Barr/Baldwin Peace Treaty

[Kludge]

By voting that you "will henceforth never use my posting privelage to disparage Charles "Chuck" Baldwin or Bob Barr" you agree to the following rules:

1) You will not type "Barr" and/or "Baldwin" in a provocative manner on any thread hosted on www.RonPaulForums.com (http://www.RonPaulForums.com) hence signing.

2) Whenever speaking of any political party's position on an issue, you will be sure to check and cite where the party's current platform (from the party's OFFICIAL national website) affirms your assertion hence signing.

3) You will not disparage ANY political party or political parties collectively hence signing.

Goal: The goal of this is NOT to squelch discussion of political and/or philosophical issues, but to ensure that we do not adopt a football-fan mentality regarding the libertarian candidates. Hopefully, this will also promote discussion of political and philosophical ideologies to better affirm all forum members' confidence in discussion and their personal ideologies.


Failure to abide by these rules will result in the possible excommunication from our peace-loving clique. You are encouraged to post violations on this thread so that we may collectively humiliate and disparage the violator.

[Kludge]

No takers? http://www.kirupa.com/forum/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[familydog]

You're a good man Kludgey. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

lol I don't think i can hold up to it...although I would like to see less bashing of both of them. tones

[Andrew-Austin]

Yeah I'll sign, it seems silly to preemtively disparage either of them at this point.

Why would I not want to analyze both candidates in the fairest manner I can...

[krazy kaju]

Chuck Baldwin sucks.

Say NO to tariffs.

[Kludge]

Chuck Baldwin sucks.

Say NO to tariffs.

:rolleyes:

[The_Orlonater]

The_Orlonater has signed!

[nobody's_hero]

+1 for this creative idea.

I've never really been a fan of putting down other candidates anyway (edit, though it is tempting and easy).

Think about how unsuccessful Ron Paul would have been if he'd wasted all that time putting down other Republicans instead of digging up, and speaking devotedly about, the Constitution.

[Anti Federalist]

+1 for this creative idea.

I've never really been a fan of putting down other candidates anyway (edit, though it is tempting and easy).

Think about how unsuccessful Ron Paul would have been if he'd wasted all that time putting down other Republicans instead of digging up, and speaking devotedly about, the Constitution.

He wasn't very successful, not as far as the campaign for President is concerned.

Maybe if he had gone for the jugular and aggressively called out the peanut gallery for the neo-con, anti-freedom, pro-war asshats that they are, maybe he would have gained more traction.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I won't sign. I still have to fend off the protectionist Baldheads.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Me too..have to be on the defensive all the time in here. tones

[majinkoola]

I'm down for a peace treaty, but I'll keep bringing both of their names up in their defense. Ron Paul has raised expectations of politicians to an insane level.

Neither of them might want to reduce the size of the gov't to the size I or others want, but they'd certainly be going in the right direction in pretty much every area and it's not like any one person could reduce it to the proper size in 4 years anyway. Even Ron Paul's economic plan called for only a freeze in domestic spending at first.

[Joseph Hart]

Take a guess what I voted for :)

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd129/Organjic/Barr2.jpghttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd129/Organjic/Barr3.jpghttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd129/Organjic/Barr1.jpg

[Kludge]

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd129/Organjic/Barr3.jpg

Excellent.

[Alex Libman]

Baldwin is a poopiehead.

[Kade]

By voting that you "will henceforth never use my posting privelage to disparage Charles "Chuck" Baldwin or Bob Barr" you agree to the following rules:

1) You will not type "Barr" and/or "Baldwin" on any thread hosted on www.RonPaulForums.com hence signing.

2) Whenever speaking of any political party's position on an issue, you will be sure to check and cite where the party's current platform (from the party's OFFICIAL national website) affirms your assertion hence signing.

3) You will not disparage ANY political party or political parties collectively hence signing.

Goal: The goal of this is NOT to squelch discussion of political and/or philosophical issues, but to ensure that we do not adopt a football-fan mentality regarding the libertarian candidates. Hopefully, this will also promote discussion of political and philosophical ideologies to better affirm all forum members' confidence in discussion and their personal ideologies.


Failure to abide by these rules will result in the possible excommunication from our peace-loving clique. You are encouraged to post violations on this thread so that we may collectively humiliate and disparage the violator.

I bash both Baldwin and Barr, you may put me on the dishonorable failures list.

[Kludge]

I bash both Baldwin and Barr, you may put me on the dishonorable failures list.

Nope. You have to agree to the rules and then fail to abide by them.

I do honor you Kade. You know... We're almost exactly the same, you and I.

[Andrew-Austin]

Haha nevermind take me off this list, I'm too "lulz non-conformist" to be apart of any list no matter how reasonable its agreements may be.

[Kludge]

Haha nevermind take me off this list, I'm too "lulz non-conformist" to be apart of any list no matter how reasonable its agreements may be.

Signed in blood. You lose.

[kombayn]

I voted No because it's not going to work and then you'll use the forums as... Example: "But you signed the peach treaty and you broke it! BAH BAH BAH BAH BAH BLAAAAAAAAAAH!" I love the idea in essence but it just won't work. Sorry bud.

[werdd]

barr = has my vote

[Aratus]

even though i sorta like barr, i might vote nader... anyway!!! ... even though i might have
helped chuck baldwin get closer to being on the ballot here with my humble "john hancock'

[Aratus]

call me a devil's advocate, but SteveMartin's idea of a third party patriot's summit also had its appeal...

[Mini-Me]

In this thread, Barr/Baldwin Peace Treaty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146732)

By voting that you "will henceforth never use my posting privelage to disparage Charles "Chuck" Baldwin or Bob Barr" you agree to the following rules:

1) You will not type "Barr" and/or "Baldwin" on any thread hosted on www.RonPaulForums.com hence signing.
<snip>
Failure to abide by these rules will result in the possible excommunication from our peace-loving clique. You are encouraged to post violations on this thread so that we may collectively humiliate and disparage the violator.


In the thread, Were we just insulted on The Colbert Report??? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146940)

Bah, CNBC today in the Squawk Box was talking about Barr Pharmaceuticals... Then they started going on about space aliens, Kucinich, Barr, and Ron Paul

Oh, snap. I think the village elder just got voted off the island! ;)

[IRO-bot]

I'm on board here. Sign me up.

Oh and who wrote the tags? It's privilege, not privilige. <- This coming from one of the worst spellers on the boards.

[Cowlesy]

Great thread

[Kludge]

Internet.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Chuck Baldwin advertisment on the Stormfront forum? wow! Tones

[JosephTheLibertarian]

even though i sorta like barr, i might vote nader... anyway!!! ... even though i might have
helped chuck baldwin get closer to being on the ballot here with my humble "john hancock'

No, you will not consider Nader. Repeat after me. ;)

"I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader. "I will not consider Nader."

your turn.

[nate895]

I'll sign on. I like 'em both, and don't think either should be bashed the way both sides bash each other (though I haven't seen anyone trash Baldwin personally yet.

[SnappleLlama]

I'll sign it as long as I can still make fun of Bob Barr's scary beard!

[SeanEdwards]

Who are these people you are talking about? Barr? Baldwin? Are they musicians?

[SnappleLlama]

Who are these people you are talking about? Barr? Baldwin? Are they musicians?

Original members of the Beatles, along with Pete Best.

[freelance]

I voted I will do as I (damn well) please. I have no interest in slamming either of them on any public forum. That's what I please to do, because that's who I am, not because someone is trying to impose YET ANOTHER rule on me.

[AZ Libertarian]

I was a Delegate at the LNC2008. I supported Mary Ruwart all the way. I would rather have seen EIGHT other candidates representing us in the race than Bob. I saw what happened, and can read what happened between the lines. I have it all recorded on disc. I didn't like what happened, and I'm not happy about it now.

STILL.

I remain a Libertarian. I visited Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root at their 'Victory Party' in my 'V for Vendetta' mask (yes, that was me), and buried the hatchet between the R3VOLUTION (at least the part I have anything to do with) and the Barr campaign. I told him outright that he wasn't my personal choice, but he was the Parties choice, and that I would abide by that. No 'sour grapes' here. Let's get the best job we can do, done. I gave them both my contact info, and registered with their National Campaign website. I joined the Bob Barr Meetup Group in my home town, and have been to a Meetup where we discussed strategies and goals. I even went as far as being interviewed for Arizona State Coordinator for the Barr Campaign. Why? Because you don't throw out the BABY WITH THE BATHWATER, that's why! It may not be a perfectly clean baby, but it's still our baby, dammit. A LOT of good people have worked hard for YEARS to get the Libertarian Party where it is today - the LARGEST third party in America. The party of PRINCIPLE. Defending Freedom since 1971. It still beats the HELL out of whatever the conglomerate RD party will EVER offer (barring the miracle I pray for daily - that somehow, SOMEHOW, the "Just God" that Patrick Henry spoke about that "presides over the destinies of nations" moves the right hearts in the right ways to dump the 'senior snowy-haired Senator from Arizona' and nominate Ron in spite of his own reticence!), and I will do all I can to get Bob Barr elected.

I signed your pledge, and am a believer that "As a man thinketh, so shall he be." If you think negative thoughts, you will only produce negative things - usually things that destroy, rather than create. I choose to follow the wisdom of Dr. Emmit Fox, and only think positive thoughts - only manifest positive things that create, rather than destroy.

Add that to the wisdom of my Beloved Mother: "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all." I think that would be the best mantra for the Forums, it would cut down the posts we must peruse by the hour by a third, and we would get much more accomplished, in a shorter amount of time.

Ed

[Cowlesy]

//

[Kludge]

Bump for relevancy.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ed...you must be a Unity person if you read Emmet Fox. I was for 15 years. Tones

[mtmedlin]

I vote NO.


It is of my sincerest and deepest intent to bash both assclowns equally. That is all!

[Aratus]

i had voted "YES" earlier due to the way the heat would happen if folks did not hold back... there are two almost even sized camps here... each very astutely political... and THEY are bandwagon looking for NEW supporters [i am not refering to our disingeniously quiet obama or mccain people]

[Imperial]

I want to sign this, as long as I can still use constructive criticism, right?

I mean, does this just limit mindless spamming and excessive criticism, correct?