Posted on 10/26/2009 6:23:11 PM PDT by GoldStandard
Gary Johnson is preparing to launch his Our America PAC shortly, as soon as he gets all of his legal ducks in a row. He will be hitting the trail hard soon, traveling the country to speak in support of issues and candidates, re-immersing himself in the public policy debate.
This December, Governor Johnson will also be releasing a book entitled “Seven Principles Of Good Government,” published by The Heartland Institute (a conservative-libertarian think tank).
Well....slavery was once legal. What does that prove? I thought that the pro-life idea was based on principle not expediency. If the woman decided to have an abortion, isn't she a murderer? If so, why shouldn't be executed? Why she is any less guilty than the person she hires to to help her perform the murder?
Well....Paul’s position on abortion is essentially the same as Johnson. Both would leave it up completely to the states. It is true that Johnson might support legalizing it in his own state but that seems like a trivial difference.
I have to agree with you. I can’t abide the huckster nor the myth. As much as I love Sarah, I don’t think voters will be ready for her in 2012. I believe they’ll have had a bellyfull of young, inexperienced politicians and will be ready to vote for an old man, no matter the color. I’m afraid they’ll think they may as well stay with what they have instead of voting for Sarah, especially if Obama has managed to fake a better economy by then. 2016 or 2020 would be better for Sarah.
Gary Johnson is pro-open borders?
That is what I was wondering!
Your premise is wrong, but thank you for the above high compliment.
That is what someone posted to me — I didn’t even know who he was until someone posted he was running.
Sarah Palin is a Republican and a libertarian (watch your capitalization).
Then you misunderstand Jeffersonian liberalism.
Enlighten me, please?
I just typed "Jeffersonian Liberal" into Google and got a number of correct sources.
Not a libertarian,
Sarah Palin knows and understands the IslanOfascists is the enemy we must defeat. She supports the war also her son just returned from Iraq.
She is a Conservative Republican.
The libertarians are anti war, L ron Paul does not believe
the IslamOfascists are a threat nor North Korea.
Paul wouldn’t even vote to condemn Ahmadinejad.
>You live a sheltered life in a small sparsely populated state (my County has a larger population than your state)
Yes, and it’s a whole state where guns are allowed to be enjoyed by the population... There’s an ancient Chinese proverb that says “A foolish idea, held by thousands, is still a foolish idea.” So, what’s your point here?
>You can afford to live in your fantasy land with the other PaulBots.
Who said I’m living in a fantasy-land? You failed to answer my question: If we required a Constitutional Amendment to federally regulate/prohibit alcohol, why do we NOT need one for these other drugs?
So, explain why bringing up the point that in the past, in order to prohibit some substance nationwide, congress needed a Constitutional amendment AND YET it does not need one to prohibit some substance nationwide now. Going by the jurisprudence notion of precedence, the federal prohibition on drugs would need a Constitutional Amendment to be valid. {Or do you propose to discard the parts of the law you do not like while adhering to that which you do like?}
>>Even when abortion was illegal it was the doctors performing the abortion that were normally prosecuted.
>
>Well....slavery was once legal. What does that prove?
I only mentioned it because of the historic legal precedence. I did not claim that it proves anything; nor do I mention the morality thereof.
>I thought that the pro-life idea was based on principle not expediency.
I’d say that normally it is.
>If the woman decided to have an abortion, isn’t she a murderer?
Certainly an accomplice, but if we look at it as an assassination then she’s certainly the one “ordering the hit.”
>If so, why shouldn’t be executed? Why she is any less guilty than the person she hires to to help her perform the murder?
I never said any of that. But here’s something for you to mull over: it is a fact that women convicted of rape (think schoolteachers) get lighter sentences then men. Is that right? {I think not; in fact, it is my opinion that rapists and murmurers should be put to death.}
She is a conservative, which is why the Republicans will have nothing to do with her.
She states on her face book she is a Republican.
Sarah Palin is a Conservative Republican.
So does the conservative candidate in NY Congressional District 23.
Yet he is running against both the Republican and Democrat nominees.
How is that?
Did he actually change his party registration? Don’t know the answer, but if he didn’t then he is a Republican.
Bill Clinton could go change his voter registration and become a Republican. He could still believe exactly the same way he always did, but he would be a Republican because he’s registered as one.
Right now, I don't think he has a party affiliation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.