Diehard attempt to enlighten Electors re:Obama not U.S.citizen

[Selene]

Galt:

As an aside, are you arguing that there is no rational argument against abortion that an objectivist can raise?

You seem to always assert that example each time you project positions that you seem to perceive every "enlightened" soul agrees with wholeheartedly.

Adam♦

[galtgulch]

Galt:

As an aside, are you arguing that there is no rational argument against abortion that an objectivist can raise?

You seem to always assert that example each time you project positions that you seem to perceive every "enlightened" soul agrees with wholeheartedly.

Adam♦

Selene,

When i hear that someone believes that a "soul" enters the fertilized ovum at the moment the sperm enters I shake my head in amazement that people allow themselves to buy such unsupportable contentions by the mystics. Then those who believe that kind of nonsense oppose abortion even the day after conception, even before the ovum implants in the uterus. I have heard one argue that she believes the soul continues to exist after one dies and then that the soul will enter another new person in the process of reincarnation, aptly named. I accept that humans have a spirit in the form of consciousness but I do not believe that their consciousness survives death and then searches the world for another egg to enter. Whether soul might have some meaning with regard to some personal quality is debatable. When the term is used it means something other than an ephemeral spirit which may exist outside of a person.

It is pathetic that grown men and women subscribe to such fairy tales. But you ask if there is a rational argument against abortion and my answer is a resounding no! Why don't you propose one and we can chew on it and see if it really makes sense.

www.campaignforliberty.com 96844 on 20Dec 96919 on 21Dec AM There is no doubt in my mind that this movement will continue to grow without end. In time there will be enough of us to affect change in the political arena in the direction of greater freedom and less intrusive government intrusions and meddling.

OT:Check out the performance of WGAT stock this last week at www.ojophone.com Not too late to buy. Do due diligence!

Edited December 21, 2008 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Galt:

You did notice that the word soul was in " " correct?

A definitional question, when does "life" as defined in law begin and acquire individual rights?

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; Was it wrong to charge Scott Peterson with the death of his unborn son?

When did you come into existence? Might it be at the moment of conception.

The Choice people say that there should be no laws about terminated a pregnancy. Are you seriously saying that two/thirds of Americans take this position. Cite a source.

Dr Paul is a gynecologist. He delivers babies. Might he have some knowledge about the person-hood of the child in womb.

I have very mixed feelings about abortion but I think your attack on Christian doctrine as a basis for being for legalization might need a little bit of work.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Well I might as well throw this into the argument:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14322

"Another 'champion of abortion' becomes defender of life: the story of Stojan Adasevic

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”

After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn."

Folks, are we not all former embryos?

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

My own early view of abortion was that it was legitimate up until the birth of the fetus. I no longer think this, but not because I accept the idea of reincarnation or of a soul seeking a new body to inhabit. (Galt, you really set up a straw man by writing as if that were a major source of the objections to abortion. I've talked with a great many people who opposed abortion, but not one opposed it for such reasons.) What changed my mind was the advancement of science. Because it now is possible for a baby to live outside the body of the mother as early as six months into the pregnancy, I believe that that should be the approximate cut-off date for abortions. So long as the fetus is dependent on its host, the mother, so long as it must remain a part of her body, she has the right to reject it. But once it no longer requires the use of her body for its survival, it must be treated as an independent entity, with a right to its own life.

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Galt; Was it wrong to charge Scott Peterson with the death of his unborn son?

When did you come into existence? Might it be at the moment of conception.

The Choice people say that there should be no laws about terminated a pregnancy. Are you seriously saying that two/thirds of Americans take this position. Cite a source.

Dr Paul is a gynecologist. He delivers babies. Might he have some knowledge about the person-hood of the child in womb.

I have very mixed feelings about abortion but I think your attack on Christian doctrine as a basis for being for legalization might need a little bit of work.

Chris,

I think the will of the mother is important to know if possible. As I understand it the government of China had forced abortions performed upon pregnant women who wanted to have the baby and were not interested in terminating their pregnancies.

When did "you" come into existence depends on what you mean by "you!" There is a distinction between the potential "you" in the embryonic and fetal stages and the "you" after you are born. There is the issue of viability outside the womb. There is the question of when it becomes meaningful to attribute the concept of rights, human rights, the right to life.

I don't think gynecologists or obstetricians have a monopoly on the wisdom or kind of knowledge needed to answer these questions. When I was in medical school I scrubbed in on a therapeutic abortion because the ob residents were all Catholic and refused to participate. At the time I had not done any thinking about the issue. I recall making the sign of the cross over the field of operation before the dilation of the cervix began. I knew that something was going to be killed. I know that Ron Paul was deeply troubled by his experience with a late term abortion. I was horrified reading my obstetrics text book where there were pictures of techniques to remove the baby by ... I will spare the details here.

I was sickened witnessing tiny but identifiable parts of the baby. It was a first trimester ab. I remember talking with the doctor who spoke of how women died before abs were legal and as horrible as this was at least the mother was safer.

I have subsequently encountered young women who found out they were pregnant and were ill prepared to deal with the decision. They didn't want to be pregnant but were unclear if they had a right to terminate the pregnancy. They were usually influenced by their religious upbringing on the matter.

I have no ready source but just recall reading the statistic in the newspaper from some poll about peoples attitude about a woman's right to choose. I was surprised that the percentage was in the sixties because there are so many religious people in this country.

After the Christian Crusades and the Christian Inquisition and the incalculable fraud and oppression perpetrated by Christian Doctrine and Dogma, I cite here Galileo and Giordano Bruno but the list is virtually endless to this day when you consider the untruths drilled into the minds of children, I do not apologize for my "attack" on Christian doctrine. Are you kidding or what?

www.campaignforliberty.com membership update 96867

galt

Edited December 21, 2008 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Galt:

I have been where you were.

"I will spare the details here."

That is part of the issue that creates a false conclusion.

Sixty percent of people in favor of anything that is fundamentally immoral is not an argument my friend.

Chris is correct in that a cite should be provided for that number.

Barbara's points are extremely impacting to me because that is the precise way I re-ordered my position on the constitutional right to life existing in the individual.

Galt, is the standard of life and the existence of rights in that life definable?

If so, what is your point wherein they are one and the same.

Barbara speaks about survival outside the womb as a standard which I believe is a valid standard.

The problem accelerates towards the moment of conception as our science improves.

What say you Galt?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Galt:

I have been where you were.

"I will spare the details here."

That is part of the issue that creates a false conclusion.

Sixty percent of people in favor of anything that is fundamentally immoral is not an argument my friend.

Chris is correct in that a cite should be provided for that number.

Barbara's points are extremely impacting to me because that is the precise way I re-ordered my position on the constitutional right to life existing in the individual.

Galt, is the standard of life and the existence of rights in that life definable?

If so, what is your point wherein they are one and the same.

Barbara speaks about survival outside the womb as a standard which I believe is a valid standard.

The problem accelerates towards the moment of conception as our science improves.

What say you Galt?

Adam

Selene,

Are you suggesting that a woman does not have a right to have an abortion if she wants to terminate her pregnancy?

I am unaware of Barbara's points!

If the woman wants to end her pregnancy what right does anyone else have to forbid her to do so? Are you suggesting that if the technology existed to enable an embryo to be harvested from a woman who wanted to end her pregnancy that you would advocate ...what?

Most women who want to end their pregnancy do so in the first trimester as you well know long before the stage of viability outside the womb.

I do have a problem with late stage abortion but I understand there might be health or life and death issues of the mother which justify it.

galt

Edited December 21, 2008 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

My own early view of abortion was that it was legitimate up until the birth of the fetus. I no longer think this, but not because I accept the idea of reincarnation or of a soul seeking a new body to inhabit. (Galt, you really set up a straw man by writing as if that were a major source of the objections to abortion. I've talked with a great many people who opposed abortion, but not one opposed it for such reasons.) What changed my mind was the advancement of science. Because it now is possible for a baby to live outside the body of the mother as early as six months into the pregnancy, I believe that that should be the approximate cut-off date for abortions. So long as the fetus is dependent on its host, the mother, so long as it must remain a part of her body, she has the right to reject it. But once it no longer requires the use of her body for its survival, it must be treated as an independent entity, with a right to its own life.

Barbara

If a live fetus is extracted from a woman's body at six month, who is going to pay the expense of keeping it alive for three more months? Keeping premature infants born six or seven -weeks- ahead of full term is unbelievably expensive (two of my grandchildren, twins, were six weeks premature, so I know what is involved). Is the woman going to be forced to pay. If not, then who? Is a woman who wanted not to have the child going to pay?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Galt:

"Are you suggesting..." I am suggesting nothing, I asked a definitional question.

"...as you well know long before the stage of viability outside the womb." I do not "know" this.

Barbara's points

"My own early view of abortion was that it was legitimate up until the birth of the fetus. I no longer think this, but not because I accept the idea of reincarnation or of a soul seeking a new body to inhabit. (Galt, you really set up a straw man by writing as if that were a major source of the objections to abortion. I've talked with a great many people who opposed abortion, but not one opposed it for such reasons.) What changed my mind was the advancement of science. Because it now is possible for a baby to live outside the body of the mother as early as six months into the pregnancy, I believe that that should be the approximate cut-off date for abortions. So long as the fetus is dependent on its host, the mother, so long as it must remain a part of her body, she has the right to reject it. But once it no longer requires the use of her body for its survival, it must be treated as an independent entity, with a right to its own life.

Barbara "

Galt, can you just stop assuming what my position is and answer the fucking questions lol!

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I think this is really one of those simple but hard situations: A woman has a right to an abortion--to abort her unborn child. However, the aborter does not have the right to kill it--that is, if the fetus can survive outside the womb then the "abortion" should be treated as a delivery. Remember, Ayn Rand said the controversy was essentially about the first trimester. The basic context is a woman's right to an abortion, yes or no: the answer is, yes! There is no "NO!" Objectivist position. The conservatives don't care about rights much less a woman's rights, all they want is as much WASP even Catholic breeding for more bodies feeds the health of the (American) state. The way to leave this insanity behind is to psychologically give up being an American and become a citizen of the world and honor one's (individual) life. I've yet to achieve this myself. I'm not yet sure it's worth trying for me, but if I were to have children today I'd refuse to raise them as Americans; the looters are getting the upper hand here anyway.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

OT:Check out the performance of WGAT stock this last week at www.ojophone.com Not too late to buy. Do due diligence!

Any value here and the company'd be bought out for next to nothing. Buy this stock and push the price up. Sell it and push it down. Lose money. Look, if you want to gamble buy KRY. Hugo Chavez is about to lose his job and the price of this thing might jump 1000%, but only go in for a small percentage of your investible assets.

Galt, shame on you for continuing to champion a bad company while confusing it with its proiduct, which may or may not be good. If it's good then buy the stock of the company that ends up with this product, not WGAT.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; What is your view on the killing of the very old. There seems to be in the pro-choice crowd that after a brief while you want to start getting rid of the old or the badly infirm.

I think in some of the attacks on Sarah Palin was the factor that she and her husband did not abort their Down's Syndrome child. I understand that raising such a child is difficult but I think that killing because someone is inconvenient a very bad idea. You can decide to have it done to a spouse.

I understand South Park had an episode where Cartman's mother wanted to have Cartman aborted even through Cartman is eight. Why is this wrong.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My own early view of abortion was that it was legitimate up until the birth of the fetus. I no longer think this, but not because I accept the idea of reincarnation or of a soul seeking a new body to inhabit. (Galt, you really set up a straw man by writing as if that were a major source of the objections to abortion. I've talked with a great many people who opposed abortion, but not one opposed it for such reasons.) What changed my mind was the advancement of science. Because it now is possible for a baby to live outside the body of the mother as early as six months into the pregnancy, I believe that that should be the approximate cut-off date for abortions. So long as the fetus is dependent on its host, the mother, so long as it must remain a part of her body, she has the right to reject it. But once it no longer requires the use of her body for its survival, it must be treated as an independent entity, with a right to its own life.

Barbara

Barbara,

I have never heard this argument presented from an individualist standpoint in the manner you just did. What you said makes perfect sense all the way down to the premise, and it takes into account the rights of both mother and child.

That was eloquent reasoning.

(I can't think of a better word than "eloquent" because of all the heated controversy I have read on this where people talk past each other's essentials.)

Michael

[galtgulch]

The way to leave this insanity behind is to psychologically give up being an American and become a citizen of the world and honor one's (individual) life. I've yet to achieve this myself. I'm not yet sure it's worth trying for me, but if I were to have children today I'd refuse to raise them as Americans; the looters are getting the upper hand here anyway.

--Brant

I have always believed that America is the last barricade in the defense of freedom in the world. The Founders fought against the tyranny of the British Crown and won but then they had to fight the British again in the War of 1812. A review of the history of America reveals an ongoing struggle to get it right, e.g. the slavery abomination, women's suffrage, Alien and Sedition Acts, Antitrust Laws, Selective Service Act, Sixteenth Amendment, New Deal, undeclared wars, Federal Reserve, end of the gold standard, entitlements, alphabet agencies galore etc.

But over recent decades, outside the universities, knowledge of and understanding of what has gone astray has been grasped by a number of individuals including Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Williams, Brand Blanshard, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Galileo, Dominick Armentano, and those who have stood on their shoulders, figuratively speaking, and enlightened millions who are still in the minority.

Just wait and see how these ideas continue to be spread by those who have awakened to the widespread ignorance which prevails. More have acquired perspective especially after watching the recent political campaign in which nothing of substance was discussed by the major candidates and more rational views and perspectives which challenged the status quo offered by Ron Paul were disparaged, characterized by the media and the major party candidates as not worth considering, and his candidacy was marginalized.

Those who had listened to Ron Paul and understood his ideas regarding, for example, the Federal Reserve, and the fact that those in power have been ignoring the limits imposed by the Founders in the Constitution which has led to too much government doing things they were forbidden to do by the founding document which is the supreme law of the land, have been strongly motivated to set things right.

They are increasing in number and they are organizing and will not go away, just as the revolutionaries in the First American Revolution did not go away despite the obstacles in the form of the most powerful army and empire in the world at the time. They were willing to fight for their freedom and still serve as an inspiration to those of us joining the second American rEVOLution.

www.campaignforliberty.com whose membership is now 96976.

Join us.

galt

Edited December 21, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; I guess the abortion question has been taken care of or you have decided you don't want discuss it.

It's very hard to take you or the Campaign for Liberty seriously. Do the people who sign have to do anything like make a contribution? Could a person sign up more than once? Could there 20,000 signed up under different names. Please don't tell that all Ron Paul supporters are honest. On this from we've seen your honesty. Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee. Shame on You!

[galtgulch]

Galt; I guess the abortion question has been taken care of or you have decided you don't want discuss it.

It's very hard to take you or the Campaign for Liberty seriously. Do the people who sign have to do anything like make a contribution? Could a person sign up more than once? Could there 20,000 signed up under different names. Please don't tell that all Ron Paul supporters are honest. On this from we've seen your honesty. Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee. Shame on You!

Chris,

Sir, you insult me. If we lived in the age of dueling I would call you out. I have repeatedly denied that I did anything other than advocate for Ron Paul, despite my misgivings about a couple of admittedly not insignificant issues, namely abortion, that is a woman's right to choose and his ridiculous and embarrassing failure to grasp the Theory of Evolution. I pointed out that it was possible for him to become the nominee if his supporters could get their acts together enough to be chosen as delegates to the nominating convention. At no time did I have any reason to believe that they were successful in that endeavor which would have had to have been a precondition to my asserting that he would be the nominee. I apologize if any of you got the impression from my argument that it was possible for him to become the nominee that I said he would in fact be the nominee. I would appreciate it if you would stop continuing to assert that I said something I didn't say. I knew all along that it was a very long shot and depended on too many things falling into place.

If I thought he had enough delegates, which I never thought he had, why would I have become active in the DVDs4Delegates project to try to persuade Republican delegates to cast their ballot at the nominating convention for Ron Paul if I had thought Ron Paul already had enough?

Get off my back on this false allegation which has now escalated to slanderous allegations that I am dishonest.

You owe me an apology.

I thought there was a policy here that there would not be personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership update 96994 at 7:22 PM 21 Dec 08

Galtgulch

[Selene]

Gslt:

First of all, I was about to ask the same question of you concerning abortion discussion.

Secondly, as I posted to at about 5:30 today on another thread:

"Galt:

How many of the 96,987 paid the $25.00 base membership?

Adam"

Thirdly, you were WAY over the top with Ron Paul and I know Dr. Paul from prior Republican and libertarian campaigns to be a great man, but he sucks as a candidate and can't speak his way out of a Rotary Club meeting. So your rather cute duel remark had a lot of intellectual and memory blanks in the gun and frankly you would not survive a duel with me and I would insist on being Chris's second just in case you got lucky! lol

Finally, you now in an effete way assert that "...his ridiculous and embarrassing failure to grasp the Theory of Evolution..."! Are you stating that Dr. Paul does not grasp evolutionary theory or that he believes in another theory of how arrived here?

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt; I guess the abortion question has been taken care of or you have decided you don't want discuss it.

It's very hard to take you or the Campaign for Liberty seriously. Do the people who sign have to do anything like make a contribution? Could a person sign up more than once? Could there 20,000 signed up under different names. Please don't tell that all Ron Paul supporters are honest. On this from we've seen your honesty. Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee. Shame on You!

Chris,

Sir, you insult me. If we lived in the age of dueling I would call you out. I have repeatedly denied that I did anything other than advocate for Ron Paul, despite my misgivings about a couple of admittedly not insignificant issues, namely abortion, that is a woman's right to choose and his ridiculous and embarrassing failure to grasp the Theory of Evolution. I pointed out that it was possible for him to become the nominee if his supporters could get their acts together enough to be chosen as delegates to the nominating convention. At no time did I have any reason to believe that they were successful in that endeavor which would have had to have been a precondition to my asserting that he would be the nominee. I apologize if any of you got the impression from my argument that it was possible for him to become the nominee that I said he would in fact be the nominee. I would appreciate it if you would stop continuing to assert that I said something I didn't say. I knew all along that it was a very long shot and depended on too many things falling into place.

If I thought he had enough delegates, which I never thought he had, why would I have become active in the DVDs4Delegates project to try to persuade Republican delegates to cast their ballot at the nominating convention for Ron Paul if I had thought Ron Paul already had enough?

Get off my back on this false allegation which has now escalated to slanderous allegations that I am dishonest.

You owe me an apology.

I thought there was a policy here that there would not be personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership update 96994 at 7:22 PM 21 Dec 08

Galtgulch

I took a look back in time to 31 March 2008 in the thread "An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul" (Yes, I need to learn how to do linking in OL!)

and found galt saying (my boldface for emphasis):

Given what you know you seem to make sense. But you are paying too much heed to the main stream media who claim, and want everyone to believe, that McCain has clinched the nomination by having enough delegates.

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

So far I have been relying on reports posted on www.dailypaul.com and one may question their validity. Next Saturday I will personally attend a district caucus and observe the process myself. I have already attended a precaucus meeting of folks from three districts and slates of candidates for delegate and alternates have been chosen. There will be still another meeting next Thursday evening (Picadilly Pub on route 140 in Franklin at 8PM) for my district (third Congressional district in MA). I speak with the district coordinator daily and we are recruiting other registered Republicans from a Ron Paul donor list, neighbors and voter lists.

It remains to be seen if we will succeed in our districts and in our state but we will know next Saturday as caucus meetings occur in all ten districts.

It is easy to recruit supporters because we are all in the same boat. People have the proverbial volitional conceptual consciousness which means that if they want to understand they can choose to focus and learn, that is they can be reasoned with.

The broken bell will ring!

Ron Paul will be on the ballot everywhere and will be the nominee of the major party which has 65 million registered voters who will vote for the nominee, not to mention an equal number of independents out there.

galt

[Selene]

Bill is it difficult to talk with both feet in your mouth - I guess we will have to ask Galt for an illustrated demonstration.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Galt; I guess the abortion question has been taken care of or you have decided you don't want discuss it.

It's very hard to take you or the Campaign for Liberty seriously. Do the people who sign have to do anything like make a contribution? Could a person sign up more than once? Could there 20,000 signed up under different names. Please don't tell that all Ron Paul supporters are honest. On this from we've seen your honesty. Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee. Shame on You!

Chris,

Sir, you insult me. If we lived in the age of dueling I would call you out. I have repeatedly denied that I did anything other than advocate for Ron Paul, despite my misgivings about a couple of admittedly not insignificant issues, namely abortion, that is a woman's right to choose and his ridiculous and embarrassing failure to grasp the Theory of Evolution. I pointed out that it was possible for him to become the nominee if his supporters could get their acts together enough to be chosen as delegates to the nominating convention. At no time did I have any reason to believe that they were successful in that endeavor which would have had to have been a precondition to my asserting that he would be the nominee. I apologize if any of you got the impression from my argument that it was possible for him to become the nominee that I said he would in fact be the nominee. I would appreciate it if you would stop continuing to assert that I said something I didn't say. I knew all along that it was a very long shot and depended on too many things falling into place.

If I thought he had enough delegates, which I never thought he had, why would I have become active in the DVDs4Delegates project to try to persuade Republican delegates to cast their ballot at the nominating convention for Ron Paul if I had thought Ron Paul already had enough?

Get off my back on this false allegation which has now escalated to slanderous allegations that I am dishonest.

You owe me an apology.

I thought there was a policy here that there would not be personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership update 96994 at 7:22 PM 21 Dec 08

Galtgulch

I took a look back in time to 31 March 2008 in the thread "An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul" (Yes, I need to learn how to do linking in OL!)

and found galt saying (my boldface for emphasis):

Given what you know you seem to make sense. But you are paying too much heed to the main stream media who claim, and want everyone to believe, that McCain has clinched the nomination by having enough delegates.

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

So far I have been relying on reports posted on www.dailypaul.com and one may question their validity. Next Saturday I will personally attend a district caucus and observe the process myself. I have already attended a precaucus meeting of folks from three districts and slates of candidates for delegate and alternates have been chosen. There will be still another meeting next Thursday evening (Picadilly Pub on route 140 in Franklin at 8PM) for my district (third Congressional district in MA). I speak with the district coordinator daily and we are recruiting other registered Republicans from a Ron Paul donor list, neighbors and voter lists.

It remains to be seen if we will succeed in our districts and in our state but we will know next Saturday as caucus meetings occur in all ten districts.

It is easy to recruit supporters because we are all in the same boat. People have the proverbial volitional conceptual consciousness which means that if they want to understand they can choose to focus and learn, that is they can be reasoned with.

The broken bell will ring!

Ron Paul will be on the ballot everywhere and will be the nominee of the major party which has 65 million registered voters who will vote for the nominee, not to mention an equal number of independents out there.

galt

To Whom It May Concern,

That last statement was contingent upon Ron Paul getting the nomination and is hyperbole!

You all knew I was enthusiastic about this campaign because compared to the rest he had a better understanding of economics, understood the inner workings of Washington and what he could accomplish as president. I have listened to many, dozens of his youtube.com interviews, also on whoisronpaul.name where many interviews are linked, and found him to be much more coherent than you have given him credit for. There is no comparison to Bush. Despite being religious Ron Paul never claimed as Bush did that he spoke with God daily! Ron Paul read proposed legislation which already set him apart and made sure whether the bill gave the government powers granted in Article 1 Section 8 or not before he voted. Over 300 times he stood alone in his opposition to a bill.

You are quibbling. Have you nothing better to do than try to find the above. So what. I recant.

Wm

[Alfonso Jones]

Galt; I guess the abortion question has been taken care of or you have decided you don't want discuss it.

It's very hard to take you or the Campaign for Liberty seriously. Do the people who sign have to do anything like make a contribution? Could a person sign up more than once? Could there 20,000 signed up under different names. Please don't tell that all Ron Paul supporters are honest. On this from we've seen your honesty. Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee. Shame on You!

Chris,

Sir, you insult me. If we lived in the age of dueling I would call you out. I have repeatedly denied that I did anything other than advocate for Ron Paul, despite my misgivings about a couple of admittedly not insignificant issues, namely abortion, that is a woman's right to choose and his ridiculous and embarrassing failure to grasp the Theory of Evolution. I pointed out that it was possible for him to become the nominee if his supporters could get their acts together enough to be chosen as delegates to the nominating convention. At no time did I have any reason to believe that they were successful in that endeavor which would have had to have been a precondition to my asserting that he would be the nominee. I apologize if any of you got the impression from my argument that it was possible for him to become the nominee that I said he would in fact be the nominee. I would appreciate it if you would stop continuing to assert that I said something I didn't say. I knew all along that it was a very long shot and depended on too many things falling into place.

If I thought he had enough delegates, which I never thought he had, why would I have become active in the DVDs4Delegates project to try to persuade Republican delegates to cast their ballot at the nominating convention for Ron Paul if I had thought Ron Paul already had enough?

Get off my back on this false allegation which has now escalated to slanderous allegations that I am dishonest.

You owe me an apology.

I thought there was a policy here that there would not be personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership update 96994 at 7:22 PM 21 Dec 08

Galtgulch

I took a look back in time to 31 March 2008 in the thread "An Open Letter to Objectivists on Ron Paul" (Yes, I need to learn how to do linking in OL!)

and found galt saying (my boldface for emphasis):

Given what you know you seem to make sense. But you are paying too much heed to the main stream media who claim, and want everyone to believe, that McCain has clinched the nomination by having enough delegates.

What you don't realize that all McCain has are so called virtual delegates. The actual delegates are being chosen in each state at caucuses and conventions in districts, counties and states. In reality Ron Paul is gleaning many more delegates than you are aware of and McCain does not have enough "bound" delegates and will not have enough to win in September!

So far I have been relying on reports posted on www.dailypaul.com and one may question their validity. Next Saturday I will personally attend a district caucus and observe the process myself. I have already attended a precaucus meeting of folks from three districts and slates of candidates for delegate and alternates have been chosen. There will be still another meeting next Thursday evening (Picadilly Pub on route 140 in Franklin at 8PM) for my district (third Congressional district in MA). I speak with the district coordinator daily and we are recruiting other registered Republicans from a Ron Paul donor list, neighbors and voter lists.

It remains to be seen if we will succeed in our districts and in our state but we will know next Saturday as caucus meetings occur in all ten districts.

It is easy to recruit supporters because we are all in the same boat. People have the proverbial volitional conceptual consciousness which means that if they want to understand they can choose to focus and learn, that is they can be reasoned with.

The broken bell will ring!

Ron Paul will be on the ballot everywhere and will be the nominee of the major party which has 65 million registered voters who will vote for the nominee, not to mention an equal number of independents out there.

galt

To Whom It May Concern,

That last statement was contingent upon Ron Paul getting the nomination and is hyperbole!

You all knew I was enthusiastic about this campaign because compared to the rest he had a better understanding of economics, understood the inner workings of Washington and what he could accomplish as president. I have listened to many, dozens of his youtube.com interviews, also on whoisronpaul.name where many interviews are linked, and found him to be much more coherent than you have given him credit for. There is no comparison to Bush. Despite being religious Ron Paul never claimed as Bush did that he spoke with God daily! Ron Paul read proposed legislation which already set him apart and made sure whether the bill gave the government powers granted in Article 1 Section 8 or not before he voted. Over 300 times he stood alone in his opposition to a bill.

You are quibbling. Have you nothing better to do than try to find the above. So what. I recant.

Wm

Galt -

It didn't take long - a total of about 2 minutes.

If anyone wants to see how often the claim was repeated, and with what vehemence, they can check out the thread.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I don't think galt is lying. He is very. very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very enthusiastic and committed.

Let's say he engages in some rhetorical excesses at times.

I don't put that on the same par as I do the vicious attacks I have seen nasty crummy people make, say, against the Brandens. Nor do I put your present hostility to galt in that boat. I attribute it more to exasperation than hatred and spite.

Galt does not strike me at all as one who wants to destroy anything. Instead he comes off as fighting for a better world, even when all is lost. In today's constant state of crisis, emergencies, and doom and gloom, I like having that bight-eyed, bushy-tailed enthusiasm around, even though the facts get mangled at times. I do admit it gets really exasperating at times, but I'll still take the spirit in his case.

Let's keep galt to the facts. By all means, let's do that. But let's also not kill his spirit. That's a most precious thing and he managed to preserve his pure. God knows how he did it, but he did. Killing it would be a sin, especially in today's world.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Chris,

I don't think galt is lying. He is very. very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very enthusiastic and committed.

Let's say he engages in some rhetorical excesses at times.

I don't put that on the same par as I do the vicious attacks I have seen nasty crummy people make, say, against the Brandens. Nor do I put your present hostility to galt in that boat. I attribute it more to exasperation than hatred and spite.

Galt does not strike me at all as one who wants to destroy anything. Instead he comes off as fighting for a better world, even when all is lost. In today's constant state of crisis, emergencies, and doom and gloom, I like having that bight-eyed, bushy-tailed enthusiasm around, even though the facts get mangled at times. I do admit it gets really exasperating at times, but I'll still take the spirit in his case.

Let's keep galt to the facts. By all means, let's do that. But let's also not kill his spirit. That's a most precious thing and he managed to preserve his pure. God knows how he did it, but he did. Killing it would be a sin, especially in today's world.

Michael

Michael,

I was wondering when you were going to chime in! Thanks for your support. I needed it. The thought crossed my mind to retire from OL. But I decided against that. My spirit cannot be "killed" from the outside. After all that people have endured during darker times, the Inquisition comes to mind and the witch hunts what I have to endure here is child's play.

22 Dec 08 www.campaignforliberty.com 6:37 AM membership 97,024

galt