I just found this great article about voting for Ron Paul in all 50 states: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

I think it is a wonderful solution for those that are not pleased with any of the other choices we have. Plus, it is better at sending a message than not voting at all.

Pass it on.

As for my particular vote on the situation–I believe fusion isnt allowed, so Baldwin/Castle could not be nominated, and I dont think most of our electors would put Barr/Root on the ballot because we are Ron Paul supporters (even though some are big L, libertarians). So–I’d vote to let our ballot access lapse.

I have no fight with you, but although I know personally dozens of famous Libertarians, including Ron Paul, whom I worked with in DC, I have no idea who you are. Perhaps your fame has not transcended IPR’s little universe.

Why?

Because, Ron Paul has a great opportunity to be a sponsor, through his Campaign for Liberty, of a 6 way debate among all the candidates for President who have qualified for enough ballots to actually be elected by winning 270 or more Electoral Votes.

Of course some candidates may decline the invitation. But, the CFL has enough money to sponsor the debates, enough credibility to bring in good moderators and questioners, enough clout to be recognized and covered, and enough money to pay to get the debates on nationwide TV.

Let’s hope a debate announcement will come soon.

Pretty much everyone at this site knows who GE is, we know who he works with, what he does for a living, and what he looks like. It is no mystery. He’s just smarter than me, not wanting to turn up in Google searches.

Second, I keep seeing G.E.’s comments all over this site full of ad hominem attacks. I see little issue discussion on your part, and instead, your comments are filled with flame throwing/baiting.

What’s the deal man? Lighten up will you? This isn’t the end of the world, and if it is, you won’t stop it. Express your opinion, but how about a little more substance and a little less vitriol.

The point of the matter is that he never fixes outright statements in his articles that stand whether or not something else has been changed. Indeed, I completely agree that blogs are for commentary, hence the name, but for a site that pitches themselves as the “independent political report”, it’s sure at odds with the inherent purpose of a blog. Proof in concept.

And really, the thing is, I don’t have any problem with commentary. In fact, I encourage it. After all, what are we doing right now? Commentary. Great. So long as it’s separate. What may be obvious to you or me is not the universal standard, though. And we are not very happy about this situation in the MSM, so why should it be permissible here?

I do think you’re beating down the wrong door here, though. I visit daily and GE fixes headlines and edits stories the moment he’s confronted with a discrepancy of any kind. Blogs are supposed to provide commentary, and this site does that. If you want different commentary, or no commentary at all, go start that site.

”

Spence,
GE pushes news stories, which is sort of what blogs are supposed to do. If he gets it wrong, he fixes it. You’ve produced nothing, you’re supporting a terrible candidate who may or may not be paying you, and you’re bringing personalities into it.

Give it a rest.
”

I’m going to let you go. You obviously do not understand what a blog actually does, what this one claims it is supposed to be, and how often those fixes truly occur. Secondly, you have no idea of the actual time I’ve put into supporting Ron Paul this past year. Such a terrible candidate, yes? No, I completely agree. In hindsight, he was terrible and completely ignorant of the harsh realities of politics. But well-versed in everything else. So I’d appreciate it if you withdrew peaceably.

Lastly, you’re absolutely right. It’s always been about personality from day one. How can you expect to keep well-informed on ALL aisles of the political scope when the more “independent you go”, the more simple standards like neutrality, transparency, and accuracy drop like flies. This guy sits here and defends it, and you are too. There is no excuse for that.

Give it a rest.

But go on, keep telling yourself I’m a Barr shill, while simultaneously decrying me as the new Robert Milnes. The two are polar opposites. But I’m sure you’ll “lesson” me soon. For instance, you completely missed the point that it is easy to accept what facts to believe and what not to. Then again, you do this on a daily basis.