Gary Johnson Vote Gary Johnson and not Obama,Romney or write in Ron Paul

[kahless]

The facts:
http://2012.presidential-candidates....n/Abortion.php

You can call me names and negative rep me all you want but I stated a fact of Gary Johnson's position on abortion. Obviously you can't handle the truth.

Your neg rep included a link to Johnson's position on abortion which states:

"point of the viability of the fetus has been reached"

Wikipedia: Fetus Viability

The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.

So we are talking 6 months or more, minimum 5 months. That is a pro-abortion position.

Ron Paul is a defender of liberty for ALL. My statement stands. Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul!

 

[The Free Hornet]

What are you talking about?

The position I'm articulating is the only one I'm allowed to have here. If I disagree with it, I get banned. What are my options?

It's your own stated position.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ate-Ron-Paul&p=4574493&viewfull=1#post4574493

Option #1: Stop threadjacking.

Option #2: Start your own thread pushing your strategy which is clearly just a troll to get back at people who, rightly, stayed with the delegate strategy and were in a position to expose corruption and give a preview of how Romney administrates.

Option #3: STFU.


I 100% support anybody at war with the moderators and/or administration but when you hijack a thread, you are messing with another member who posted this to promote Gary Johnson. Start your own thread if you want to push this strategy.

 

[The Free Hornet]

You can call me names and negative rep me all you want but I stated a fact of Gary Johnson's position on abortion. Obviously you can't handle the truth.

Your neg rep included a link to Johnson's position on abortion which states:


Wikipedia: Fetus Viability


So we are talking 6 months or more, minimum 5 months. That is a pro-abortion position.

Ron Paul is a defender of liberty for ALL. My statement stands. Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul!

1) Yes, GJ is not RP. BFD. Not the issue.

2) Not wanting to intervene in somebody's medical issue or personal life is not "pro-abortion".

3) Ending the war on drugs is not "pro-crack"

4) Ending the IRS is not "pro-not giving to charity"

5) Ending the USDA is not "pro-salmonella"!

6) Being against war with Iran is not "pro-Ahmadinejad"

There are people that really do want abortions for reasons of

a) population control
b) eugenics
c) they don't care about third trimester/viability stuff

Gary Johnson is not one of these people and, knowing the facts, only a liar would call him "pro-abortion". Who are you that you want a government big enough to monitor our private medical decisions? Abortion was used by the AMA and pro-state fascists to increase government control of the medical industry. They like to restrict supply, outlaw any competition, and increase the demand for their services (e.g., constantly writing the same prescription).

Minarchism* is not pro-abortion.


*I am not saying GJ is a minarchist.


Edit: If you want to stop abortions. You should do it without stealing our tax dollars.

 

[sailingaway]

Quitter.

Careful SB, this kind of defeatist talk will get you banned here.

No,but mocking people chronically with a tag line is an attack, and that can get you banned.

I disagree with speciallyblend but I've already stated my disagreement. AT some point these threads become spam, but speciallyblend has some leeway, as a long term poster and known strong Paul supporter when Ron was in the race.

 

[Feelgood]

You guys are so silly. No matter how they beat you over the head, you still dont get it and come back for more.

Let's say GJ gets the magical number of 15%. What then? Have you learned nothing?!?! They simply move the finish line...

Since you got 15%, NOW you need 20%!

Ok, you got 20%, fuck it, you NEED 50%!

Ok, Gary, youre not going away, no problem you got 50%, you can be on the stage.

The debate comes up, and Gary doesnt get a single question, he is far off on the right, just enough so the cameras can focus on Obamney and Robama.

If if we meet their criteria, they will change it. If they finally can no longer change it to effect things, they will simply IGNORE GJ on stage and marginalize him, then laugh about it later in the interviews.

How can you people not learn?! You are becoming the epitome of insanity!

 

[Anti Federalist]

actually, I think New Hampshire and a number of other states count ALL write ins. Regardless, the difference between those who vote and those who vote for named presidential candidates is a number we can spread around, it isn't as if they report on third party candidates that much.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Johnson or for anyone else, but for those who WOULD prefer to write in Ron, such as myself, I have to say that I disagree with this reasoning, and think that if you DO bother to vote, the fact that you refused to eat the dog food they gave you would be on record.

This.

Vote your conscience.

I'm writing in Ron Paul.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If if we meet their criteria, they will change it. If they finally can no longer change it to effect things, they will simply IGNORE GJ on stage and marginalize him, then laugh about it later in the interviews.

How can you people not learn?! You are becoming the epitome of insanity!

From Ghandi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Yesterday was an example of the fight you stage. GJ has to aspire to be ignored, then laughed at, then fought, then ???

Of course, it is not about Ron Paul (ask him!) and it won't be about Gary Johnson. It is about liberty. If you don't want to fight for it, you shouldn't be here.

 

[cucucachu0000]

yea im no big fan of johnson but his foreign policy blows but miles ahead of romney and obama. and his abortion position sucks too. but i feel way more represented by him than the other candidates. i think if we write in Ron Paul none of the votes get counted and nobody will hear about it. but you vote for johnson you will actually hear about it and everyone will know it was ron paul supporters who changed there votes because of how shitty the RNC treated us. so atleast we get a message out of this election if nothing else

 

[erowe1]

No,but mocking people chronically with a tag line is an attack, and that can get you banned.

I disagree with speciallyblend but I've already stated my disagreement. AT some point these threads become spam, but speciallyblend has some leeway, as a long term poster and known strong Paul supporter when Ron was in the race.

All I'm doing with you is agreeing with you 100%.

I wouldn't dare do otherwise.

What would you do? Ban me because you don't believe I really mean it? It's not enough for me to parrot your views back to you, like I've been programmed to do? I have to somehow prove I'm serious?

Also, as you and I both know, Ron IS STILL in the race today every bit as much as he was a month ago. The electors haven't voted yet.

 

[AFPVet]

I am DONE with the Republican party. No more b.s. The two party system has to go down. I am voting straight ticket Libertarian from now on... enough of this shit.

 

[sailingaway]

What are you talking about?

The position I'm articulating is the only one I'm allowed to have here. If I disagree with it, I get banned. What are my options?

It's your own stated position.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ate-Ron-Paul&p=4574493&viewfull=1#post4574493

please note the word 'subforum' in that post and the fact that it was in Ron's subforum. And that a group of you were tag teaming to get people to STOP being in his forum and work on your projects, to the point where it was becoming harassment. That is why, now it is after Tampa, I moved this thread out of Ron's subforum. But I was pissed at what you were doing in that thread, some of which has been weeded out, and that was while our delegates were STILL fighting for the SIX states that filed papers to nominate Ron yesterday, permitting the New York Times and others to show how absolutely desperate the RNC was to not let him have a speech in that they changed the rules to needing 8 states, whereas Ron had six, AFTER they disqualified two for no reason.

I should think my position in that thread that people in Ron's forum still had goals to fight for in the primary was born out by the RNC action yesterday and all the media since.

I take it you don't see that point, that while you were telling everyone who was raising money for chip ins or spreading stories to support the delegates to give up, they were working towards goals -- five states-- that not only were reasonable goals, as you refused to believe, but actually were goals attained yesterday?

Then RNC moved the goal post, but that itself is telling -- and much media all over today, is telling it.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The RNC will not learn anything from a small bloc voting for GJ, in fact they will blame the inevitable Obama win on all of us regardless.

NOBP for me

 

[sailingaway]

All I'm doing with you is agreeing with you 100%.

I wouldn't dare do otherwise.

What would you do? Ban me because you don't believe I really mean it? It's not enough for me to parrot your views back to you, like I've been programmed to do? I have to somehow prove I'm serious?

Also, as you and I both know, Ron IS STILL in the race today every bit as much as he was a month ago. The electors haven't voted yet.

Ron ran in the primary. While the general election isn't ended until the electors vote, at this moment Ron hasn't decided to run in the general. Many of us will be writing him in, however, and technically he will be hypothetically able, just like Johnson technically will hypotheticallly be able, to pick up electors, and may have some already, although how they would vote is unknown. Mostly the electors are chosen one of two ways, through the delegate process already ended, where I would expect our ratio of electors to be rather like our ratio of national committeemen and women (very few) or through direct election of electors assigned to a candidate.

In my state, for example, if I want to get Ron as a certified write in candidate, I and about a dozen others need to sign up as electors. If he wins California as a write in candidate, he would get those electors.

So I guess you are right and I was wrong, Ron is still in the race.

I take it that is the answer you prefer, since you pushed back so much on my previous answer.

 

[erowe1]

I take it you don't see that point, that while you were telling everyone who was raising money for chip ins or spreading stories to support the delegates to give up, they were working towards goals -- five states-- that not only were reasonable goals, as you refused to believe, but actually were goals attained yesterday?

Let's suppose I did that. I didn't. And I'm not calling you a liar. I know better than to do that. I've learned my lesson about my previous failure to revere you. But let's suppose I did tell someone to give something like that up.

Isn't that exactly what's happening to you and me now? Here we are advocating the electoral college strategy, and people are telling us not to. Is that going to be tolerated? I get confused about what range of opinion is allowed here.

 

[sailingaway]

Let's suppose I did that. I didn't. And I'm not calling you a liar. I know better than to do that. I've learned my lesson about my previous failure to revere you. But let's suppose I did tell someone to give something like that up.

Isn't that exactly what's happening to you and me now? Here we are advocating the electoral college strategy, and people are telling us not to. Is that going to be tolerated? I get confused about what range of opinion is allowed here.

Repeated attacks will get you banned, not just attacks on me.

Tolerated? I think some may be trying to find out if it is viable, and I presume they will find out. If they decide they want to spend energy on that, it is their energy. Why would we not 'tolerate' them spending their energy on whatever they want that didn't harm others?

 

[erowe1]

Repeated attacks will get you banned, not just attacks on me.

Tolerated? I think some may be trying to find out if it is viable, and I presume they will find out. If they decide they want to spend energy on that, it is their energy. Why would we not 'tolerate' them spending their energy on whatever they want that didn't harm others?

Because in this website, we support the Electoral College strategy. People who don't support that don't belong here.

As for the idea that the same rules apply when people direct things at you as do when they direct them toward others, I'll just say, yes, of course, I know that. You are fair and impartial. Even if I had seen evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't dare to admit it.

 

[sailingaway]

Because in this website, we support the Electoral College strategy. People who don't support that don't belong here.

As for the idea that the same rules apply when people direct things at you as do when they direct them toward others, I'll just say, yes, of course, I know that. You are fair and impartial. Even if I had seen evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't dare to admit it.

Neg reps saying 'this is an accident I am not saying you are a liar' don't show how little you attack people, in case you were confused as to what an attack is.

I haven't seen people pushing the EC strategy as you say, although I've seen some ask about it. My position would be not that you have to agree, but that you shouldn't mock, as you are doing now, which is a form of attack.

 

[erowe1]

I haven't seen people pushing the EC strategy as you say, although I've seen some ask about it.

You and I are pushing the EC strategy. All I'm doing is agreeing with you. I'm not attacking anyone except those who would dare to go against you on this website.

I've learned my lesson.

 

[erowe1]

Neg reps saying 'this is an accident I am not saying you are a liar' don't show how little you attack people, in case you were confused as to what an attack is.

The only possible way that neg rep could have been anything other than an accident would have been if you really were a liar, which I wouldn't ever dare say on this website. It was a simple slip of the finger.

Besides, of course I know that neg reps count as an attack. Why would they allow neg reps here unless it were the case that using them were against forum rules?

 

[Dogsoldier]

Vote Johnson!!!!Don't waste your vote!!!!Write ins DO NOT COUNT!!!!We need a record of how many votes the Republicans lost.