the Feds in every womb", and the unsupported "Ron Paul = Bigger Government" hyperbole, and I'm "telling people what to think".

Yeah, I'm sure you've just put your finger RIGHT On why Ron Paul's poll numbers and fundraising totals are plummeting...

Oh, Wait..!!

They AREN'T!
They're IMPROVING!

Anyway, if you take someone asking about your motives and your methods as "petty personal attacks" in a political debate, you're just WAAAY too thin skinned for this exercise.
Only one sentence in the post that you bother to address directly, is to play the aggrieved victim of "a petty personal attack".., because your methods were questioned.

So, how 'bout showing us an example of how YOU are effectively bringing people to the Dennis Kucinich cause?
You MUST have experience in effectively encouraging support for Your Guy, since you're in a position to correct my approach, no?

DO you ever bother with posting positive, supportive things about your own first choice? Or ARE you a strictly "Neg the guy I'm most afraid of" campaigner?

(I know..., you'll just dodge this question again, like 99.5% of all the others you get asked)

Consistently anti-abortion:

Here is RIP Ron a little over a month back:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1094 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

****

Still anti-choice and always has been. Nothing wrong with that but let's not pretend it is anything else.

One has to look at the history, the context, the record and come to their own conclusion. If their conclusion differs from yours it doesn't mean they are wrong nor are they "against" you they just have a different opinion. I'll never understand why that would bug ya?

There are always people that will disagree, get used to it or it will drive you to distraction. Find peace within yourself to accept that yours is not the only valid point of view and you have no corner on anything.

Peace.

Consistently anti-abortion:

Here is RIP Ron a little over a month back:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1094 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

****

Still anti-choice and always has been. Nothing wrong with that but let's not pretend it is anything else.

One has to look at the history, the context, the record and come to their own conclusion. If their conclusion differs from yours it doesn't mean they are wrong nor are they "against" you they just have a different opinion. I'll never understand why that would bug ya?

There are always people that will disagree, get used to it or it will drive you to distraction. Find peace within yourself to accept that yours is not the only valid point of view and you have no corner on anything.

"DO you ever bother with posting positive"

Again, not about me. Why always the personal crud. no reason for it.

Peace.

Nobody has pretended Ron Paul was ever anything other than anti-abortion, PERSONALLY.

Is there something you've got showing that Dr. Paul would have the federal government pursuing abortion prosecutions, instead of leaving it up to the States, as he said is proper under the Constitution?
Or that he'd have the Feds pursue any prosecutions outside of the 3 crimes the Constitution gives it jurisdiction over?

It's still not a litmus test for libertarians, as you suggested.
We DO accept that people have differing views on it, as I gave you ample evidence of earlier.
It's liberals and conservatives who seem to think that any abortion position other than THEIRS is "wrong".
I won't lose a minute's sleep over that, or over what anyone says to or about me on an internet messageboard.