Lets come to a consensus Either Baldwin or Barr!

[bucfish]

I personally say Baldwin as he did more for Paul than did Barr as where waqs Barr in the Early Days?

[Indy Vidual]

The CP wants too much religion in government.
Look on the front page of their website. :eek:

[Truth Warrior]

Let's be individuals and not! :D

[bucfish]

Yeah But Baldwin is a Maverick so too speak in the CP he perfectly understands the seperation of Church and State and the freedom of Religion in the US Constitution. Listen to the man not his party. For if I listened to the GOP I would never have supported Ron Paul!

[brandon]

Barwin!

[brandon]

Actually, read my signature

[OptionsTrader]

Baldwin.

Not Barr.
Reason 1 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_record&docid=cr12oc01-115)
Reason 2 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml)
Reason 3 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-145)
Reason 4 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1998-482)
Reason 5 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-357)
Reason 6 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-390)
Reason 7 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll475.xml)

[FrankRep]

The CP wants too much religion in government.
Look on the front page of their website. :eek:

To quote of the Chairman of the Ohio Constitution Party, Robert Owens:


First, there are some elements of the CP that advocate for a theocracy. They are a minority. They supported Alan Keyes. Alan was beat by Chuck Baldwin 3 to 1.

The majority of the CP membership (which includes Christians, Jews, Pagans, Taoist, Atheists (yes, even atheists) etc.) understands Ben Franklin's warning, "As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Hard Drugs, Gambling, Pornography (I have meet many people that see me to get a Divorce that point to this as a MAJOR reason for the failure of the marriage) etc will take a toll on society. Liberty is not license. Liberty has responsibility. Morality is important.

The CP does NOT advocate that the Government should get involved in these issues, and certainly not the Federal Government. The CP does advocate that citizens should be aware of these issues and that they should be resolved in the family and in the church. The idea of a government sponsored gambling (lotto) is repulsive.

The CP advocates a return to a time tested, proven recipe for peace, prosperity and freedom. Alexis DeTocqueville in "Democracy in America" documents the ingredients for the recipe: 1) the government should only perform a few defined tasks but stay out of our lives otherwise. 2) The people must be a moral people.

SOURCE:
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2777&postcount=4

[brandon]

Sorry, I cant see an atheist supporting the CP. That makes no sense whatsoever.

But then again, I guess McCain got the majority of the Republican anti war vote.

We live in a crazy world....

[electronicmaji]

Not Baldwin. He equates homosexuality with Pedophilia.

I'm voting for Obama.

[newbitech]

Actually, read my signature

how do you rationalize writing Dr. Paul in when Dr. Paul said that doing so would be unproductive?

I don't know if I could make a principled vote for any of the candidates. I am having a very difficult time figuring out what to do with my vote. I will consider going fishing, but I don't think I would be doing the right thing.

[pinkmandy]

It doesn't matter- the cats can't be herded. ;) Vote for whichever you like as neither can win. I'm just happy that McCain and Obama aren't getting our votes!

[Fox McCloud]

I'm voting for Obama.

Then, um, why are you here?

Either way, I'll still likely write-in Ron Paul's name....however, if I change my mind...

Baldwin, definitely--Barr's voting record is repulsive to me.

Plus, doesn't anyone remember the thread where someone personally met Barr, who then basically insulted Paul by saying he was a terrible speaker who had good ideals, and that that particular individual should vote for Ron Paul instead of him--doesn't anyone remember that? Talk about prideful (one of the reasons I love Ron; he's so humble).

Plus, he's not stressing the importance of abolishing the Fed like Paul and Chuck are---and that's my #1 issue (heck, even when I was a neocon, albeit rapidly fading one, that was very very important to me).

[OptionsTrader]

Sorry, I cant see an atheist supporting the CP.


I am and I will. Crazy world indeed.

[QCB79]

neither

[WRellim]

I am and I will. Crazy world indeed.

No crazier than a bunch of Libertarians picking two neocons as their candidates.
:eek:

[JRegs85]

Baldwin. Barr should have endorsed Ron Paul early in the process, an endorsement from a well-known conservative would have greatly helped Dr. Paul.

[amy31416]

Sorry, I cant see an atheist supporting the CP. That makes no sense whatsoever.



Though I describe myself as agnostic, I am more comfortable with the CP than the LP. Party doesn't matter to me though, character does--and I'm more convinced that Baldwin has better character than Barr.

[Theocrat]

The CP wants too much religion in government.
Look on the front page of their website. :eek:

Aw, what's the matter? Are you afraid the Constitution Party is going to take away all your child porn, death clinics (AKA abortion mills), and diseased prostitutes? Poor wittle baby...

[pcosmar]

Aw, what's the matter? Are you afraid the Constitution Party is going to take away all your child porn, death clinics (AKA abortion mills), and diseased prostitutes? Poor wittle baby...

Actually, as a Christian I am concerned that more bad law and more restrictive measures would worsen those things. I think more could be done through education and example than force.
I am also concerned of the backlash that it would cause down the road.

I have not decided yet, but I may support Baldwin in the end, But I am uncomfortable with the positions of the "constitution" party.

[acptulsa]

Not Baldwin. He equates homosexuality with Pedophilia.

I'm voting for Obama.

Throwing your vote away on the status quo. Vive la revolucione? Not this way.

The way I see it, we may be a herd of cats and individualists all, but there's only one way we're going to use this presidential race to further the cause and that is to knock Joe Six Pack off of his sofa. As in, we have to vote for one candidate as a block and put our power to the test--then make good and sure whatever it takes that they count this vote right.

Then come election night, Joe Six Pack looks at his tv and sees that someone he never heard of got over twenty percent of the vote. At that point he falls off the couch and he's never the same again. He starts asking questions. Like, "How can one in five vote for someone and I never hear of them?" They will be the right questions. And we'll have the answers.

[Mesogen]

If Barack Obama represents the kind of "change" we saw after the 2006 elections, then what's he good for?

[acptulsa]

If Barack Obama represents the kind of "change" we saw after the 2006 elections, then what's he good for?

Near as I can tell, taking freedom and liberty "off the table"--and being erudite enough to make a fair percentage of the population actually like it.

[Theocrat]

Actually, as a Christian I am concerned that more bad law and more restrictive measures would worsen those things. I think more could be done through education and example than force.
I am also concerned of the backlash that it would cause down the road.

I have not decided yet, but I may support Baldwin in the end, But I am uncomfortable with the positions of the "constitution" party.

Essentially, the Constitution Party is what I would consider to be a "Christian libertarian" party. They understand rightly what limited government is and how it's supposed to function. If you read their party platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/documents/2004CPPlatform.pdf), it's easy to see that they have no intentions of implementing "more bad law" or "more restrictive measures" in our government. As a matter of fact, many of their positions on the issues coincide with Dr. Paul's in some way, shape, or form.

The problem I feel with most critics of the CP is that they don't understand our nation's history aright, and they wrongly assume that religious neutrality is possible in our constitutional republic. With that point aside, I am curious about the "uncomfortable" positions you have with the CP, all the while being a professed Christian.

[AutoDas]

I'm voting for Obama.

Why bother? Obama is going to win by a landslide without your vote. Vote for a libertarian.

[Dieseler]

I love Chuck Baldwin.
I don't know who the hell Bob Barre is.
Nobody I know knows who either one of them are.
McCain is getting my vote now.
I cancel you out Electronicmagi.

[acptulsa]

I cancel you out Electronicmagi.

Glad you two are good for something. :p

[Dieseler]

Glad you two are good for something. :p

:D:D:D

[ladyjade3]

Actually, read my signature

Barr, an opportunistic neocon? You're joking, right? People join the LP for political opportunities? This would be a first.

[amy31416]

Glad you two are good for something. :p

:D

[acptulsa]

Barr, an opportunistic neocon? You're joking, right? People join the LP for political opportunities? This would be a first.

QFT! If there is something to be gained in the short term by doing this, there is indeed a deep conspiracy at work!

[familydog]

Barr, an opportunistic neocon? You're joking, right? People join the LP for political opportunities? This would be a first.

Ego.

[WRellim]

Ego.


Big EGO... Big AMBITIONS... and a politician who was out of power = "desperate" and willing to try anything. (Just mix with water, Viguerie's money, and the chance to "get in on" the early part of a new political movement ...and "presto" instant change!)

[newyearsrevolution08]

Why do we all need to go as a group to things?

Vote for anyone you want people.

[acptulsa]

Why do we all need to go as a group to things?

Vote for anyone you want people.

Depends on if we want to convince people we're an organized, effective force worth joining or if we just want to individually tilt windmills.

[pcosmar]

Lets come to a consensus Either Baldwin or Barr!
There is a consensus.
They will both take votes away from the 2 party circus (the illusion of choice) but will have no real impact on the outcome.

Reality, deal with it.

[Truth Warrior]

Let's just LOSE the "consensus" requirement. It smacks badly of "lefty" collectivist group-think.<IMHO> :p

[specsaregood]

Party doesn't matter to me though, character does--and I'm more convinced that Baldwin has better character than Barr.

Well it appears as if you called that one correctly.

[TomtheTinker]

Barr just endorsed newt.

[amy31416]

Barr just endorsed newt.

Shocker. What a pile of sleaze dripping with scum.

[kylejack]

Barr, an opportunistic neocon? You're joking, right? People join the LP for political opportunities? This would be a first.
Oh Raaaachel. The neocon Bob Barr has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

[Wesker1982]

Not a fan of Barr but this still is a bit surprising imo.

[gerryb]

Not a fan of Barr but this still is a bit surprising imo.

Nothing surprising about it to me

[amy31416]

Well it appears as if you called that one correctly.

Seems so obvious now, doesn't it? And to think that I'd almost given Barr the benefit of the doubt.

[pcosmar]

Seems so obvious now, doesn't it? And to think that I'd almost given Barr the benefit of the doubt.

What benefit is there to doubt?

[acptulsa]

What benefit is there to doubt?

If you're doubting whether you did the right thing petitioning the LP to drop Barr like a hot rock, that benefits Barr to some degree.

But, of course, it was the right thing to do.

[amy31416]

What benefit is there to doubt?

Damn you Pete! :p

[FrankRep]

I personally say Baldwin as he did more for Paul than did Barr as where waqs Barr in the Early Days?

I support Chuck Baldwin.


:cool: