PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul endorses Chuck




orafi
09-22-2008, 08:25 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023001.html

Charles Wilson
09-22-2008, 08:28 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023001.html

Excellent choice! Me too:D

CptnRsk
09-23-2008, 05:35 PM
Im game. Someone put something together that will capture the highlights of Chuck, and my family and I will pass them out. The McCain Palin signs are going up big time here and I think its simply because they are all looking for the lesser of two evils as programmed.

We need a campaign that opens peoples minds and gets them to start thinking critical for themselves again.

God Bless

robo1415
09-23-2008, 09:43 PM
Now that Ron has officially endorsed someone,it is time to act!

1836
09-24-2008, 12:58 AM
DAMN. Not that I disagree with Chuck Baldwin on most issues, and I think this is good because the CP may be more worthwhile than the LP.

Unfortunately...

Baldwin is a 9/11 Truther. Whatever your stance on that, you have to admit that if we tie the 9/11 Truth stuff into the public's perception of the CFL and the greater liberty movement, the movement will die a slow, painful death and be relegated to mediocrity.

Slist
09-24-2008, 07:24 AM
The McCain Palin signs are going up big time here and I think its simply because they are all looking for the lesser of two evils as programmed.

We need a campaign that opens peoples minds and gets them to start thinking critical for themselves again.

I could NOT agree more. If all those ron paul signs would become something with a catchy slogan like "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." or something provocatory like "If you do not know McKinney, Barr, Baldwin ect you don't deserve to vote"..

I don't know.. something to let everyone voting for obama or McCain feel like uninformed sheep

jclay2
09-24-2008, 09:43 AM
Baldwin is a 9/11 Truther. Whatever your stance on that, you have to admit that if we tie the 9/11 Truth stuff into the public's perception of the CFL and the greater liberty movement, the movement will die a slow, painful death and be relegated to mediocrity.

Evidence? I am not saying you are wrong, that would just really bum me out.:(

Imperial
09-24-2008, 03:26 PM
I am disappointed if this is the original source of the endorsement, which I have been looking for for some time. It verifies what depresses me.

Ron Paul should not have endorsed someone after his 3rd Party conference. It is a major flip. And, I admired his refusal to attack others, while this seems highly critical of Barr while ignoring the press releases the Barr campaign put out after the snub.

Which doesn't mean I agree with Barr; however, it does seem like Paul's vengeance. Which shows how pissed Paul is, but doesn't show the qualities that first brought me to Paul.

ronpaulitician
09-24-2008, 04:48 PM
I thought Paul wasn't gonna tell us who to vote for?

Major disappointment for me (and am not gonna vote Baldwin).

VRP08
09-26-2008, 07:36 AM
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/

VRP08
09-26-2008, 07:38 AM
Their site http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php


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

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

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

majinkoola
09-26-2008, 07:42 AM
Take a look at the Republican party platform. That means Ron Paul must be an interventionist, right?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-26-2008, 07:42 AM
ew. The Constitution Party's message is uber-disguisting

RonPaulVolunteer
09-26-2008, 07:46 AM
If any of you actually understood those words, from a true-Gospel standpoint instead of the stereotypical "American Christianity" standpoint, you wouldn't think bad of any of it.

mport1
09-26-2008, 07:46 AM
ew. The Constitution Party's message is uber-disguisting

+1

JosephTheLibertarian
09-26-2008, 07:47 AM
If any of you actually understood those words, from a true-Gospel standpoint instead of the stereotypical "American Christianity" standpoint, you wouldn't think bad of any of it.

Why are you so loyal to the party? lol.

Razorback Fan
09-29-2008, 06:45 PM
If any of you actually understood those words, from a true-Gospel standpoint instead of the stereotypical "American Christianity" standpoint, you wouldn't think bad of any of it.

Screw your Gospel and shove your Christian America where the sun doesn't shine.

Would I still be allowed to say that in the Constitution Party's America?

honortruth
09-29-2008, 08:25 PM
I will be supporting Baldwin/Castle of the CP - even though I do not agree with every issue (Religion) I agree with him especially on the fact Baldwin supports re-investigation of Sepember 11, 2001 (this is a MUST in my opinion)

Paul chose well, since the Libertarian ticket was won by Barr (Gravel should have won the ticket).

If Baldwin is not on the ballet - my vote goes to the GP.

intelliot
10-01-2008, 07:38 AM
GP?


How about doing something like this for Chuck Baldwin:
http://letourcongresstweet.org/

Kade
10-01-2008, 08:02 AM
GP?


How about doing something like this for Chuck Baldwin:
http://letourcongresstweet.org/

Goat Porn. There's been a lot of here on the forums lately.

ehynick
10-02-2008, 12:12 PM
Screw your Gospel and shove your Christian America where the sun doesn't shine.

Would I still be allowed to say that in the Constitution Party's America?

Sure you would!

Chuck Baldwin:

And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master.

unreconstructed1
10-08-2008, 07:05 AM
I'm sorry, but I can't in full faith support a party which makes it so blunt that they have an obviously theocratic agenda. I am a slightly right constitutionalist libertarian. and sometimes that makes me seem split on certain issues, but I assure you I'm not.
take abortion for example. personally, I find abortion to be morally bankrupt, and completely obscene, yet I don't believe for one minute that the FED ought to have any say in the matter. I believe that that is an issue, like many, that should be left up to the States to decide.
I also believe in Jesus, I believe that this Republic was based upon Christian values, but I don't believe that the FED should be able to push a theocratic agenda down my throat. I believe in prayer in schools because schools are another issue that should be left up to the States.
essentially, if you want to see what I believe that the FED should have a say in, read the constitution. If it's not specifically enumerated as a function of the FED, or specifically prohibited from the STates, then the FED should have absolutely no say in the matter.

Where does that leave me with the Constitution Party? While I sincerely respect MR Baldwin, and I agree with him on many points, party choice IS a deciding factor in my decision on whether or not to support a candidate, because party choice is simply that, it is a choice. for whatever reason, each candidate has chosen to be a representative of that party.

The Constitution Party, while sounding good on the surface, has a quite obvious theological agenda. from the way they describe themselves, you'd expect Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell to be campaigning as their candidate, not a constitutionalist. Honestly, adherents to the constitution Party seem to be nothing more than paleoconservative Republicans, rather than members of another Party. While there are a few things about Barr that I can't agree with, Dr. Paul isn't running, and Barr seems to me to be the closest candidate to match my political ideologyas far

as Pauls endorsement goes, he needs to be very careful at this point. I can completely understand his frustration at Barr's snub, but at the same time I can also understand Barr's choice.

Dr. Paul has united a lot of people under a single banner. Dr. Paul has become a rallying point, much like Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson were in their day. If he is diligent and remains focused on the course, we could very likely see a major third party threat to the Statist control of the System, and if carefully worked at on a state and local level, we could very well see a third party president in office in our lifetime. but he isn't going to do it by snubbing the candidate of the largest of the third party currently in operation.

personally, I would love to see a constitution party/Libertarian party merging. without the theological baggage, both parties share identical platforms, and combined they would truly be a massive threat to the system.

Constitutionalist Libertarian Party. now that's a part that I would proudly claim membership to...