PDA

View Full Version : The Constitution Party




G-Wohl
09-11-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm going to summarize all of my thoughts on this very important matter in this thread, because I need to touch upon everything that so blatantly makes the Constitution Party anti-liberty.

First, I need to make the immediate claim that The Revolution's affinity for this political party frightens me to no end. This movement, in the course of a couple of months, has gone from a large tent of liberty lovers to a small whack-job tent of Theocrats and religious nuts. I would dearly hope that most here do not believe that the "Constitution" Party is the only hope we have left. In fact, I would rather posit that they are a great danger to our cause, rather than the "God" send that many people here believe it is.

Let us take a look at the party platform...

They have this to say about gambling:

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

This should immediately strike any freedom-loving libertarian as a very frightening thing. Why can the Constitution Party not simply say they do not favor federally-regulated gambling with tax payers' money? Why does it have anything to do with morals? Who are they to throw around words like "family values" and "moral fiber"? That should never have ANYTHING to do with the way the federal government is managed!

They have this to say about pornography (dear heavens):

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

WHAT?! I am simply astounded that few people here seem to find how disgracefully socialistic this all sounds! A distortion of God's will? Who are they to decide such an asinine thing? And how dare they use the First Amendment to erode our freedom of speech, when the First Amendment CLEARLY DEFINES our RIGHT to freedom of speech? This is a dastardly attempt to promote religious charlatanry, all the while implementing our Constitution in the most insulting of ways.

They say this about education:

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents. Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans.

Yes, any libertarian would agree that the federal government should have nothing to do with education. Surely almost everybody here is for the closing of the Department of Education. But look at the reasons they provide: education "cannot be separated from religious faith." The Constitution Party clearly uses religious principle to justify political principle, but any freedom lover knows that it should be the OTHER WAY AROUND! This kind of bible pounding is precisely how we lost so many of our freedoms in the 20th century.

They say this of "family":

No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

Umm... what? Have they heard of the 10th amendment? States have the right to define marriage if they damn well please! The federal government cannot institute a constitutional amendment defining marriage, but that's because of the 10th amendment. What the hell does "God" have anything to do with it? Marriage is only a religious ceremony for those who make it that way. To think that they believe the federal government has some sort of obligation to follow what "God has instituted" just demonstrates this party's complete and utter lack of regard for Constitutional liberty and state's rights. Do they not realize that any state that wishes to allow marriages for gay couples is simply exercising their 10th amendment rights? Any freedom lover would understand this, but, once again, the Constitution Party believes they should put their ridiculous religious nonsense in front of the much more important principles: liberty, freedom, and the Constitution.


We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

This is just clear bigotry. They mention nothing of opposing efforts to legalize any adoption regulation of any sort, which is what a libertarian SHOULD do. Because these idiots are so strongly drawn to their religious bigotry, they only appear to oppose regulation when it comes to homosexuals. Any freedom lover would oppose regulation of ANY KIND because it's not a role of government authorized by the Constitution! Again, a clear indication that this party is a Theocratic party, and not one supporting our Constitution.

I do not have an ounce of regret in my entire body when I say that the Constitution Party could not have chosen a more ironic name for their pathetic, zealous, whack job organization. Their POTUS '08 candidate, Chuck Baldwin, a bigoted dirt bag who also happens to be a "man of God", closely follows the party platform. Do we really want even the slightest possibility of this maniac having executive control of the federal government?

It necessarily brings up a very important question: why did all of you Baldwin supporters ever support Ron Paul in the first place? Ron Paul is a religious man, but his views on freedom and liberty have absolutely nothing to do with his born-again status. He recognizes that freedom should be for all, and that the Constitution - NOT THE BIBLE - should defend this fact. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if you follow the crazy rhetoric that the "Constitution" Party preaches, then you supported Ron Paul for all the wrong reasons. He wasn't some sort of religious upholder, nor was he an "issues" voter. He votes on PRINCIPLE - he votes on whether or not the issue at hand is authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution Party has clearly made its decisions based off of a much different - much irrelevant - document that should hold no bearing in any political decisions. Was it not the First Amendment that declared Congress shall make no law, neither defending nor prohibiting, a religious organization? (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

With Ron Paul out of the race, I understand that The Revolutionaries don't have many choices. But why must we stoop to the embarrassingly contradictory nature of Chuck Baldwin and his Theocratic nut job party platform? I have too much trouble believing that everything the Revolutionaries worked for ended up in vain. And if you believe that their work is not in vain with Chuck Baldwin being the top contender at the moment for the liberty vote, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

TruthisTreason
09-11-2008, 11:25 AM
Chuck is answering these questions now, tune in.

http://www.wrbnfm.com/

G-Wohl
09-13-2008, 01:04 PM
Bump.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 01:06 PM
A vote for Chuck is a vote for his scary gay-bashing party. And voting for him is a vote for statism anyway.

heavenlyboy34
09-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Umm... what? Have they heard of the 10th amendment? States have the right to define marriage if they damn well please! The federal government cannot institute a constitutional amendment defining marriage, but that's because of the 10th amendment. What the hell does "God" have anything to do with it? Marriage is only a religious ceremony for those who make it that way. To think that they believe the federal government has some sort of obligation to follow what "God has instituted" just demonstrates this party's complete and utter lack of regard for Constitutional liberty and state's rights. Do they not realize that any state that wishes to allow marriages for gay couples is simply exercising their 10th amendment rights? Any freedom lover would understand this, but, once again, the Constitution Party believes they should put their ridiculous religious nonsense in front of the much more important principles: liberty, freedom, and the Constitution.

You make a very good point, my friend. I've been saying to friends and colleagues for a long time that the government should have nothing to do with religious rites/ceremonies such as marriage. This has been my big issue with the "Constitution" party. I need to see some more proof of their commitment to individual liberty than what I've seen in their literature before I will vote for Baldwin, et. al.

american2
09-13-2008, 02:31 PM
The Constitution party is gloriously pro-liberty. Your criticism is completely unwarranted. Morality is not subjective; rather our system of government is based on judeo-christian morality. That's the only way limited government will work.

Check out this article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html
This leading abortion advocate openly admits abortion is murder, but that's fine because she says the powerful have a right to kill the powerless. This is the logical conclusion of your argument.

TER
09-13-2008, 03:02 PM
The Constitutional Party is not the Libertarian Party. If you don't agree with it, than don't vote for it.

G-Wohl
09-13-2008, 03:12 PM
The Constitution party is gloriously pro-liberty. Your criticism is completely unwarranted. Morality is not subjective; rather our system of government is based on judeo-christian morality. That's the only way limited government will work.

Check out this article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html
This leading abortion advocate openly admits abortion is murder, but that's fine because she says the powerful have a right to kill the powerless. This is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Morality is not subjective? What kind of pedestal are you standing on, sir? Since you're such a morality expert, can you please tell me how drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality are objectively immoral things? Better yet, what about morals that are condemned by some religions and praised by others, like polygamy?

Our government is not based on any morality from any religion. You clearly don't know anything about the Treaty of Tripoli.


As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

And in case you need a Constitution lesson:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

G-Wohl
09-13-2008, 03:13 PM
The Constitutional Party is not the Libertarian Party. If you don't agree with it, than don't vote for it.

I plan not to. I also plan to exercise my right of free speech to expose their nastiness, which is something that the Constitution Party doesn't' seem to value too much.

heavenlyboy34
09-13-2008, 03:13 PM
The Constitution party is gloriously pro-liberty. Your criticism is completely unwarranted. Morality is not subjective; rather our system of government is based on judeo-christian morality. That's the only way limited government will work.

Check out this article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html
This leading abortion advocate openly admits abortion is murder, but that's fine because she says the powerful have a right to kill the powerless. This is the logical conclusion of your argument.

They seem to be pro-liberty from what I've read so far; but would they tolerate those who disagree with the religious aspects of the platform?

TER
09-13-2008, 03:38 PM
I plan not to. I also plan to exercise my right of free speech to expose their nastiness, which is something that the Constitution Party doesn't' seem to value too much.

Very well. Good luck.

american2
09-13-2008, 03:39 PM
They seem to be pro-liberty from what I've read so far; but would they tolerate those who disagree with the religious aspects of the platform?

Absolutely! That's part of the traditional american system of government which they support.

american2
09-13-2008, 03:43 PM
Morality is not subjective? What kind of pedestal are you standing on, sir? Since you're such a morality expert, can you please tell me how drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality are objectively immoral things? Better yet, what about morals that are condemned by some religions and praised by others, like polygamy?

Our government is not based on any morality from any religion. You clearly don't know anything about the Treaty of Tripoli.



And in case you need a Constitution lesson:



Your assertions are dangerous and misplaced. First off, you believe morality is subjective - thus, the serial killer's morality should not be judged, as he has the right to whatever system of morality he wants to believe and act according to.

The treaty of Tripoli has nothing to do with the FACT that our system of limited government is founded on the morality of the Judeo-Christian ethic. This has nothing to do with treaties with Muslim countries. Our system of government was not founded on any religion - it was founded however, on themes that concur with the traditional morality of Western Culture. Without this, you can kill whomever you want, as the article I posted above suggests.

american2
09-13-2008, 03:46 PM
Morality is not subjective? What kind of pedestal are you standing on, sir? Since you're such a morality expert, can you please tell me how drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality are objectively immoral things? Better yet, what about morals that are condemned by some religions and praised by others, like polygamy?

Our government is not based on any morality from any religion. You clearly don't know anything about the Treaty of Tripoli.



And in case you need a Constitution lesson:

The other items you mention are mostly local issues; not federal issues. I think the Constitution party would understand that. But the Candidates they have elected to office thus far are mostly local, and hence these issues are important at that level. Federal gov has no authority to regulate drugs for example.

Charles Wilson
09-13-2008, 04:45 PM
Andrew Grathwohl if you support Ron Paul then I do not see why you do not support Chuck Baldwin. I believe Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin want to get the Federal government out of our lives and leave all powers not specifically authorized the Federal government in the Constitution, to the States and the people. Article [X].

Ron Paul has said that what an individual puts in his/her mouth is not the business of the Federal government. That said, I believe his statement applies to anything else an individual wants to do with his/her body. Moral issues are best left to the individual and God, as long as those issues do not infringe on the rights of others.

You mention gay couples adopting children. I have a problem with gay couples adopting children because I know that a child needs the influence of both a male and a female in the home (they each have different rolls in raising up the child). The same applies to single parents. It has nothing to do with the moral question of being gay. Please read the book Scam by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, and you will understand why I take this position. Having said that, this is my personal opinion therefore I feel that the issue should be left to the State to decide according to the will of the people. If you do not like the laws of one State, move to a State that has laws that most closely mirror your views.

BTW: As a Christian, I believe moral issues pertaining to gays should be left to the individual and God. Gays do not have to choose between their unique lifestyle and God. God judges all our actions. Gays should acknowledge Him and ask Him to come into their lives -- we are all His children. Judge not, that you be not judged (Matt. 7:1).

dr. hfn
09-13-2008, 04:51 PM
holy Fucking Shit! I had no idea the Constitution was so religiously oriented. Christ! My vote is going back to Bob Barr, the Constitution Party only seems to care about Liberty when it doesn't come into conflict with THEIR religious beliefs!

BIGOTS!

american2
09-13-2008, 05:15 PM
holy Fucking Shit! I had no idea the Constitution was so religiously oriented. Christ! My vote is going back to Bob Barr, the Constitution Party only seems to care about Liberty when it doesn't come into conflict with THEIR religious beliefs!

BIGOTS!

Your asinine post is truly disheartening. You post-modernist types just need to get over the fact that Western culture is engrained with the Judeo-Christian ethic, and that the Constitution party recognizes it. This has nothing to do with forcing religion on anyone. A libertarian society can not exist without traditional morality engrained in the culture. If everyone does what is right in their own eyes then you'll have tyranny in a week. Morality is not subjective; otherwise, you might as well embrace anarchy which will have you dead in a week. Either way, you'll have something other than limited government which can not exist without a moral populace.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 06:56 PM
I plan not to. I also plan to exercise my right of free speech to expose their nastiness, which is something that the Constitution Party doesn't' seem to value too much.

That's what I try to do as often as I can.

RP4EVER
09-13-2008, 07:48 PM
JTL......you expose everyones nastiness but your own.

The CP will get my vote because I dont trust Barr plain and simple. Should Barr be replaced as is speculated I will review my position until that time. My decision is mine not anyone elses.

Dont like it TOUGH.....get over it. I dont ask for anyones opinion on how I vote and Im not giving an opinion on how you vote.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 07:57 PM
JTL......you expose everyones nastiness but your own.

The CP will get my vote because I dont trust Barr plain and simple. Should Barr be replaced as is speculated I will review my position until that time. My decision is mine not anyone elses.

Dont like it TOUGH.....get over it. I dont ask for anyones opinion on how I vote and Im not giving an opinion on how you vote.

How am I nasty? Do you support statism? Do you support banning pornography? Do you think homosexuals are evil? Do you believe in Buchanan-esque protectionism? You must now endorse what you are voting for.

Well?

And when did I mention Bob Barr in this thread? I'm just an unbiased truth seeker trying to inform people.

american2
09-13-2008, 08:29 PM
How am I nasty? Do you support statism? Do you support banning pornography? Do you think homosexuals are evil? Do you believe in Buchanan-esque protectionism? You must now endorse what you are voting for.

Well?

And when did I mention Bob Barr in this thread? I'm just an unbiased truth seeker trying to inform people.

If you listened to Baldwin's speech at the press conference Wednesday, you would have heard that he unequivocally endorsed Ron Paul during the primary season. In fact, Baldwin actually campaigned a bit for Paul and spoke on his behalf.

Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin's politcal perspective is almost identical.

Local communities certainly have a right to ban pornography. Would you say otherwise?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 08:30 PM
If you listened to Baldwin's speech at the press conference Wednesday, you would have heard that he unequivocally endorsed Ron Paul during the primary season. In fact, Baldwin actually campaigned a bit for Paul and spoke on his behalf.

Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin's politcal perspective is almost identical.

Local communities certainly have a right to ban pornography. Would you say otherwise?

So you're a communist? hmmm. Communists believe that the community is more important than the individual.

mitty
09-13-2008, 08:58 PM
anyone that steals votes away from neocon barr is anti-liberty.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 08:59 PM
anyone that steals votes away from neocon barr is anti-liberty.

hmm. If you say so. That's a bit inconsistent, and what does this have to do with the CP?

mitty
09-13-2008, 09:01 PM
hmm. If you say so. That's a bit inconsistent, and what does this have to do with the CP?

chuck baldwin is their nominee. after all this time you spend talking about him i figured you'd know that

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 09:02 PM
chuck baldwin is their nominee. after all this time you spend talking about him i figured you'd know that

Yes, but why do you keep on talking about Bob Barr on a thread about CP? And you appear to have been talking to yourself

mitty
09-13-2008, 09:06 PM
Yes, but why do you keep on talking about Bob Barr on a thread about CP? And you appear to have been talking to yourself

i wasn't the one who brought him into the conversation. i was adding to what was already being discussed about him.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 09:09 PM
i wasn't the one who brought him into the conversation. i was adding to what was already being discussed about him.

hmm. That's why we use the quote tags ;)

mitty
09-13-2008, 09:13 PM
hmm. That's why we use the quote tags ;)

i do what i want when i want. i know your not an actual libertarian so i don't expect you to understand that.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 09:14 PM
i do what i want when i want. i know your not an actual libertarian so i don't expect you to understand that.

you're*

Does an actual libertarian differ from a libertarian? ;)

mitty
09-13-2008, 09:18 PM
you're*

Does an actual libertarian differ from a libertarian? ;)

i figured since you quoted my last post you read it and understand it. it appears this is not the case.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-13-2008, 09:22 PM
i figured since you quoted my last post you read it and understand it. it appears this is not the case.

Understand geomentry. I really don't think you understand it. Do you know what pi equals?

BuddyRey
09-13-2008, 11:05 PM
I'm going to summarize all of my thoughts on this very important matter in this thread, because I need to touch upon everything that so blatantly makes the Constitution Party anti-liberty.

First, I need to make the immediate claim that The Revolution's affinity for this political party frightens me to no end. This movement, in the course of a couple of months, has gone from a large tent of liberty lovers to a small whack-job tent of Theocrats and religious nuts. I would dearly hope that most here do not believe that the "Constitution" Party is the only hope we have left. In fact, I would rather posit that they are a great danger to our cause, rather than the "God" send that many people here believe it is.

Let us take a look at the party platform...

They have this to say about gambling:


This should immediately strike any freedom-loving libertarian as a very frightening thing. Why can the Constitution Party not simply say they do not favor federally-regulated gambling with tax payers' money? Why does it have anything to do with morals? Who are they to throw around words like "family values" and "moral fiber"? That should never have ANYTHING to do with the way the federal government is managed!

They have this to say about pornography (dear heavens):


WHAT?! I am simply astounded that few people here seem to find how disgracefully socialistic this all sounds! A distortion of God's will? Who are they to decide such an asinine thing? And how dare they use the First Amendment to erode our freedom of speech, when the First Amendment CLEARLY DEFINES our RIGHT to freedom of speech? This is a dastardly attempt to promote religious charlatanry, all the while implementing our Constitution in the most insulting of ways.

They say this about education:


Yes, any libertarian would agree that the federal government should have nothing to do with education. Surely almost everybody here is for the closing of the Department of Education. But look at the reasons they provide: education "cannot be separated from religious faith." The Constitution Party clearly uses religious principle to justify political principle, but any freedom lover knows that it should be the OTHER WAY AROUND! This kind of bible pounding is precisely how we lost so many of our freedoms in the 20th century.

They say this of "family":


Umm... what? Have they heard of the 10th amendment? States have the right to define marriage if they damn well please! The federal government cannot institute a constitutional amendment defining marriage, but that's because of the 10th amendment. What the hell does "God" have anything to do with it? Marriage is only a religious ceremony for those who make it that way. To think that they believe the federal government has some sort of obligation to follow what "God has instituted" just demonstrates this party's complete and utter lack of regard for Constitutional liberty and state's rights. Do they not realize that any state that wishes to allow marriages for gay couples is simply exercising their 10th amendment rights? Any freedom lover would understand this, but, once again, the Constitution Party believes they should put their ridiculous religious nonsense in front of the much more important principles: liberty, freedom, and the Constitution.



This is just clear bigotry. They mention nothing of opposing efforts to legalize any adoption regulation of any sort, which is what a libertarian SHOULD do. Because these idiots are so strongly drawn to their religious bigotry, they only appear to oppose regulation when it comes to homosexuals. Any freedom lover would oppose regulation of ANY KIND because it's not a role of government authorized by the Constitution! Again, a clear indication that this party is a Theocratic party, and not one supporting our Constitution.

I do not have an ounce of regret in my entire body when I say that the Constitution Party could not have chosen a more ironic name for their pathetic, zealous, whack job organization. Their POTUS '08 candidate, Chuck Baldwin, a bigoted dirt bag who also happens to be a "man of God", closely follows the party platform. Do we really want even the slightest possibility of this maniac having executive control of the federal government?

It necessarily brings up a very important question: why did all of you Baldwin supporters ever support Ron Paul in the first place? Ron Paul is a religious man, but his views on freedom and liberty have absolutely nothing to do with his born-again status. He recognizes that freedom should be for all, and that the Constitution - NOT THE BIBLE - should defend this fact. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if you follow the crazy rhetoric that the "Constitution" Party preaches, then you supported Ron Paul for all the wrong reasons. He wasn't some sort of religious upholder, nor was he an "issues" voter. He votes on PRINCIPLE - he votes on whether or not the issue at hand is authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution Party has clearly made its decisions based off of a much different - much irrelevant - document that should hold no bearing in any political decisions. Was it not the First Amendment that declared Congress shall make no law, neither defending nor prohibiting, a religious organization? (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

With Ron Paul out of the race, I understand that The Revolutionaries don't have many choices. But why must we stoop to the embarrassingly contradictory nature of Chuck Baldwin and his Theocratic nut job party platform? I have too much trouble believing that everything the Revolutionaries worked for ended up in vain. And if you believe that their work is not in vain with Chuck Baldwin being the top contender at the moment for the liberty vote, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

I know you're going to get flamed for this thread, but I just wanted to chime in with a great big "Huzzah!" and thank you for these prescient and desperately needed observations. You tagged it with startling and disquieting accuracy when you called the societal aims of the Constitution (Condemnation) Party's platform "socialistic." That's exacly what it is. People have the mistaken impression that only peace-and-love pachouli-and-granola types can be socialists, but this is a popular image dictated mostly by a media which seeks to take the inconspicuous and very attainable reality of socialism out of the picture to make people believe "it can't happen here."

I have a lot of respect for Chuck Baldwin and have even considered, in moments of doubt and weakness, giving him my vote this November. But my love of legal egalitarianism, free will, and personal choice, rooted very deeply in my own interpretation of the Christian gospels, prevents me from casting a vote for anybody whose status as a non-coercive man of peace and gentle persuasion I cannot fully vouch for.

RP4EVER
09-13-2008, 11:29 PM
How am I nasty? Do you support statism? Do you support banning pornography? Do you think homosexuals are evil? Do you believe in Buchanan-esque protectionism? You must now endorse what you are voting for.

Well?

And when did I mention Bob Barr in this thread? I'm just an unbiased truth seeker trying to inform people.

UM....I didnt say you mentioned Barr.....I was making my position plain....learn to read before hitting reply.

Youre nasty because you cant stand diasgreement. Look at your own Signature for evidence; everyone thats ever disagreed with you is in your signature as being ignored; thats being petty and nasty if you think about it.

Not very Libertarian is it; to squash Freedom of Speech. Get over it.

As for wether I support their platform totally no....but I am a Christian....if I support parts of their platform so what? Just because you dont like it; you THINK it means you have the right to bash me for how I vote.

My 1st Amendment is the same as yours.

RP4EVER
09-13-2008, 11:32 PM
I know you're going to get flamed for this thread, but I just wanted to chime in with a great big "Huzzah!" and thank you for these prescient and desperately needed observations. You tagged it with startling and disquieting accuracy when you called the societal aims of the Constitution (Condemnation) Party's platform "socialistic." That's exacly what it is. People have the mistaken impression that only peace-and-love pachouli-and-granola types can be socialists, but this is a popular image dictated mostly by a media which seeks to take the inconspicuous and very attainable reality of socialism out of the picture to make people believe "it can't happen here."

I have a lot of respect for Chuck Baldwin and have even considered, in moments of doubt and weakness, giving him my vote this November. But my love of legal egalitarianism, free will, and personal choice, rooted very deeply in my own interpretation of the Christian gospels, prevents me from casting a vote for anybody whose status as a non-coercive man of peace and gentle persuasion I cannot fully vouch for.

I suppose the neocon is better than someone who actively supported Ron Paul?

BuddyRey
09-13-2008, 11:37 PM
I suppose the neocon is better than someone who actively supported Ron Paul?

I certainly hope my post didn't give the impression that this was my sentiment!

I'm not voting for either one of them. I've pretty much decided to "throw my vote away" on a Ron Paul write-in. As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul is my President.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-14-2008, 06:08 AM
UM....I didnt say you mentioned Barr.....I was making my position plain....learn to read before hitting reply.

Youre nasty because you cant stand diasgreement. Look at your own Signature for evidence; everyone thats ever disagreed with you is in your signature as being ignored; thats being petty and nasty if you think about it.

Not very Libertarian is it; to squash Freedom of Speech. Get over it.

As for wether I support their platform totally no....but I am a Christian....if I support parts of their platform so what? Just because you dont like it; you THINK it means you have the right to bash me for how I vote.

My 1st Amendment is the same as yours.

Disagreement is one thing, have I put you on ignore? But the people in my signature have called me names and so I chose to not talk with them anymore. ;) How is that squashing freedom of speech? They can post on this forum, all I did was make it so that I don't see their nasty replies anymore.

american2
09-14-2008, 06:40 AM
So you're a communist? hmmm. Communists believe that the community is more important than the individual.

The position you support is anarchy, or survival of the fittest. This is the logical conclusion of your opposition to any government or morality in society. You embrace this form of so-called "libertarianism": http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html
Which in fact is not libertarian at all.

A few individuals have mentioned on this thread that you are not actually a libertarian, and are a nasty member of the forum. I don't use this forum often, but I assume I need to consider JTL a troll?

amy31416
09-14-2008, 06:41 AM
you're*

Does an actual libertarian differ from a libertarian? ;)


Understand geomentry. I really don't think you understand it. Do you know what pi equals?

Irony is too sophisticated of a word for this.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-14-2008, 06:52 AM
The position you support is anarchy, or survival of the fittest. This is the logical conclusion of your opposition to any government or morality in society. You embrace this form of so-called "libertarianism": http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html
Which in fact is not libertarian at all.

A few individuals have mentioned on this thread that you are not actually a libertarian, and are a nasty member of the forum. I don't use this forum often, but I assume I need to consider JTL a troll?

Personal attack and hijacking the thread. Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism? That's absurd.

You're going on ignore.

american2
09-14-2008, 11:20 AM
Personal attack and hijacking the thread. Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism? That's absurd.

You're going on ignore.

I support the freemarket as well. What you are advocating is universal anarchy - not simply in the marketplace, but everywhere.

You are the one who is making personal attacks, especially when you have a list of names in your profile you call McCain supporters, because they support limited government - something you do not support (you argue for no government), but fail to argue against.

RP4EVER
09-14-2008, 11:23 AM
I certainly hope my post didn't give the impression that this was my sentiment!

I'm not voting for either one of them. I've pretty much decided to "throw my vote away" on a Ron Paul write-in. As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul is my President.

Glad to know you are voting your conscious; sorry for the rude question.

JTL....no one has hijacked anything...simply daring to disagree with you.

Charles Wilson
09-15-2008, 09:23 AM
Personal attack and hijacking the thread. Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism? That's absurd.

You're going on ignore.

JTL I was going to pass on this thread but after reading the above I cannot resist. Your moniker "JosephTheLibertarian" is a misnomer. To be fair and truthful it should read "JosephTheAnarchist-Libertarian". :)

tonesforjonesbones
09-15-2008, 09:32 AM
I am beginning to believe that free markets isn't such a great idea. The only way it works is if the free market is MORAL. There isn't a very good chance of that. I am leaning back to Nationalism. When there was Nationalsim...protectionism...the USA was in MUCH better shape. Now...due to the so called free markets...our economy is in shambles, people are without decent paying jobs, we have no manufacturing. So, which is it ? Globalism or Soverignty? Tones

JosephTheLibertarian
09-15-2008, 09:38 AM
JTL I was going to pass on this thread but after reading the above I cannot resist. Your moniker "JosephTheLibertarian" is a misnomer. To be fair and truthful it should read "JosephTheAnarchist-Libertarian". :)

You do know that I've been a member of this forum for over a year, right? And I only found out about libertarianism a few months before I found out about Ron Paul. True libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.

acptulsa
09-15-2008, 09:55 AM
JTL I was going to pass on this thread but after reading the above I cannot resist. Your moniker "JosephTheLibertarian" is a misnomer. To be fair and truthful it should read "JosephTheAnarchist-Libertarian". :)

I still prefer Joseph the Libertine. I'd love to attribute that one to the genius who coined it, but I don't have the time to search it up.

Nirvikalpa
09-15-2008, 10:26 AM
I still prefer Joseph the Libertine. I'd love to attribute that one to the genius who coined it, but I don't have the time to search it up.

+1 :D:p

I know who calls him that all the time though, don't know if he created it or not. :D

Charles Wilson
09-15-2008, 10:54 AM
You do know that I've been a member of this forum for over a year, right? And I only found out about libertarianism a few months before I found out about Ron Paul. True libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism. http://jim.com/anarcho-.htm. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html


Libertarianism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

As a Constitutionalist I suppose I identify with both definitions :D

G-Wohl
09-15-2008, 11:09 AM
You can't be a constitutionalist and an anarcho-capitalist. The Constitution advocates for more government than allotted by anarcho-capitalism.

G-Wohl
09-15-2008, 11:15 AM
I suppose the neocon is better than someone who actively supported Ron Paul?

Bob Barr also actively supported Ron Paul, but that hasn't had much of an effect on people around here for some reason.

I am beginning to suspect that a lot of the people here supported Ron Paul because they're bible pounders, and now all those folks moved to support a fellow bible pounder. Just to remain clear: the PRINCIPLE of libertarianism should be what it's all about, and not the Theocrat charlatanry that libertarianism ALLOWS you to uphold.

Such is the philosophy of the Constitution party: Use the Constitution only to uphold your specific, politically-unaffiliated, religiously-fueled hatred and bigotry.

Charles Wilson
09-15-2008, 11:22 AM
You can't be a constitutionalist and an anarcho-capitalist. The Constitution advocates for more government than allotted by anarcho-capitalism.

Hmmmm, I suppose I is what I is.:cool:

Shotdown1027
09-15-2008, 12:37 PM
"You can't be a constitutionalist and an anarcho-capitalist. The Constitution advocates for more government than allotted by anarcho-capitalism."

This is patently false. Send an email to Lew Rockwell and ask him why.

The Constitution only serves to RESTRICT the Federal government, it doesnt say how large it must be, or that it must exist at all.

G-Wohl
09-15-2008, 08:15 PM
"You can't be a constitutionalist and an anarcho-capitalist. The Constitution advocates for more government than allotted by anarcho-capitalism."

This is patently false. Send an email to Lew Rockwell and ask him why.

The Constitution only serves to RESTRICT the Federal government, it doesnt say how large it must be, or that it must exist at all.

Guys, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so never fear! But sorry, you can't have anarcho-capitalism with a government that is Constitutionally allowed to regulate and institute a national post office.