Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That some old man I never met sees fit to claim ownership over the reproductive organs of every woman in America on the other hand is a very real issue.

I've never heard Ron Paul say that if here were elected he would mandate that abortions are illegal, nor that he has claim over the uteri of the nation. It's his personal belief that abortions are immoral, while I disagree with this belief on principle, as long as he keeps it a personal belief then what's the sense worrying about it?

When the economy is teetering on the edge of the abyss and you have a man who understands the situation and would take the steps to undo the mess, is the fact that he is against abortion really going to disqualify him for the job of presidency? More over do any other candidates - except Johnson- have a legitimate idea as to how to undo this house of debt we've built around ourselves?

I'm not advocating a compromise of principle, if abortion is really that important to you that you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, I get it. But if we get another Obama or somebody of his cloth into office, and the fiscal crisis isn't truly addressed - Americans may not be able to afford the basic necessities.

I believe that the financial collapse we as a nation are facing is going to make the Great Depression look like a Sunday picnic by comparison. With that being said, it's much more important that Americans as a whole come together on the issue of solving our fiscal crisis, no other candidate that I have heard speak has highlighted as comprehensive of a plan to do so as Ron Paul. If the economy goes to hell in a handbasket and the dollar with it, how significant is the issue of abortion really going to be?

Edited by ChefGuy89
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am blown away that people think this guy, the guy that parrots on about the Constitution more than any other congressman, act like if he became President he would just executive order federally ban it. Abortion and gay marriage are two issues I am very, very strongly in favor of and normally being against these things means a no vote for me regardless of your other qualifications, but while his position is not ideal, its certainly not as bad as most social conservatives, no less the social conservatives that are running would have it, and this assumes he would even be able to get these things passed. Also, his slim jim's for this campaign specifically state he is against socialized medicine, so I doubt you have to worry about him trying to institute something through that programme. Also, he will have his hands full with everything he wishes to do with respect to the economy and foreign policy that it would likely be even more of a wedge issue than it is currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, his slim jim's for this campaign specifically state he is against socialized medicine, so I doubt you have to worry about him trying to institute something through that programme.

You can't be certain of this. Paul made a career out of attaching riders to bills he knew would pass despite his no vote. If socialized medicine is the norm, the smart money says he'll use it to do what he thinks is moral.

Why are we focusing on Ron Paul anyway? This is my favorite candidate's thread. He is not perfect on social issues, but his positions are better than Ron Paul's. Check it out for yourself:


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is interested, Adam Curry of the No Agenda Show did an interview with Gary Johnson three days ago. It's available here:


It's negative that Gary Johnson doesn't sound passionate about anything. He's very monotone and dull-sounding - even moreso than Tim Pawlenty. He often looks half asleep. A presidential candidate needs to be able to inspire people and fire them up.

I'm fairly certain the nominee will be Rick Perry or Herman Cain, assuming Chris Christie or Paul Ryan doesn't run.

Edited by ENikolai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the scope and size of the fiscal mess we are in, I am much more concerned about how we are going to solve this issue than whether or not illegal immigrants will be able to contribute to the tax system or if marijuana should be legalized. While Johnson is calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve - what steps would be taken afterward? He is certainly not as much of an outspoken critic of the Fed - nor is he for the abolition of said institution. Facts of the matter are that our central bank is by and large responsible for the economic predicament we find out selves in, a mere audit - if it even happened - is unnecessary. An institution with that kind of power over the affairs of a nation has no place in a free country and should be disbanded, immediately.

It's only a matter of time before the dollar finally loses it's reserve currency status and all the inflation we have pumped into the global economy comes home to roost. We are facing a Depression, there is no doubt about that. No politician can stop it, however steps can be taken to minimize it's duration and severity. I'm not sure if Johnson's line up is enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate?

Good question, yes I would. However, this thread isn't about Ron Paul.

Actually, I have to retract my statement. I couldn't remember why I thought what I did. After scouring the ammendments and bills he sponsored and cosponsored (at least for the first few years), I found far too few examples to support a claim that he "based his carrer" on sneaking in riders. So unless his recent record contradicts his early record, he is not guilty of what I accused him. I was disappointed with the number of abortion-related bills I saw, so I still worry that he'll manipulate a federal healthcare system to put in place a de-facto ban on abortion. Aside from this, his record was impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends a great deal on whether government healthcare stays in play.

Abortion I agree is a "wedge" issue. That some old man I never met sees fit to claim ownership over the reproductive organs of every woman in America on the other hand is a very real issue.

Ayn Rand thought it to be a very real issue as well and did not think highly of those who would take away a woman's basic right to her own body:

"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"

In general, I have to agree completely. In fact, my wife is of the same mind with you in such a way that it creeps me out a bit. :D And I realize that Ayn Rand was VERY stern on this issue - there are some Q&A's I've heard that fully transmit her feelings on the matter. :o

However, Miss Rand died in 1978, and the political context has changed dramatically in such a way a to make lip-service to the anti-abortion crowd no more than just that. I would venture so far as to state categorically that the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned, either de jure or de facto, are effectively nil, no matter who attains the Presidency. The only use for such rhetorical devices now is as a means to mobilize or de-mobilize certain (relatively small) sectors of the electorate. A given candidates position on this (and similar subjects) is effectively meaningless. Pay it no mind, and focus on the stuff that a candidate actually has a chance to achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ron Paul runs into the same problems that other conservative Xtains have. I don't know the man, but I know his views but his faith-based philosophy leads to contradictions in his politics. He's more like that crazy uncle you see once a year at Thanksgiving than a serious politician or, god forbid, president.

Saying that, Johnson is the only small-L libertarian in the presidential race. While I would support him, his lack of visibility doesn't make him a serious candidate either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...