Am I the only one who is disappointed with Dr. Paul?

[IHaveaDream]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

[StateofTrance]

Exactly. He shouldn't have get involved in this mess at the first place itself.

He should've stayed away and continuously hit the neo-cons. His effectiveness as a REAL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN decreases if he gets involved in all these 3rd-party mess.

[Kotin]

Ron Paul never told anyone to vote for Chuck Baldwin.. he simply stated that is who he is supporting.

[pacelli]

If you had told me in the beginning of the presidential campaign that this whole "secret plan" thing would end up with him endorsing Chuck Baldwin, I would have laughed at the ridiculous sound of it. Now I'm just shaking my head. Chuck Baldwin missed the write-in deadline for my state, so now I'm stuck with either no presidential vote, barr, mckinney, or nader.

[Kludge]

Ron Paul never told anyone to vote for Chuck Baldwin.. he simply stated that is who he is supporting.

Is there any difference to those who would vote for Baldwin (or anyone) if told by Paul?

[heavenlyboy34]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

It is my understanding that RP is only able to stay in office because he is in the Republicrat party. He is a lifetime member of the LP. I don't get the sense that RP was vindictive. He saw the shinannigans Barr was up to, and rejected Barr for it. "Foolish choice" is a bit strong regarding Baldwin. I'm still undecided, but I've been reading on him, and he isn't so bad-I just don't agree with the religious aspect, like you. He's on more ballots than Barr now, so statistically, he's the most likely of the freedom oriented candidates to actually win.

[TheConstitutionLives]

I wish he'd have stayed neutral as well but whatever. Doesn't make me angry at him or anything like that.

[olehounddog]

Ron Paul said something like, he was elected as a republican and owes it to the people who elected him to remain a republican.

Sounds like the honorable thing to do.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP.


Actually, he belongs to the GOP of Robert Taft. And the current GOP is showing that wing of the party the same levelof disrespect.



Politics is both Strategy AND tactics.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Had Barr not told him that he would be there, backed out at the last minute, and let his Campaign take shots at RP after asking him to run as his VP then I doubt Ron Paul would be upset with him. As it stands, I think Dr. Paul has more than enough reason to be angry at the nonsense Bob Barr pulled on him.

[Oyate]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

Oh hey man (or woman or whatever) that is kind of like.....part of the process. We kind of got into hero-worship, the cult of Dr. Paul, it's natural. We all want a hero. But heroes are in books. Dr. Paul is a great man, but he's just a dude.

I think it's part of how he's really smart that he anticipated this. All of his recent actions direct the power back to us. He knows this whole thing got a little cultish and he's stepping aside and letting you younger people take a swing. I think it's a really smart move. It just doesn't make sense if you think we're going to change the world in a day.

It's going to take us just a bit longer there you younger heart. But with you, we're moving faster than ever.

[Lord Xar]

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP.

I believe it is easier to change the climate of the GOP than to start anew OR get involved in a political group that 'most' americans see as fringe. Not saying it is. But I understand where Ron Paul is coming from.



Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

Dog and pony show to who? This was a legitimate and valued press conference to Ron Paul. Bob Barr said he'd show. Why are you dismissing your own politicians bad choices? Also, Barr was clearly the vindictive one - as he snuffed Ron Paul. Is it childish to not support someone who's true colors are now known. I dont' get your line of reasoning. You absolve Barr's involvement in this whole thing, make wild assumptions and then after the dust settles you accuse Ron Paul of everything our Barr inititated.



I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice.

Perhaps so. But please do not even attempt to say Barr is a better choice. Barr is a hack - I mean, it is painfully obvious.



He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.



I am not sure what all the hoopla is. It appears to me that many of the LIbertarian supporters are steaming up the message boards disparaging Baldwin for one simple fact -- They thought this year their numbers would climb in the coming election, thus verifying to the mainstream that they need to be taken seriously.

Now that Ron Paul has thrown his support behind another, they see their plans unravelling. Their final legitimacy in the coming election is now in question.

[hopeforamerica]

Ron Paul has been fighting for the constitution for 30 years. No one deserves more respect and admiration! He did it alone, without big $$, he did it for his family and his country. How long have we been fighting? Me, only a little over a year. Ron Paul will always be my hero, and I thank him so much for what he has done while I was sleeping.

So he told us who he supports. Big deal.

[rockandrollsouls]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

I don't think that letter was written by Ron. It sounds nothing like his other writings and it was posted by Benton.

[mport1]

Agree with the OP.

[Deborah K]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

You are wrong about the reasons for his endorsement of Baldwin. It is not due to childish, reckless, or vindictive behavior. I heard around the middle of July that he was going to endorse Baldwin. I was told he was going to announce it at the St. Paul rally. I was surprised when he didn't.

[Lord Xar]

Yeah, after some painful seconds I have come to the conclusion that the man I admired for these wonderous few months. The man I devoted so much of my money and time. The man who I believed and trusted in, and who opened my eyes to many different things. This man is a fraud and charlatan. I can't believe I am SOO disappointed in him for even suggesting or getting behind another candidate I don't agree with. What the phuk is wrong with him!!

A little part of me died today with your support for such an evil man.

After a few more seconds of deliberation, I just realized I was being weak and self-absorbed AND self-centered. Wow, I am normal again. Ron Paul, do whatever you feel is best. I will support you in your right to make good decisions, because so far - you been on the up and up. I can't say I will follow your lead in who you support, but I do appreciate you coming forward and making a statement.

wow.

[Danke]

Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.



You assume too much about his motivations and really lack the first hand knowledge Ron Paul has dealing with Barr for a long time.

[devil21]

I can't believe people are actually trashing RP for supporting Baldwin (assuming it turns out to be true). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! RP can't vote for all 4 candidates and neither can you. You gotta pick one and run with it. Baldwin is who RP is picking. Deal with it.

[rockandrollsouls]

I can't believe people are actually trashing RP for supporting Baldwin (assuming it turns out to be true). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! RP can't vote for all 4 candidates and neither can you. You gotta pick one and run with it. Baldwin is who RP is picking. Deal with it.

Yes...Assuming it's true. I don't have a problem if he endorses anyone, but Ron didn't post that. How do we even know he wrote it? Benton has overstepped his boundaries many times...I wouldn't be surprised if he twisted words of Ron's or something or if Ron didn't have anything to do with it.

Many of you here say "go research your stuff" "don't believe everything you're told!" Well, why are some of you here so quick to believe this? Your brain suddenly evades you because Ron "supposedly" said something. Stop jumping the gun. Sit down, relax, and think. You don't know ANYTHING right now.

[JohnMeridith]

I am impressed with Ron Paul. He is a man like I have not witnessed before and can only hope to be. Am I disappointed in Ron Paul? No, I am disappointed that people question him when he does exactly what he always says.

[JohnMeridith]

also, let's say Chuck Baldwin wins. Who do you think his MAIN advisor would be? Probably the man he most respects in government.

[Mark]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

What's the reason you don't like Baldwin? Because he's a Christian minister and believes in God?

And what makes him a "fundamentalist" to you? As far as I know Baldwin does NOT believe the false teaching of "Rapture",
and people who believe that lie are the ones that we need to worry about instead of a good person like Chuck Baldwin.

Like it or not, Baldwin is the BEST choice available this year in terms of protecting the Constitution and our Rights.

[specsaregood]

I'm certainly not disappointed with Ron Paul. How could I be disappointed with him declaring who he supporting? He didn't order me to support Baldwin. I'm still free to choose. And Barr is certainly not going to be my choice after his campaign's shenanigans and his dismal voting record when in office.

[devil21]

Yes...Assuming it's true. I don't have a problem if he endorses anyone, but Ron didn't post that. How do we even know he wrote it? Benton has overstepped his boundaries many times...I wouldn't be surprised if he twisted words of Ron's or something or if Ron didn't have anything to do with it.

Many of you here say "go research your stuff" "don't believe everything you're told!" Well, why are some of you here so quick to believe this? Your brain suddenly evades you because Ron "supposedly" said something. Stop jumping the gun. Sit down, relax, and think. You don't know ANYTHING right now.

A valid point of course but good lord, if it wasnt true then Id be speechless and thats a rarity. Benton would have a huge set of brass balls considering he's engaged to RP's granddaughter! Either way, I do not see this as an "endorsement" of Baldwin. It is just the explanation of who RP is voting for (again, assuming its true). That is not undermining the other 3 candidates in any way. Everyone can cast only one vote for one candidate. Baldwin is RP's vote. People can't get upset if RP doesnt vote for their choice like Barr or Nader. If people get upset then they havent learned a damn thing from this campaign and they are using the same wasted vote/vote for the winner mentality that we have all grown to despise.

[ProBlue33]

Nope, not at all, Barr sealed his fate by bailing on Ron Paul, Barr is out, Baldwin is in, I agree with Ron Paul

[torchbearer]

You play politics with the old man, you'll get slapped down.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I also do not believe Ron Paul wrote that. I have been telling ya'll someone else is driving the bus that is why I can't fully get on board with C4L yet. I have to wait and see. We found out Ron Paul didn't even write his own book! That really disturbs me. Fine. If he had a ghostwriter he should have let it be known. I'm not clear on what is going on with all the third party mess. TOnes

[RoamZero]

Nope, not at all, Barr sealed his fate by bailing on Ron Paul, Barr is out, Baldwin is in, I agree with Ron Paul

Do be honest I dont think any third parties have much of a fate this election cycle.

[devil21]

You play politics with the old man, you'll get slapped down.

Especially when Dr. Ron Paul was the ONLY reason that Barr was even in the position that he was in as a fairly "mainstream" candidate as a Libertarian. Without RP, Barr would be polling the usual 0.4% that the LP gets.

[haigh]

It is my understanding that RP is only able to stay in office because he is in the Republicrat party. He is a lifetime member of the LP. I don't get the sense that RP was vindictive. He saw the shinannigans Barr was up to, and rejected Barr for it. "Foolish choice" is a bit strong regarding Baldwin. I'm still undecided, but I've been reading on him, and he isn't so bad-I just don't agree with the religious aspect, like you. He's on more ballots than Barr now, so statistically, he's the most likely of the freedom oriented candidates to actually win.

According to Ballot Access News Barr is on 45 states and Baldwin is on 37. Where are you getting the contradictory?

There is no unifying Liberty candidate for POTUS this election so it will be good to see what Barr can do with a large segment of the Paul ranks going with Baldwin. The strong candidate for 2012 will be the one that can bring these two somewhat divergent forces together.

[Highland]

I love RP and I like Chuck Baldwin....Chuck is an honorable man and he loves RP too.

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

[Young_Apprentice]

Fuck you Ron Paul. I've spent the last year trying to convince people that you aren't crazy, then you fucking endorse theocrat/conspiracy theorist Chuck Baldwin. Fuck you Ron Paul; fuck you and your shitty judgment.

[Highland]

Fuck you Ron Paul. I've spent the last year trying to convince people that you aren't crazy, then you fucking endorse theocrat/conspiracy theorist Chuck Baldwin. Fuck you Ron Paul; fuck you and your shitty judgment.

awfully rude to our modern founding father....tsktsktsk:confused:

[bolidew]

"Young_Apprentice" need to be banned.

[bolidew]

Nope, not at all, Barr sealed his fate by bailing on Ron Paul, Barr is out, Baldwin is in, I agree with Ron Paul

Right, this is leadership and it is so important when we fight against the machine.

[Young_Apprentice]

Look up Chuck Baldwin. See what he thinks about conspiracy theories. The man is fucking insane, and Ron Paul's just given him an endorsement. For those of us who have defended Ron Paul the past year this is a real slap in the face.

[dannno]

To the OP:

Every time I thought I was disappointed in Ron Paul I did more research and found out I was wrong.


And YOU:


Look up Chuck Baldwin. See what he thinks about conspiracy theories. The man is fucking insane, and Ron Paul's just given him an endorsement. For those of us who have defended Ron Paul the past year this is a real slap in the face.

[MsDoodahs]

Just ignore the whining child, y'all.

[LibertyEagle]

Look up Chuck Baldwin. See what he thinks about conspiracy theories. The man is fucking insane, and Ron Paul's just given him an endorsement. For those of us who have defended Ron Paul the past year this is a real slap in the face.

No, he's not insane. However, you have just shown your complete ignorance of the facts. If you think that our country is in the shape it is now, by complete and utter coincidence, you are a fool.

[Young_Apprentice]

No, he's not insane. However, you have just shown your complete ignorance of the facts. If you think that our country is in the shape it is now, by complete and utter coincidence, you are a fool.

Shit, you're right. Would anyone mind posting a link to some really cool internet videos demonstrating how everything I thought I knew about the world is a complete sham?

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hi,

What conspiracy theories are we talking about, here, with Baldwin?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[LibertyEagle]

Shit, you're right. Would anyone mind posting a link to some really cool internet videos demonstrating how everything I thought I knew about the world is a complete sham?

:rolleyes:

By the way, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Nor am I a "Truther". However, your apparent belief that the state of our nation all happened by mere chance is more than ludicrous. Tell me... do you think the push for world government is a conspiracy theory? How about the Federal Reserve and how it was established? Just a big coincidence to you? How about how the young people have been dumbed down and indoctrinated in public schools and are ignorant as all hell? How about how our govenrment has let our borders be overrun by illegal aliens. All by chance?

Okey dokey then. :cool:

Real conspiracies exist and there's nothing theoretical about them.

[dannno]

Shit, you're right. Would anyone mind posting a link to some really cool internet videos demonstrating how everything I thought I knew about the world is a complete sham?

No Problemo


Esoteric Agenda:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139


Who Killed John O'Neill?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3857917663523144457

[Young_Apprentice]

No Problemo


Esoteric Agenda:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139


Who Killed John O'Neill?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3857917663523144457

:D

[Young_Apprentice]

Hi,

What conspiracy theories are we talking about, here, with Baldwin?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Just a couple of things I've found in the last few minutes:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060413.html

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2001/cbarchive_20010828.html

You don't have to read too many articles on Baldwin's site to realize that he's singularly obsessed with the conspiracy shit and he loves to tie it all in with his Christian fanaticism.

I agree with Ron Paul about the CFR/NAFTA, but that was never his main focus. And whereas RP's arguments against these globalist entities were economically grounded, CB's are all based on crazy religious mythology.

The Constitution Party's platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php


Check out their stance on pornography. The Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin believe in freedom as they see fit; that is, as it is dictated by their great god in the sky.

[moostraks]

Just a couple of things I've found in the last few minutes:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060413.html

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2001/cbarchive_20010828.html

You don't have to read too many articles on Baldwin's site to realize that he's singularly obsessed with the conspiracy shit and he loves to tie it all in with his Christian fanaticism.

I agree with Ron Paul about the CFR/NAFTA, but that was never his main focus. And whereas RP's arguments against these globalist entities were economically grounded, CB's are all based on crazy religious mythology.

The Constitution Party's platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php


Check out their stance on pornography. The Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin believe in freedom as they see fit; that is, as it is dictated by their great god in the sky.

Single issue porn voter who is cursing someone who has made public his choice of a candidate for POTUS. Stop idol worshipping. He had a press conference telling us to stop fighting over the lesser of two evils and make our own choice for a real candidate that supports liberty on the major 4 issue points. He then waited a grace period and endorses someone with similar social/political ideals that he feels in good conscience could make a difference in line with his ideals. If you disagree fine, but shredding him after all the hard work he has done to wake people up is totally uncalled for. :(

[haigh]

Hi,

What conspiracy theories are we talking about, here, with Baldwin?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0&NR=1

The problem is, it really does not matter whether there is a conspiracy or not, the JBS has not been able to establish more than a small support base with this campaign in fifty years. It's the definition of insanity to think it might be a catalyst for national change..

Their failure in the last fifty years teaches us a successful Liberty movement is more likely to be based on other motivating ideas like a commitment to the original intent of the constitution, libertarian philosophy, or disgust with the consistent incompetence of big government, or some combination.

Ron Paul has grown very adept at appealing to both those committed to a conspiratorial view of our government and those not committed to this idea. Notice how when Glenn Beck baits Ron Paul with some conspiracy comment, Dr. Paul knows not to take the bait.

[constituent]

yea, yea man.

you're the only one, seriously.


the campaign was a fart in a bottle, but rp's been rockin' it out for the last year and a half.

could things have been better?

yea.

that's life.


you bat a thousand everyday?

[runningdiz]

Am I the only one who does not care about Ron's endorsement of Baldwin? Neither Barr or Baldwin have a remote shot so why put all this effort into complaining about these candidates?

[Brassmouth]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

I fully agree with you. I could forgive Dr. Paul for not running third-party/independent, but since then he was successfully divided this movement and rendered us inconsequential. He should've endorsed Barr from the start, instead of foolishly pushing this "Vote Third Party" thing. Had he done that, the fatal press conference in which he invited socialists and theocrats would have never taken place, and this movement would still be united under the banner of liberty.

[Brassmouth]

"Young_Apprentice" need to be banned.

Not much for free speech are you? Disgusting...

[constituent]

I fully agree with you. I could forgive Dr. Paul for not running third-party/independent, but since then he was successfully divided this movement and rendered us inconsequential. He should've endorsed Barr from the start, instead of foolishly pushing this "Vote Third Party" thing. Had he done that, the fatal press conference in which he invited socialists and theocrats would have never taken place, and this movement would still be united under the banner of liberty.

barr shill.

[runningdiz]

I fully agree with you. I could forgive Dr. Paul for not running third-party/independent, but since then he was successfully divided this movement and rendered us inconsequential. He should've endorsed Barr from the start, instead of foolishly pushing this "Vote Third Party" thing. Had he done that, the fatal press conference in which he invited socialists and theocrats would have never taken place, and this movement would still be united under the banner of liberty.

Since when is our movement divided? If you have been around for awhile you will realize these things wash over in a few days and people return back to business and concentrate on things that matter AKA NOT worthless third party candidates who have no momentum, no grassroots and no money.... The election will be over in 2 months what will u do when both get two percent? I guess that ends our movement..

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Brassmouth]

barr shill.


Since when is our movement divided? If you have been around for awhile you will realize these things wash over in a few days and people return back to business and concentrate on things that matter AKA NOT worthless third party candidates who have no momentum, no grassroots and no money.... The election will be over in 2 months what will u do when both get two percent? I guess that ends our movement..

I am not endorsing Barr. Only an idiot would believe that he or any other TP candidate would win. I am simply stating that unless we are unified we are meaningless as a movement.

How is our movement not divided? Ever since the Barr fiasco people have been declaring him a CIA plant, a neocon, etc. Not only does that alienate the legit Barr supporters who should be our companions, it also led to the backing of Baldwin, a man with no credibility, obsessed with conspiracy (which, even if true, will not help our movement. We can change the system without wearing tinfoil hats and making the sheep think we're crazy), an obvious Christian fundamentalist, and with little to no grasp of economics (which personally is what attracted me most to Dr. Paul). In short, Baldwin is everything we denied being when Ron was our candidate. Now those of us still following Dr. Paul's lead turn around and endorse him? That is suicide...

[Mark]

The Libertarian Party leaders shunned Ron Paul from the beginning, and then expects us to support them.

Now some so-called anti-collective thinking "libertarians" want to curse to hell Ron for his individual choice.

Irony anyone?

edit: revised and removed the Barr is a neo-con shill part.

[CzargwaR]

I'm fine with Baldwin.

[Brassmouth]

neo-con shill

Case. In. Point.

[runningdiz]

I am not endorsing Barr. Only an idiot would believe that he or any other TP candidate would win. I am simply stating that unless we are unified we are meaningless as a movement.

How is our movement not divided? Ever since the Barr fiasco people have been declaring him a CIA plant, a neocon, etc. Not only does that alienate the legit Barr supporters who should be our companions, it also led to the backing of Baldwin, a man with no credibility, obsessed with conspiracy (which, even if true, will not help our movement. We can change the system without wearing tinfoil hats and making the sheep think we're crazy), an obvious Christian fundamentalist, and with little to no grasp of economics (which personally is what attracted me most to Dr. Paul). In short, Baldwin is everything we denied being when Ron was our candidate. Now those of us still following Dr. Paul's lead turn around and endorse him? That is suicide...

Once again I ask if you realize neither have a chance and realize neither have a credible grassroots or any momentum why care about all this garbage? It will all be over in less than two months!! Neither has the support or the passionate followers to cause any trouble in a few more weeks. Who cares if he knows nothing about politics if he wont be President. Who cares id bob barr is CIA and wont be president. Both will be just a blip on the radar screen and quickly forgotten about just like the last LP candidate ( i know i am butchering his name and idc) Bardiniklala? or the constitutional parties last candidate _________

[hotbrownsauce]

EDIT posted in wrong thread lol

[Maestro]

Since when is our movement divided? If you have been around for awhile you will realize these things wash over in a few days and people return back to business and concentrate on things that matter AKA NOT worthless third party candidates who have no momentum, no grassroots and no money.... The election will be over in 2 months what will u do when both get two percent? I guess that ends our movement..



Well said!

[hotbrownsauce]

No matter who Paul picks someone is going to step up and disagree. The only way we could have all won is if he was on the ballot Nov 5th. I think Chuck Baldwin and Barr are both worthy candidates and to Ron Paul bash based on his decision to vote for Chuck is something I would not do and think is wrong.

Ron Paul always upholds his values and principals since forever. Because Ron Paul can't put his support behind another candidate just like himself called Ron Paul2 we wont look at him the same.

come on!? what is that about. Just because you support Ron Paul doesn't mean you support who he votes for. You support Ron Paul's ideas not Chucks or Bob's just because he does. Ron Paul will always be Ron Paul for the same reasons we wanted to vote for him. Ron Paul didn't lose all his credibility and worthiness that we supported just because he personally decided to vote for Chuck and told everyone to vote for who they want.

Paul says "Vote for who you want if you want to change the status quo, I'm voting for Chuck."

Your ridiculous if you don't like Paul anymore because he's voting for Chuck.

I think Chuck or Baldwin would be a huge step in the right direction. You're all too narrow to say it is one or the other. GET A LIFE!

[klamath]

I am not endorsing Barr. Only an idiot would believe that he or any other TP candidate would win. I am simply stating that unless we are unified we are meaningless as a movement.

How is our movement not divided? Ever since the Barr fiasco people have been declaring him a CIA plant, a neocon, etc. Not only does that alienate the legit Barr supporters who should be our companions, it also led to the backing of Baldwin, a man with no credibility, obsessed with conspiracy (which, even if true, will not help our movement. We can change the system without wearing tinfoil hats and making the sheep think we're crazy), an obvious Christian fundamentalist, and with little to no grasp of economics (which personally is what attracted me most to Dr. Paul). In short, Baldwin is everything we denied being when Ron was our candidate. Now those of us still following Dr. Paul's lead turn around and endorse him? That is suicide...

Boy your 39 post count is showing itself. Barr has been called everyone of those names on this forum since the day he declared he was running for the libertarian party nomination. It didn't just start with the fiasco.

[angelatc]

Fuck you Ron Paul. I've spent the last year trying to convince people that you aren't crazy, then you fucking endorse theocrat/conspiracy theorist Chuck Baldwin. Fuck you Ron Paul; fuck you and your shitty judgment.

You should pick up the current copy of American Conservative. They talk about folks like you.

[heavenlyboy34]

According to Ballot Access News Barr is on 45 states and Baldwin is on 37. Where are you getting the contradictory?

There is no unifying Liberty candidate for POTUS this election so it will be good to see what Barr can do with a large segment of the Paul ranks going with Baldwin. The strong candidate for 2012 will be the one that can bring these two somewhat divergent forces together.

Baldwin's own site says that he is registered as either on the ballot or as write in in all states http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php. (I'm pretty sure that's all states...I didn't count them by hand :( too busy right now)

[angelatc]

Since when is our movement divided? If you have been around for awhile you will realize these things wash over in a few days and people return back to business and concentrate on things that matter...

I used to think that too, but the effect of the newsletters changed my mind.

[Mark]

Case. In. Point.

Okay, how's this? (I don't need to point out the neo-con obvious to make my point.)

-----------------------------

The Libertarian Party leaders shunned Ron Paul from the beginning, and then expects us to support them.

Now some so-called anti-collective thinking "libertarians" want to curse to hell Ron for his individual choice.

Irony anyone?

[zahirakids]

It is my understanding that RP is only able to stay in office because he is in the Republicrat party. He is a lifetime member of the LP. I don't get the sense that RP was vindictive. He saw the shinannigans Barr was up to, and rejected Barr for it. "Foolish choice" is a bit strong regarding Baldwin. I'm still undecided, but I've been reading on him, and he isn't so bad-I just don't agree with the religious aspect, like you. He's on more ballots than Barr now, so statistically, he's the most likely of the freedom oriented candidates to actually win.


Where did you get your information from. It looks like Baldwin is on the ballot in 36 states. arr is already on in 45 and will probably be on the ballot in 48 states. So your statement that aldwin is on more ballots then Barr is a blatant lie.

[Brassmouth]

Boy your 39 post count is showing itself. Barr has been called everyone of those names on this forum since the day he declared he was running for the libertarian party nomination. It didn't just start with the fiasco.

...wow another post count imbecile. I'll not dignify that with another response and just paste what I said in another thread by another poster who employs logical fallacies in their thinking:





Originally Posted by literatim View Post
...says the person with 40 posts who registered in February.
....replies the fool who assumes one must be registered to view the forum. Honestly my low post count and recent registration only indicate that until recently I agreed with the consensus on these forums, and saw no point in posting. It wasn't until the press conference that I was motivated to actively participate in discussion, because in my view the movement is going off on a destructive tangent.

Make no mistake, I've been a part of this movement since Dr. Paul first gained popularity in the beginning of his presidential bid. He introduced the philosophy of freedom to me, and for that I am eternally grateful.

To address your point, I am very well aware of the fact that there were brainless members of this forums spouting that rubbish before the press conference. However, the disease spread after the conference, and most of the Barr supporters dont bother coming around here anymore. That is what I was referring to.

[haigh]

Baldwin's own site says that he is registered as either on the ballot or as write in in all states http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php. (I'm pretty sure that's all states...I didn't count them by hand :( too busy right now)

I count 37 states where he will be On Ballot at that site. The write-in is of marginal value as it probably won't be tallied and reported during the election night results.

Advocates of small government will contribute more to the Liberty movement by going with Barr on those states where Baldwin has only write-in status.

[Brassmouth]

Okay, how's this? (I don't need to point out the neo-con obvious to make my point.)

I was simply remarking on the convenience of your post declaring Barr a neocon shill, right after I posted a proposition that people who do so only serve to alienate Barr supporters and further divide the movement.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sorry, but I don't judge atheists for their choices, so I must say all you clowns who outright HATE Chuck Baldwin just because he is a pastor and who now want to hate Ron Paul just because he likes Chuck Baldwin are prejudiced morons, and you deserve everything you get.

Chuck Baldwin, regardless of his former profession, has the exact same platform as Ron Paul, and the exact same policies as Ron Paul, pretty much word for word, and letter for letter.

I know Atheists who would vote for Baldwin over any body else running, because of his platform and his policies, and them I respect.

But you idiots, you who hate, outright hate Baldwin simply because he is an outspoken Christian, are bigots. You are prejudiced, and no better than KKK, white nationalists, black panthers, la raza, or bigoted Christians who hate Atheists.

How frelling hard is it to see that their platforms are identical? The only differences between the two, really, is age and job.

Honestly, you bigots who hate someone JUST because they are a Christian disgust me, and deserve no respect. Honestly, I believe it's bigots like you why we did not succede in 2008.

Notice: I did NOT say that we failed because of Atheists in the movement, but rather because of the BIGOTS in the movement who bear vile hatred towards someone just because they are an open and outspoken Christian, and you don't give a DAMN about their actual platform or positions on the issues.

Sorry, but you are as bad as the neocons. I don't accept bigots JUST because their bigotry happens to coincide with my goals. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot, regardless of whether they ally with me or not.

[Liberty or Death]

This Revolution must outgrow the Libertarian Party. I think the LP always wanted it to be all about building their party. Even though Barr is getting national press because of Ron Paul, the support didn't all fall into line with the libertarian party after Paul dropped out. This is why the LP is upset and attacks Ron Paul and constantly belittles the movement.

I really believe that the reason that the support didn't fall to the LP was because Barr is a sham of a candidate. After supporting Ron Paul, the Gold Standard, we can spot a sham.

What really makes Barr a more legitimate choice than Baldwin, ballot access in 5 more states?

Baldwin has showed that he really wants to be a part of this Revolution, Barr, other than being a total sham and walking around acting like he should be the legitimate heir of the Revolution, has done nothing but send his people to attack Ron Paul, plus we are all aware of his voting record.

Barr is on the ballot in my state. Baldwin is not.

Depending on how strong of a write in campaign there is for Baldwin, I'll probably write in Ron Paul.

[Mark]

I was simply remarking on the convenience of your post declaring Barr a neocon shill, right after I posted a proposition that people who do so only serve to alienate Barr supporters and further divide the movement.

For clarity's sake, not that it matters, but I started the post before reading yours.

For the record, I was an Independent for many years before joining the Republican Party so I could be a delegate, and I'm definitely not a neo-con. I can't stand Bush & Co, and never have.

================================================== ===========

Did you ever consider that it was the Libertarian Party who did the alienating by selecting Barr?
A lot of Libertarian regulars didn't like the choice either.

[klamath]

...wow another post count imbecile. I'll not dignify that with another response and just paste what I said in another thread by another poster who employs logical fallacies in their thinking:




To address your point, I am very well aware of the fact that there were brainless members of this forums spouting that rubbish before the press conference. However, the disease spread after the conference, and most of the Barr supporters dont bother coming around here anymore. That is what I was referring to.

I actually wasn't pulling postcount snobbery, but was surprised you thought it all started with the fiasco. A lot of people have left and gone back to their old haunts. Lots of democrats have gone to obama, lots of republicans have drifted off to McCain. It happens all the time with a losing campaign.

[NightOwl]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before....

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition....

So Ron Paul isn't an adult with the slightest grasp of politics? I can't believe the supposedly independent thinkers of this movement would use stupid MSM agitprop terms like "theocrat." He is obviously not a theocrat. He is antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-Constitution, and pro-states' rights. That makes him obviously the best choice.

[NightOwl]

I'm sorry, but I don't judge atheists for their choices, so I must say all you clowns who outright HATE Chuck Baldwin just because he is a pastor and who now want to hate Ron Paul just because he likes Chuck Baldwin are prejudiced morons, and you deserve everything you get.


Absolutely. These people are as small-minded and pathetic as the MSM and the mainstream parties they supposedly detest. Who knew we had this level of ignorance in our ranks, or such an inability to see the larger issues at stake? He's antiwar, pro-Fed, pro-Constitution, and pro-states' rights. Who else in this race is? Good grief!

[GunnyFreedom]

Fuck you Ron Paul. I've spent the last year trying to convince people that you aren't crazy, then you fucking endorse theocrat/conspiracy theorist Chuck Baldwin. Fuck you Ron Paul; fuck you and your shitty judgment.

Quad Erat Demonstratum. I have no problems with atheists at all, but I have a problem with bigots of any sort. I have as much of an issue with pro-Christian bigots as I do with anti-Christian bigots.

QED. Indeed.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Who knew we had this level of ignorance in our ranks, or such an inability to see the larger issues at stake?

I did.

[Brassmouth]

Chuck Baldwin, regardless of his former profession, has the exact same platform as Ron Paul, and the exact same policies as Ron Paul, pretty much word for word, and letter for letter.


How frelling hard is it to see that their platforms are identical? The only differences between the two, really, is age and job.


These are outright lies and you know it. Dr. Paul's platform included a sound understanding of economics and a consistent devotion to the principles of liberty. A single glance at the CP platform and what Baldwin has been saying will relieve any rational person of the notion you spew as truth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Quad Erat Demonstratum. I have no problems with atheists at all, but I have a problem with bigots of any sort. I have as much of an issue with pro-Christian bigots as I do with anti-Christian bigots.

QED. Indeed.

+1...bigotry of any sort does not jive with TRUE Libertarian values or RP values.

[Brassmouth]

Absolutely. These people are as small-minded and pathetic as the MSM and the mainstream parties they supposedly detest. Who knew we had this level of ignorance in our ranks, or such an inability to see the larger issues at stake? He's antiwar, pro-Fed, pro-Constitution, and pro-states' rights. Who else in this race is? Good grief!

He's also anti-self-ownership (supports the ban of prostitution), anti-separation-of church-and-state, and ignorant to the principles of economics professed by Dr. Paul.

[Deborah K]

He's also anti-self-ownership (supports the ban of prostitution), anti-separation-of church-and-state, and ignorant to the principles of economics professed by Dr. Paul.

Separation of church and state? What is your understanding SOCS, if I may ask.

[mitty]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

upset because paul didn't pick your boy? get over it. we've admired paul all this time for being an independent thinker, then when it goes against something you like you get mad. nice.

people here are ridiculous. we say we need forget about the popular choices and go with who is going to be best for the country. thats bullshit. people only mean that as long as everyone gets behind their candidate.paul isn't the one being foolish.

[Brassmouth]

Separation of church and state? What is your understanding SOCS, if I may ask.

The motivations behind his deviations with libertarianism and even the constitution are obvious. The man is a former pastor (not that being a pastor is a bad thing), so it is exceedingly simple to see where the foundations of his beliefs lie. His opposition to gay marriage and prostitution alone call into question the genuineness of his loyalty to the constitution and to individual liberty.

[JaylieWoW]

For what it's worth...

I'd suspected all along Dr. Paul was going to vote for Baldwin. Just because he made his choice public certainly does not obligate any of us to vote for Baldwin.

Possibly that was the point of the third party "unity" press conference.

Doesn't change a thing for me. Actually, given his own faith, I believe Baldwin was a natural (and probably easy choice) for Dr. Paul.

Furthermore, I can honestly say I would have been disappointed if he'd thrown his support to Barr. I know Barr is better known than the rest of the "third party" candidates, but does better known equate to better. Or, more correctly, more constitutional. Barr's past record is going to take some time for some people (including myself) to forgive.

And, I wouldn't really call Dr. Paul a "cult of personality" so much as I would say that those of us who have really been looking (and waiting) for the candidate with the PERFECT (or as near as it gets) voting record found what we were looking for in Dr. Paul. We knew we could trust him because he spent TWENTY + years PROVING he could be trusted. Let that sink in a little bit before you allow yourself to become too disappointed. Yes, it would seem a once in a lifetime chance for most of us.

For myself, I'd been leaning towards Baldwin. There are other writings by him I'd run across even before I first ran across Dr. Paul (back in November of 2006). Even though I'm not religious, I respect that he is a man of faith.

I did, however, make a promise to write in Ron Paul (more to myself than anything else). Someone had posted something about filing suit for having my vote thrown away (not counted) and it was actually something I'd considered before seeing it presented on these forums. It shouldn't matter if I don't vote for the candidates I'm presented with, my vote should STILL be counted. I think if we all wanted to show how strong we are united, this would be the way to do it AND get some people thinking about it. Just a thought...

[GunnyFreedom]

These are outright lies and you know it. Dr. Paul's platform included a sound understanding of economics and a consistent devotion to the principles of liberty. A single glance at the CP platform and what Baldwin has been saying will relieve any rational person of the notion you spew as truth.

And the GOP platform continues to claim honor an respect for the US Constitution, we see how well party platforms jibe with candidate platforms, no?

Calling the truth 'a lie' simply does not make it so, any more than the M$M calling RP a 'kook' makes THAT so.

Of course, we all know that in today's world it's impossible to have a candidate that is at odds with his party. :rolleyes:

Fact is that Chuck Baldwin's personal platform is word for word and letter for letter identical to RP's platform, and CB is in large part responsible for forcing the CP platform to reject gov't regulation of marriage.

Plus, CB worked some odd 80 hrs a week or more to help RP get elected, working single-handedly to dissuade the religious right away from the Huckster. Not that it had much effect against the Pat Robertsons etc.

But it is clear that you either bought the crap hook line and sinker, that CB is some kind of Theocrat, or are a fully cognizant perveyor of the agitprop agenda... In either case, you are a part of the problem, and not part of the solution. :)

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm disappointed in Dr. Paul for not recognizing that the LP candidate is the most realistic shot at making a statement to the mainstream press/the American people about our dissatisfaction with the 2 parties. The LP always surpasses the CP in votes

[Bman]

I really don’t know how to feel about this news. If it’s true, I’ll never regard Ron Paul with quite the same degree of admiration that I did before.

No one has shown more disrespect for Ron Paul than his own party. Yet, Dr. Paul continues to say that he will not abandon the GOP. Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference that few legitimate politicians would have attended, and that now leads Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin in a clearly vindictive manner? It's both childish and reckless.

I fully support the idea of lining up behind a single candidate and I’ve been pushing for that all along. But any adult who has even the slightest grasp of politics can recognize that Chuck Baldwin is a foolish choice. He might be a fine man, but he’s a religious fundamentalist who will only splinter this once diverse coalition. I think once the novelty of this idea wears off, there’s going to be a huge case of buyer’s remorse in this movement—Ron Paul’s endorsement or not.

For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.


Don't get your panties too much in a bunch. If he decides to personally support Chuck thats quite fine. Now is he asks us to use Chuck as the flag bearer for this movement then we have another situation all together. Plus lets wait to hear the man actually speak on the subject rather than listening to a post made by Jesse Benton. Who I've felt a little weirded out about since the whole Barr thing.

[AlexMerced]

get the rest of the story in this thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=157258


To expound on my thoughts on the Chuck Baldwin endorsement

It's smart considering the implied goal on Ron Paul, to make more headway on the powerful group, the evagenlicals. Whether you like them or not, he evangelicals are a powerful and almost mandatory group to have to have a winning coalition, Chuck Baldwin is the candidate to bring them into the fold.

Remember focus on the common ground which unites, not on the differences which divide, or this movement will fail.

[GunnyFreedom]

The motivations behind his deviations with libertarianism and even the constitution are obvious. The man is a former pastor (not that being a pastor is a bad thing), so it is exceedingly simple to see where the foundations of his beliefs lie. His opposition to gay marriage and prostitution alone call into question the genuineness of his loyalty to the constitution and to individual liberty.

Actually, the CP platform REJECTS any gov't regulation of marriage whatsoever, stating that it is a matter of Church, and NOT State. And furthermore, CB has never said ANY such thing as outlawing gay marriage or pornography. You are either repeating libellous propaganda, or creating it yourself. :)

[Brassmouth]

Actually, the CP platform REJECTS any gov't regulation of marriage whatsoever, stating that it is a matter of Church, and NOT State. And furthermore, CB has never said ANY such thing as outlawing gay marriage or pornography. You are either repeating libellous propaganda, or creating it yourself. :)

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.

[AlexMerced]

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.


your missing the point, read Ron Paul letter very carefully and read between the lies, it's quite clever.

[RickyJ]

Bob Barr makes a decision not to participate in a dog and pony press conference

It is easy to see you were never a real supporter of Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's press conference was an historic attack on the elite controlled two party system in America!

[Paulitical Correctness]

"Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."

Whichever way our dots end up connected is irrelevant, important thing is we are moving forward. Forget the POTUS, forget Ron Paul, forget Baldwin or any particular individual for that matter.

[Brassmouth]

your missing the point, read Ron Paul letter very carefully and read between the lies, it's quite clever.

Either your calling Dr. Paul a liar, or you cant type. Regardless, I'm not missing the point. The principles of individual liberty persist in my mind and in the minds of all true libertarians regardless of an inconsequential pastor trying to ride Paul's coattails. One can only hope this movement wakes back up and resumes it's path to restoring freedom to America, before it's too late...

[Dorfsmith]

This movement is so much bigger than Ron Paul. Who cares if he's supporting Chuck Baldwin? He's not giving us marching orders telling us to go out and wave Chuck Baldwin signs. Support the liberty candidate of your choice and encourage your friends to check into all the third party candidates. We're bigger than this. Why are we getting bogged down in this stuff again? I'm guilty of it too but from now on I'm going to try to focus on the big picture.

[GunnyFreedom]

You're twisting everything I say. And stop with the smiley face, you're just revealing your immaturity. I NEVER said anything referring to the CP platform's stance on gay marriage. I remarked upon Baldwin's opposition to gay marriage. And, like you so arrogantly stated, Baldwin does not align with his party in this respect.

So CB, as a Christian, personally believes gay marriage is wrong, yet believes that the gov't has no business regulating marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise; and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of gay marriage.

Likewise, Ron Paul, as a doctor, personally believes that drug use is wrong. Yet, he believes that the gov't has no business regulating what people can and can not consume, and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of drugs whatsoever.

The only difference between RP, whom you love, and CB, whom you hate, is the fact that CB was a pastor, and RP was a doctor.

Your hatred of him has NOTHING to do with his policies, platform, or positions--you hate him because he is an adamant, open, and professing Christian.

That's called 'bigotry.'


Furthermore, just because you falsely state that Baldwin's beliefs and positions align letter-to-letter with Dr. Paul's does not make it so. If it was, I never would've supported Dr. Paul in the first place. Baldwin's inconsistent devotion to liberty shows he only believes in freedom when it is convenient for him to do so (ie, when it aligns with his belief in an invisible man).

So...you say that if Baldwin has the same platform as RP, then the mere fact that Baldwin is a devout Christian and former Pastor means that as a result you would hate Ron Paul???

Sounds like the very definition of bigotry to me. In much the same way, ignorant racists during segregation not only hated black people, but likewise those who tolerated black people eating in their white cafeterias.


I commend Baldwin for his efforts during the Paul campaign, but simply put, Baldwin himself is tarnishing the movement with his thinly veiled attempts to impose his religion on others, under the banner of libertarianism.

Sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me. :)

[BLuegreengrey]

Your alone, Paul's record speaks for itself, few can.

[RickyJ]

Your alone, Paul's record speaks for itself, few can.

Yeah he is alone in his views that the Ron Paul press conference was a "dog and pony show." Even Bob Barr didn't say that about it. It seems to me Bob Barr is pissed that Ron Paul didn't have a press conference and endorse just him. He was going to be indirectly endorsing him if he would have just showed up for the press conference like he said he would. But his big ego got in the way and he decided he was much too good to share the stage with the likes of 9/11 truther Cynthia McKinney. His time is past, way past!

[qh4dotcom]

I was more disappointed when he endorsed the pork pig, pro-bridge-to-nowhere, warmonger Congressman Don Young from Alaska who happened to win the close race against his opponent by only 100+ votes...so thanks to RP's endorsement we are stuck with an incumbent pork pig who should have been thrown out of office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091804059.html?wpisrc=newsletter

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73468

I may not agree with Baldwin's theocracy, but he's an angel compared to Don Young.

[eric_cartman]

ron paul is my hero. ron paul has taught me so much about politics, economics, etc. how dare you criticize ron paul. he is wise beyond his years. what makes you think that you know what is best? trust ron paul, he is honest and true. if you don't support him, get out of here, we don't need you. ron paul has done so much for us all.... we would be nothing without him. he his great and he gives this nation hope.

[A. Havnes]

I said it before, and I'll say it again:


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 endorsed 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.

So, no, Baldwin isn't perfect. Unfortunately, we don't have a Ron Paul clone for the third party candidates, so we have to make due with what we have. If Dr. Paul says he's supporting Baldwin that's his business.

[topaz420]

No matter what Dr. Paul says, I'm writing Dr. Paul in for President of the United States.

[Brassmouth]

So CB, as a Christian, personally believes gay marriage is wrong, yet believes that the gov't has no business regulating marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise; and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of gay marriage.

Likewise, Ron Paul, as a doctor, personally believes that drug use is wrong. Yet, he believes that the gov't has no business regulating what people can and can not consume, and therefore would not support any sort of ban or regulation of drugs whatsoever.

The only difference between RP, whom you love, and CB, whom you hate, is the fact that CB was a pastor, and RP was a doctor.

Your hatred of him has NOTHING to do with his policies, platform, or positions--you hate him because he is an adamant, open, and professing Christian.

That's called 'bigotry.'

Instead of calling me a bigot and focusing on the religious aspect, why don't you actually debate me, and try your very hardest to act like an intellectual.

First off, gay marriage and drug use are completely different. Drug use can actually be harmful and lead to health problems and even death. As a doctor, RP obviously would not support drug use to his patients. Obviously, he believes in one's right to partake in these activities because of the principle of self-ownership and individual liberty.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a voluntary agreement between two individuals who love each other to spend their lives together. Show me where RP has said that he opposes gay marriage. We all know that he supports gay rights as a libertarian, but I have never heard RP denounce homosexuality as immoral, as opposed to Baldwin.

This has nothing to do with religion but belief in individual liberty. Gay marriage does not hurt those who partake in it, unlike drugs. It doesn't hurt anyone at all. A true libertarian has no ethical grounds to oppose gay marriage. If you think otherwise, then you are the bigot.



So...you say that if Baldwin has the same platform as RP, then the mere fact that Baldwin is a devout Christian and former Pastor means that as a result you would hate Ron Paul???

Sounds like the very definition of bigotry to me. In much the same way, ignorant racists during segregation not only hated black people, but likewise those who tolerated black people eating in their white cafeterias.

What I said was, if RP ran on the same platform that CB is running on now, I would not have supported him. Baldwin's platform is built on religious fundamentalism with accents of libertarianism. Dr. Paul's platform was liberty. No questions asked. No conditions. No exceptions.





Sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me. :)

So you would call the support of the infringement of the inherent right of self-ownership because of one's religious views a paranoid fantasy, when in fact that is exactly what Baldwin is proposing when he says he intends to pass obvious christian doctrine as law?

[GunnyFreedom]

Instead of calling me a bigot and focusing on the religious aspect, why don't you actually debate me, and try your very hardest to act like an intellectual.

Ahh, now that would be wonderful, if not absolutely spectacular! On has to wonder, however, exactly when do you intend to start following your own advice?

You see, and I am sure that you have heard this before, in the course of a debate, the burden of proof lies with the party making a positive claim.

Therefore, if party A says, "Chuck Baldwin is a Theocrat" and party B says "no he's not" then the burden of proof is on party A to prove that CB is a Theocrat.

All I'm seeing from you, and some others, in this thread, is a truckload of positive claims without a shred of evidence.

There are positive claims that CB is a Theocrat, that CB would make Gov't ban gay marriage, that CB would continue the war on drugs, that CB would replace evolution with creationism in schools, that CB would force every American to become a Christian, and so on ad nauseam.

Of course, all of these positive claims are never accompanied by evidence at all, much less proof. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to discern exactly why they are never accompanied by evidence -- it's because they are all lies. :)

But hey, why stand up for the truth when a good lie will help accomplish whatever agenda you seek to propose?


First off, gay marriage and drug use are completely different. Drug use can actually be harmful and lead to health problems and even death. As a doctor, RP obviously would not support drug use to his patients. Obviously, he believes in one's right to partake in these activities because of the principle of self-ownership and individual liberty.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a voluntary agreement between two individuals who love each other to spend their lives together. Show me where RP has said that he opposes gay marriage. We all know that he supports gay rights as a libertarian, but I have never heard RP denounce homosexuality as immoral, as opposed to Baldwin.

Again, were we following the rules of formal debate, then it would be important for me to point out that you have engaged in a scope fallacy here. Possibly a scope amphibole.

The scope of the first paragraph above, is limited the effect of RP's platform on the federal government, where the scope of the second paragraph includes personal feelings that CB himself believes are irrelevant to the US Government.

If you were to properly compare the two statements in the way of a formal debate, then the scope of either question would have to be the same.

However, since you do not seem to want to actually debate like an intellectual, despite your claim, I will accept your statements as they are presented.

Indeed, there is plenty of evidence which points to the harmfulness of drug use to individuals and society in general. You can agree or disagree with that evidence, but that evidence exists. Likewise, there is plenty of evidence that points to the harmfulness of homosexual activities to individuals and society. The subject is frankly irrelevant to me, so I have no motivation to examine this evidence with enough scrutiny to form an opinion as to it's veracity. I don't know if it's correct, and frankly i really don't care. Nevertheless, there are reams and reams of studies which state that there is a significantly higher incidence of STD's amongst homosexual populations, that there is a higher incidence of psychological problems amongst children raised within homosexual populations, that gay relationships are statistically more unstable than heterosexual relationships etc etc etc.

Therefore, your claim to the effect that the situations are different because one is harmful and the other is not, is groundless, and in ignorance of however many studies that have been published to the contrary.



Men Who Have Sex with Men and HIV in Vietnam: A ReviewAuthor(s): Donn Colby 1 | Nghia Huu Cao 2 | Serge Doussantousse 3
doi: 10.1521/aeap.16.1.45.27722

Print ISSN: 0899-9546
Volume: 16 | Issue: 1: Special issue HIV Prevention for Asian and Pacific Islander Men Who Have Sex With Men: Identifying Needs for the Asia Pacific Region
Cover date: February 2004
Page(s): 45-54

Abstract

Men who have sex with men (MSM) in Vietnam's urban centers are increasing in numbers and visibility. Although limited to a few surveys, the available data on MSM in Vietnam show that they are at increased risk for HIV infection due to high numbers of sexual partners, high rates of unsafe sex, and inconsistent condom use. There are significant numbers of male sex workers in Vietnam and these men are also at high risk for HIV infection. The lack of data on HIV prevalence among MSM and the fact that the media and public health prevention programs ignore MSM as a population at risk leads many MSM to mistakenly believe that their risk for HIV is low. The low perception of risk, combined with inadequate knowledge, may make MSM less likely to actively protect themselves from HIV infection. More research is needed on current behavior and HIV prevalence among MSM and male sex workers in Vietnam. MSM in Vietnam's larger cities could easily be targeted for prevention using peer educators to decrease their risk for HIV infection.


Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review by George Rekers and Mark Kilgus, [illuminates the flaws of the leading social science studies on homosexual parenting and child development that are relied upon by courts, legislators, and lawyers in advocating homosexual adoption of children.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF


Corporate Resource Council, The Health Risks of Gay Sex

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf


Homosexuality is not a medical or psychiatric disorder but is a state associated with an increased risk of certain medical conditions. Homosexuality has long been recognized both in human and animal populations. Despite the relative frequency of homosexuality, it remains misunderstood and controversial to much of society. Homosexual individuals who choose members of their own sex for sexual relations and domestic partnerships are often targets of prejudice and may even be discriminated against by health care professionals.

http://www.emedicine.com/Med/topic3359.htm

AGAIN - I am not commenting on the veracity of the above formal studies, simply on your willingness to ignore evidence which does not suit you. If your entire point about the alleged difference between Dr. Paul's stance on drug use vs Gov't regulation and Chuck Baldwin's stance on Gay marriage vs Gov't regulation is that one can be proven harmful while the other cannot, then your argument fails on the evidence presented.

But to go still further, Dr Paul, being a medical doctor, frames his opinions (such as the one regarding drugs being harmful, but that government regulation is improper) is very analogous to Chuck Baldwin, being a Christian Pastor, believing that gay marriage is immoral; but that government regulation is improper. BOTH issues strike at the core of their respective professions.


This has nothing to do with religion but belief in individual liberty. Gay marriage does not hurt those who partake in it, unlike drugs. It doesn't hurt anyone at all. A true libertarian has no ethical grounds to oppose gay marriage. If you think otherwise, then you are the bigot.

No, I am not the one carrying around a double-standard. I could care less about gay marriage, and I lobbied my own state and federal representatives to reject any legislation to define marriage. In fact, I lobbied my state and federal representatives to REPEAL any and all existing laws regarding marriage at all -- including tax benefits for married vs single persons, and state recognition of marriage at all.

A 'true libertarian' as you like to say, would not dictate to their fellow man what they are allowed to believe is right and wrong.

I might...oh, I dunno, believe that the color turquoise is wrong, for instance. Maybe I'm just halfway insane and believe that turquoise is the color of evil or some such nonsense. So one day I run for President, and I state that "While I believe that turquoise is the color of pure evil, I believe that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of American liberty to ban the color turquoise from our shores. If you want to wear that color, that's on you, but I want no part of it." Does that make me evil? Does that make me less of a 'libertarian' in your eyes?

A libertarian, by definition, is somebody who does not seek to impose their authority upon others by way of limiting their liberty. A libertarian is NOT defined...ore un-defined, by what they personally think. I have met libertarians who believe that the moon landing was staged, and that we are all idiots for believing otherwise. That doesn't make them any less of a libertarian, now does it? I have even met libertarians who believe that Dick Cheney ran the jets into the twin towers by remote control, personally. Does THAT make them any less of a libertarian?

Once again you are engaging in the art of logical fallacy. You are shifting the definition of libertarianism from being the lack of imposing authoritarianism against the liberty of others, into some bizarre dictate on what people are or are not allowed to THINK.

Does a personal belief that the Gold Standard would make for a more stable economy violate the tenants of libertarianism, or is that one of the beliefs that you choose to allow libertarians to hold? :)


What I said was, if RP ran on the same platform that CB is running on now, I would not have supported him. Baldwin's platform is built on religious fundamentalism with accents of libertarianism. Dr. Paul's platform was liberty. No questions asked. No conditions. No exceptions.

Actually, you are wrong on several counts here. First, Dr. Paul's platform was NOT "liberty. No questions asked. No conditions. No exceptions." it was THE CONSTITUTION, No questions asked. No conditions. No exceptions.

Secondly, Chuck Baldwin's platform is not based on "religious fundamentalism with accents of libertarianism." it is based wholly and entirely on the US CONSTITUTION. Again, you are making a positive claim here without supporting evidence. Given that you are making the positive claim, the burden of proof here is on you to support your allegation.

And finally, Ron Paul ran on the exact same identical platform as Chuck Baldwin now runs on today.

With regard to education, Chuck does NOT intend to dictate that creationism must replace evolution -- instead he states that:



Since the Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority over Education, the 10th Amendment applies, which sets forth:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education will be abolished under a Chuck Baldwin Administration, and I will work to have all federal legislation related to education repealed.

http://baldwin08.com/Issue-The_Education_of_Young_Americans.cfm



So you would call the support of the infringement of the inherent right of self-ownership because of one's religious views a paranoid fantasy, when in fact that is exactly what Baldwin is proposing when he says he intends to pass obvious christian doctrine as law?

Again, you are making the positive claim without providing evidence. You do this A LOT, and yet you have asked that we engage in proper intellectual debate.

Can you name one Christian doctrine which Chuck Baldwin has proposed as law? I mean, forgetting for the moment that it's the legislative branch that actually makes law, and not the executive branch; can you provide a reference to even one single "church doctrine" which Chuck Baldwin intends to legislate from the Oval Office? :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

This movement is so much bigger than Ron Paul. Who cares if he's supporting Chuck Baldwin? He's not giving us marching orders telling us to go out and wave Chuck Baldwin signs. Support the liberty candidate of your choice and encourage your friends to check into all the third party candidates. We're bigger than this. Why are we getting bogged down in this stuff again? I'm guilty of it too but from now on I'm going to try to focus on the big picture.

Hear here! Just to clarify - I am NOT trying to get people to vote for Chuck Baldwin. Heck, I can't even vote for him myself, he's not even a write-in in NC. I'll probably vomit into the nearest trashcan and then record my vote for Barr, just to register a numerical protest against the big 2. It's honestly the only choice I have in NC. At least, until I get elected to the NC House and draft legislation to change the law. ;)

All I am combatting here is the lies and the hypocrisy surrounding Chuck currently. If someone can actually point to something he says he wants to do and state that they will not support him because they disagree with that, I say, more power to you! I want everyone to vote their conscience.

But I have had it up to my forehead with all the lies and propaganda. We've seen enough of that crap directed against Ron Paul that I think we should be above using such filthy techniques to advance some kind of personal agenda.

Chuck Baldwin, like him or not, is a HUGE friend of the liberty movement. Support him or don't support im -- whatever you choose. But please, for goodness sakes people DO NOT take a page from the M$M book of lies and propaganda to attack him.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm disappointed in Dr. Paul for not recognizing that the LP candidate is the most realistic shot at making a statement to the mainstream press/the American people about our dissatisfaction with the 2 parties. The LP always surpasses the CP in votes

Whereas I would have been disappointed had Dr Paul chosen vote according to the 'horserace' method rather than voting according to his principles. :)

"Barr will get more votes than Baldwin, therefore I will vote for Barr" {EQUALS} "McCain will get more votes than Paul, therefore I will vote for McCain"

IMHO.

[GunnyFreedom]

+1...bigotry of any sort does not jive with TRUE Libertarian values or RP values.

I thought it was especially ironic how this fella thinks that he gets to dictate what personal opinions are or are not 'libertarian' when the very definition of libertarian means that we should not be dictating anything to anybody at all! :eek:

I mean, REALLY! I could just have easily said, "If you think sex with chickens is immoral, then you can't be a libertarian!!!"

I mean, am I the only one who sees the ironic hypocrisy in such a statement??? :confused:

[BuddyRey]

My perspective on Baldwin:

I don't have anything against Chuck Baldwin for being a Christian...especially since I'm one myself.

What I have a problem with is that he seems not to have any compunctions about enforcing his personal beliefs on others.

Ron Paul is a devout Christian. Chuck Baldwin is a devout Christian. But that is where their similarities end, ideologically.

[Mark]

Reality check - we're on the precipice of economic Armageddon here among other disasters.

Isn't there anything more important we can find to do than argue on the Internet?

[freelance]

I gotta say that I'm not into this SuperChristian(tm) thing at all, but I've never gotten that feeling from Chuck Baldwin. I may actually vote for him. No, I do not like the theological bent of the Constitution party. If they would remove all that religiosity crap from their platform, I'd join their party. I'm just not for mixing state and church. I don't want to hear about politics from my church, and I sure don't want to hear about religion from my government. It's sort of like drinking and driving. I had enough common sense to realize that those two activities didn't mix--at least for me--long before MADD and the state made an issue out of it.

That said, RP decided on a candidate. That's his right as an American citizen. You don't have to like it, but that's his privilege and his choice. We have the same privilege and choice to make for OURSELVES.

Why can't we think for ourselves? It seems that some believe that we must all think and do in lockstep with Ron Paul. We don't have to check our brains at the door to support Ron Paul.


ron paul is my hero. ron paul has taught me so much about politics, economics, etc. how dare you criticize ron paul. he is wise beyond his years. what makes you think that you know what is best? trust ron paul, he is honest and true. if you don't support him, get out of here, we don't need you. ron paul has done so much for us all.... we would be nothing without him. he his great and he gives this nation hope.

Thank you for supplying a perfect illustration! Most of what you said is true, even through the daze of a kool-aid hangover, but that does not mean that you have to vote Chuck Baldwin in order to support Ron Paul. Support does not equate to giving away your vote to a hero.

[GunnyFreedom]

My perspective on Baldwin:

I don't have anything against Chuck Baldwin for being a Christian...especially since I'm one myself.

What I have a problem with is that he seems not to have any compunctions about enforcing his personal beliefs on others.

Ron Paul is a devout Christian. Chuck Baldwin is a devout Christian. But that is where their similarities end, ideologically.

I have never seen CB attempting to "enforc[e] his personal beliefs on others," but I have seen a lot of people who don't like him CLAIM that he attempts to "enforc[e] his personal beliefs on others." Can you provide an example of this behavior?

[GunnyFreedom]

Reality check - we're on the precipice of economic Armageddon here among other disasters.

Isn't there anything more important we can find to do than argue on the Internet?

Well, yes, but at 4-5AM, I don't think canvassing is all that great of an idea, nor does it seem that holding a sign on Capitol Blvd would be all that effective at the moment.

I wouldn't mind going on a signbomb for an end-the-fed campagn in the wee hours, but I'd need signs to bomb with. ;-)

PS - Mark, what CD do you live in? I need a Raleigh/Wake member of CD 2 for my Wake Co C4L contact...

[GunnyFreedom]

I gotta say that I'm not into this SuperChristian(tm) thing at all, but I've never gotten that feeling from Chuck Baldwin. I may actually vote for him. No, I do not like the theological bent of the Constitution party. If they would remove all that religiosity crap from their platform, I'd join their party. I'm just not for mixing state and church. I don't want to hear about politics from my church, and I sure don't want to hear about religion from my government. It's sort of like drinking and driving. I had enough common sense to realize that those two activities didn't mix--at least for me--long before MADD and the state made an issue out of it.

Likewise, I like CB but dislike the CP. And I like the LP but dislike BB.

I do have to say though that the CP platform is WAY better than it was 4 years ago!!!! I am a Christian myself, but the thought of Gov't legislating doctrine frankly disgusts me beyond measure. Maybe in another 4 years the CP will remove the REST of theocratic nonsense from their platform.

To me, I honestly believe that mixing church and state does more harm to the church than it does to the state, but that it severely damages both in any case.

[Mark]

Well, yes, but at 4-5AM, I don't think canvassing is all that great of an idea, nor does it seem that holding a sign on Capitol Blvd would be all that effective at the moment.

I wouldn't mind going on a signbomb for an end-the-fed campagn in the wee hours, but I'd need signs to bomb with. ;-)

PS - Mark, what CD do you live in? I need a Raleigh/Wake member of CD 2 for my Wake Co C4L contact...

lol :D:D:D touche' -

letters/emails to Congress can be written and sent though.. we need to flood Washington

Scroll down to the "Action Alert!" section for Congressional contact info: http://thefreedomrevolution.com/home

=========

I'm in CD 13

[GunnyFreedom]

lol :D:D:D touche' -

letters/emails to Congress can be written and sent though.. we need to flood Washington

Scroll down to the "Action Alert!" section for Congressional contact info: http://thefreedomrevolution.com/home

Good show! I highly reccommend this for everyone. :)




=========

I'm in CD 13


Hmmmm - I don't know that we even have a District coordinator in CD 13 yet. If you are interested in helping w/ the C4L going into the 2009 convention cycle, maybe contact garyhardee@carolina.rr.com (Gary Hardee) and see if there is a POC in CD-13 yet, and if not, if he needs one. ;)

[constituent]

The principles of individual liberty persist in my mind and in the minds of all true libertarians

Well... except for health freedom of course.

How can you say this garbage knowing of Barr's support for plan Colombia?



One can only hope this movement wakes back up and resumes it's path to restoring freedom to America, before it's too late...

LoL, through the LP?

The LP is a gaggle of wankers and jerks patting themselves on the back.

I'm not certain what supporting the LP in any capacity does to "restore freedom to America."

What a joke.

[constituent]

First off, gay marriage and drug use are completely different. Drug use can actually be harmful and lead to health problems and even death.

Yea, I'd kind of pegged you as that sort.

So you do support full decriminalization, correct?

[pacelli]

...wow another post count imbecile. I'll not dignify that with another response and just paste what I said in another thread by another poster who employs logical fallacies in their thinking:




To address your point, I am very well aware of the fact that there were brainless members of this forums spouting that rubbish before the press conference. However, the disease spread after the conference, and most of the Barr supporters dont bother coming around here anymore. That is what I was referring to.

Post count means jack squat. Armchair patriots tend to use the argument that post count somehow correlates with dedication to the movement. Luckily and thankfully, the liberty movement is much bigger than the active users at Ron Paul Forums. Keep active and don't let them discourage you.

[ceakins]

Single issue porn voter who is cursing someone who has made public his choice of a candidate for POTUS. Stop idol worshipping. He had a press conference telling us to stop fighting over the lesser of two evils and make our own choice for a real candidate that supports liberty on the major 4 issue points. He then waited a grace period and endorses someone with similar social/political ideals that he feels in good conscience could make a difference in line with his ideals. If you disagree fine, but shredding him after all the hard work he has done to wake people up is totally uncalled for. :(


It's completely called for. Chuck Baldwin is still evil.

[ceakins]

barr shill.

What does that make you? He is entitled to his opinion, and I agree with it. When I read what RP wrote, I had the sudden urge to rip down my rp signs and tear off my bumper stickers, and write a letter demanding my donation back. The only shill here is you.

[reduen]

I am more proud of the good Dr. Paul than ever.....:cool:

[SLSteven]

Am I the only one who is disappointed with Dr. Paul?

Be disappointed. Be angry. Just vote third party!

[ceakins]

ron paul is my hero. ron paul has taught me so much about politics, economics, etc. how dare you criticize ron paul. he is wise beyond his years. what makes you think that you know what is best? trust ron paul, he is honest and true. if you don't support him, get out of here, we don't need you. ron paul has done so much for us all.... we would be nothing without him. he his great and he gives this nation hope.


Wow, you're a koolaid drinker aren't you.

[constituent]

He is entitled to his opinion,

lol, entitlements.



When I read what RP wrote, I had the sudden urge to rip down my rp signs and tear off my bumper stickers, and write a letter demanding my donation back.

Then what are you doing on RON PAUL forums?



The only shill here is you

On whose behalf do you reckon i'm shilling?

Kindly back up the accusation w/ referenced posts, or stfu.

[ceakins]

lol, then what are you doing on RON PAUL forums?

Look at my picture, I said urge. If people acted on every urge they had, there would be a lot of dead people, that's what separates us from animals. It made my angry at the time. So what are you doing on the Ron Paul forums besides acting like a troll?

[constituent]

Look at my picture, I said urge. If people acted on every urge they had, there would be a lot of dead people, that's what separates us from animals. It made my angry at the time. So what are you doing on the Ron Paul forums besides acting like a troll?

well, i'm pushing this little project called the slave uprising.

again, what are you doing?

and how am i acting like a troll?

again, kindly back up your statements w/ referenced posts, or stfu.

[ceakins]

Look at my picture, I said urge. If people acted on every urge they had, there would be a lot of dead people, that's what separates us from animals. It made my angry at the time. So what are you doing on the Ron Paul forums besides acting like a troll?

Take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

[constituent]

Take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

you rock


http://www.nicholasjdanton.supanet.com/clappingPlanetMercury.jpg

[acptulsa]

I think Dr. Paul had plenty of legitimate reasons for endorsing Baldwin. I agree with him and I applaud him. But I'm glad the MSM and TPTB are gleaning false confidence from all this.

Constituent, I know what your avatar is. Used to have one just like it, only in red. Are you really that old?!

[constituent]

Constituent, I know what your avatar is. Used to have one just like it, only in red. Are you really that old?!

26.

I mix records (spin)/play computer though.

[LibertyInJeopardy]

I'm not disappointed. I always saw Chuck Baldwin being much more involved and in attendance at Ron Paul related events.

I'll still be researching Baldwin and others on my own prior to making a final decision, but I can definitely see Baldwin being a person who earned the endorsement whereas Barr is just someone who's head got way too big to follow someone else's lead even for a little bit.

[acptulsa]

I'll still be researching Baldwin and others on my own prior to making a final decision, but I can definitely see Baldwin being a person who earned the endorsement whereas Barr is just someone who's head got way too big to follow someone else's lead even for a little bit.

I feel that way about Barr also. And I think we've seen enough of that crap in the White House. Haven't we?

[spacehabitats]

You assume that Dr. Paul made his choice out of spite.
Maybe it is because he truly believes that Chuck Baldwin is the better candidate.

Calling his press conference a "dog and pony show" is an unfair characterization;
and the implication that it was somehow beneath the dignity of a politician like Bob Barr is simply ridiculous.

(Have you ever been to any political convention?)

Ron Paul does not want us to abandon the GOP for the very practical reason that this is the best, most practical option available to us.

[ceakins]

Chuck Baldwin Interview on the new american, things I would like to point out, in his own words:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351-countering-for-the-constitution

The New American: Let's begin with a very basic question: why are you running for president?
Chuck Baldwin: I was asked to put my name in nomination by members of the Constitution Party and after a lot of thought and prayer, I decided to do that. At the convention, the delegates selected me by 74 percent to 24 percent over Dr. Alan Keyes and so, obviously, I believe that I am here by the providence of God.
TNA: By what or whose providence, then, are the other candidates in the race?
Baldwin: Well, I'll let them decide that for themselves.

TNA: Should we pull out of all the countries where we have troops stationed? I believe the number is 130.
Baldwin: For the most part, yes, though I would hesitate to say absolutely every place. I would need to analyze all those places, but the vast majority of our foreign bases where American troops are stationed, I would close and bring the troops home.

TNA: How would you secure the border?
Baldwin: I would use whatever force is necessary. Our Border Patrol and Customs people are severely outgunned, outmanned, and outequipped. I was shocked when I was on the border to discover that our Border Patrol people do not even have night-vision equipment. They don't have GPS equipment. They're under constant attack from drug traffickers, gang members, and drug dealers who are often equipped with fully automatic weapons. However bad you think it is on the border, it's 10 times worse than that. And George W. Bush takes National Guard troops from America, and he sends them to Iraq and asks them to guard the borders of Iraq. And he leaves American borders wide open. That is absolutely insane as far as I'm concerned.

The Reason I point this one out is because I don't disagree but because they have started suspicionless checkpoints well with in my state, in fact 40 miles from my house, and if they are so out manned maybe they should actually be patrolling the border instead of setting up checkpoints to stop all law abiding citizens.


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.

TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. That's why I'm not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has supported the Patriot Act. Of course, he's said he has serious problems with that now. I opposed it from the beginning and I would seek to eliminate the Patriot Act if I were president.





So if you want a presidential candidate that would cram his personal beliefs down your throat then Baldwin is your man. Had Ron Paul had this same philosophy I would have never supported him.

[acptulsa]

So if you want a presidential candidate that would cram his personal beliefs down your throat then Baldwin is your man. Had Ron Paul had this same philosophy I would have never supported him.

I believe this is an overstatement, and I don't see anything you quoted that changes my mind. I think this interview makes him look less likely to shove beliefs down my throat than Barr. I still consider gay marriage a non-issue. I think insurance companies should have the good grace to allow any customer to get one other person on their policy and that tax breaks and/or tax penalties for married persons should go with most of the rest of the tax code, thus solving the meat of that problem.

The CP isn't perfect, but Baldwin (like Paul) is better than his party and is good enough to vote for. So good, in fact, I wish he could win. He'd certainly be the best president in my lifetime, and I've survived the last nine.

[ceakins]

I believe this is an overstatement, and I don't see anything you quoted that changes my mind. I think this interview makes him look less likely to shove beliefs down my throat than Barr. I still consider gay marriage a non-issue. I think insurance companies should have the good grace to allow any customer to get one other person on their policy and that tax breaks and/or tax penalties for married persons should go with most of the rest of the tax code, thus solving the meat of that problem.

The CP isn't perfect, but Baldwin (like Paul) is better than his party and is good enough to vote for. So good, in fact, I wish he could win. He'd certainly be the best president in my lifetime, and I've survived the last nine.

Not an overstatement. What current president that is in the white house thought the same thing about having providence from god? You're just too blinded by your devotion to Ron Paul to see through the tree's. I'm not saying RP is evil, I just disagree with his choice, and am disappointed. Chuck Baldwin's ideals do not match up to what I voted for in Ron Paul.

[LibertyInJeopardy]

All of Chuck Baldwin's life points to his religion. Okay fine. Most/many of the founding fathers talked the way he does about God and providence, etc. I am still looking for evidence that he would somehow enforce christianity as a political policy or promote it while acting as president.

I'm atheist. Don't know what that means to him, but if there's any bit of evidence that belief in any religion (or not) other than christianity makes a person lesser than a christian in his eyes, I won't support him.

So far though I'm not seeing any evidence of that, so his christianity makes him no lesser a candidate in my eyes.

[acptulsa]

Not an overstatement. What current president that is in the white house thought the same thing about having providence from god?

There is only one current president that is in the White House, and he has certainly made noises to that effect. So have his daddy and every other Republican president in my lifetime--and Jimmy Carter to boot.

[ceakins]

There is only one current president that is in the White House, and he has certainly made noises to that effect. So have his daddy and every other Republican president in my lifetime--and Jimmy Carter to boot.

Has Ron Paul? I haven't seen him do it. This guy isn't Ron Paul or even close.

[constituent]

Has Ron Paul? I haven't seen him do it. This guy isn't Ron Paul or even close.

who is?

i guess the real question here is, "what would you have had him do?"

[acptulsa]

who is?

i guess the real question here is, "what would you have had him do?"

I think the real question is, who better for us to rally 'round to get a third party noticed and show people that they are as viable as we say they are? Barr? One of the socialists?

I say Baldwin is far, far better than either McCain or Obama...

[ceakins]

who is?

i guess the real question here is, "what would you have had him do?"

I dunno maybe unite everyone under one libertarian candidate, instead of causing this splintering of the group. His press conference did cause that.

[ceakins]

I think the real question is, who better for us to rally 'round to get a third party noticed and show people that they are as viable as we say they are? Barr? One of the socialists?

I say Baldwin is far, far better than either McCain or Obama...

But he's not far better than Barr. Just because he's the 3rd less evil doesn't make him a better person to vote for.

[constituent]

I dunno maybe unite everyone under one libertarian candidate, instead of causing this splintering of the group. His press conference did cause that.

ok, so the crux of the matter is that you are upset that he didn't get behind bob barr?

[ceakins]

ok, so the crux of the matter is that you are upset that he didn't get behind bob barr?

No pay attention, he didn't endorse a libertarian candidate, there were other people running under the libertarian flag, barr wasn't the only one. Hell I'd choose an independent. Baldwin is so far to the right compared to RP, I don't understand the endorsement.

[acptulsa]

I dunno maybe unite everyone under one libertarian candidate, instead of causing this splintering of the group. His press conference did cause that.

His press conference wasn't aimed at "the group." His press conference was trying to get lots of other people as interested in abandoning the two most crooked parties as we are.

[gls]

But he's not far better than Barr.

Did Chuck Baldwin support a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocents killed, well at the same time only exacerbating the terrorist threat? I'm still waiting for Barr to call for a timetable to bring the troops home; a position so mainstream that even Obama has adopted it. I guess I shouldn't expect that from someone who praised Bush, saying that the surge "is working".

How many non-violent drug users has Chuck Baldwin been directly responsible for putting in a government cage? Oh sure, Barr now claims that he is against the federal war on drugs, while at the same time calling for increased intervention in South America to fight "narco-terrorists".

Yeah, I think Ron Paul made the right choice.

[constituent]

No pay attention, he didn't endorse a libertarian candidate, there were other people running under the libertarian flag, barr wasn't the only one.

who else did the LP nominate?

[ceakins]

Did Chuck Baldwin support a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocents killed, well at the same time only exacerbating the terrorist threat? I'm still waiting for Barr to call for a timetable to bring the troops home; a position so mainstream that even Obama has adopted it. I guess I shouldn't expect that from someone who praised Bush, saying that the surge "is working".

How many non-violent drug users has Chuck Baldwin been directly responsible for putting in a government cage? Oh sure, Barr now claims that he is against the federal war on drugs, while at the same time calling for increased intervention in South America to fight "narco-terrorists".

Yeah, I think Ron Paul made the right choice.

What the hell, are you really this blind? Chuck Baldwin supports going after narco terrorist, he even said so in the interview I quoted.

[gls]

What the hell, are you really this blind? Chuck Baldwin supports going after narco terrorist, he even said so in the interview I quoted.

I read it and didn't see anything about the use of federal agencies to engage in unconstitutional intervention in sovereign countries, a position that Barr advocates.

Oh, and Baldwin has never claimed to be a "libertarian". Barr likes to pretend he is one, even though he doesn't believe in individual liberty or the non-aggression pact. Just like he likes to pretend he's morally superior to everyone, even though he's on his third wife and paid to have one of his kids killed.

Also, I see you skipped over the part about the Iraq war. What is Barr's position, anyway? As far as I can tell he hasn't made any solid commitments to leave; but he sure has fooled a lot of people with his verbose obfuscating on the subject.

[ceakins]

I read it and didn't see anything about the use of federal agencies to engage in unconstitutional intervention in sovereign countries, a position that Barr advocates.

Oh, and Baldwin has never claimed to be a "libertarian". Barr likes to pretend he is one, even though he doesn't believe in individual liberty or the non-aggression pact. Just like he likes to pretend he's morally superior to everyone, even though he's on his third wife and paid to have one of his kids killed.

Also, I see you skipped over the part about the Iraq war. What is Barr's position, anyway? As far as I can tell he hasn't made any solid commitments to leave; but he sure has fooled a lot of people with his verbose obfuscating on the subject.

Here you go I suggest you stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking.

"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."

Bob Barr on the Iraq War:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/iraq-war/

" The invasion and occupation of Iraq were two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Every day that the occupation in Iraq continues without a withdrawal plan is a day that more American blood and treasure (some $400 million a day) is needlessly wasted.

Unlike Republicans, who are calling for essentially permanent bases in Iraq, and Democrats, who have done nothing to counter Republican calls for an indefinite occupation, I would put in place plans for withdrawal without undue delay. While I support an exit from Iraq as quickly as possible, I would not publicly announce a timetable to our adversaries. However, as President, I would begin to immediately and significantly begin to reduce both the military and the economic security blanket we are providing the government.

The Iraqi government has come to rely too heavily on American forces to maintain control of its country, and our U.S. taxpayer dollars to artificially support its economy. A continued U.S. presence in Iraq emboldens both insurgents and terrorists, and discourages the Iraqi government from taking control of promoting peace and prosperity in Iraq. "

[gls]

Bob Barr, the man who voted for the war and less than a year ago praised Bush for the surge, which "is working", is unwilling to make a firm commitment to bringing the troops home. Why wouldn't we trust him? Oh...right...

BTW, has Barr's PAC given any money to neocons this week, or is that money going to his own firm for "consulting" fees instead?

[acptulsa]

If the government of a sovereign nation were to ask the United States for help in any way, I, too, would think it worthy of consideration. Especially an ally, but any nation. After all, friends are made, not born.

[ceakins]

Bob Barr, the man who voted for the war and less than a year ago praised Bush for the surge, which "is working", is unwilling to make a firm commitment to bringing the troops home. Why wouldn't we trust him? Oh...right...

BTW, has Barr's PAC given any money to neocons this week, or is that money going to his own firm for "consulting" fees instead?


Hello McFly, is there anyone in your head, I just gave you the resources on Barrs position on Iraq and you've completely ignored it.

[mconder]

Is there any difference to those who would vote for Baldwin (or anyone) if told by Paul?

Not to me. I have voted Constitution Party sinse it's inception and will continue to do so now that Ron Paul is not a choice. I am re-registering Constitution Party today.