Libertarian Party/Constitution Party

[davagd0284]

I am thinking of joining one of the two parties and registering as an independent in the state of PA. Would anyone be able to describe to me the main differences between the two parties? Also, if any are members of one of the two parties, please let me know what your experiences are with the party and its members? Thanks!!

[Kludge]

The Constitution Party believes that it should be able to allowed to base laws on issues of morality (almost always stemming from Christian principles).

The Libertarian Party is more pure, unbiased libertarianism, has more members, and always whoops CP ass when it comes to gaining ballot access. And their membership gifts are spiffy ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am a Christian and I like the Constitution Party a lot. Their mention of Jesus in the preamble will turn people off..sorry to say, Don't get me wrong...I love Jesus as much as anyone..but if a political party becomes exclusionary, it won't get very far in a diverse nation. We have to focus on something that is common ground with all faiths and peoples...the US CONSTITUTION, and the Libertarian Party will do that.

[skyorbit]

The Constitution PArty and the Libertarian Party agree with each other and are basically identical at the national level.

The difference is, the Constitution party sees the Constitution as Restraining only the Federal Government -- whereas the Libertarian Party wants government at all levels restrained.

While I agree with federalism and the CP and LP will be allies where it counts (taking out Washington) If a Libertarian Party member was on the floor of a state legislature, and CP member there -- might be an opponent because they disagree on the roles of state government -- although the CP would be much more fiscally conservative then any Republican.

Tracy

[mport1]

The Constitution Party is very protectionist and isn't really into liberty.

[NightOwl]

The Constitution Party is very protectionist and isn't really into liberty.

I'm not a member of the Constitution Party and I'm resolutely libertarian on everything, but statements like this are really unhelpful. "Isn't really into liberty"? The CP would abolish nearly all government agencies, dismantle the empire, abolish the Fed, abolish the IRS, and on and on down the line. How sectarian are we going to be, for heaven's sake? That platform "isn't really into liberty"? Come on.

[amy31416]

And their membership gifts are spiffy ;)

Doobage?

[haigh]

Voters consistently show they value associating to a candidate who has a chance of winning. Agree or not, this sense of a 'wasted vote' associated to the minor parties has a strong negative influence.

This leaves us with two viable strategies that can run in parallel, one change the Republican party from the inside, and two, pick one of the third parties that on your really big issues is OK AND has some chance of making numbers that will impact platforms and policies of future elections. Based on past elections that puts the LP ahead of the CP.

But a choice today is not a commitment for the rest of your life. If Ron Paul's basic ideas of foreign policy and small government were shared by a large percentage of voters, you can be sure there will be lots of factions and candidates to choose from.

[WRellim]

The Constitution Party is pushing forward the ideas and concepts of returning to a CONSTITUTIONALLY limited government. It's membership is growing, and while it will be pushing Baldwin's candidacy, the emphasis is on getting more CP members in as local office holders.

The Libertarian Party is now dying. It has given up any presumption it once had to being based on "pure, unbiased libertarianism" and has sold itself to the highest bidder and chosen a candidate with virtually no character, a career "history" of rather horrid anti-liberty pro-state, but a modest year of claiming to be a "changed man." The local groups tend to be very argumentative and divisive, and tend to waste whatever momentum they gain in major election years -- and this year it appears everything local will be sacrificed to the national. As a result, despite the claims of "ballot access" this will probably be the last year that the LP is considered to have any consequence.

[Kludge]

The Libertarian Party is now dying. It has given up any presumption it once had to being based on "pure, unbiased libertarianism" and has sold itself to the highest bidder and chosen a candidate with virtually no character, a career "history" of rather horrid anti-liberty pro-state, but a modest year of claiming to be a "changed man." The local groups tend to be very argumentative and divisive, and tend to waste whatever momentum they gain in major election years -- and this year it appears everything local will be sacrificed to the national. As a result, despite the claims of "ballot access" this will probably be the last year that the LP is considered to have any consequence.

Hah.... Barr is polling over 5% nationally and membership is growing at amazing rates. We have local candidates lined up across the nation and are making leaps toward a serious congressional run.

Barr's high profile makes him an excellent proponent of Libertarian relevancy - as is the current role for third party POTUS candidates. No one believes Barr will win, but we know he will help convert more to the LP.

[mrchubbs]

The difference that I see between the two parties is that the Constitution Party tends to be more Christian oriented and speaks of the Bible in their platform. They also tend to be more strict on illegal immigration than the Libertarian party, although with Barr as the Libertarian nominee it may not seem like that since he's pretty strict on illegal immigration. Also abortion is another point of difference, but again Barr is a pro-life guy even as the Libertarian nominee.

For a much better perspective just read their platforms and compare. That will give you an idea about their goals, but each candidate does have their own goals that may or may not coincide with the platform (just like the Dems and GOP).

Libertarian Party Platform:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Constitution Party Platform:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

I get turned off by the religious undertones/overtones of the Constitution Party so I lean Libertarian myself.

Enjoy.

[Kludge]

If I remember from the LNC, Barr stated that we need to lax border security a bit, and remove quotas.

[WRellim]

The Constitution Party is very protectionist and isn't really into liberty.

Versus the Libertarian Party which is mainly known for it's desire to smoke pot, gamble (online and offline) and hire prostitutes (or perhaps be prostitutes?) -- because that is what they think is most important about "liberty." (Oh, and they hate, Hate, HATE anything that has anything to do with Christianity, and now apparently Islam as well -- Maharishi's, Yoga, and New Age stuff are all A-OK though, probably because of the doobage and free-sex).

Of course, with Bob Barr and his gang in charge now, that will all be changing... ("Bye Bye Doobie").

[WRellim]

Hah.... Barr is polling over 5% nationally and membership is growing at amazing rates. We have local candidates lined up across the nation and are making leaps toward a serious congressional run.

Barr's high profile makes him an excellent proponent of Libertarian relevancy - as is the current role for third party POTUS candidates. No one believes Barr will win, but we know he will help convert more to the LP.

You keep telling yourself that. Write those predictions down. Post them on your Refrigerator door.

Then see if, after November, they are really true.

[skyorbit]

Hah.... Barr is polling over 5% nationally and membership is growing at amazing rates. We have local candidates lined up across the nation and are making leaps toward a serious congressional run.


I guess I kind of will saw the same thing about Barr as we say about McCain. Just like they're no point in unifying behind a Republican nomanee who's more liberal then the Democrats. I'm not sure we should be unifying behind a candidate just because he's polling at 5% when he doesn't represent the "Party of Principle" Platform well.

I kind of feel, by compromising, by the time the LP has any viability, it'll be just as corrupt as the Republican.

Tracy

[Kludge]

Versus the Libertarian Party which is mainly known for it's desire to smoke pot, gamble (online and offline) and hire prostitutes (or perhaps be prostitutes?) -- because that is what they think is most important about "liberty." (Oh, and they hate, Hate, HATE anything that has anything to do with Christianity, and now apparently Islam as well -- Maharishi's, Yoga, and New Age stuff are all A-OK though, probably because of the doobage and free-sex).

Those are civil liberties that must be restored to us, among others. If you think the LP stands for pot, porn and gambling.... We've done our job. Why would you ever want to ban these liberties unless you don't believe in individual freedom and self-responsibility?

Please, cite where the LP "hate, Hate, HATE" Christianity and/or "apparently" Islam.

[Kludge]

You keep telling yourself that. Write those predictions down. Post them on your Refrigerator door.

Then see if, after November, they are really true.

;)

Look for at least 10% in Jackson County, Michigan.

[WRellim]

Those are civil liberties that must be restored to us, among others. If you think the LP stands for pot, porn and gambling.... We've done our job. Why would you ever want to ban these liberties unless you don't believe in individual freedom and self-responsibility?

What you fail to understand is that other than amongst "Libertarians" -- the theme of "Pot, Porn [aka Sex for money] & Gambling" really only appeals as a PRIMARY GOAL to the perpetually juvenile and the fringe college students (the ones who don't vote).

And indeed, in my opinion, the job you have done has been one of MIScharacterizing "libertarianism" as one of "Pot, Porn & Gambling" -- and it is a grave disservice to the public at large.


They reject liberty because that is ALL that they see... a bunch of undisciplined "libertines." :(



Please, cite where the LP "hate, Hate, HATE" Christianity and/or "apparently" Islam.

For the HATE of Christians, try about half of the posts here on RPF from "Libertarians." The hatred is rife.

For the HATE of Islam... cf Bob Barr.

[WRellim]

;)

Look for at least 10% in Jackson County, Michigan.

Well, write it down on the Fridge, then.

I say you get 1% max. The other 9% will fall for either Obama (to keep McCain out) or for McCain (to keep Obama out) ...or they'll be too stoned to vote ...or well whatever.

[Kludge]

What you fail to understand is that other than amongst "Libertarians" -- the theme of "Pot, Porn [aka Sex for money] & Gambling" really only appeals as a PRIMARY GOAL to the perpetually juvenile and the fringe college students (the ones who don't vote).

And indeed, in my opinion, the job you have done has been one of MIScharacterizing "libertarianism" as one of "Pot, Porn & Gambling" -- and it is a grave disservice to the public at large.

What do you feel libertarianism should be characterized as if not absolute liberty?




For the HATE of Christians, try about half of the posts here on RPF from "Libertarians." The hatred is rife.

For the HATE of Islam... cf Bob Barr.

To my knowledge, my entire family is Christian. I do not hate Christianity, I find it irrational and misguiding which I believe is the general sentiment among Libertarians.

I still don't catch the hatred of Islam connection with Bob Barr.

[Kludge]

[retracted to keep the meat & potatoes on the plate ;)]

[Kludge]

[retracted to keep the meat & potatoes on the plate ;)]

[WRellim]

First, THANKS for engaging in a serious discussion -- I may be satirical (and even sarcastic) but that's a reaction be being treated that way. :)


What do you feel libertarianism should be characterized as if not absolute liberty?

To me it is a matter of emphasis and perception.

If the emphasis is on "Pot, Porn & Gambling" then that means the party has allowed themselves (indeed, even participated in) the marginalization of Libertarianism and allowed the reality of a "philosophy of freedom and liberty" to be supplanted by THAT as your "caricature." You haven't succeeded... or if you have, your success was ill-aimed.

End result is that you have completely LOST the entire war, long before you even got the chance to get started marching to the first battle.

Because once you're caricatured, the caricature "Sticks" and you're marginalized by it. A majority of the public "throws the baby out with the bathwater" -- and ALL that they see or "think" when they hear of "Liberty" is that caricature.

And they are positive that if Libertarians were in power, their children (and all of their neighbors children, etc.) would all end up as drug addicts, whores, and in debt to casinos.

In other words, the establishment has successfully implemented a "SPIN" job on your political position, and made people think you're all "wackos" and advocates for a world of "anarchy" (which to the general public does NOT mean a concept of "freedom" from governmental rules -- no, to them, anarchy simply means "riots in the streets" busted store windows and looting {ala New Orleans during Katrina}).

So when Libertarians say, "Why yes, we do believe anarchy would be better." they are saying one thing... but the public is hearing something entirely different -- hence they believe you to be insane! (Because what SANE person would want a world that was like New Orleans during Katrina?)


And likewise, *I* know that the meaning of "Pot, Porn & Gambling" is actually FREEDOM & LIBERTY and an absence of governmental oppression and intrusiveness; *I* know that you do not WANT -- and indeed that you KNOW it would NOT result in -- cities full of everyone's children becoming "drug addicts, whores, and in debt to casinos." (But as I am NOT a typical member of the American public, what I think or understand doesn't matter... only what the vast "mob" thinks actually matters).

So, from THAT side... the "change" in the Libertarian party to a more "pragmatic" stance COULD BE, indeed SHOULD be a good thing. (Indeed, I thought it *might* be this time around.) But it depends on what the NEW "focus" actually ends up being... what the new "caricature" that the public swallows (or "sees").


BTW, the public THINKS in terms of cartoons...

Republicans are "Strong, small government, pro-faith, pro-military, slightly nazi but Good for business, etc."
Democrats are "Wimpy, feminist, pro-union, pro-tax, slightly pinko-commie but Care about the little people, etc."
Green Party is a "Bunch of Commie, hippie, tree-hugger environmentalists -- GreenPeace, etc."
...and Libertarians (past/present general caricature) are "Intellectual pot-heads with wacko ideas."

Of course ALL of those are a crock full of shite, but that *IS* how the public sees them.


Currently, the CONSTITUTION party does not have a "caricature."

Oh, the "Militant Atheists" here are trying very hard to create one, and a nasty one at that -- which if successful, would then become THE "picture" associated with "Constitution" in people's minds -- hence my strong opposition to what they are doing... IMHO, they are shooting the movement in the HEAD, destroying virtually everything we have achieved in the past 18 months ...and they don't seem to care.


To my knowledge, my entire family is Christian. I do not hate Christianity, I find it irrational and misguiding which I believe is the general sentiment among Libertarians.

I still don't catch the hatred of Islam connection with Bob Barr.

I don't mean to imply that everyone who is a "libertarian" (small "l") or even that everyone who is a "Libertarian" is anti-christian, or anti-religion, or pro-atheism (regardless of their personal beliefs). I myself am definitely a "libertarian" (small "l") and years ago tried to be a "Libertarian" (big "L") on a local basis (but was driven away by the fact that all the local party wanted to do was have rather heated arguments about the best way to privatize the road system, which had shit-all chances of happening... but I digress.)

BUT, what I am saying is that many of the most VOCAL of the "Libertarians" are changing their tune -- whereas before it was all Steve Kubby et al and about "Pot Porn & Gambling" -- what I am seeing lately (here on RPF and locally with some "Libertarians") is that it has become more about "Atheism" and with the "makeover" via the Barr faction (which includes a lot of SUPPORTERS of the Iraq war, etc.) and equal prominence of "Anti-Islam" and "Anti-Immigrant" -- making the new caricature of "L" to be one of multiple scapegoats (Christians, Muslims & Mexicans). A rather dramatic shift of emphasis.

Proof is not so much platforms, but rather choices of "emphasis" in postings, videos being pushed, etc.

I know you don't see that (yet) but it is happening.

As for Barr... it will become notably obvious over the next few months (he's said it, and hinted at it with recent writings... but it has gone unnoticed in the fervor over his "conversion" and the hype about all the "attention" he will bring.)

[Kludge]

The media originally spun our message into pot, porn & gambling and we've been trying to defend it ever since.

The controversy stirs up interest in our party by those who actually seek it. Unless we control the spin and the media, there is no way for us ever to rebound from our intellectual bunkers and begin converting to libertarianism for other reasons... I don't see any other way to promote libertarianism and I will not resort to compromising my views to have people rethink the libertarian platform by changing our party.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

[WRellim]

Speaking of statistics, what's the CP looking at for this year? .12% like last year, or do you think you can make gains on that?

I think the number of CP voters will likely double this year.

But the MAIN value is in creating a new (positive) "caricature" and a new "choice" for people towards the future. One that focuses on following and reclaiming the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and limits on government (i.e. not "conserving" the status quo, but instead pulling the "rope" BACK in that direction... TOWARDS "libertarianism" but in a pragmatic way).

The GOP is turning into the democratic party this year; Bush did a lot of that already, and McCain will do even more.

They will LOSE. And in doing so, they will lose a very substantial portion of their "base" of voters (more than they already have). A lot of those people will end up voting for Obama, or just staying home. Which they actually choose is (virtually) irrelevant as the consequences are the same.

The important point is that those people will now view themselves as "free agents" -- i.e. their "contract" with the Republican party is now canceled. It is null and void... and they will begin casting about (in a very lackadaisical fashion) for a new "label" and new "caricature" to picture themselves as.

If McCain loses (a 75% probability in my mind), then there is a *possibility* (I put it at maybe 25% chance of success) that the RP movement can seize the tiller of the GOP and begin turning that boat around... towards a CONSTITUTION mind-set (NOT back to "conservative" but rather a new paradigm or caricature).

The Constitution Party CAN help in that by providing a "non-threatening" avenue for those leaving (or disgusted by staying within) the GOP. And I think this is true EVEN if the numbers for the CP are smaller than the LP -- indeed in part BECAUSE the CP is not seen as a "spoiler" -- no "spoiler" = not a "treasonous threat" to the GOP.

And, if the takeover/makeover of the GOP has to be aborted (for instance if somehow the Bush/McCain team pulls another electoral "rabbit" from the Diebold hat -- something I put at about a 25% chance)... then when RP supporters are FORCED to jump from the GOP ship after November, the Constitution Party can be a good home for future work (and possibly another attempt), and there is a likelihood that we can bring minor, but significant numbers of GOP people there along with us (CP is a MUCH easier "sale" to dissatisfied GOP'ers than the LP is -- LP is just seen as too radical, too "weird").

[WRellim]

The media originally spun our message into pot, porn & gambling and we've been trying to defend it ever since.

Oh, I know... the original message was entirely *distorted* by the media.

But then the party pretty much "accepted" it (naively IMHO) and it stuck.


The controversy stirs up interest in our party by those who actually seek it.

But then it becomes self-reinforcing... the very caricature turns ON people who seek that as an emphasis, and turns OFF those who are NOT interested in that (but who may be, indeed if Nolan's chart is correct, ARE actually for the philosophy itself).


Unless we control the spin and the media, there is no way for us ever to rebound from our intellectual bunkers and begin converting to libertarianism for other reasons...

That's the way I see it... Once the caricature becomes "set" -- and I think it has (for example, think of the way the media tried to use "libertarian" as a NEGATIVE label for Ron Paul... they knew if they attached that "label" to him, they would marginalize him. The "label" itself (aka the "brand") is seen as entirely negative... and then "bow-tie-boy" Tucker had to bring out the prostitutes, in the "gambling state" just to make sure it stuck... the only thing missing was to have *ahem* "smoke" rolling out of the limo when they pulled up).



I don't see any other way to promote libertarianism and I will not resort to compromising my views to have people rethink the libertarian platform by changing our party.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.


I think the word "libertarianism" has become co-opted, tainted, and useless. In a similar fashion, the word "conservative" is now dead and meaningless. Likewise the OLD meaning of the word "Liberal" was co-opted and destroyed.

And it is NOT merely semantics... it is "caricatures" -- cartoon-like "snapshots" in the mind of the rather gullible "mob" -- which then makes it reality.

May as well try to rehabilitate "porch monkey." :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM


BTW, the below is the general public's (or at least GOP'ers) opinion of what Libertarians look like. :( :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxK9x0p8Nf4

[Kludge]

How do you propose we attract people to libertarianism then?

I've always used this Nolan Chart Quiz Card (http://www.theadvocates.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=DEL&Category_Code=WOR) to spark discussion on libertarianism which tends to go well until something they irrationally want banned comes up, such as marijuana. Then the entire conversation is "you want people to become addicted to pot? Our entire society will become addicted and sit on their couches all day!" to which I reply "I don't want people to become addicted and I don't support its use, but I don't believe I have the right to control what other people do so long as they don't harm others. In its most basic and pure form, libertarianism is nothing more then the assertion that I do not own you and you do not own me." If I'm allowed to follow through with that sentiment, it still always comes back to marijuana, gambling and prostitution and how it's detrimental to society. Some people accept it, while others do not. I don't know how to take pot, porn and gambling out of the discussion when it is all The Media speaks of.

[Fox McCloud]

The Constitution PArty and the Libertarian Party agree with each other and are basically identical at the national level.

The difference is, the Constitution party sees the Constitution as Restraining only the Federal Government -- whereas the Libertarian Party wants government at all levels restrained.

While I agree with federalism and the CP and LP will be allies where it counts (taking out Washington) If a Libertarian Party member was on the floor of a state legislature, and CP member there -- might be an opponent because they disagree on the roles of state government -- although the CP would be much more fiscally conservative then any Republican.

Tracy

I'll second this as a very VERY accurate assessment--on the Federal level they're virtually indistinguishable, but on the State level, they're a bit different.....at the State level, they'll agree on nearly every economic thing, but they'll probably differ on some social values such as gay marriage, abortion (though there ARE pro-life Libertarians), gambling, prostitution, pornography and the like.

I wish people would stop criticizing Baldwin simply because of his State level beliefs--I may not agree with him 100% on them, but he's not running for State Governor-he's running to be President of the US, and as such, he'll have no jurisdiction as to what the States will do.

Really, just from some things Ron has said, I think he's probably more of a "Constitution Party" candidate than a "Libertarian Party" candidate....while he's definitely Libertarian at the Federal level, he definitely has said some things that seem to point to him being a bit socially conservative on the State level.

[WRellim]

I'll second this as a very VERY accurate assessment--on the Federal level they're virtually indistinguishable, but on the State level, they're a bit different.....at the State level, they'll agree on nearly every economic thing, but they'll probably differ on some social values such as gay marriage, abortion (though there ARE pro-life Libertarians), gambling, prostitution, pornography and the like.

I wish people would stop criticizing Baldwin simply because of his State level beliefs--I may not agree with him 100% on them, but he's not running for State Governor-he's running to be President of the US, and as such, he'll have no jurisdiction as to what the States will do.

Really, just from some things Ron has said, I think he's probably more of a "Constitution Party" candidate than a "Libertarian Party" candidate....while he's definitely Libertarian at the Federal level, he definitely has said some things that seem to point to him being a bit socially conservative on the State level.

I think the REAL problem that most of the anti-Baldwin people have with him has more to do with WHO he is... a Christian pastor.

The rest (platform objections, etc.) are just piled onto that for their additional justification value.

[familydog]

I think the REAL problem that most of the anti-Baldwin people have with him has more to do with WHO he is... a Christian pastor.

+1

[kombayn]

^The real problem is that his party supports restrictions on a free society. If you think pornography is the evilest thing in the world, that's stupid. Get rid of porn and see how many males start losing their god-damn minds. Porn would start selling for $50 on the streets, and the fact that he is a perfect example of what would be CLEAR VIOLATION between Church & State.

[rossl]

Can't you register as a member of more than one party? Isn't Ron Paul a member of the Libertarian and Republican parties?

[familydog]

^The real problem is that his party supports restrictions on a free society. If you think pornography is the evilest thing in the world, that's stupid. Get rid of porn and see how many males start losing their god-damn minds. Porn would start selling for $50 on the streets, and the fact that he is a perfect example of what would be CLEAR VIOLATION between Church & State.

I'm pretty sure porn is being sold on the street at inflated prices right now.

[Fox McCloud]

I think the REAL problem that most of the anti-Baldwin people have with him has more to do with WHO he is... a Christian pastor.

I'd have to agree...I often wonder, would Ron Paul have gotten as much support as he currently has (or had) if he would have become a pastor instead of a doctor (and there was a high probability of this happening when he was younger).

[SeanEdwards]

then when RP supporters are FORCED to jump from the GOP ship after November, the Constitution Party can be a good home for future work (and possibly another attempt), and there is a likelihood that we can bring minor, but significant numbers of GOP people there along with us (CP is a MUCH easier "sale" to dissatisfied GOP'ers than the LP is -- LP is just seen as too radical, too "weird").

Not unless they strike that bible-thumper shit from their platform. Not in a million years.

[WRellim]

Not unless they strike that bible-thumper shit from their platform. Not in a million years.

I think we've determined the "fault-line" that determines how the RP movement fractures into separate parts.

Militant Atheists will stay home or will leave and swing over (temporarily*) to the Libertarian side from which they continue to attack the Constitution party side with a vengeance.

And, since with the elevation of Bob Barr (and Wayne Root) they have pretty much pissed off the "pot-head" and the "idealistic/purist" factions, they will mainly be recruiting new people from the (of course, tremendously HUGE) pool of other militant atheists (a few of whom will sadly be too busy shouting "Change" and "Obama" and "Universal Free Health Care" to even give them the time of day).

Meanwhile, the Constitution party faction, with the choice of Chuck Baldwin will be able to use him to reach & teach the concepts of "Constitutional Limits" and a return to more limited government to a lot of dissatisfied GOP'ers, and in addition to recruiting from the Anti-McCain GOP, they will alas, be forced to recruit from the (of course, completely insignificant) pool of evangelical Christians.

Hmmm, I wonder which group will grow faster?


*Temporarily in the sense that as the Barr campaign continues and he realigns himself (and the party) to his TRUE issues and positions (a slightly different version of McCain + FAIR tax); they will likely abandon that ship... with no where to really go, unless they can retake the LP at next year's convention (which ironically will probably be dependent upon exactly how successful the "pragmatic" Barr choice is in attracting "non-pure" people to the LP.)

[electronicmaji]

The constitution party is a bunch of nut jobs and whackos. The Libertarian Party is now led by ex-neo-cons.

Neither are satisfactory.

[Fox McCloud]

The constitution party is a bunch of nut jobs and whackos. The Libertarian Party is now led by ex-neo-cons.

Neither are satisfactory.

You should really read some of Baldwin's articles...I think you'll very quickly see that the guy is no nut-job or whacko...he's a very intelligent and wise man who can articulate what he wants to say very well.

[kombayn]

^I agree with you. He is a genuine nice man overall. At the same time though, when he speaks about the North American Union, the New World Order and all the other conspiracy theory stuff that's also where I have to jump off the bus. Plus his party clearly violates the separation of Church and State if they were to ever govern the White House. I just can't agree with him on that point.

[Fox McCloud]

^I agree with you. He is a genuine nice man overall. At the same time though, when he speaks about the North American Union, the New World Order and all the other conspiracy theory stuff that's also where I have to jump off the bus. Plus his party clearly violates the separation of Church and State if they were to ever govern the White House. I just can't agree with him on that point.

did you jump the bus when Ron Paul talked about the North American Union, or how there is a New World Order (in an interview with Alex Jones, Alex said that "your governor attended Bilderberg this year", to which Ron Replied "ahhhh, so he's part of that one world government scheme then").

he's also wrote some scathing articles about the so called "separation of church and state" too...and yet you didn't jump ship at this ;)