Paul has endorsed Baldwin

[MGreen]

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

[Chomsky]

Wow

[Richie]

Woohoo!

[me3]

Good call by Ron Paul. There is no way he can endorse Bob's campaign after the stunt he pulled at the National Press Club. Wow is right!

[Spider-Man]

There you have it.

[MsDoodahs]

:D

Love this!

[RP4Pres2008]

Good call by Ron Paul. There is no way he can endorse Bob's campaign after the stunt he pulled at the National Press Club. Wow is right!

I agree! Great for Ron Paul!

:):)

[svf]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

[brandon]

haha sweet! I'm still not voting for Baldwin....but Barr is getting what he deserves!

[mport1]

Hm, bad move I think. Neither candidate is a principled liberty lover. He should have endorsed nobody.

[NEPA_Revolution]

Hm, bad move I think. Neither candidate is a principled liberty lover. He should have endorsed nobody.

I agree.. I think what he did with the 3rd partys was fitting.

[mport1]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.


+1

[brandon]

Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause.

He was joking? He really didn't welcome me?? :( :(

[Dave]

You could tell during Dr. Paul's interview with Lew Rockwell a few days ago that he was disappointed about Barr skipping the press conference.

I loved Barr's introduction of RP at CPAC last year but Baldwin was on the ground here in Iowa last year working hard trying to get RP the nomination and I thought that was meaningful. I've always felt RP was more like Baldwin than Barr and I'm not surprised by the endorsement.

[mport1]

He was joking? He really didn't welcome me?? :( :(

Me either :(

[123tim]

So there you have it......

I had said in the past that I would be writing in Ron Paul but now Chuck Baldwin will be getting my vote.

[svf]

I had said in the past that I would be writing in Ron Paul but now Chuck Baldwin will be getting my vote.

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

[voytechs]

Holly Crap. Thank you Dr. Paul.

Baldwin'08 it is!!

[LibertyEagle]

None of this matters a hill of beans, unfortunately. We're still going to get either Obama or McCain. :(

The action is still at the precinct level.

[me3]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.
All of your posts are trollish.

Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier.

[Spider-Man]

Time to mobilize folks.

All of you sitting on the fence need to get involved with your Baldwin meetups now.

[EastWindRain]

Finally. What took so long? Just think about all the lost momentum. If only Ron Paul would have endorsed Chuck Baldwin 3 months ago, Chuck might have had a chance. But now there is so little time left to get Chuck elected.

[svf]

new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

errr... Ron can kiss any "left"-leaning supporters he once had goodbye now that he endorsed Pastor Baldwin.

[sratiug]

dugg!

[voytechs]

Does that mean NO to Barr's invite to be his veep bitch :D

[liberteebell]

Great. More voting controversy is just what we need right now. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

heh. I can't help but, :D

[Richie]

This sounded very un-Ron Paul like. It had to have been ghost written.

Never the less, this is AWESOME news for Dr. Baldwin's campaign and he will be receiving my vote.

[devil21]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

:rolleyes:

I trust Ron Paul's choice since he has earned my respect as a straight talker with a record to back it up, unlike the Republicrat nominees. Baldwin it is. And he can be a write-in if he's not on the ballot.

http://www.baldwin08.com/

[123tim]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

Nah, I had been carefully considering jumping off a cliff for some time. I don't do anything without careful consideration. I've always been pretty much my own man.

Seriously, the same goes for Chuck Baldwin.

[LibertyEagle]

errr... Ron can kiss any "left"-leaning supporters he once had goodbye now that he endorsed Pastor Baldwin.

Well that's just a rather stupid statement. You and your friends don't care about liberty anymore? Neither Baldwin or Barr are going to win the Presidency. We're going to have to take back this country from the ground floor on up. If you give up on liberty, because he endorsed someone who doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected, then aren't you biting off your nose to spite your face?

[ItsTime]

Barr lost my vote, and was only getting it as a protest vote. I guess now I can vote for Baldwin as a protest vote.

[Lord Xar]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

No, but given Chuck Baldwin, who is a huge leap in the right direction over the self-absorbed and shill - B.Barr, then we are all good.

If "you" want to vote for Barr, go right ahead. Nobody is tell you not to. But I find it interesting you are trying to dissuade support for Baldwin. Why? Hmmmm.

[MGreen]

heh. I can't help but, :D

Same here. If that was directly from Ron Paul, Barr's decision must have really pissed him off. Though honestly, it feels more like Tom Woods.

[Flash]

I hated Barr since he stood up the press conference.

[Paulitical Correctness]

:rolleyes:

[RideTheDirt]

I support this decision, and I agree Chuck is the best candidate.
Baldwin 08 baby

[Danke]

homophobic writings


Link?

[MsDoodahs]

He was joking? He really didn't welcome me?? :( :(

He welcomes you.

Ron knows that principled anarchists refuse to vote.

I am an UNprincipled anarchist ;) and am voting this time, for only one candidate.

Ron Paul.

:)

[Flash]

errr... Ron can kiss any "left"-leaning supporters he once had goodbye now that he endorsed Pastor Baldwin.


Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

Its called being an individual. If you don't want to vote for Baldwin, fine. It wont' matter anyways. Its not like they're going to win or even get into the debates. The protest vote is JUST a protest vote. Ron Paul has every right to say who he is voting for and endorsing.

If you really want to fight for liberty then do something that actually MATTERS like supporting Lawson or Conley. They have an actual chance at winning too.

[ItsTime]

come to think of it Paul took Barrs advice and not throw his support to the four winds LOL I guess he expected he would be the one Paul endorsed oops

[LibertyEagle]

Same here. If that was directly from Ron Paul, Barr's decision must have really pissed him off. Though honestly, it feels more like Tom Woods.

Doesn't matter. It had to have Ron's approval before it was posted under his name.

[MsDoodahs]

Same here. If that was directly from Ron Paul, Barr's decision must have really pissed him off. Though honestly, it feels more like Tom Woods.

Fine by me.

:D

[Arklatex]

Baldwin it is.

[raystone]

Note how Dr. Paul never mentions Barr by name...using instead "Libertarian Party Candidate". Dr. Paul is dropping the hammer on Barr, yeah !!

[dawnbt]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

Don't hate, sore loser.

[Andrew-Austin]

Finally.

He was indecisivie enough about it huh?

Its almost as if he was relunctant to endorse either one of the two, wonder if snubgate really had an effect on this decision.

I'll take a closer look at Baldwin, but his endorsement does not mean the world to me at this point.

[brandon]

Note how Dr. Paul never mentions Barr by name...using instead "Libertarian Party Candidate". Dr. Paul is dropping the hammer on Barr, yeah !!

hah, i was just about to post this.

[dawnbt]

errr... Ron can kiss any "left"-leaning supporters he once had goodbye now that he endorsed Pastor Baldwin.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!:D

[devil21]

Anyone know where to find info on Baldwin's ballot access status?

[svf]

I find it interesting you are trying to dissuade support for Baldwin. Why?

Well, buddy, I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for over 10 years. The LP has been promoting a liberty agenda for 30+ years and will (hopefully) continue doing so indefinitely, Barr or no Barr. Countless dollars and hours have been expended building up the "libertarian brand", running candidates at all levels of government promoting these ideas, and securing ballot access in spite of restrictive laws and regulations -- all in the name of maximal personal and economic freedom with a "big tent" welcoming approach. The LP is FAR from perfect, but they have been and continue to be the best thing going in terms of putting libertarianism in the political arena.

The Constitution Party, on the other hand, it nothing but a thinly-veiled refuge for religious zealots, Theocrats, homophobes, "moral majority" extremists, and so forth... always has been and likely always will be, Baldwin or no Baldwin.

It's disheartening that Ron Paul is misleading his flock to follow this truly "fringe" and intolerant party just because Baldwin helped out his campaign and Barr "snubbed" his little press conference.

All of the above is of course opinion only but I don't think I'm alone in my disappointment over this. If only I could get my money back from Ron Paul.

[MsDoodahs]

Note how Dr. Paul never mentions Barr by name...using instead "Libertarian Party Candidate". Dr. Paul is dropping the hammer on Barr, yeah !!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

A classy hammer drop.

:D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Thank you dr paul!!

[jemartinsen81]

Wow, that's very disappointing. Chuck Baldwin violates Jefferson's "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" in every way possible (not to mention the Constitution). I'd rather vote for McCain than this intolerant anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual mysticist fundamentalist (though my vote will go to Bob Barr). A very bad move on Paul's part, which really turns me off from this campaign altogether.

[BarryDonegan]

as a life long Libertarian, and current Libertarian activist, i support this move by Ron Paul. although i disagree with the political move he originally made by having the press conference, now that the damage was done by it, it makes the best sense that he focus his vote on something tangible on the ballot.

I will still be voting for Libertarians whenever I get the chance, but, sometimes, you have to put viability over your party(only when it is not offensive to your principles), and in this case the LP candidate went over the line on the type of guys he would be including in his staff.

that being said, i will still be campaigning for both barr and baldwin, as i think both are great choices.

[Spider-Man]

Well, buddy, I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for over 10 years. The LP has been promoting a liberty agenda for 30+ years and will (hopefully) continue doing so indefinitely, Barr or no Barr. Countless dollars and hours have been expended building up the "libertarian brand", running candidates at all levels of government promoting these ideas, and securing ballot access in spite of restrictive laws and regulations -- all in the name of maximal personal and economic freedom with a "big tent" welcoming approach. The LP is FAR from perfect, but they have been and continue to be the best thing going in terms of putting libertarianism in the political arena.

The Constitution Party, on the other hand, it nothing but a thinly-veiled refuge for religious zealots, Theocrats, homophobes, "moral majority" extremists, and so forth... always has been and likely always will be, Baldwin or no Baldwin.

It's disheartening that Ron Paul is misleading his flock to follow this truly "fringe" and intolerant party just because Baldwin helped out his campaign and Barr "snubbed" his little press conference.

All of the above is of course opinion only but I don't think I'm alone in my disappointment over this. If only I could get my money back from Ron Paul.

I think you're reading into the article. All Dr. Paul says is he's backing Chuck.

"I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years."

That's a direct quote.

[Madison]

"His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed."

I don't understand this - during the press conference he gave the impression he thought Barr was coming, not that he already knew 40 minutes ahead of time he wouldn't show up.

[svf]

Link?


http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin396.htm


THOUGHTS ON THE LARRY CRAIG SCANDAL
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 7, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

..The real problem that this scandal unearths is the widespread influence that homosexuality has within the GOP. Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP elephant is not red; it is pink. That is a fact that rank and file conservatives within the GOP either don't know or don't want to know. But it is getting harder and harder to keep that fact a secret.

If anyone really wants to learn the facts about how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party, I encourage them to read Alan Stang's blockbuster new book entitled "Not Holier Than Thou," which is published by Patton House. Here is Alan's web site. ...

and so on.

[werdd]

Theres alot of problems with baldwin as there are with barr.... Should of just ran mary ruwart :/.

Ill probably still be voting LP, its about the brand not the guy running, theres really no risk that he could win.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[devil21]

Crap! Baldwin missed the deadline for getting on my state's ballot (NC). :(

[dawnbt]

Anyone know where to find info on Baldwin's ballot access status?

http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html

[Flash]

Note how Dr. Paul never mentions Barr by name...using instead "Libertarian Party Candidate". Dr. Paul is dropping the hammer on Barr, yeah !!

Hopefully the LP doesn't take this out on RP.

[LibertyEagle]

Do some of you actually step back and think about what you're saying? Those of you who are railing about some stupid political party, are doing the very same thing that we criticized the Republicans and Democrats for doing. Party loyalists!! Did you forget somewhere along the way, that we don't elect a damn political party to office; we elect an individual? For those who have, I'm not seeing how you are any different at all than the party faithful in the GOP.

[LibertyEagle]

Hopefully the LP doesn't take this out on RP.

If they do, it should tell you a lot about the people in charge of the LP.

[Mahkato]

How will the GOP retaliate? They can't kick Paul off the congressional ballot in Texas for endorsing a non-GOP candidate, can they?

[Menthol Patch]

I refuse to support Baldwin because he is a theocrat and like Bob Barr desires to continue the war on drugs.

[svf]

...Bob Barr desires to continue the war on drugs.

Um.... nope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/federal-drug-war-rethough_b_125458.html


Treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and state's rights in deciding these issues.

[devil21]

Um.... nope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/federal-drug-war-rethough_b_125458.html

So he flip flopped.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I was disappointed in the actions of the Barr campaign when it pertained to the press conference, asking Ron Paul to be his VP, and then criticizing him. However, these are not issues in the Presidential race. I believe in the Libertarian Party platform, and that is where my vote will go.

Though Dr. Paul endorsing Baldwin over Barr is exactly what Barr and his campaign deserves.

Good luck to both men, they'll need it.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Eh...too little too late. I do not believe Ron Paul wrote that release ...he uses too many ghost writers for my taste. He should have done that in the first place and Baldwin might have gotten on more ballots. I have to say...Bob Barr screwed up majorly...but for Ron Paul to endorse at this late date...seems moot. I won't vote for Baldwin or Barr..i am supporting Palin. In the defense of Baldwin though, if he runs for state representative I will gladly campaign for him. I really like the guy and I like that he's a true practicing Christian. I hope he will join the GOP and work with Ron Paul in the House to bring the GOP back to sanity. Tones

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So he flip flopped.

Flip flopping is what a candidate does during his campaign to garner votes from two different ideologies. Bob Barr has had a complete shift in his political views since 2006. I think it's safe to say that he has truly reformed.

[Bison]

I love it. Chuck Baldwin for President!

Thank You Dr. Paul.

[Original_Intent]

Do some of you actually step back and think about what you're saying? Those of you who are railing about some stupid political party, are doing the very same thing that we criticized the Republicans and Democrats for doing. Party loyalists!! Did you forget somewhere along the way, that we don't elect a damn political party to office; we elect an individual? For those who have, I'm not seeing how you are any different at all than the party faithful in the GOP.

Amen.

[Andrew-Austin]

I refuse to support Baldwin because he is a theocrat and like Bob Barr desires to continue the war on drugs.

If consistently speaking out against the drug War and calling for it to end counts as wanting to continue it, then yes.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Eh...too little too late. I do not believe Ron Paul wrote that release ...he uses too many ghost writers for my taste. He should have done that in the first place and Baldwin might have gotten on more ballots. I have to say...Bob Barr screwed up majorly...but for Ron Paul to endorse at this late date...seems moot. I won't vote for Baldwin or Barr..i am supporting Palin. In the defense of Baldwin though, if he runs for state representative I will gladly campaign for him. I really like the guy and I like that he's a true practicing Christian. I hope he will join the GOP and work with Ron Paul in the House to bring the GOP back to sanity. Tones

You are aware that Palin's job will be to preside over the Senate, I assume? Not knocking you in any way, but voting for McCain in the hopes that Palin will take over is not a good policy in my opinion.

[MsDoodahs]

Well, buddy, I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for over 10 years.

That right there is yer FIRST problem.


The LP has been promoting a liberty agenda for 30+ years and will (hopefully) continue doing so indefinitely, Barr or no Barr.

That party SOLD OUT.


Countless dollars and hours have been expended building up the "libertarian brand", running candidates at all levels of government promoting these ideas, and securing ballot access in spite of restrictive laws and regulations -- all in the name of maximal personal and economic freedom with a "big tent" welcoming approach.

And shitting on Ron was the best MOST ILLUMINATING example of the utter DETERIORATION of the "Libertarian Party" possible. :rolleyes:


The LP is FAR from perfect, but they have been and continue to be the best thing going in terms of putting libertarianism in the political arena.

Oh, yeah. After their treatment of Ron, I'm REALLY buying THAT line of horseshit.


The Constitution Party, on the other hand, it nothing but a thinly-veiled refuge for religious zealots, Theocrats, homophobes, "moral majority" extremists, and so forth... always has been and likely always will be, Baldwin or no Baldwin.

So? Just because Ron endorsed him doesn't mean I have to vote for him. But Ron's endorsement means that Chuck WILL get some $$ from me. If for no OTHER reason, as my way of pissing all over the beltway Libertarians for how they treated Dr. Paul.


It's disheartening that Ron Paul is misleading his flock to follow this truly "fringe" and intolerant party just because Baldwin helped out his campaign and Barr "snubbed" his little press conference.

Note this guy's use of "flock" to refer to Paul supporters, in an effort to dissuade support from Baldwin. :rolleyes: Also note his use of "little" press conference. Shows you that this svf person is another one of the Libertarian ANTI-PAUL and ANTI-FREEDOM self absorbed SUNSHINE PATRIOT types. Don't fall for it.

MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION BASED ON YOUR OWN RESEARCH.


All of the above is of course opinion only but I don't think I'm alone in my disappointment over this. If only I could get my money back from Ron Paul.


Sally, is that you?

lol...

[devil21]

Eh...too little too late. I do not believe Ron Paul wrote that release ...he uses too many ghost writers for my taste. He should have done that in the first place and Baldwin might have gotten on more ballots. I have to say...Bob Barr screwed up majorly...but for Ron Paul to endorse at this late date...seems moot. I won't vote for Baldwin or Barr..i am supporting McCain. In the defense of Baldwin though, if he runs for state representative I will gladly campaign for him. I really like the guy and I like that he's a true practicing Christian. I hope he will join the GOP and work with Ron Paul in the House to bring the GOP back to sanity. Tones

Fixed it for ya.

[Menthol Patch]

I have not heard him state that he supports the legalization of all drugs.

Will he answer this three question test?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=157185

[SovereignMN]

This is great news. Paul endorsed the best candidate.

[Menthol Patch]

Hello Everyone,

Please check out my THREE QUESTION TEST for Chuck Baldwin.

If he will answer yes to each of the questions he will get my vote.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=157185

[0zzy]

Someone seems pissed at Barr. Man, talk about the biggest mistake in his campaign, damn it Barr.

I'm still voting Barr cause Baldwin is only a write-in in California.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I really don't appreciate you manipulating my posts. I would rather an inth of hope that Palin can make some sort of difference than voting for BALDWIN who won't even be a blip on the radar. TONES (why do idiots force me to get ugly???)

[newyearsrevolution08]

SVF

You sure do sound like a "party voter" if I have ever heard one...

Does the republican party define Ron Paul as well?

Since it is for war
Since it is for more spending
Since it is for removing our liberties

Does that mean we should not support Ron Paul because his party is utter shit right now?

It has zero to do with the party itself BUT has everything to do with the candidate you support. If you want to bitch and moan over the party GREAT but don't tie each party to its candidates as though they are 100% inline with each other.

[Original_Intent]

This should not come as a shock to anyone that has followed Ron Paul's writings and positions for years. What would have shocked me is if he had endorsed Barr.

Go Chuck Baldwin!

No more of a theocrat than Ron Paul himself.

[jbuttell]

heh. I can't help but, :D

Hahahahahah - I know, i was about to quote that. thats too funny.

[devil21]

I really don't appreciate you manipulating my posts. I would rather an inth of hope that Palin can make some sort of difference than voting for BALDWIN who won't even be a blip on the radar. TONES (why do idiots force me to get ugly???)

Voting for Palin is voting for McCain, no matter how you try to spin it. And voting for more of the same makes YOU the idiot.

[Chiznaddy]

Let me qualify first - I was leaning Baldwin anyways. There is a difference between sacfrifing principles and supporting someone who may have some different view than you.

Baldwin shares a love and understanding of liberty to the point that Paul respects him and gives him his endorsement.

Personally, I am pretty agnostic and do not like people who wear religion on their sleeves. However, Baldwin seems to be one that actually practices what he preaches, which is comforting even though I distaste it.

I would not say that I am voting for a lesser of evils by voting for Baldwin. I am voting for a good candidate who holds different weapons in the fight for liberty than I do.

[Mach]

I don't like the Religious Politics or the Keep the Drug War stuff.

-----------------------------------------
Paul-O-Meter

Continue reading to see our ratings for Chuck Baldwin.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record - Baldwin does not have a voting record so by default he gets a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy - Baldwin wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and has advocated for a return to the gold standard. Baldwin’s Communications Director states that Chuck supports competing currencies. Score has been modified to a 5 (see comments for details). Score:5
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq - Baldwin calls for an immediate return from Iraq and switching to a non-interventionist foreign policy just like Ron Paul. Baldwin’s Communications Director states that Baldwin has advocated for bringing our troops home from military bases stationed overseas. Score has been modified to a 5 (see comments for details). Score:5
4. Taxes - Baldwin is perfectly in line with Ron Paul on tax policy. He wants to repeal the 16th amendment and replace it with nothing. No flat tax and no consumption tax. Score: 5
5. Government Spending - Baldwin is exactly like Ron Paul on government spending. He mentions specific departments he would abolish and continually advocates returning our government to its Constitutionally limited size. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties - Baldwin is identical to Ron Paul here. He is against FISA, Real ID, and the Patriot Act. He would leave the definition of marriage to the states. Score: 5
7. Immigration - Baldwin mimics Ron Paul on this issue. He speaks about removing incentives and lashes out against amnesty. He allows for the possibility of a border fence, but isn’t that keen on the idea. Score: 5
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment - Baldwin echoes Ron Paul here as well just about perfectly. Score: 5
9. Internet Regulation - He is against Net Neutrality and has said he opposes federal regulation of the Internet. However, he was given an ‘F’ by the Poker Player’s Alliance for his stance on online gambling and he was not forthright with his answer in a recent interview about regulating online gambling. Score: 4
10. Adherence To The Constitution - Baldwin speaks regularly of restoring the Constitution and obeying the rule of law. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy - Being a member of the Constitution Party it is difficult for Baldwin to score high here. Baldwin being a pastor also doesn’t help. In most of his writings and speeches he mentions religion or relates policy to it. This is unlike Ron Paul. Ron Paul rarely mentions religion on the campaign trail. Score: 1
12. Environment - Baldwin is directly in line with Dr. Paul here. He believes global warming is a cyclical act of nature and he advocates using property rights and the court system to handle environment disputes. Score: 5
13. Energy Policy - Baldwin advocates for drilling in ANWR and off our coastlines. He advocates building more Nuclear Power plants. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty - Baldwin regularly speaks out against the North American Union and advocates for strong U.S. Sovereignty. Score: 5
15. War On Drugs - Baldwin says we need to “rethink” the war on drugs, but he hasn’t advocated ending it. Instead he suggests sealing the border as the solution to our perceived drug problems. He hasn’t advocated freeing all non-violent drug offenders either. These are not in line with Ron Paul. He has however, suggested that medicinal marijuana use be best regulated by the states. Score: 3
16. Education - Baldwin is perfectly in line with Ron Paul here. He advocates abolishing the Department of Education and advocates for school choice and home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs - Baldwin advocates for phasing out of Social Security just like Ron Paul. Score: 5
18. Abortion - Baldwin is a twin of Ron Paul on this issue. Even though he is personally pro-life he would support Ron Paul’s “Sanctity Of LIfe” act which would overturn Roe vs. Wade and leave all abortion regulation to the states. Score: 5
19. Health Care - Baldwin is exactly like Ron Paul here. Wants to leave medical decisions to doctor’s and patients. He does not support any kind of government run national health care system. He wants to restore free market competition to health care. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message - Baldwin certainly has a liberty message; however, his ability to spread it by getting coverage on main stream media outlets is severely lacking. Score: 2

Chuck Baldwin’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 88 out of 99 possible points

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/07/15/the-ron-paul-paul-o-meter-chuck-baldwin-is-up/1276/

[Morerockin]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

Party over principle is obviously your way of thinking. You'd make a good dem or repub!

I do NOT agree with the CP on a few things, but I can say I support Baldwin 100%.

He isn't a closet neocon like Barr!

haha!

[Danke]

No way was I going to vote for Barr after witnessing his true character this last month.

With Ron's endorsement, Baldwin gets my vote. It sends a nice message to other politicians out there that the R3volution has some votes behind it.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Baldwin is on the WV ballot but not Barr so my choice was already made. Barr thinks a bit too highly of himself me thinketh.

[jbuttell]

Let me qualify first - I was leaning Baldwin anyways. There is a difference between sacfrifing principles and supporting someone who may have some different view than you.

Baldwin shares a love and understanding of liberty to the point that Paul respects him and gives him his endorsement.

Personally, I am pretty agnostic and do not like people who wear religion on their sleeves. However, Baldwin seems to be one that actually practices what he preaches, which is comforting even though I distaste it.

I would not say that I am voting for a lesser of evils by voting for Baldwin. I am voting for a good candidate who holds different weapons in the fight for liberty than I do.

I couldn't have said it better myself - thanks for the post, I agree with you here. I typically vote Libertarian - and this election would be no different if it weren't for Barr. Barr has a very questionable character in my opinion, particularly after his lack of attendence to the press conference.

[Lord Xar]

Well, buddy, I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for over 10 years. The LP has been promoting a liberty agenda for 30+ years and will (hopefully) continue doing so indefinitely, Barr or no Barr. Countless dollars and hours have been expended building up the "libertarian brand", running candidates at all levels of government promoting these ideas, and securing ballot access in spite of restrictive laws and regulations -- all in the name of maximal personal and economic freedom with a "big tent" welcoming approach. The LP is FAR from perfect, but they have been and continue to be the best thing going in terms of putting libertarianism in the political arena.

The Constitution Party, on the other hand, it nothing but a thinly-veiled refuge for religious zealots, Theocrats, homophobes, "moral majority" extremists, and so forth... always has been and likely always will be, Baldwin or no Baldwin.

It's disheartening that Ron Paul is misleading his flock to follow this truly "fringe" and intolerant party just because Baldwin helped out his campaign and Barr "snubbed" his little press conference.

All of the above is of course opinion only but I don't think I'm alone in my disappointment over this. If only I could get my money back from Ron Paul.

I feel sorry for you that you have been working in the libertarian party for 10 years, just to have it taken over in the last few. Don't get mad at Ron Paul, but perhaps look towards your own leadership within that party. Its been co-opted & manipulated. Also, you forget -- many high esteemed libertarian think tanks and organizations have had it in for Ron Paul since the very beginning. Work out your parties issues before you want others to jump on board to warring factions within your own party.

Also, I find it VERY INTERESTING you refer to 'us' as his flock. If you were a true supporter you would NEVER reference others nor yourself in such a manner. You are just here to troll and shill for your own agenda. You are doing damage control. Get lost. You never gave a dime to the cause of Ron Paul. It is very apparent.

[ihsv]

The Constitution Party, on the other hand, it nothing but a thinly-veiled refuge for religious zealots, Theocrats, homophobes, "moral majority" extremists, and so forth... always has been and likely always will be, Baldwin or no Baldwin.

It's disheartening that Ron Paul is misleading his flock to follow this truly "fringe" and intolerant party just because Baldwin helped out his campaign and Barr "snubbed" his little press conference.


Look who's complaining about "intolerance."

"Religious zealots, theocrats, homophobes (something you want to tell us about yourself?), moral majority extremists... " svf, it's not good to hate people with such vehemence. It tends to cloud your judgement.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

oh just go f off

[dannno]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

Clueless.

Bob Barr is the one who jumped off the cliff... DUH.

[tonesforjonesbones]

devil...you are what you hate..got it? Furthermore, you will effectively push the people who choose to vote for someone other than baldwin out of the movement completely. You are no different than the democrats and republicans. People have been trying to tell ya'll that. I say all the new niks with no postings are probably people you know who have signed on ...with a name you don't recognize because they don't want to be LAMBASTED for not being in lock step. <eyeroll> tones

[TurtleBurger]

I love Chuck Baldwin and I am glad RP endorsed him. I hope McKinney and Nader and their followers don't see this as a slap in the face though. Yes they are socialists, but they are on our side on the most important issues of the day. Hopefully we can all unite behind Baldwin now and make a big statement in November.

[constitutional]

I was hoping he'd not endorse anybody. :)

[ihsv]

Wow, that's very disappointing. Chuck Baldwin violates Jefferson's "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" in every way possible (not to mention the Constitution). I'd rather vote for McCain than this intolerant anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual mysticist fundamentalist (though my vote will go to Bob Barr). A very bad move on Paul's part, which really turns me off from this campaign altogether.

Gosh. Who's intolerant here? You sound like a very unhappy person.

[dawnbt]

do some of you actually step back and think about what you're saying? Those of you who are railing about some stupid political party, are doing the very same thing that we criticized the republicans and democrats for doing. Party loyalists!! Did you forget somewhere along the way, that we don't elect a damn political party to office; we elect an individual? For those who have, i'm not seeing how you are any different at all than the party faithful in the gop.

+10000000

[RSLudlum]

How very libertarian of him to endorse Baldwin! :)

[MsDoodahs]

Gosh. Who's intolerant here?

:)

Excellent observation.

[TurtleBurger]

Let's see if Barr and Root "display leadership" now and endorse Baldwin. I'm guessing not. :D

[Magsec]

I for one am very happy about this. It kind of makes sense too seeing as it was either Barr or Baldwin for Paul, and one had to sink real low for the other one to shine, which was an opportunity RP was willing to take. I was thinking of voting for Baldwin out of everyone else on the ballot, but the endorsement seals it. Let's keep liberty going!

[Mahkato]

Chuck Baldwin on Facebook: http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16165934622

DIGG the announcement: http://digg.com/business_finance/A_New_Alliance_By_Dr_Ron_Paul_2

VOTEmotion: http://www.votemotion.com/links/3573/

[RevolutionSD]

I am very unhappy about this.
The constitution party is for a theocracy.
As an atheist, this is highly offensive to me.
People are also saying Baldwin is homophobic?
That means he's a collectivist, bad news if we're looking for a candidate who is truly for freedom.

:mad::(

[TurtleBurger]

Another bright note in this is, the media can now stop saying Dr. Paul is a "libertarian, not a Republican". As we knew all along, he's a Constitutionalist!

[ihsv]

I am very unhappy about this.
The constitution party is for a theocracy.
As an atheist, this is highly offensive to me.
People are also saying Baldwin is homophobic?
That means he's a collectivist, bad news if we're looking for a candidate who is truly for freedom.

:mad::(

This is highly offensive to you? So, do you claim some kind of special status because you're an atheist?

[klamath]

I feel sorry for you that you have been working in the libertarian party for 10 years, just to have it taken over in the last few. Don't get mad at Ron Paul, but perhaps look towards your own leadership within that party. Its been co-opted & manipulated. Also, you forget -- many high esteemed libertarian think tanks and organizations have had it in for Ron Paul since the very beginning. Work out your parties issues before you want others to jump on board to warring factions within your own party.

Also, I find it VERY INTERESTING you refer to 'us' as his flock. If you were a true supporter you would NEVER reference others nor yourself in such a manner. You are just here to troll and shill for your own agenda. You are doing damage control. Get lost. You never gave a dime to the cause of Ron Paul. It is very apparent.

I think you hit the nail on the head. 46 posts:rolleyes:

[TurtleBurger]

I am very unhappy about this.
The constitution party is for a theocracy.
As an atheist, this is highly offensive to me.
People are also saying Baldwin is homophobic?
That means he's a collectivist, bad news if we're looking for a candidate who is truly for freedom.

:mad::(

The Constitution Party is not for "theocracy". I've never heard anything about them wanting to institute a ruling priestly class, or declaring an official state religion. Most of them have a Christian worldview, but that doesn't make them theocrats.

[Gin]

Personally I don't see the problem with Baldwin being a minister or the fact that he brings it up in his speeches... this is why...

The US was Founded on Christian Principles... It was the Christian Reform that Brought the settlers here in the first place....

Google the Founding Fathers Religious Background and get a wealth of information as to the reasons that the US came to be...

As recently stated in Joyce Meyers Magazine ... Enjoying everyday Life... America's Tolerance Showdown... By Gary Cass

We need a strong defense against the current model of tolerance. Our argument must have a firm foundation... Fortunately we do not have to look very far. We simply need to reclaim the ideas of our nation's Founders and tap into the rich vein of Christian principles that were the basis of their original vision of religious liberty....

It is tragic that Christians, who actually gave the world a sound foundation for liberty, might be shut down in the name of liberty by the very ones who benefited from Christian tolerance.

One author makes this point by comparing the original thirteen colonies to a boat. First the Pilgrims and then the Puritans came looking for freedom from the oppression of the Church of England. Eventually, they learned to tolerate each other. Then came the Baptists, the Presbyterians and all Protestants.
Eventually Catholics, liberal Christians then all Christians were extended acceptance in the colonial boat. Next Jews, Muslims, and Hindus
found refuge in the vessel. Finally, toleration was extended to atheists and the anti religious. Now, the last ones in the Christian boat of tolerance want to push the Christians out.
Supporters of tolerance really want freedom from religion.
By What Standard?

America’s future comes down to answering the question, What standard will the people demand their elected officials to follow? For Christians, the principles written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution make perfect
sense because they are based on “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” They can be embraced as a sound and rational basis for ordered liberty under God, especially the statement that “all men are created equal,” and “all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.” These were established on biblical truths. But where do humanists, who deny the existence of God, obtain
their source of right and wrong?

One of America’s most courageous and eloquent Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry,
reminds us, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!” Our civil society is based on a Christian moral imagination and produced the greatness of America. This tried and true path needs to be reimagined in our day because the consequences of not doing so are disastrous.

If America is swept away in the wave of tolerance, we will have nothing to cling to,
including no standard of right and wrong. Then all becomes vanity. Life turns into the pursuit of materialism. Self-centeredness reigns. Where there is no constructive vision, but only selfish indulgence and pleasure seeking, nations die.
Only by returning to our Founders’ vision can we be secure in liberty’s safe harbor. For the sake of our children’s future, we must see to it that America becomes firmly attached to our great Judeo-Christian moral, spiritual and intellectual
foundation.

The first step is to stop the Christian bashing that seeks to tear down our great Christian faith and heritage.

http://www.joycemeyer.org/NR/rdonlyres/04A7A722-5158-4011-BC00-B259372BB544/0/JMM_0408.pdf



Maybe this is a bit too much, but my point is that this Nation was Founded on Christian Principles and so to not accept someone because they are a minister is absolutely wrong... IMHO....

Everyone must vote his/her conscience period....

[Fields]

This sounded very un-Ron Paul like. It had to have been ghost written.

Never the less, this is AWESOME news for Dr. Baldwin's campaign and he will be receiving my vote.

Thomas Woods knew this was coming out very early this morning and seeing that he wrote Ron Paul's book, my money would be on him.

[heavenlyboy34]

Party over principle is obviously your way of thinking. You'd make a good dem or repub!

I do NOT agree with the CP on a few things, but I can say I support Baldwin 100%.

He isn't a closet neocon like Barr!

haha!

+1

I'll probably still be undecided till the election, tho. I have a lot of thinking to do before I commit myself to Baldwin. Thanks for the post, OP!

[Orgoonian]

Congrats to Pastor Baldwin!!

Still gonna vote Nader though..../em ducks misc.rotted veggies thrown my way :D

PS.I know Nader is not perfect,but he has done,and continues to do decent things.

[luaPnoR]

You guys... he's just saying who HE'S voting for. You think he's going to vote for Barr after what he did? It doesn't mean he thinks and wants everyone of his supporters to vote the way he votes. I say vote for who ever you want as long as it's not Obama or McCain. Paul would probably say the same thing to you but HE'S voting for Baldwin... he's gotta vote for somebody.

I was going to vote for Baldwin before and still will.. even if Paul had endorsed Barr I'd be voting Baldwin. Paul wants you to have a mind of your own.

[rockandrollsouls]

Honestly, that doesn't sound like Ron's wording and writing to me. If I see him say it in a video or something I'll probably swing towards Baldwin if that who he chooses based on his judgment. However, we have received many posts and updates that were not written by Ron so I choose not to acknowledge it until I hear it by audio or see it in video.


Congrats to Pastor Baldwin!!

Still gonna vote Nader though..../em ducks misc.rotted veggies thrown my way :D

PS.I know Nader is not perfect,but he has done,and continues to do decent things.

He's closer to Obama than Ron lol...

[devil21]

devil...you are what you hate..got it? Furthermore, you will effectively push the people who choose to vote for someone other than baldwin out of the movement completely. You are no different than the democrats and republicans. People have been trying to tell ya'll that. I say all the new niks with no postings are probably people you know who have signed on ...with a name you don't recognize because they don't want to be LAMBASTED for not being in lock step. <eyeroll> tones

Then that makes them pussies in my book. Hiding behind some unknown name? Yeah thats bold action for ya :rolleyes:. Come out and take your lumps. I signed onto this movement to support the ideals that Ron Paul introduced me to. Those ideals had no "party affiliation" to me. If he supports Baldwin, then I support Baldwin. Voting for McCain is not supporting the ideals that we have all been trying to introduce others to for the last year and a half.

Im more amazed that people here like yourself (assuming you are geniune and not a troll...Im not convinced either way) can actually entertain the thought of voting for someone that Ron Paul specifically will NOT support because the candidate has nothing in common with RP's ideals. Working to elect McBush out of some glimmer of hope that maybe Palin will be able to keep him holding to a shred of classic conservatism is not only naive, since Palin is already spouting the neo-con line every chance she gets, but it's traitorous to the ideals of freedom, liberty, sound economic policy, and non-intervention. Maybe your ideals are flexible depending on the outlook. Mine are not.


And to address some of the religious discussion, I am not religious but I have no problem with Baldwin's faith. His issues are 95% in line with RP's and if Im going to vote for a religious candidate (they all espouse their religion in some form), then I'd rather it be a religious person putting AMERICA FIRST, instead of a neo-con putting ISRAEL FIRST.

[Orgoonian]

Honestly, that doesn't sound like Ron's wording and writing to me. If I see him say it in a video or something I'll probably swing towards Baldwin if that who he chooses based on his judgment. However, we have received many posts and updates that were not written by Ron so I choose not to acknowledge it until I hear it by audio or see it in video.



He's closer to Obama than Ron lol...


Haha,i cant argue with you there!:D
I dont like a lot of his policy,but i do respect him,and his integrity.
I also appreciate men like D.K,and Paul Wellstone(R.I.P)

Sadly,there is only ONE Ron Paul.

[SeanEdwards]

I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirements), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.

[CMoore]

I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirrments), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.

Didn't he though? I am just sick. I was so looking forward to the Libertarians breaking out this time. I used to be a member, but let my membership lapse when I decided they were not serious about getting people elected. I thought they had finally turned the corner and now this.

However, I think any third party candidate is a valid choice even if none stand a chance of being elected. If the vote total is more than the spread between the two major parties, the message will have been sent. I see no substantive difference between the two, so it does not matter to me which gets elected.

[rockandrollsouls]

I find this dissapointing.

First Paul endorses all the 3rd party candidates (after they agreed to his 4 point platform requirrments), and now he's dissing three of those candidates in order to endorse Baldwin alone? Seems very unfair to Nader and McKinney to me.

And Barr, geez, he really screwed the pooch with that non-attendance thing. What an idiot.

It was posted by Benton...I have a feeling Ron didn't write that.

[tpreitzel]

I was going to remain silent. However, since Ron has endorsed Chuck, I'll state the obvious.

Some supporters of Ron Paul won't support Chuck for various reasons, One of the primary excuses is Chuck being a "theocrat" which is false. Yes, Chuck is a pastor which is why you, the voter, should vote for him. Because Chuck is a principled man with a history of supporting our Constitution, he just might keep his word to adhere to the US Constitution as POTUS. Bob Barr is not a principled man which is why he pulls the shenanigans that he does and he really can't be trusted to adhere to the US Constitution. Ironically, these supporters of Ron who won't vote for Chuck for being a "theocrat" are actually saying that they really want a man of principle like Chuck, but they don't want him to talk about his faith so much .... they just might be convicted of something ... ;) One can see clearly how Bob Barr has let them down, but what did they really expect from an unprincipled man? I think of the fallout from the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wasn't the electorate ready for a change? Well, the only change was different set of smooth talking lips...

Anyway, if you just can't bring yourself to vote for Chuck, please vote 3rd party as Ron has encouraged us to do. For liberty's sake ...

[rockandrollsouls]

I was going to remain silent. However, since Ron has endorsed Chuck, I'll state the obvious.

Some supporters of Ron Paul won't support Chuck for various reasons, One of the primary excuses is Chuck being a "theocrat" which is false. Yes, Chuck is a pastor which is why you, the voter, should vote for him. Because Chuck is a principled man, he just might keep his word to adhere to the US Constitution. Bob Barr is not a principled man which is why he pulls the shenanigans that he does and he really can't be trusted to adhere to the US Constitution. Ironically, these supporters of Ron who won't vote for Chuck for being a "theocrat" are actually saying that they really want a man of principle like Chuck, but they don't want him to talk about his faith so much .... they just might be convicted of something ... ;) One can see clearly how Bob Barr has let them down, but what did they really expect from an unprincipled man? I think of the fallout from the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wasn't the electorate ready for a change? Well, the only change was different set of smooth talking lips...

Anyway, if you just can't bring yourself to vote for Chuck, please vote 3rd party as Ron has encouraged us to do. For liberty's sake ...

Please, cut the nonsense. You've never met Bob, you don't know his morals, and you certainly don't have the grounds to say he pulls shenanigans.

Like I said, I will get behind Baldwin if I hear Paul say it, but I don't trust ANYTHING posted by Benton. Not to mention, the letter doesn't sound like something Paul wrote.

Benton is a sly fox. If you want to talk about "unprincipled" you shouldn't leave Benton out of the sentence.

[tpreitzel]

Please, cut the nonsense. You've never met Bob, you don't know his morals, and you certainly don't have the grounds to say he pulls shenanigans.

Like I said, I will get behind Baldwin if I hear Paul say it, but I don't trust ANYTHING posted by Benton. Not to mention, the letter doesn't sound like something Paul wrote.

Benton is a sly fox. If you want to talk about "unprincipled" you shouldn't leave Benton out of the sentence.

Wrong. We all have a very recent event. Furthermore, we have a more detailed history of Bob's past shenanigans. Many of them have been listed on these forums. Last, what does Benton have to do with voting for a presidential candidate? Yes, you may be right about Benton, but that particular person isn't running for POTUS.

[Kludge]

Does this look like the face of a man who engages in shenanigans...?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_bob_barr_080405_mn.jpg

[tpreitzel]

Kludge,

Absolutely, yes, and his past indicates as much on issues of constitutional liberty... ;) Like I just said, however. If you can't vote for Baldwin, vote for a 3rd party candidate. Personally, I don't really care which one. Good luck, folks. We need it!

[Truth Warrior]

Hmm, interesting.

[fedup100]

Someone had to pull all of us together or there is NO CHANCE a third party could win. Quit your efin bickering. How can you not see that divided you will always lose.

This is the last chance election for our very lives. This is the one time in so much crisis that a third party candidate can win...............please listen to Dr. Paul.

[Flash]

Does this look like the face of a man who engages in shenanigans...?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_bob_barr_080405_mn.jpg

Actually yes.

[AJ Antimony]

My 2 cents:

1. Notice Ron doesn't use the word "endorse." All he says is that he "supports" Baldwin.

2. I'm pretty sure Ron is supporting Baldwin and Baldwin alone. I really don't think Paul is supporting the Constitution Party and it's overly religious platform. Just Baldwin.

[UnReconstructed]

Should be a good day for you minarchists out there.

I know you probably didn't expect this but it is the only logical conclusion. MR Barr isn't even close to Ron Paul. Even now he isn't saying all of the right things.

MR Baldwin is as close to Ron Paul as it gets. So for those who still support slavery (read support government), you have your candidate.

[rockandrollsouls]

My 2 cents:

1. Notice Ron doesn't use the word "endorse." All he says is that he "supports" Baldwin.

2. I'm pretty sure Ron is supporting Baldwin and Baldwin alone. I really don't think Paul is supporting the Constitution Party and it's overly religious platform. Just Baldwin.

How do you even know Ron wrote that? It was posted by Benton.

[runamuck]

Maybe from this endorsement the Baldwin campaign can get a better website!

Man, the current site sucks!

[ProBlue33]

voting for palin is voting for mccain, no matter how you try to spin it. And voting for more of the same makes you the idiot.

+33 & lol

[Young_Apprentice]

that really sucks. Especially considering chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the constitution party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time i regret voting for ron paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

qft

[Highland]

cb likes RP....here ya go

http://www.highlandmediaworks.com/ronpaulad/

[FrankRep]

Chuck Baldwin 2008!
Chuck Baldwin 2008!
Chuck Baldwin 2008!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Nirvikalpa]

Congrats, Chuck!

[Bman]

I'll believe this when I here it from Ron Pauls mouth. Other than that if he is that's cool. And congratulations to you Baldwin supports if it is indeed true.

I wish I could be their with you, but I won't be. I'll keep my place fighting for rights of us non-christians.

[devil21]

I'll believe this when I here it from Ron Pauls mouth. Other than that if he is that's cool. And congratulations to you Baldwin supports if it is indeed true.

I wish I could be their with you, but I won't be. I'll keep my place fighting for rights of us non-christians.

Where on Baldwin's website do you see anything regarding his presidential policies revolving around his religion? If the mere existence of religious faith is an indicator of candidate's policy, then Ron Paul himself should not be president because he is a devout christian. Im not religious either but just because the guy has religious faith doesn't mean he would only fight for the rights of christians. That looks like sour grapes.

[mport1]

Where on Baldwin's website do you see anything regarding his presidential policies revolving around his religion? If the mere existence of religious faith is an indicator of candidate's policy, then Ron Paul himself should not be president because he is a devout christian. Im not religious either but just because the guy has religious faith doesn't mean he would only fight for the rights of christians. That looks like sour grapes.


The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

This is from the Constitution Party's platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble). I could never vote for anybody running for this party.

[Aldanga]

This is from the Constitution Party's platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble). I could never vote for anybody running for this party.

Then I would surmise that you couldn't vote for any Republican candidates because their party platform is horrible.

[Bman]

Where on Baldwin's website do you see anything regarding his presidential policies revolving around his religion? If the mere existence of religious faith is an indicator of candidate's policy, then Ron Paul himself should not be president because he is a devout christian. Im not religious either but just because the guy has religious faith doesn't mean he would only fight for the rights of christians. That looks like sour grapes.

Well the stuff that keeps me from Baldwin is not on his sight. Now of course the amount of times the guy makes it obvious that he is christian on his website is obviously alarming but I can let that go. Here's what I can't.

His stance on Drugs, Porn, Gays... and well heck anything that is strictly morality. Morality should be a subject that education handles not the law. If someone wants to snort 10 lines of cocaine, then pay someone, possibly of the same sex, to get them off by all means let the person alone. These aren't crimes. These are disagreements on personal behaviour.

[ArrestPoliticians]

Well the stuff that keeps me from Baldwin is not on his sight. Now of course the amount of times the guy makes it obvious that he is christian on his website is obviously alarming but I can let that go. Here's what I can't.

His stance on Drugs, Porn, Gays... and well heck anything that is strictly morality. Morality should be a subject that education handles not the law. If someone wants to snort 10 lines of cocaine, then pay someone, possibly of the same sex, to get them off by all means let the person alone. These aren't crimes. These are disagreements on personal behaviour.

Then don't vote.

If Nader was the last choice I would vote for him even though he is a socialist.

Baldwin '08

[G-Wohl]

Well the stuff that keeps me from Baldwin is not on his sight. Now of course the amount of times the guy makes it obvious that he is christian on his website is obviously alarming but I can let that go. Here's what I can't.

His stance on Drugs, Porn, Gays... and well heck anything that is strictly morality. Morality should be a subject that education handles not the law. If someone wants to snort 10 lines of cocaine, then pay someone, possibly of the same sex, to get them off by all means let the person alone. These aren't crimes. These are disagreements on personal behaviour.

100% correct. And we're not alone here. A lot of people will not fall for Baldwin's religious zeal and ass-backwards view of libertarianism.

[RickyJ]

100% correct. And we're not alone here. A lot of people will not fall for Baldwin's religious zeal and ass-backwards view of libertarianism.Paul endorsed him! Do you think he was fooled? Come on! Baldwin is closer to Ron Paul's views than even Bob Barr is.

[bluto20]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

therefore i'd jump off a cliff.... duh!

go chuck baldwin...if we all got behind just one 3rd party candidate, why not the one in the Constitutional Party? The guy who Ron, himself, endorsed!

[devil21]

Well the stuff that keeps me from Baldwin is not on his sight. Now of course the amount of times the guy makes it obvious that he is christian on his website is obviously alarming but I can let that go. Here's what I can't.

His stance on Drugs, Porn, Gays... and well heck anything that is strictly morality. Morality should be a subject that education handles not the law. If someone wants to snort 10 lines of cocaine, then pay someone, possibly of the same sex, to get them off by all means let the person alone. These aren't crimes. These are disagreements on personal behaviour.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Do you suppose Ron Paul supports drugs, porn and gays? I think not. He supports someone's right to partake of those things but he doesn't personally support them. The Republican party does not support drugs, porn and gays either and RP is a member of that party. How is that any different than Baldwin and the Constitution Party?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume that Baldwin (we are voting for a candidate, not a party, remember) is of the same personal liberty mindset of RP. You can support personal liberties while not supporting the specific actions. Baldwin supports RP's views nearly 100% and that's what matters at the end of the day when casting your vote.

Btw, the Constitution Party is correct. The US *was* founded on christian principles and the vast majority of Americans during that period were deeply religious. Im not clear what they mean by "restoring jurisprudence to Biblical foundations" though. I hope not public stonings lol. But the last sentence about limiting the government to constitutional boundaries is what matters the most to me. If that were attained, most of the country's ills would be fixed and that would restore state's rights so the Feds couldn't legislate religious morality. We can fight any religious inroads as they arise. We've already been doing that against the Republican party for the last 8 years anyway...

[porcupine]

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

Reading the above post brings up the question...are all Ron Paul supporters just whiners incapable of being happy?

[porcupine]

So let me get this straight. Ron Paul says to vote for Nader or McKinney (two nutso leftists) and everyone thinks it's the greatest press conference they've ever seen. Paul endorses the most libertarian of the 4 (at least the SECOND most libertarian) and everyone starts whining and going back on everything they've ever said about Ron Paul... as if voting for one third party will make a dime's bit of difference from voting for the other.

I don't get it.

[Dorfsmith]

This movement is much bigger than Ron Paul and I honestly don't care who he's choosing to support at this point. Yes, I'll probably be writing Chuck Baldwin in because Barr completely pissed me off and I can't vote for the leftist third party candidates. BUT, I'm not going to go around trying to get people to vote for Baldwin. I'm going to keep encouraging people to check into all the third party candidates on their ballot and make their own choice.

Please don't turn these forums into Chuck Baldwin forums.

[Paulitical Correctness]

I don't get it.

What would become of the RPF if there was nothing to bitch about?

The way I see it, folks need'a stop nitpickin' about the election. Main goal should be tearing down the two party system - who cares if it's through a "socialist", "theocrat", or "CIA mole" (IE - it's just a protest vote..) The beef I've seen people have with Baldwin is some nonsense about porn and drugs? I personally haven't looked into it, but with the country fixin' to implode shouldn't porn n' drugs be at the bottom of the list of things to worry about?

Also, everyone sees Ron as the glorious perfect candidate whom they agree with on all issues - maybe that's because they didn't care about politics pre-Paul and have now adopted all of his issues as their own.

Branch out and let go of your Ron Paul infatuation!

[Brassmouth]

This movement is much bigger than Ron Paul and I honestly don't care who he's choosing to support at this point. Yes, I'll probably be writing Chuck Baldwin in because Barr completely pissed me off and I can't vote for the leftist third party candidates. BUT, I'm not going to go around trying to get people to vote for Baldwin. I'm going to keep encouraging people to check into all the third party candidates on their ballot and make their own choice.

Please don't turn these forums into Chuck Baldwin forums.

I agree with your last statement. However if you're going to write someone in why not write in Dr. Paul himself? It'll just get thrown out anyway.

[tpreitzel]

This movement is much bigger than Ron Paul and I honestly don't care who he's choosing to support at this point. Yes, I'll probably be writing Chuck Baldwin in because Barr completely pissed me off and I can't vote for the leftist third party candidates. BUT, I'm not going to go around trying to get people to vote for Baldwin. I'm going to keep encouraging people to check into all the third party candidates on their ballot and make their own choice.

Please don't turn these forums into Chuck Baldwin forums.

x2

[tpreitzel]

What would become of the RPF if there was nothing to bitch about?

The way I see it, folks need'a stop nitpickin' about the election. Main goal should be tearing down the two party system - who cares if it's through a "socialist", "theocrat", or "CIA mole" (IE - it's just a protest vote..) The beef I've seen people have with Baldwin is some nonsense about porn and drugs? I personally haven't looked into it, but with the country fixin' to implode shouldn't porn n' drugs be at the bottom of the list of things to worry about?

Also, everyone sees Ron as the glorious perfect candidate whom they agree with on all issues - maybe that's because they didn't care about politics pre-Paul and have now adopted all of his issues as their own.

Branch out and let go of your Ron Paul infatuation!

x2 ... I've just agreed with two people in a row which is an encouraging sign that we'll get past the latest wrinkle... ;) At the very least, we certainly need to reform those major parties.

[Dorfsmith]

I agree with your last statement. However if you're going to write someone in why not write in Dr. Paul himself? It'll just get thrown out anyway.

No, Chuck Baldwin is an eligible write in in Arizona. Ron Paul is not.

[Brassmouth]

No, Chuck Baldwin is an eligible write in in Arizona. Ron Paul is not.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. :o

[ihsv]

I wish I could be their with you, but I won't be. I'll keep my place fighting for rights of us non-christians.

People groups. How about you fight for the rights of the individual, instead?

[Dorfsmith]

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. :o

No problem :) If Baldwin was not an eligible write in I would be forced to vote Barr. I want my vote to be a little thorn in the flesh of Obama and McCain so it would have to be counted.

[BLuegreengrey]

I hear the snare drum firing up, piccolo flute, and their raising the flag

[A. Havnes]

I was kind of hoping that he wouldn't endorse anybody, either, especially since there's a 99% (statistic made up by me) chance that we'll have to take our country back by ourselves anyway. I think the reason he did it was because he knew so many people were going to write him in, which wouldn't do any good. He endosed somebody to try and encourage people to vote third party.

Oh, and for Baldwin haters who claim that a single endorsement can completely turn them off from a campaign (no names mentioned), you should definately rethink your assessment. Does Baldwin wear his faith on his sleeve? Yes. Does he have some rather biased writings? Yes. However, where it truly counts, he's right on the money. At least that's what I've come to the conclusion of.

I didn't think an endorsement would mean a whole lot to so many people. We all fell in love with Ron Paul's message, right? Then regardless of whom he endorses, and for whatever reasons he endorses (I hate you Barr), we should still vote for whomever we feel best represents that message. Is Baldwin a carbon copy of Dr. Paul? No. But he's a whole lot closer to it than either McCain or Bob Barr or Nader.

[RickyJ]

Ron Paul also tells you to jump off a cliff... therefore...?

You ask which cliff. :D

[Archie]

I don't really like Baldwin,Barr or Nader but all three of these lush's are way the he'll better on things like forign policy then Obummer or McCrapola

[porcupine]

What would become of the RPF if there was nothing to bitch about?

The way I see it, folks need'a stop nitpickin' about the election. Main goal should be tearing down the two party system - who cares if it's through a "socialist", "theocrat", or "CIA mole" (IE - it's just a protest vote..) The beef I've seen people have with Baldwin is some nonsense about porn and drugs? I personally haven't looked into it, but with the country fixin' to implode shouldn't porn n' drugs be at the bottom of the list of things to worry about?

Also, everyone sees Ron as the glorious perfect candidate whom they agree with on all issues - maybe that's because they didn't care about politics pre-Paul and have now adopted all of his issues as their own.

Branch out and let go of your Ron Paul infatuation!

+1

[topaz420]

*PASS* on the Constitution Party -- the fact that they espouse their adherence to the Constitution makes their distortion of it to conform to their "values" even more distasteful.

[Bman]

People groups. How about you fight for the rights of the individual, instead?

Oh please. It's quite clear that is not what I meant. When Chuck states that my rights will be protected from all entites whether they be local, state, or federal I may start to pay attention. From what I see and hear of Chuck he wants state rights, not individual liberties. It will be a battle between moral vs non-moral. I'd prefer for their to be no battle and educated individuals deciding what is right for themselves.

[EastWindRain]

Well we have our marching orders, so let's do what we can in support of Dr. Chuck Baldwin. :)

[Scotso]

A subtle but firm slap to the face of Bob Barr. I enjoyed that.

I still won't vote for Baldwin, though. But I'm glad Ron Paul got a nice jab in to Barr. He probably wouldn't have taken sides had Barr not acted like a spoiled brat.

[Indy Vidual]

That REALLY sucks. Especially considering Chuck's ballot access woes, homophobic writings, and the Constitution Party's theocratic, unlibertarian platform.

For the first time I regret voting for Ron Paul and donating hundreds of my hard-earned dollars to him.

Shiiiiiiiiiit.

Hm, bad move I think. Neither candidate is a principled liberty lover. He should have endorsed nobody.

Huge mistake by Dr. Ron. :eek: :mad:

[dannno]

Huge mistake by Dr. Ron. :eek: :mad:

That's like, your opinion, man..


I say Ron Paul is calculating.

[Bman]

Huge mistake by Dr. Ron. :eek: :mad:

Not a huge mistake. It just brings light to something I've known for a while. We are two groups.

Small Government Christians and Small Government non-Christians.

Now this comment typically pisses off the christians. But you must remain calm and understand it has nothing to do with you being Christian. It has everything to do with some of Chucks past, and certainly a lot to do with the CP's mission statements.

Quite frankly a lot of us left the church in the first place to get away from that type of thought process. And now you think we'd be jumping back on because Ron said he's supporting Chuck. It's just not that easy. Come to us as people. Not as Christians. That's what Ron Paul did right that Chuck cannot.

[Pauls' Revere]

I was expecting Lawson since they showed a video clip/advertisement of Lawson during The Rally For The Republic. So, why not just stick with Lawson instead?

:confused:

[BuddyRey]

Ron Paul's endorsement means a lot, and I still haven't ruled out Baldwin...but I really don't want to vote for him! :(:(:(

If only it was 2004 again, I could vote for Michael Badnarik and feel good about my choice.

[Pauls' Revere]

That's like, your opinion, man..


I say Ron Paul is calculating.

Yeah, he's in this for the long haul and has patience beyond measure.

[Pauls' Revere]

You ask which cliff. :D

and how high?

[RickyJ]

Come to us as people. Not as Christians.

Christians are people. True Christians cannot come to you as anything but Christians. They just happen to be people you don't like. Ron Paul is also a Christian. He supports Baldwin for a reason, and it has little to do with Barr being a spoiled brat. He just decided to let everyone know who he supports because Barr would not stop bothering him about it. He was trying to be respectful to Barr here and not do anything that would hurt his chances because he truly wants third parties to have an impact this year. Barr dug his own grave here. IMO Ron Paul has supported Chuck Baldwin from the moment he dropped out of the race and Chuck started running.

[Indy Vidual]

Has Ron Even Read The CP Platform? :eek: :eek: :eek:

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.

We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I might come back to RPF's (if I don't get banned for this post), but I'm really pissed!!


F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul at the LP convention in 1988.
I used to consider him a hero.



This January I was shocked and dismayed by the (old) newsletter scandal.

* Are the animals still coming from the cities Ron? :eek: :eek: :eek:
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* How did you not know about all the homophobic filth in your newsletters Ron??
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


/How does Ron stay so calm? ;)

[nayjevin]

nayjevin was here

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Indy,

Have you read the Republican platform? It is equally unappealing.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[BuddyRey]

Has Ron Even Read The CP Platform? :eek: :eek: :eek:

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.

We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I might come back to RPF's (if I don't get banned for this post), but I'm really pissed!!


F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul at the LP convention in 1988.
I used to consider him a hero.



This January I was shocked and dismayed by the (old) newsletter scandal.

* Are the animals still coming from the cities Ron? :eek: :eek: :eek:
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* How did you not know about all the homophobic filth in your newsletters Ron??
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


/How does Ron stay so calm? ;)

Indy, I respect and understand your anger, but, looking at it from RP's perspective, he had very few good choices and decided on the most anti-Empire, anti-Federal Reserve candidate available. I loathe Baldwin and his party's position on pretty much every social issue, plus the irrational protectionist border and trade policies. But I understand why Ron Paul chose Baldwin, and I don't think it was because he shares Baldwin's homophobia (as evidenced by this clip, Ron Paul is no homophobe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE ).

My theory is that Ron Paul waited so long to endorse somebody because none of the candidates (even Barr) was very appealing.

[ultimaonliner]

My theory is that Ron Paul waited so long to endorse somebody because none of the candidates (even Barr) was very appealing.


You're probably right. I'm disappointed that he didn't realize with the total lack of worthy candidates that RP didn't step up.

RP knows that he would be the ONLY 3rd party candidate with an actual chance at creating shockwaves in the general election.

He would have done more for the movement by running, than all his work as a congressman.

[RickyJ]

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man.

I agree this is not correct. All teachings are not related to assumptions about God and man. Teachings in math and science make no assumptions about anything. If something can't be proven in science it is a theory only. Evolution is a theory only. Even though some would love to ram it down our throats as a fact.

I think I know what the CP party meant here, they just worded it wrong. What I think they meant is that there is no such thing as being non-religious. You have to believe (have faith) in something because everything is not know as a fact. Even if you are an atheist you are religious because you are basing your belief on something you can't prove, which requires faith.

[anaconda]

OK, then...Baldwin it is!

I am voting to empower Ron Paul.

I will back him up at the voting polls.

This is politics!

[nathanmn]

Youtube or it didn't happen.

[Bman]

Christians are people. True Christians cannot come to you as anything but Christians. They just happen to be people you don't like. Ron Paul is also a Christian.

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I wonder if you could please direct me to the source of Chuck Baldwin (Not the CP) stating such a thing. Thanks!


I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Personal opinions of individual people are not exactly relevant to a choice of federal governmental policies, nor SHOULD such things be relevant.


Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

I don't think anybody has tried to make Chuck Baldwin the standard bearer of the Liberty Movement. :confused:

[Bman]

I wonder if you could please direct me to the source of Chuck Baldwin (Not the CP) stating such a thing. Thanks!

Well before I even go that far. Since I don't bookmark everything I read. Can you point out to me were he's stated opposition to some of his parties platforms.



Personal opinions of individual people are not exactly relevant to a choice of federal governmental policies, nor SHOULD such things be relevant.

Well now. That would depend on whether or not someones personal opinions were their deciding factor on how they would vote on a situation. To say you want things voted on at a state level, does not mean that you won't use your personal opinions there. It's the whole reason KKK members like Ron Paul. Forgive me for being very skeptical. All I have are his beliefs and alliances past and present. He has no voting record.



I don't think anybody has tried to make Chuck Baldwin the standard bearer of the Liberty Movement. :confused:

Well then what would you call trying to make Chuck the current center focus of this movement?

[Dary]

I really wanted to vote for Ron Paul.

But I think that I'm going to go with Charles Jay, the Boston Tea Party's 2008 presidential nominee.

[Mister Grieves]

I don't know if this has been said, but I think this is less an endorsement for Baldwin than it is a clear non-endorsement for Barr.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well before I even go that far. Since I don't bookmark everything I read. Can you point out to me were he's stated opposition to some of his parties platforms.


First and foremost, you have made the positive claim, that Chuck Baldwin, the person, believes that Church doctrine should be the basis for governmental policy. As the positive claimant, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Secondly, I don't know that there has ever been a case in the history of the US where a candidate's platform was in lockstep with their party's platform.
Chuck has personally stated the principles which should govern the actions of the POTUS, many of which can be found at his website. It was those same principles which led him to endorse and work for the election of RP from the very start.

Well now. That would depend on whether or not someones personal opinions were their deciding factor on how they would vote on a situation. To say you want things voted on at a state level, does not mean that you won't use your personal opinions there. It's the whole reason KKK members like Ron Paul. Forgive me for being very skeptical. All I have are his beliefs and alliances past and present. He has no voting record.

Chuck Baldwin has been sharing his philosophy of Federal Govt for nearly a decade, and has worked his fingers to the bone trying to get RP elected because they share the same concept of the role of Federal Govt. CB only stood up to run when it became totally clear that RP would not be the nominee, and that under no circumstances would he, himself run third party.

CB may not have a voting record, but he has at least 8 years of actions to measure against his word...and as it happens, they do indeed match.

I understand that you are skeptical, but I have to wonder what the source of that skepticism is.

Well then what would you call trying to make Chuck the current center focus of this movement?

The only people I see making Chuck the center focus right now are all those screaming about how evil he is for being a Christian, and claiming that he is a theocrat without any evidence to back up said claims.

I have heard all kinds of insane propaganda being slung at Chuck, and it all seems to boil down to "we hate him because he is a Christian pastor." quite aside from his actual platform, policies, or positions.

Quite frankly, it is the people screaming how much they hate him, and repeating lies about him, that is keeping him front and center right now. Just because I am working to combat the M$M-like lies and propaganda being directed against him does not mean I am trying to keep him front and center, it just means that I detest lies and propaganda in general, and on general principle. :)

[mitty]

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

lol.

you do realize that ron paul endorsing baldwin does not make baldwin the "flag bearer of the liberty movement" right?

you obviously haven't been paying attention and are blinded by your bigotry.

ron paul considers each of us the "flag bearers of the liberty movement". you don't like his endorsement of baldwin? get off your ass and do something yourself to further the cause of liberty.

[anaconda]

I don't know if this has been said, but I think this is less an endorsement for Baldwin than it is a clear non-endorsement for Barr.
Reply With Quote

Yup.

[Bman]

First and foremost, you have made the positive claim, that Chuck Baldwin, the person, believes that Church doctrine should be the basis for governmental policy. As the positive claimant, the burden of proof is on YOU.


1. IT IS HIS PARTIES PLATFORM! He can say whatever he wants. If he does not address this particular subject silence will always be viewed as acceptance.

2. With alliances and memberships to groups such as the Florida Moral Majority how can one not be skeptical of Chuck.

3. In the groups section of his website why is their no place for Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Agnostics. Why is one group special in belief and the others overlooked?

Look I don't have to go far to find comments or links that justify my concern. And it's quite pointless to post links that clearly show that Chuck himself thinks Christianity should be the ruling force over Government. He has done so in statements about France. He has attacked womens rights on many levels. RIght of choice, right of employment, right of dress and apparell. He has again and again tried to suppress gays through his rhetoric. He has supported the war on drugs. He has supported the banning of Porn and such.

I won't even get it to some of the other stuff.

Quite simply. If you guys want us non-christians to think Chuck is a good idea, it's going to take more than well ROn Paul supports him and they are exactly a like. For some strange reason ( or more likely logic based on previous comments.) we don't see Chuck as viable at the moment. He has a lot of denouncing to do. And we're not holding our breathe.