My THREE QUESTION test for Chuck Baldwin.

[Menthol Patch]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

[Menthol Patch]

Do you want my vote Chuck?

[Andrew-Austin]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not to support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".

[brandon]

I don't think he posts here. ;)

Good list though, I would require a yes answer to all of these questions before I would vote for any candidate.

[brandon]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not support him.

This issue is a deal breaker. If a candidate supports keeping any drug illegal on any level of government then they do not understand liberty, and it will reflect in their other positions as well.

[Richie]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

1. Chuck Baldwin believes that the war on drugs should be ended, and that drug prohibition or legalization should be a state issue. A simple Google search turned up this article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94

2. As far as I know, he has not addressed this. However, he is pretty consistent, so he probably believes it is a state issue.

3. I don't even know how to look for the answer to that.

[Menthol Patch]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".

That's right! I will not vote for any candidate that does not support legalizing all drugs and would pardon all non violent drug users.

I take this position because I will not vote for any candidate that does not stand up for people's right to control their own body and live their life how they see fit!

Chuck Baldwin has passed half of my litmus test for a candidate. He has stated that he supports abolishing the income tax and replacing it with NOTHING. The second half of my litmus test is personal freedom.

[Menthol Patch]

This issue is a deal breaker. If a candidate supports keeping any drug illegal on any level of government then they do not understand liberty, and it will reflect in their other positions as well.

I agree.

[eric_cartman]

look... he's not going to win the election. the whole point it to just vote for a third party candidate so that it sends a message that there is a large enough group of people who are tired with the two party system. at this point, it doesn't really matter if he represents your exact ideology. if the third parties can get 10-20% of the vote, then that will tell everyone that a third party candidate can win, and then in 2012, a third party could get 40% or 50% of the vote and win. so just vote for a third party... it doesn't matter if you don't agree with everything they say, since they're not going to win anyways... just as long as we get the message out that there are people willing to vote for a third party candidate and that a third party still has a chance in this two party system.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Oh my god, baby steps people....

Ever heard the saying, if you find a perfect Church, don't join it, because it will no longer be perfect...

Not even Ron Paul is a perfect candidate for Pete's sake. Baldwin has my vote...

[Menthol Patch]

Hello Everyone,

I want to make something clear about the war on drugs. It is more than just a state issue. Individuals have the right to put anything they want into their own body and to live their life how they see fit. For example, I have the right to eat green beans if I so desire. The government has no right to arrest me, fine me, or imprison me for eating green beans. If my state made eating green beans illegal don't you think the federal government should get involved?

[Kotin]

Dr.Paul never said vote for Chuck Baldwin.. he said he is going to..


and as for the questions.. I agree 100%.

[Menthol Patch]

Oh my god, baby steps people....

Ever heard the saying, if you find a perfect Church, don't join it, because it will no longer be perfect...

Not even Ron Paul is a perfect candidate for Pete's sake. Baldwin has my vote...

Ron Paul was 99% the perfect candidate.

He supported the legalization of all drugs and would pardon all non violent drug users.

He would abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing.

He would abolish the FED.

He would end the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

He would defend our constitutional rights.

If Chuck Baldwin does not say yes to all of my three questions I will write in Ron Paul.

[Menthol Patch]

I seriously want Chuck to answer these three questions.

If he will answer these questions I will vote for him and encourage others to do so.

If he will not answer these three questions I will write in Ron Paul.

[Richie]

Menthol is asking perfectly legit questions, BTW. I just wanted to defend him. I wish Baldwin had made the answers to these questions more clear. However, I will still be voting for him because unlike Barr who is an ass hat, Baldwin is consistent and genuine. And he's not going to win anyway, so all it will be is a "third party vote."

[Menthol Patch]

Menthol is asking perfectly legit questions, BTW. I just wanted to defend him. I wish Baldwin had made the answers to these questions more clear. However, I will still be voting for him because unlike Barr who is an ass hat, Baldwin is consistent and genuine. And he's not going to win anyway, so all it will be is a "third party vote."

Thank you. I would like to vote for Chuck because I think he is the best candidate except for Ron Paul. However, if he cannot answer yes to these three questions I cannot vote for him.

[Richie]

Thank you. I would like to vote for Chuck because I think he is the best candidate except for Ron Paul. However, if he cannot answer yes to these three questions I cannot vote for him.

I would suggest waiting for the next Baldwin money bomb. Revolution Broadcasting has Baldwin on and has an open line for people to ask him questions.

[Deborah K]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?


Seems like a very self-serving litmus test. :rolleyes:

[Menthol Patch]

Seems like a very self-serving litmus test. :rolleyes:

Do you think demanding a candidate respects people's right to live their lives how they see fit is self serving?

[Menthol Patch]

By the way folks, I'm a Christian. I'm also from a very conservative church (when I'm able to attend). My issue is that 99% of the Christians I know would NOT support people's right to live their life how they see fit if their choices contradict their idea of morality. For example, most of the Christians I know want to keep the drug war going, keep prostitution banned, ban flag burning, ban speech they don't like, etc.

I need to know that Chuck Baldwin is willing to offend the vast majority of Christians by specifically stating he supports people's right to live their life however they see fit even if it means they use crack cocaine, prostitute their bodies, or enjoy burning Bibles and Flags in protest marches.

[Deborah K]

Do you think demanding a candidate respects people's right to live their lives how they see fit is self serving?

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion. I would think there would be other issues that would concern you more like, do they ascribe to austrian economics, non interventionism, abolishment of the IRS and the dept. of education. I dunno, just sayin.

[humanic]

I'd be interested in hearing Chuck's honest answers to these questions and would hope that they would be "yes" on all accounts. Regardless, I support his candidacy.

[socialize_me]

Wait...with us being involved in two wars, a national debt exploding, taxation up the ying-yang, the trillion dollar bailout, and your biggest worries are whether or not we can burn a book, drug addicts, and prostitution?? Someone needs to prioritize here!! If the War on Drugs is more important to you than the War on Terror, then we'll get nowhere. So basically you'd rather be able to smoke marijuana if that meant occupying countries, costing trillions of dollars, and loss of human life. People in this movement are so obsessive about this War on Drugs thing...it's important, but it's not to the point where you should not support someone who wants to pull out of Iraq but believes drugs should be illegal. To me, life is much more important than being legally able to shoot myself up with heroin. I get what you mean by "personal liberty", but what good is liberty if you're dead?? I mean seriously..the War on Drugs is hardly along the lines of the Patriot Act-violation of rights. Completely separate level, but it's the make-or-break for your support of Baldwin?? Sheesh!!

[dannno]

Great post, OP.


There is a possibility I will be able to write-in Chuck Baldwin here in California, but I might have a better chance getting my vote counted by writing in Ron Paul..

There are write-in campaigns going for both and I haven't decided which one to support.

[Fyretrohl]

Disqualifying a national candidate because he runs on a platform that is national correct, but has personal beliefs at the state level that are different than yours?

Simply put, these issues don't matter. They are not for the Fed to decide. It is better handled at the state level. Would you rather vote for a candidate who understands the feds role and the limitations of his office or one who will ignore EVERYTHING you believe in?

Seriously, if Chuck Baldwin says 'It is not the Federal Governments place and I will egt them out of it', this sounds like your perfect NATIONAL candidate.

[Menthol Patch]

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion. I would think there would be other issues that would concern you more like, do they ascribe to austrian economics, non interventionism, abolishment of the IRS and the dept. of education. I dunno, just sayin.

I will not vote for a candidate unless he is a true fiscal conservative. That means he would abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing, reduce the size of government so that it abides by the constitution, abolish the FED, etc.

I will not vote for a candidate unless he is willing to support people's rights to live their life how they see fit. That means that he would support the legalization of all drugs, pardon everyone in prison for victimless crimes, support free speech, etc.

[Menthol Patch]

Wait...with us being involved in two wars, a national debt exploding, taxation up the ying-yang, the trillion dollar bailout, and your biggest worries are whether or not we can burn a book, drug addicts, and prostitution?? Someone needs to prioritize here!! If the War on Drugs is more important to you than the War on Terror, then we'll get nowhere. So basically you'd rather be able to smoke marijuana if that meant occupying countries, costing trillions of dollars, and loss of human life. People in this movement are so obsessive about this War on Drugs thing...it's important, but it's not to the point where you should not support someone who wants to pull out of Iraq but believes drugs should be illegal. To me, life is much more important than being legally able to shoot myself up with heroin. I get what you mean by "personal liberty", but what good is liberty if you're dead?? I mean seriously..the War on Drugs is hardly along the lines of the Patriot Act-violation of rights. Completely separate level, but it's the make-or-break for your support of Baldwin?? Sheesh!!

The war on drugs is an abomination!

People are in prison today because they simply chose to put substances into their own body.

For example, if you don't think the war on drugs is a big issue then I hope you do not have a problem if they made ice cream illegal.

[Deborah K]

Disqualifying a national candidate because he runs on a platform that is national correct, but has personal beliefs at the state level that are different than yours?

Simply put, these issues don't matter. They are not for the Fed to decide. It is better handled at the state level. Would you rather vote for a candidate who understands the feds role and the limitations of his office or one who will ignore EVERYTHING you believe in?

Seriously, if Chuck Baldwin says 'It is not the Federal Governments place and I will egt them out of it', this sounds like your perfect NATIONAL candidate.


Good point!

[Menthol Patch]

I'd be interested in hearing Chuck's honest answers to these questions and would hope that they would be "yes" on all accounts. Regardless, I support his candidacy.

Do you know a way of contacting someone in his campaign and passing these questions along?

[Menthol Patch]

Good point!

So you think if the government made ice cream illegal and arrested a thousand people in your state, broke up their families, and ruined their careers the Federal government should not get involved?

[Arklatex]

Basically Menthol Patch wants to assure that Baldwin endorses the constitution in all situations above his own personal views.

Seems like question from an honest Patriot.

[socialize_me]

The war on drugs is an abomination!

People are in prison today because they simply chose to put substances into their own body.

For example, if you don't think the war on drugs is a big issue then I hope you do not have a problem if they made ice cream illegal.

Again Menthol Patch, I didn't say I didn't agree that the War on Drugs is bad; I'm simply disagreeing with the post and many people's belief here. Baldwin opposes the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. For whatever reason, the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and the ability to burn Bibles are more important than the Government wiretapping, searching and seizing your property unwarrantly, and throwing you in jail without a trial??? Wowzah...

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

[Menthol Patch]

Basically Menthol Patch wants to assure that Baldwin endorses the constitution in all situations above his own personal views.

Seems like question from an honest Patriot.

Exactly.

I will only vote for a candidate that believes in everyone's freedom in every situation.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not to support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".

Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

[Menthol Patch]

Again Menthol Patch, I didn't say I didn't agree that the War on Drugs is bad; I'm simply disagreeing with the post and many people's belief here. Baldwin opposes the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. For whatever reason, the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and the ability to burn Bibles are more important than the Government wiretapping, searching and seizing your property unwarrantly, and throwing you in jail without a trial??? Wowzah...

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

No, it's all equally important.

Chuck Baldwin already supports ending the war in Iraq, ending the Patriot Act, and abolishing the IRS. I now need to know if he supports personal freedom.

[Menthol Patch]

Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

I totally agree.

The fact is that right now in the USA you can go to prison for simply choosing to put a substance in your own body. If you do not have the freedom over your own body all other freedoms are meaningless.

[Menthol Patch]

Can anyone here pass along these questions to someone in the Chuck Baldwin campaign?

[V4Vendetta]

Baldwin supports states rights on all those issues.

[constitutional]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

He was on a internet radio show not long ago. I want to know the answer to those three questions too.

[Andrew-Austin]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not to support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".



Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

Where did I say this hypothetical perfect candidate would be defending the drug war? Both Barr and Baldwin speak out against the drug war all the time. I just said it is acceptable to put the issue on the back burner for a little bit, in order to reach the White House and address more important issues first.

So say hypothetically Ron Paul had a serious chance of winning the Presidency, his platform was the same except as it is now but he would not immediately legalize all drugs. Menthol is saying he would not vote for him, and that is the kind of retarded nonsense I am addressing here. His position is unjustifiably silly.


If a candidate supports keeping any drug illegal on any level of government then they do not understand liberty, and it will reflect in their other positions as well.

No Brandon, as much as I'd like for it to be that simple, its not.

The quote "perfect liberty candidate" I spoke of in my first post, may just acknowledge the practical difficulties in reaching the White House with a policy of immediately legalizing all drugs. Do you have any idea how horribly a candidate with that position would be treated? They would not be allowed to exist in the race. As someone who just finished reading the Fountainhead, trust me I hate practical difficulties as much as the next man. However I'm still reasonable enough to vote in a man who is anti-war, anti-Fed, anti-tax, etc. even if he can't legalize all drugs due to practical hurdles.

Yes, being for the immediate legalization of all drugs, and legalizing prostitution, etc is a clear sign that one respects peoples rights to do with their body what they wish. I understand that, but any man running for Prez with that position basically would not be allowed to exist. And it is acceptable to push aside these relatively unimportant issues (unimportant compared to the Federal Reserve, Iraq war, etc) to someone who isn't a damn fool.

Even someone who's lifestyle consists of snorting coke off a hooker everyday, ought to have enough sense to vote for the "perfect liberty candidate" I spoke of.



That's right! I will not vote for any candidate that does not support legalizing all drugs and would pardon all non violent drug users.



You consistently word-dance around all of my posts, or don't even attempt to understand what I'm talking about. How much more clear can I get?



If you do not have the freedom over your own body all other freedoms are meaningless.

So when I don't have the freedom to legally snort coke (I can get away with it illegally), all of sudden due to some mystical decree from Menthol Patch , the right to not to be fucking enslaved and forced to fight in Iran becomes meaningless. Get the fuck out.

[Deborah K]

So you think if the government made ice cream illegal and arrested a thousand people in your state, broke up their families, and ruined their careers the Federal government should not get involved?


**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

[humanic]

Do you know a way of contacting someone in his campaign and passing these questions along?

Unfortunately I don't, no. I'm not in the Constitution Party and I haven't been actively campaigning for Baldwin or anything; I just think he would make a good president.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

What part of the Tenth Amendment isn't clear? The federal government doesn't get to decide for the states whether jaywalking, rape or drugs (including ice cream) is legal. If you don't like your state's laws, you can either get them changed there, or move. A federal government big enough to require drug legalization is big enough to criminalize drugs, just as a federal government big enough to ensure abortion is big enough to ban it. Leave it to the states, man.

[Menthol Patch]

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

You have made your position clear.

You don't believe in the right of people to control what they put into their own body.

The fact is the most important reason drugs should be legalized is NOT because the war on drugs is not working. The most important reason is that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own body.

When it comes to freedom ice cream and heroin are EXACTLY the same.

[klamath]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he wants legalized:D

[Menthol Patch]

What part of the Tenth Amendment isn't clear? The federal government doesn't get to decide for the states whether jaywalking, rape or drugs (including ice cream) is legal. If you don't like your state's laws, you can either get them changed there, or move. A federal government big enough to require drug legalization is big enough to criminalize drugs, just as a federal government big enough to ensure abortion is big enough to ban it. Leave it to the states, man.

Obviously you don't care about the Bill of Rights.

I guess you don't want the Federal Government to enforce freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, etc.

When your state government throws you in prison for speaking about your favorite topic that just happens to be illegal I hope you don't mind that the federal government won't get involved.

[Menthol Patch]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he want legalized:D

Actually, I don't use drugs. I do drink coffee though.

Also, I have never been with a prostitute and I'm not sexually active.

However, I would fight to defend someone's right to use whatever drug they choose and to have sex ten times a day with prostitutes if they wanted to do so.

[Deborah K]

You have made your position clear.

You don't believe in the right of people to control what they put into their own body.

The fact is the most important reason drugs should be legalized is NOT because the war on drugs is not working. The most important reason is that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own body.

When it comes to freedom ice cream and heroin are EXACTLY the same.

I don't agree. Addiction to ice cream won't kill you or hurt your family or society. Sorry if you can't see that. Drug addiction is not only a personal problem, it is a societal problem i.e. if you shoot up and then get in your car and crash, killing my child..... If you need a fix and you don't have the money and you break into my place of business and steal my goods.....you have become society's problem.

Sorry for the slight digression from the OP.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Obviously you don't care about the Bill of Rights.

I guess you don't want the Federal Government to enforce freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, etc.

When your state government throws you in prison for speaking about your favorite topic that just happens to be illegal I hope you don't mind that the federal government won't get involved.

The Bill of Rights ensured that the FEDERAL government couldn't do those things. Until the Incorporation Doctrine, the Constitution didn't apply to the states. Incorporation Doctrine is debatable.

Even so, if you want a federal government powerful enough to ensure all those things, you'll have to deal with it being big enough to ensure all the things you don't like too. If 51% of the people think there should be no abortion, you'll have to live with that, as opposed to getting the law changed in your state, or moving to the next state over.

[Menthol Patch]

I don't agree. Addiction to ice cream won't kill you or hurt your family or society. Sorry if you can't see that. Drug addiction is not only a personal problem, it is a societal problem i.e. if you shoot up and then get in your car and crash, killing my child..... If you need a fix and you don't have the money and you break into my place of business and steal my goods.....you have become society's problem.

Sorry for the slight digression from the OP.

The fact is that individuals have the right to use any drug they choose. However, if they do harm you or your family in anyway then they should be sent to prison for many years to rot.

[Menthol Patch]

The Bill of Rights ensured that the FEDERAL government couldn't do those things. Until the Incorporation Doctrine, the Constitution didn't apply to the states. Incorporation Doctrine is debatable.

Even so, if you want a federal government powerful enough to ensure all those things, you'll have to deal with it being big enough to ensure all the things you don't like too. If 51% of the people think there should be no abortion, you'll have to live with that, as opposed to getting the law changed in your state, or moving to the next state over.

I'm all for the federal government leaving the states alone about many issues. For example, when it comes to crimes with REAL VICTIMS! However, when it comes to basic FREEDOM issues I think the federal government has a duty to get involved.

[Menthol Patch]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

Will you answer my questions?

[Andrew-Austin]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he wants legalized:D

That must be so, because he has completely failed to even attempt to address what I posted on page four.

Oh well, I won't bother unblocking his posts anymore.

[dawnbt]

Hello Everyone,

I want to make something clear about the war on drugs. It is more than just a state issue. Individuals have the right to put anything they want into their own body and to live their life how they see fit. For example, I have the right to eat green beans if I so desire. The government has no right to arrest me, fine me, or imprison me for eating green beans. If my state made eating green beans illegal don't you think the federal government should get involved?

Yo Cheech, no one is gonna beg you to vote for Baldwin. Right in Woody Harrelson for all I care. Lighten up.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Dr.Paul never said vote for Chuck Baldwin.. he said he is going to..


and as for the questions.. I agree 100%.

How so? You're a liar. Bob Barr is the only candidate on the Texas ballot.

Are Baldwin supporters all liars? Chuck Baldwin is a protectionist, he opposes free trade.

[Expatriate]

Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate. Now I'm not an expert on the Constitution Party but if they truly support and defend the Constitution of the United States;

-The Constitution gives no right to the federal government or the executive branch to tell states whether they can or can't regulate drugs, prostitution, or book-burning.

So if Chuck Baldwin became President and followed the Constitution, he would have to repeal the federal drug laws as those issues are delegated to the individual states. However, he could not force legalization of drugs in each state, that would be unconstitutional. If all the states enacted laws prohibiting drugs or prostitution, it would be up to the local legislatures to challenge them individually.

[dawnbt]

I seriously want Chuck to answer these three questions.

If he will answer these questions I will vote for him and encourage others to do so.

If he will not answer these three questions I will write in Ron Paul.

Repeatedly asking Chuck to answer your questions on here like a lunatic as likely to happen as if you lit a bombfire in your yard, danced naked, playing a tuba, calling out to the God's of Chuck to send you a sign. Why don't you take a drag, calm down, and send him an email.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

look... he's not going to win the election. the whole point it to just vote for a third party candidate so that it sends a message that there is a large enough group of people who are tired with the two party system. at this point, it doesn't really matter if he represents your exact ideology. if the third parties can get 10-20% of the vote, then that will tell everyone that a third party candidate can win, and then in 2012, a third party could get 40% or 50% of the vote and win. so just vote for a third party... it doesn't matter if you don't agree with everything they say, since they're not going to win anyways... just as long as we get the message out that there are people willing to vote for a third party candidate and that a third party still has a chance in this two party system.

look...you're a hypocrite. You say "let's look past what Baldwin says, he won't win anyway" if you wanted to "send a message" you'd do it with the guy [Barr] that the media isn't ignoring, not with the guy [Baldwin] that the MSM ignores and noone has ever heard of.

and, principle? ha bull. the guy and his party are ANTI-FREE TRADE. That's synonymous with being anti-libertarian

[Menthol Patch]

Yo Cheech, no one is gonna beg you to vote for Baldwin. Right in Woody Harrelson for all I care. Lighten up.

I'm not asking anyone to convince me to vote for Baldwin.

I want Baldwin to answer these questions.

[Menthol Patch]

That must be so, because he has completely failed to even attempt to address what I posted on page four.

Oh well, I won't bother unblocking his posts anymore.

I have addressed those issues.

I will not support any candidate that does not support ALL of our freedoms.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm not asking anyone to convince me to vote for Baldwin.

I want Baldwin to answer these questions.

Yeah! Why is Baldwin ignoring your questions? What an asshole!

[MrHellebusch]

"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable", Dr. Alexander Shulgin

I've never heard anyone say it better.

/Been planning on voting Baldwin for about a week. Glad to see I'm not alone.

[Menthol Patch]

Hello Everyone,

It looks like there are some people on this thread attacking me because I'm unwilling to vote for Chuck Baldwin if he does not support our right to live our lives how we see fit. Apparently, there are a lot of people on here that think as long as he opposes the IRS, the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror that it does not matter if he supports drug legalization and personal freedom or not.

The fact is that any candidate that does not support personal freedom AND fiscal conservatism AND peace does not deserve our vote.

I don't care if my vote tomorrow could bring the war in Iraq to an end. I will not vote for a candidate that does not support personal freedom on all issues.

If you vote for evil you are supporting evil and you are a part of evil.

[dannno]

So if Chuck Baldwin became President and followed the Constitution, he would have to repeal the federal drug laws as those issues are delegated to the individual states. However, he could not force legalization of drugs in each state, that would be unconstitutional. If all the states enacted laws prohibiting drugs or prostitution, it would be up to the local legislatures to challenge them individually.

What if my state decided to seize my property for no good reason? Should the Federal Government step in? Is there any difference?

[brandon]

Look, I have old friends that are all messed up on heroin or crack.

When I was younger I used to smoke weed. I even tried smoking crack a few times in my early experimental years.

What kind of person would it make me if I voted for a candidate that would want to INCARCERATE my friends who I care deeply about? Why would I vote for a person who would have put me in jail 5 years ago? Why would I do anything at all to make my friends suffer more then they already are?

What kind of person would that make me? How could I sleep at night?

I would never in my lifetime support a drug warrior. Being a drug warrior is just as bad as being a foreign interventionist, a socialist, or a fascist - if not worse. There is no compromise on this issue, and I hope my brothers and sisters in liberty agree.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What if my state decided to seize my property for no good reason? Should the Federal Government step in? Is there any difference?

States don't have rights, people have rights - Steve Kubby

[Menthol Patch]

States don't have rights, people have rights - Steve Kubby

I agree.

[Menthol Patch]

Look, I have old friends that are all messed up on heroin or crack.

When I was younger I used to smoke weed. I even tried smoking crack a few times in my early experimental years.

What kind of person would it make me if I voted for a candidate that would want to INCARCERATE my friends who I care deeply about? Why would I vote for a person who would have put me in jail 5 years ago? Why would I do anything at all to make my friends suffer more then they already are?

What kind of person would that make me? How could I sleep at night?

I would never in my lifetime support a drug warrior. Being a drug warrior is just as bad as being a foreign interventionist, a socialist, or a fascist - if not worse. There is no compromise on this issue, and I hope my brothers and sisters in liberty agree.

I totally agree.

[TastyWheat]

If he supports Ron's co-sponsored marijuana bill that's good enough for me. Most people are pretty knowledgeable about the REAL effects of marijuana, not so much the other stuff. One step at a time.

[Menthol Patch]

If he supports Ron's co-sponsored marijuana bill that's good enough for me. Most people are pretty knowledgeable about the REAL effects of marijuana, not so much the other stuff. One step at a time.

No, one step at a time is not enough when it comes to freedom.

If he does not support the legalization of all drugs he does not support our vote.

[Menthol Patch]

That must be so, because he has completely failed to even attempt to address what I posted on page four.

Oh well, I won't bother unblocking his posts anymore.

I have addressed those issues.

I will not support any candidate that does not support ALL of our freedoms.

[klamath]

No, one step at a time is not enough when it comes to freedom.

If he does not support the legalization of all drugs he does not support our vote.

Does not deserve "your" vote. Don't speak for me. If you didn't repeatedy bump your own post to the top of the page trying to get Chuck Baldwin to answer you people might not come on and attack you. You are being flat out rude and obnoxious keeping your own post at the top of the new posts page pushing all others down. If people want to debate you on your questions to Baldwin you are getting mad.
Baldwin is not going to come on here just to answer your questions especially when your mind is made up to hate him already.

[Menthol Patch]

Does not deserve "your" vote. Don't speak for me. If you didn't repeatedy bump your own post to the top of the page trying to get Chuck Baldwin to answer you people might not come on and attack you. You are being flat out rude and obnoxious keeping your own post at the top of the new posts page pushing all others down. If people want to debate you on your questions to Baldwin you are getting mad.
Baldwin is not going to come on here just to answer your questions especially when your mind is made up to hate him already.

No, I'm stating the truth.

I don't hate him at this point. I honestly want to know if he is willing to answer yes on those three questions. I hope this thread will make other people want to ask him those three questions.

Actually, I agree with a tremendous amount of what he has to say! Also, I'm a Christian so I like the fact he believes in Jesus Christ. However, I cannot vote for any candidate unless I know they are not only a true fiscal conservative but also totally support personal liberty.

I sincerely want to cast my vote for him if he will answer these three questions.

I'm NOT lying.

[nbhadja]

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

Illegalizing drugs causes A LOT of crime and death. Ron Paul once said that legalizing drugs would bankrupt every gang in America overnight.

Many people are fat and get heart attacks. So should be ban hamburgers because people abuse them too much? Nope.....FREEDOM

What about alcohol? We have addicts on that as well.


I support Baldwin, just making a point that the idea of banning drugs is ridiculous and unconstitutional.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Illegalizing drugs causes A LOT of crime and death. Ron Paul once said that legalizing drugs would bankrupt every gang in America overnight.

Many people are fat and get heart attacks. So should be ban hamburgers because people abuse them too much? Nope.....FREEDOM

What about alcohol? We have addicts on that as well.


I support Baldwin, just making a point that the idea of banning drugs is ridiculous and unconstitutional.

Do you support protectionism and bible thumping rightwingers that oppose women's right to choose?

[Menthol Patch]

Do you support protectionism and bible thumping rightwingers that oppose women's right to choose?

I support protectionism in certain circumstances when other nations are trying to buy out the USA.

Also, I support Ron Paul's pro-life position due to the fact that I think the child is an individual human being.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I support protectionism in certain circumstances when other nations are trying to buy out the USA.

Also, I support Ron Paul's pro-life position due to the fact that I think the child is an individual human being.

There is no such thing as "USA" let's stop with these games.

Ah, none of my business what people I don't know do with their offspring

[nbhadja]

Do you support protectionism and bible thumping rightwingers that oppose women's right to choose?

I am for the right for a woman to have a abortion, while Chuck personally is not, he thinks the states should decide (same as RP).

Chuck is near perfect on the economy even if the protectionism belief is true (which it might not). Can't have a perfect candidate, but I can have a near perfect candidate.

[klamath]

No, I'm stating the truth.

I don't hate him at this point. I honestly want to know if he is willing to answer yes on those three questions. I hope this thread will make other people want to ask him those three questions.

Actually, I agree with a tremendous amount of what he has to say! Also, I'm a Christian so I like the fact he believes in Jesus Christ. However, I cannot vote for any candidate unless I know they are not only a true fiscal conservative but also totally support personal liberty.

I sincerely want to cast my vote for him if he will answer these three questions.

I'm NOT lying.

THen email your questions to him, Please! Have your ever seen CB post on here in the thousands of posts? Use your brain. Go to the source for you answers.

[Andrew-Austin]

I have addressed those issues.

I will not support any candidate that does not support ALL of our freedoms.

No you have not addressed my post on page four, you've just fucking danced around what I said and failed to explain yourself for the thousandth time.

Sorry man but I'll continue to call a spade a spade, as long as you continue to ignore what I have repeatedly explained.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am for the right for a woman to have a abortion, while Chuck personally is not, he thinks the states should decide (same as RP).

Chuck is near perfect on the economy even if the protectionism belief is true (which it might not). Can't have a perfect candidate, but I can have a near perfect candidate.

Well, he's not near perfect to me, neither is his party. States don't have rights, people have rights.

Protectionism IS evil and he and his party both support it. Jerome Corsi, a Baldwin supporter and CP member, is a HUGE protectionist. They are an enemy to free traders

[Nirvikalpa]

Menthol, I will be asking him these questions this friday when I see him at a conference, just for you.

[Menthol Patch]

There is no such thing as "USA" let's stop with these games.

Ah, none of my business what people I don't know do with their offspring

It is the business of government. No one should be allowed to murder their offspring.

[Menthol Patch]

Menthol, I will be asking him these questions this friday when I see him at a conference, just for you.

Thank you!!!!!

That is absolutely fantastic!

You are awesome!!!!!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It is the business of government. No one should be allowed to murder their offspring.

Government has no right to exist.

[Menthol Patch]

Government has no right to exist.

Hmmm...

I will say that government in and of itself has no rights.

However, people have a right to organize together to prevent the violation of their rights.

What they don't have a right to do is use that organization to violate people's rights.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Hmmm...

I will say that government in and of itself has no rights.

However, people have a right to organize together to prevent the violation of their rights.

What they don't have a right to do is use that organization to violate people's rights.

People also have the right to "opt out"

[Menthol Patch]

People also have the right to "opt out"

Hmmm....

Actually, I support such a small government that there won't be much for people to opt out of...

For example, I oppose the IRS, social security, medicade, the DEA, the FDA, the ATF, and countless other government agencies.

[KenInMontiMN]

If you want the Federal gov't to get involved in state issues, then work to amend the constitution to include that 'whatever' as a basic right specifically guaranteed by the constitution. Such constitutional amendment questions are exactly the one thing the executive has absolutely no direct say in whatsoever. No voting power, no veto power. That power lies entirely in the hands of the legislatures on the Federal and State levels.

The one thing you absolutely do not want to do if you're about a meaningful constitutional system that protects rights and supports liberty is try to influence the courts to disregard the constitution as written and either twist it to include your desired issue without basis (example- 5 justices inventing a constitutional protection out of thin air in Roe v Wade) or for that matter voting in direct opposition to constitutional directive (example- 4 justices voting to ignore the 2nd amendment in DC v Heller). In both cases if the constitution was truly valued here anymore, an enraged citizenry and their congressional reps would have risen up together, whether the outcome was one any particular individual would have supported as an amendment or not, in order to immediately impeach the offending justices.

Essentially such justices are testing the waters to see whether they can get away with editing/writing a new constitution themselves, and skirting the constitutionally stated process for such editing. If that is never allowed without immediate impeachment, then we have an enforced constitution and change occurs by the book. Since we've failed to do that, nobody bothers to work through the cumbersome amendment process anymore, they simply vote in a manner attempting to stack the court regardless of whether the candidate is actually worth a shit or not. Furthermore, the parties have gotten very good at maximizing this effect to their advantage by providing bucketloads of rhetoric on polarizing issues at the proper intervals surrounding the election cycle- despite no real interest whatsoever in changing the status quo. If that keeps working for them well, they have no motivation whatsoever to make any such changes and kill the goose laying those golden electoral eggs.

Also, since we've failed to stand together to defend the constitution, we now actually have presidents who can say things like "its just a piece of paper" when taken to task on unconstitutionality of policy and law. And get away with it. Every American who has supported questionable rulings and minority opinions out of the SC because it came down on the side of the issue they favored, because it was easier than actually working to amend the thing as they would prefer, can only slap their forehead when it goes the other way and they catch themselves whining about constitutionality. "That's right, what was I thinking, of course its just a piece of paper, I've supported the mangling/ignoring of the thing myself when the ruling went my way."

If we want any right and expectation of Constitutional integrity out of our elected officials, our courts, our neighbors- then each and every one of us must stand together invariably each and every time it gets subjected to such abuse, and offer no escape from sanction to the abusers.

So for the CFL, state rights are state rights unless and until we amend the document to say specifically otherwise. Should we get a candidate seeking our support that isn't on board with that, and prefers a much more cavalier attitude towards constitutional matters, then that candidate is dangerous to Liberty and simply isn't our boy (or girl) regardless of whether we see eye to eye on any particular issue. That candidate wants to amass previously nonexistent Federal powers and wield them, rather than dissolve and diffuse such dangerous things.

[Arklatex]

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

Making drugs legal is the only way to get rid of the drug dealers you despise. I know it's counter intuitive but ponder on it.

Illegal drugs creates more problems than it solves. Legal drugs offers some solutions.

Bless you heart for the drugs addictions, but you're never going to get rid of drug usage, we can't even keep it out of the prisons. Marijuana grows anywhere on 6 continents. Anybody can grow it, anywhere, anytime, inside, outside. Some things to think on, I respect your and everyone's opinion on these boards. All ron paul people are great - some in their own ways. ahem Joseph the dipsh*t. :D

[Josh_LA]

I don't care if he's a theocrat, Fascist, murderer, child molester, rapist.

I'm voting 3rd party just to stick the finger to the other two.

Baldwin or Barr, Nader or McKinney, doesn't matter.

[Danke]

If you want the Federal gov't to get involved in state issues, then work to amend the constitution to include that 'whatever' as a basic right specifically guaranteed by the constitution. Such constitutional amendment questions are exactly the one thing the executive has absolutely no direct say in whatsoever. No voting power, no veto power. That power lies entirely in the hands of the legislatures on the Federal and State levels.

The one thing you absolutely do not want to do if you're about a meaningful constitutional system that protects rights and supports liberty is try to influence the courts to disregard the constitution as written and either twist it to include your desired issue without basis (example- 5 justices inventing a constitutional protection out of thin air in Roe v Wade) or for that matter voting in direct opposition to constitutional directive (example- 4 justices voting to ignore the 2nd amendment in DC v Heller). In both cases if the constitution was truly valued here anymore, an enraged citizenry and their congressional reps would have risen up together, whether the outcome was one any particular individual would have supported as an amendment or not, in order to immediately impeach the offending justices.

Essentially such justices are testing the waters to see whether they can get away with editing/writing a new constitution themselves, and skirting the constitutionally stated process for such editing. If that is never allowed without immediate impeachment, then we have an enforced constitution and change occurs by the book. Since we've failed to do that, nobody bothers to work through the cumbersome amendment process anymore, they simply vote in a manner attempting to stack the court regardless of whether the candidate is actually worth a shit or not. Furthermore, the parties have gotten very good at maximizing this effect to their advantage by providing bucketloads of rhetoric on polarizing issues at the proper intervals surrounding the election cycle- despite no real interest whatsoever in changing the status quo. If that keeps working for them well, they have no motivation whatsoever to make any such changes and kill the goose laying those golden electoral eggs.

Also, since we've failed to stand together to defend the constitution, we now actually have presidents who can say things like "its just a piece of paper" when taken to task on unconstitutionality of policy and law. And get away with it. Every American who has supported questionable rulings and minority opinions out of the SC because it came down on the side of the issue they favored, because it was easier than actually working to amend the thing as they would prefer, can only slap their forehead when it goes the other way and they catch themselves whining about constitutionality. "That's right, what was I thinking, of course its just a piece of paper, I've supported the mangling/ignoring of the thing myself when the ruling went my way."

If we want any right and expectation of Constitutional integrity out of our elected officials, our courts, our neighbors- then each and every one of us must stand together invariably each and every time it gets subjected to such abuse, and offer no escape from sanction to the abusers.

So for the CFL, state rights are state rights unless and until we amend the document to say specifically otherwise. Should we get a candidate seeking our support that isn't on board with that, and prefers a much more cavalier attitude towards constitutional matters, then that candidate is dangerous to Liberty and simply isn't our boy (or girl) regardless of whether we see eye to eye on any particular issue. That candidate wants to amass previously nonexistent Federal powers and wield them, rather than dissolve and diffuse such dangerous things.

Nice post. Refreshing.

[phoobaar]

I will still be voting for [Baldwin] because ... [he] is consistent and genuine.

So what? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/mcpherson9.html) I'm with the OP too, but "consistency" is irrelevant if the consistently held positions... suck.

[RickyJ]

Let's see, drugs, prostitutes and burning Bibles are high priorities for you? WTH?

Do you not know the USA is on the verge of collapse? All you can do is worry about drug orgies with prostitutes while burning Bibles as America goes down the toilet?

[ceakins]

Menthol is asking perfectly legit questions, BTW. I just wanted to defend him. I wish Baldwin had made the answers to these questions more clear. However, I will still be voting for him because unlike Barr who is an ass hat, Baldwin is consistent and genuine. And he's not going to win anyway, so all it will be is a "third party vote."

I'd rather vote for an asshat than a theocrat that's part of a party that has a history of racism.

[RickyJ]

I'd rather vote for an asshat than a theocrat that's part of a party that has a history of racism.

The Constitution Party does not have a history of racism. Baldwin does seem to like the confederate battle flag, and I don't like that about him, but it is not enough for me to not vote for him and it certainly does not mean he is a racist. Also Baldwin is not a theocrat. He is not going to make everyone become a Christian if he wins.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No, one step at a time is not enough when it comes to freedom.

If he does not support the legalization of all drugs he does not support our vote.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that's where you're getting the most resistance here.

And if marijuana is legalized and everyone doesn't go crazy killing people, then it will also make a stronger case for freedom in general.

[Menthol Patch]

Let's see, drugs, prostitutes and burning Bibles are high priorities for you? WTH?

Do you not know the USA is on the verge of collapse? All you can do is worry about drug orgies with prostitutes while burning Bibles as America goes down the toilet?

Let me explain this again.

I will not support any candidate unless he believes in both fiscal conservatism and personal freedom.

It's obvious that Chuck Baldwin is a fiscal conservatism. But I need to know if he supports personal freedom.

[Menthol Patch]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that's where you're getting the most resistance here.

And if marijuana is legalized and everyone doesn't go crazy killing people, then it will also make a stronger case for freedom in general.

If a candidate does not support the legalization of drugs he does not believe in personal freedom.

[LibertyRevolution]

I find myself in agreement with menthol patch.
Drug laws, and victimless crimes are agasint evething that liberty stands for.

I would vote for chuck only if:
He came out and said that he will end the war on drugs and pardon all non violent drug offenders.

He would work to repeal all victimless crimes and pre-emptive laws, including prostitution.

And he must take an oath to not let his religion influence his policy making, leave womans right to choose alone.

If this does not happen then I will vote for obama, quit my job, and do my part to milk the socalist system until it colapses.

Personally I think that its the only way we are going to force the people to wake up. To show them that neo-con empire building failed, and that socialism also will fail. Then maybe they will understand that the key to prosperity is liberty, freedom, and servival of the fittest. Stop bailing people out. Stop helping the poor and sick all over the world, just let the weak die for christ sake! It is not our responsiblity to take care of everyone, it is our responsiblity to take care of ourselves.

[Menthol Patch]

bump

[A. Havnes]

Compared to some of the other crisis we're exeriencing right now, I believe these three questions are quite irrelevant, unfortunately.

[Menthol Patch]

Menthol, I will be asking him these questions this friday when I see him at a conference, just for you.

I'm glad that these questions will be answered on Friday!

[mitty]

as president does it even matter?

he has already stated the federal government has no business regulating such things. just like ron paul. since he is running for president and not for governor you'd think that this wouldnt be an issue.

[Menthol Patch]

as president does it even matter?

he has already stated the federal government has no business regulating such things. just like ron paul. since he is running for president and not for governor you'd think that this wouldnt be an issue.

It does matter. It's a huge matter.

[mitty]

It does matter. It's a huge matter.

then why did you support ron paul? hes all for states rights on these issues just like baldwin. that is not the case with you. you are being inconsistent.

[Menthol Patch]

then why did you support ron paul? hes all for states rights on these issues just like baldwin. that is not the case with you. you are being inconsistent.

Ron Paul said he would pardon non violent drug users!

Ron Paul also openly spoke out and admitted that everyone has the right to use whatever drug they choose and do whatever they want with their own body.

[Menthol Patch]

then why did you support ron paul? hes all for states rights on these issues just like baldwin. that is not the case with you. you are being inconsistent.

Let me guess... You don't care if people are thrown in prison for drug user or deciding what they should do with their own bodies.

[mitty]

Let me guess... You don't care if people are thrown in prison for drug user or deciding what they should do with their own bodies.

lol. yep thats me. i'd kill everyone that looked at me funny including druggies. :rolleyes:

im simply saying that you are being ridiculous if you will not vote for baldwin just because he harbors personal views you do not agree with even if he admits as president he wont regulate those views in the first place. yet you support ron paul for the same reason you would not support baldwin. let me guess, you wont vote for him because he drinks a soda you dont like too? :rolleyes:

[Menthol Patch]

lol. yep thats me. i'd kill everyone that looked at me funny including druggies. :rolleyes:

im simply saying that you are being ridiculous if you will not vote for baldwin just because he harbors personal views you do not agree with even if he admits as president he wont regulate those views in the first place. yet you support ron paul for the same reason you would not support baldwin. let me guess, you wont vote for him because he drinks a soda you dont like too? :rolleyes:

No, I don't care what soda he drinks. I only support candidates that support people's rights.

Ron Paul may not get involved in every state issue, but he would scream loudly that drugs should be legalized, prostitution should be legalized, and that everyone has the right to live their life however they see fit.

Regardless if Ron Paul could directly change state laws he would have an impact because he would be standing up for freedom.

I need to know if Chuck Baldwin would stand up for freedom if he became President.

[mitty]

I need to know if Chuck Baldwin would stand up for freedom if he became President.

obviosuly ron paul thinks he does.

[Menthol Patch]

obviosuly ron paul thinks he does.

That is not good enough for me.

[mitty]

That is not good enough for me.

odd. considering you hold ron paul to such a high standard and you seem to have complete trust in him. so i guess if you decide chuck baldwin is not for freedom then you ought to just stop supporting ron paul since he doesn't endorse freedom either...in officially endorsing a candidate that is not for freedom.

[Fyretrohl]

You know, I seem to recall a certain congressman from Texas visiting Nevada while campaigning for President. During that time, he made it clear that he disagreed with Prostitution and wouldn't agree with it in his state. However, he was clear that it was not his role as a national politician to decide the matter. That was for each state. My take was, if Ron Paul was running for Governor of Nevada, he would probably be trying to get rid of those laws.

[ceakins]

1. Chuck Baldwin believes that the war on drugs should be ended, and that drug prohibition or legalization should be a state issue. A simple Google search turned up this article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94

Yet he supports going into foriegn countries and going after narco-terrorist.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351-countering-for-the-constitution

TNA: Where do you stand on the war on drugs?
Baldwin: I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do everthing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.

TNA: As I understand it, U.S. planes are going over and bombing poppy fields and whatever in Colombia and other places. Should we be doing that?
Baldwin: If the government of that country were to ask for the assistance of the United States, in particular where the vested interest of the United States is at stake, then I think that there is consideration there. But if it's a matter of the United States arbitrarily taking upon itself to invade the air space and the sovereign territory of another country to do whatever it wants to do unilaterally, then no. Absolutely not.

2. As far as I know, he has not addressed this. However, he is pretty consistent, so he probably believes it is a state issue.

3. I don't even know how to look for the answer to that.


See inline response.

[ceakins]

Again Menthol Patch, I didn't say I didn't agree that the War on Drugs is bad; I'm simply disagreeing with the post and many people's belief here. Baldwin opposes the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. For whatever reason, the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and the ability to burn Bibles are more important than the Government wiretapping, searching and seizing your property unwarrantly, and throwing you in jail without a trial??? Wowzah...

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

So peoples freedom from imprisonment is less important to you? What you mention hasn't put a great amount of people in prison if you want to do comparisons, the war on drugs has.

[ceakins]

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

So who's going to pay for this rehab?

[mconder]

When I saw the title to your post, I guessed exactly the questions you would be asking. I believe Chuck Baldwin has already answered. It's just to bad these seem to be your most important issue. Let me just remind you that at least two of those were illegal during the most successful times of this country. Illegal war, spying on U.S. citizens, no warrant arrests, the FED, were all illegal during the most successful times of this country.

[Menthol Patch]

When I saw the title to your post, I guessed exactly the questions you would be asking. I believe Chuck Baldwin has already answered. It's just to bad these seem to be your most important issue. Let me just remind you that at least two of those were illegal during the most successful times of this country. Illegal war, spying on U.S. citizens, no warrant arrests, the FED, were all illegal during the most successful times of this country.

All of these issues are important. Apparently, you don't think it's a bad thing that right now there are innocent people who have had their lives ruined or been imprisoned for committing crimes (such as prostitution, drug use, peaceful protesting, etc) in which no one else's rights were violated.

[ceakins]

odd. considering you hold ron paul to such a high standard and you seem to have complete trust in him. so i guess if you decide chuck baldwin is not for freedom then you ought to just stop supporting ron paul since he doesn't endorse freedom either...in officially endorsing a candidate that is not for freedom.


Ah so you follow Ron Paul like a cult leader? I'm sure Ron Paul would also tell you to make your own decision. Scary you're incaple of thinking for yourself.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

All of a sudden we're supposed to choose what parts of Freedom to defend?

[ValidusCustodiae]

How can you attack Menthol Patch for wanting to know some of Baldwin's positions without being hypocritical? These are legitimate questions that some of you are trying to demonize him for. He is holding whoever he supports for President to a standard, one I happen to agree with. While I plan on voting for Chuck to send a message, I will always remain vocal of my opposition to government at any level interfering with personal freedom. The earlier quote from Shulgin was magnificent.

It is the freedom over what we do with our own bodies from which all other freedoms spring. To speak, sing, or write freely, we must be free to use our bodies. This is true for the right to freely bear arms, to freely assemble, and for the myriad rights unenumerated in the Bill of Rights also. To falter in the defense of personal freedom over one's body is to sacrifice all subsisting freedoms.

I'm sure M Patch already recognizes that there is very little chance Baldwin would answer him here. I think he was trying to see if anyone had any references to Baldwin answering these questions.

[mconder]

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion.

No doubt...these people are anarchists in disguise. I'd like to remind them that all of these things were illegal during the period of greatest prosperity for this country.

[Menthol Patch]

How can you attack Menthol Patch for wanting to know some of Baldwin's positions without being hypocritical? These are legitimate questions that some of you are trying to demonize him for. He is holding whoever he supports for President to a standard, one I happen to agree with. While I plan on voting for Chuck to send a message, I will always remain vocal of my opposition to government at any level interfering with personal freedom. The earlier quote from Shulgin was magnificent.

It is the freedom over what we do with our own bodies from which all other freedoms spring. To speak, sing, or write freely, we must be free to use our bodies. This is true for the right to freely bear arms, to freely assemble, and for the myriad rights unenumerated in the Bill of Rights also. To falter in the defense of personal freedom over one's body is to sacrifice all subsisting freedoms.

I'm sure M Patch already recognizes that there is very little chance Baldwin would answer him here. I think he was trying to see if anyone had any references to Baldwin answering these questions.

User Give.Me.Liberty is going to be asking Chuck Baldwin my three questions this friday.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Menthol Patch]

No doubt...these people are anarchists in disguise. I'd like to remind them that all of these things were illegal during the period of greatest prosperity for this country.

No, I'm not an anarchist. I believe in small government.

The fact is any government that punishes people when they have harmed no one is illegitimate.

[Menthol Patch]

By the way, I want to say it again.... I'm a Christian. I think prostitution, recreational drug usage, and burning the Bible is a sin. However, as a libertarian I will fight to defend people's right to sin (as long as they are not hurting anyone else in the process).

[tmaddox]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

Hate to break the news to you but legalizing all drugs, prostitution and pardoning all drug offenders is not within the Constitutional authority of the President or the national government.

Yes, he can and has pledged to end the drug war and national laws on drugs (because its for the states to decide).

He has stated many times that those issues are state issues.

For the national government to force states to legalize drugs and prostitution they will need just as much authority as they do banning them!

In doing so you do not become more libertarian or constitutional, you do not lessen the power of the national government. You only change the focus. It would still be wrong to force a state to allow these things. Allow the states to choose and decide their own laws, that is what Chuck Baldwin will do.

[tmaddox]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

[Menthol Patch]

Hate to break the news to you but legalizing all drugs, prostitution and pardoning all drug offenders is not within the Constitutional authority of the President or the national government.

Yes, he can and has pledged to end the drug war and national laws on drugs (because its for the states to decide).

He has stated many times that those issues are state issues.

For the national government to force states to legalize drugs and prostitution they will need just as much authority as they do banning them!

In doing so you do not become more libertarian or constitutional, you do not lessen the power of the national government. You only change the focus. It would still be wrong to force a state to allow these things. Allow the states to choose and decide their own laws, that is what Chuck Baldwin will do.

The constitution is not perfect. Although it's a very great document it's lacking in some areas. When it comes to issues of freedom the Federal Government has a duty to intervene when innocent people are being imprisoned when they have harmed no one else. I actually become MORE libertarian by demanding that the Federal Government get involved when it comes to the war on drugs, prostitution, freedom of speech issues, etc.

I'm all for state rights when it comes to most issues. However, when innocent people being imprisoned for hurting no one the federal government should get involved.

Otherwise, I hope you are very happy if a family member of yours is given life in prison for eating fatty foods which breaks up his or her family and traumatizes his or her children.

[Menthol Patch]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

I could care less.

When it comes to issues of freedom the federal government should get involved.

[Havax]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

I am currently voting and doing grassroots campaigning for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was to directly answer yes to all 3 of these questions without hesitation I would change my vote to Baldwin immediately.

[Menthol Patch]

I am currently voting and doing grassroots campaigning for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was to directly answer yes to all 3 of these questions without hesitation I would change my vote to Baldwin immediately.

A forum user named Give.Me.Liberty is going to ask Baldwin these questions this Friday.

[Brett85]

Wow, talk about people who demand that it be all or nothing.

[Brett85]

Just came across this thread while searching for "Chuck Baldwin" and thought I would bump a 6 year old thread. Lol.

[Tywysog Cymru]

If Rand loses the primary I really hope that Baldwin runs again.

[brandon]

lol menthol patch. What a guy. I once linked him to lemon party and he had a nervous breakdown. Then again when wasn't this guy freaking out?

[jmdrake]

LOL. TC why'd you bump this one? :confused:

[Todd]

Wow, talk about people who demand that it be all or nothing.

I voted for Baldwin, so I don't agree with the OP, but I understand his reasoning. If you think that people can't decide how to rule their own bodies, then they probably are open to other areas they want to interfere with personal liberty. It's a fair question. I'm just willing to bank on Baldwin being reasonable about the whole issue. Baldwin usually steers clear of these issues because he probably wouldn't even touch them. He has bigger ideas than trying to keep someone from smoking thier joints.

[Brett85]

LOL. TC why'd you bump this one? :confused:

I just thought it would be funny if I bumped a six year old thread, and I think it illustrates that libertarians sometimes allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.