Ron Paul is getting widely criticized online due to his "endorsing" Baldwin.

[ZzzImAsleep]

Baldwin does not seem to be helping the whole "Ron Paul is a nut" argument from dying down any.

Any thoughts on this?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If you're not a nut, well then, don't do nutty things.

[Micah Dardar]

Oh well! Sane people rarely make history!

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

He's getting hit by a small, but vocal group of Libertarians and the people who always hated him. Big deal.

[Lord Xar]

He's getting hit by a small, but vocal group of Libertarians and the people who always hated him. Big deal.

You mean the same libertarians that have tried to sidetrack him from the very beginning?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What about the rightwing Birchers? hm. They're not libertarian, not at all. AJ, another rightwing crazy man, along with the rest of his carnival of rejects.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

What about the rightwing Birchers? hm. They're not libertarian, not at all. AJ, another rightwing crazy man, along with the rest of his carnival of rejects.

That's the success of Ron Paul--being able to gain the attention and support from a vast array of political groups. If he had stayed in the frame of a purist libertarian (which he may or may not have ever been), then he would be in the same place he was in 1988: a small following with no national significance or media attention. And you ought to be careful who you fling accusations of craziness around at.

I don't agree with everything Alex Jones says, but he does speak the truth on some things and has always treated Ron Paul very well. "Carnival of rejects" describes the pissed off clique of purist libertarians, Barr supporters, and neo-con "libertarians" supporting McCain/Palin much better than Ron Paul and his supporters.

[speciallyblend]

He's getting hit by a small, but vocal group of Libertarians and the people who always hated him. Big deal.

barr brainwashed drones

[JosephTheLibertarian]

barr brainwashed drones

Aren't you supporting Obama? ;)

[Indy Vidual]

Ron Paul is getting widely criticized online due to his "endorsing" Baldwin.

IMO, this time, the good Doc actually earned negative feedback by making a really huge mistake.

[Sandra]

Go Chuck Baldwin!!!!!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Go Chuck Baldwin!!!!!

Yeah, a win for the proectionists? :D Bring them import tariffs up to 100%. THEY TAKE OUR JOBS!! AHHH. God damn them. Free trade, freely trade with foreign peoples??? HOW DARE THEY!!! IT's unpatriotic to buy from foreign companies!!!!

GO BALDWIN!

[amy31416]

Yeah, a win for the proectionists? :D Bring them import tariffs up to 100%. THEY TAKE OUR JOBS!! AHHH

Why don't you attempt to do something constructive aside from contemplating campaigning for Barack Obama. We're at a critical point and you still engage in moronic shit.

What will you do when your mom loses her house?

[Orgoonian]

Another "Hot Topic"thread :rolleyes:

[literatim]

Why don't you attempt to do something constructive aside from contemplating campaigning for Barack Obama. We're at a critical point and you still engage in moronic shit.

What will you do when your mom loses her house?

He'll be out on the street.

[Malakai]

The 'beltways' are the ones crying. They liked neocon in disguise Barr a lot better than Baldwin.

Read some of Baldwins articles over the last year or so, he is a smart guy. It's nice to see someone involved in the religious community make a stand for liberty.

[Lord Xar]

Yeah, a win for the proectionists? :D Bring them import tariffs up to 100%. THEY TAKE OUR JOBS!! AHHH. God damn them. Free trade, freely trade with foreign peoples??? HOW DARE THEY!!! IT's unpatriotic to buy from foreign companies!!!!

GO BALDWIN!

Don't be upset Joseph, not everyone can live in your fantasy land.

[ARealConservative]

the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why don't you attempt to do something constructive aside from contemplating campaigning for Barack Obama. We're at a critical point and you still engage in moronic shit.

What will you do when your mom loses her house?

Baldwin's theocratic church will take me in. duh

[literatim]

the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision.

So got statistics or evidence to back up this statement?

[Sandra]

the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision.


Show us proof of this statement because polls show otherwise! :D

[Hamer]

more rhetoric from the die hard Barr supporters.

My vote and money are going to Chuck Baldwin this friday September 26 www.buckforchuck.com

Chuck Baldwin is beating Barr in this poll with 82% of the vote www.WRBNFM.com

[ARealConservative]

Show us proof of this statement because polls show otherwise! :D

what polls?

[Lord Xar]

the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision.

The reality is you are completely wrong, and you know it. I would say most, are happy he supported Baldwin. You think he would support Barr, after the stunt he pulled?

Hey. Baldwin is againt the NAU, will enforce our immigration laws, will stop the empire building and end the war, against soveriegnty stealing treaties and alliances ... Shit, that is all i need to know. Baldwin can believe in Ares The God of War. I don't give a shit. Well, that would be cool if he did, but I digress. Look at his stances. I would say a loud minority is unhappy and perhaps rightly so (in their eyes). But Barr wasn't such a jackwipe maybe it would have turned out differently.

Note: in regards to your above post:: The polls you used to deduce that "a small minority actually supports his decision in picking Baldwin". I mean you made a statement, now you gotta back it up.

[FindLiberty]

This is a democracy* right? So vote for your favorite candidate.

*Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." - John Adams

[literatim]

The reality is you are completely wrong, and you know it. I would say most, are happy he supported Baldwin. You think he would support Barr, after the stunt he pulled?

Hey. Baldwin is againt the NAU, will enforce our immigration laws, will stop the empire building and end the war, against soveriegnty stealing treaties and alliances ... Shit, that is all i need to know. Baldwin can believe in Ares The God of War. I don't give a shit. Well, that would be cool if he did, but I digress. Look at his stances. I would say a loud minority is unhappy and perhaps rightly so. But Barr wasn't such a jackwipe maybe it would have turned out differently.

I guarantee a good portion of Baldwin haters are anarchists and don't want to defend the sovereignty of this country nor do they want to protect our borders.

[ARealConservative]

The reality is you are completely wrong, and you know it. I would say most, are happy he supported Baldwin. You think he would support Barr, after the stunt he pulled?

Hey. Baldwin is againt the NAU, will enforce our immigration laws, will stop the empire building and end the war, against soveriegnty stealing treaties and alliances ... Shit, that is all i need to know. Baldwin can believe in Ares The God of War. I don't give a shit. Well, that would be cool if he did, but I digress. Look at his stances. I would say a loud minority is unhappy and perhaps rightly so. But Barr wasn't such a jackwipe maybe it would have turned out differently.

Barr will end up with far more votes then Baldwin and the C4L will wither away.

find a single non online poll that has Baldwin topping Barr.

[Lord Xar]

I guarantee a good portion of Baldwin haters are anarchists and don't want to defend the sovereignty of this country nor do they want to protect our borders.

I would say you are very right.

C'mon.. there are no such things as borders or "nations"... c'mon now.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What we need is Baldwin. Yup. Remember the protectionism that bled the South dry? We need that AGAIN. Why? because foreign competition. We CANNOT let foreign companiescompete for our dollars, we should limit choices to American companies, even if American consumers do have to pay more for products. That's the price for patriotism. We also need to ban porn. It's BRAINWASHING OUR KIDS!!!! We also need to subidize churches all across this great land, but that's just my opinion.

GO BALDWIN!!!! WE CAN DO IT

Abe Lincoln said it best...

"I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

[Lord Xar]

Barr will end up with far more votes then Baldwin and the C4L will wither away.

find a single non online poll that has Baldwin topping Barr.

Wither away cause he supported Baldwin? If you condone that action, then you are here for all the wrong reasons.

Also, just use the past election to determine this years figures..

libertarian vs. constitution party --

I mean, you gonna be one of those knuckleheads that say "seee. barr got more votes...... ron paul failed!!!".

After the election - do this. Take the total libertarian vs. constitution partys overall votes and compare with 4 years ago... see who gets the bigger bump percentage wise in relation to their respective total votes.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Wither away cause he supported Baldwin? If you condone that action, then you are here for all the wrong reasons.

Also, just use the past election to determine this years figures..

libertarian vs. constitution party --

I mean, you gonna be one of those knuckleheads that say "seee. barr got more votes...... ron paul failed!!!".

After the election - do this. Take the total libertarian vs. constitution partys overall votes and compare with 4 years ago... see who gets the bigger bump percentage wise in relation to their respective total votes.

and let's see who won the election ;)

[Lord Xar]

GO BALDWIN!!!! WE CAN DO IT

.

Hey everyone .. look. Its Joseph again. Lets all give Joseph a round of applause.
He is so cool. Seriously Joseph, you are cool.

[ARealConservative]

Wither away cause he supported Baldwin? If you condone that action, then you are here for all the wrong reasons.

Also, just use the past election to determine this years figures..

libertarian vs. constitution party --

I mean, you gonna be one of those knuckleheads that say "seee. barr got more votes...... ron paul failed!!!".

After the election - do this. Take the total libertarian vs. constitution partys overall votes and compare with 4 years ago... see who gets the bigger bump percentage wise in relation to their respective total votes.

I have already voiced my opinion on this. The C4L decided to take the snub personally and undermine everything in doing so. The C4L is not running a political campaign, they should been reasonable in understanding why Barr would lose from appearing with Nader. Instead they decided to go to war with Barr over it.

I have long gotten sick of the management decisions of people around Paul and it is obvious he is making many of these stupid decisions himself.

[Theocrat]

I guarantee a good portion of Baldwin haters are anarchists and don't want to defend the sovereignty of this country nor do they want to protect our borders.

+50

[Lord Xar]

and let's see who won the election ;)

Exactly, so you running amock on these threads wearing your disappointment on your sleeves doens't make much sense.

[literatim]

I have already voiced my opinion on this. The C4L decided to take the snub personally and undermine everything in doing so. The C4L is not running a political campaign, they should been reasonable in understanding why Barr would lose from appearing with Nader. Instead they decided to go to war with Barr over it.

I have long gotten sick of the management decisions of people around Paul and it is obvious he is making many of these stupid decisions himself.

No one is forcing you to be here. Sorry, but your opinion on something isn't going to change Ron Paul's opinion, so get over it.

[ARealConservative]

No one is forcing you to be here. Sorry, but your opinion on something isn't going to change Ron Paul's opinion, so get over it.

hey dipshit, how about I continue to voice my opinion as I have for the last 18 months.

If you have a problem with it, go somewhere else.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Exactly, so you running amock on these threads wearing your disappointment on your sleeves doens't make much sense.

It's going to be Obama or McCain. The chance for the largest third party to carry the libertarian torch was sidetracked by lunatics. That's the truth. Now, we'll have a watered down third party vote. But that's ok. It just proves that we are in a democracy, we call it a republic, but it is what it is. INDIRECT democracy. Look it up.

[Lord Xar]

I have already voiced my opinion on this. The C4L decided to take the snub personally and undermine everything in doing so. The C4L is not running a political campaign, they should been reasonable in understanding why Barr would lose from appearing with Nader. Instead they decided to go to war with Barr over it.

I have long gotten sick of the management decisions of people around Paul and it is obvious he is making many of these stupid decisions himself.

It was personal. Barr didnt' want to play second fiddel to Ron Paul. He was also told not to show.

Listen, when you respect someone - enough to ask them to be your vice-president, don't you think one would call you up and say "Hey, I am not gonna show and this is why......"

I am aghast that anybody would not think what Barr did was anything but personal and blatant disregard for the freedom movement KNOWING how many supporters ron has. I mean, look what is happening here. His not showing was intentional and was done to create turmoil, and dilute his message AND his agenda (ron's). Even you are trumpeting the downfail of C4L. I mean c'mon. Its fairly obvious.

[ARealConservative]

It was personal. Barr didnt' want to play second fiddel to Ron Paul. He was also told not to show.

Listen, when you respect someone - enough to ask them to be your vice-president, don't you think one would call you up and say "Hey, I am not gonna show and this is why......"

I am aghast that anybody would not think what Barr did was anything but personal and blatant disregard for the freedom movement KNOWING how many supporters ron has. I mean, look what is happening here. His not showing was intentional and was done to create turmoil, and dilute his message AND his agenda (ron's). Even you are trumpeting the downfail of C4L. I mean c'mon. Its fairly obvious.

The C4L was given ample time and reason for the change of heart. They decided to go public with this feud.

If Ron Paul was actually running, he would have a point. But since he isn't, he should of handled it with more tact.

[Lord Xar]

It's going to be Obama or McCain. The chance for the largest third party to carry the libertarian torch was sidetracked by lunatics. That's the truth. Now, we'll have a watered down third party vote. But that's ok. It just proves that we are in a democracy, we call it a republic, but it is what it is. INDIRECT democracy. Look it up.

What I find most distasteful is you fight and cry foul against the very man you "supposedly" admire. Instead, you should be calling up the libertarian party and voicing your incredible displeasure at Barr's behaviour. You should of been doing that all along when Reason and others, hijacked by the neo-cons, were disparaging Ron Paul.

No, you weren't. You followed the exact same agenda that libertarians always follow - complacency. You now blame Ron Paul for the watered down effect, as if he alone coulda made the difference yet you spite him now when his decision doesn't gel with YOUR PLANS.

You are blaming the wrong person.

[Lord Xar]

The C4L was given ample time and reason for the change of heart. They decided to go public with this feud.

If Ron Paul was actually running, he would have a point. But since he isn't, he should of handled it with more tact.

I am sorta taken aback by your lack of logic in the arguments you propose. Did not Barr go public by NOT SHOWING and giving NO EXPLANATION in which EVERYONE saw it as a snub. He snubbed Ron in the biggest way. IN a nationally televised broadcast. To me, he went public AND created a feud.

Anyways, its spilt milk. It doesn't matter anymore.

[ARealConservative]

What I find most distasteful is you fight and cry foul against the very man you "supposedly" admire. Instead, you should be calling up the libertarian party and voicing your incredible displeasure at Barr's behaviour. You should of been doing that all along when Reason and others, hijacked by the neo-cons, were disparaging Ron Paul.

No, you weren't. You followed the exact same agenda that libertarians always follow - complacency. You now blame Ron Paul for the watered down effect, as if he alone coulda made the difference yet you spite him now when his decision doesn't gel with YOUR PLANS.

You are blaming the wrong person.

Barr is running for president and made the decision that appearing with Nader would be bad for him.

Paul sent his cronies about to damage Barr, even though Barr is running for president.

Unlike you, my blame makes sense.

[ARealConservative]

I am sorta taken aback by your lack of logic in the arguments you propose. Did not Barr go public by NOT SHOWING and giving NO EXPLANATION in which EVERYONE saw it as a snub. He snubbed Ron in the biggest way. IN a nationally televised broadcast. To me, he went public AND created a feud.

Anyways, its spilt milk. It doesn't matter anymore.

I'm a conservative and have never voted for a libertarian president.

Stop making assumptions.

[Lord Xar]

Barr is running for president and made the decision that appearing with Nader would be bad for him.

Paul sent his cronies about to damage Barr, even though Barr is running for president.

Unlike you, my blame makes sense.

You think "not appearing with Nadar" is a valid argument given the topic of the discussion? SO Barr will not appear on stage with Nadar if the topic was "Finding a cure for cancer"? I mean, the press conference was what was important, not some douche bags overinflated sense of self. It was about sound money policy. THAT WAS WHAT was important, and to NOT vote for the evil of the two parties. That there are alternatives.

"Paul sent his cronies"... <--- are you serious?

When Paul was running for president, where the phuk were all the Libertarian think tanks and organizations????? Huh?

Wow. your shillness has become apparent. --

[ARealConservative]

You think "not appearing with Nadar" is a valid argument given the topic of the discussion? SO Barr will not appear on stage with Nadar if the topic was "Finding a cure for cancer"? I mean, the press conference was what was important, not some douche bags overinflated sense of self. It was about sound money policy. THAT WAS WHAT was important, and to NOT vote for the evil of the two parties. That there are alternatives.

"Paul sent his cronies"... <--- are you serious?

When Paul was running for president, where the phuk were all the Libertarian think tanks and organizations????? Huh?

Wow. your shillness has become apparent. --

Crony Don came running here before Barr was done with his press conference.

Who knows how many more sock puppet accounts Greesnpan has created to make it look like a consensus exists on this deal.

I think a presidential candidate has every right and responsibility to act as he would like. In Barr's case, appearing with the known spoiler in the 2000 election when he is trying to peel votes away from McCain would be extremely stupid.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[KenInMontiMN]

Hard to believe anyone here is so warm and cozy with Barr that they'd actually take affront to a Baldwin endorsement under the circumstances. Most of us weren't going anywhere near Barr even beforehand.

If you haven't seen it, here's what Baldwin has to say about the endorsement:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html

[ARealConservative]

Hard to believe anyone here is so warm and cozy with Barr that they'd actually take affront to a Baldwin endorsement under the circumstances. Most of us weren't going anywhere near Barr even beforehand.

If you haven't seen it, here's what Baldwin has to say about the endorsement:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html

has nothing to do with Barr.

The C4L is cutting off their nose in spite of their face.

This endorsement and public feud is the best thing that could of happened to McCain and the neocons.

[Alawn]

This is stupid. Most people do not care that he picked Baldwin. Just a couple loud die hard LP or Barr fans care. And just as many people would be pissed if he endorsed Barr over Baldwin. The truth is Baldwin is more small government/libertarian than Barr. Period. What parties they are in doesn't matter. For every subject you say Baldwin isn't libertarian on Barr has 2 subjects where he isn't libertarian (and this is even with believing all of Barr's changes). Barr in reality is a libertarian leaning Republican. That is fine I guess if you think that makes him more electable. Barr probably was the most electable of the people running. If he picked Barr it would have been because of party loyalty. Ron Paul doesn't pick sides based on party. And I'm still going to vote for Barr but his whole argument that tons of people are pissed is just stupid. Nobody really cares and it wont effect anything. I expected him to keep quiet on the subject and I'm sure he would have if Barr wasn't such an idiot about things.

[zbus12]

Show us proof of this statement because polls show otherwise! :D

Now you're staring to sound like FAUX "news":(

[ARealConservative]

Now you're staring to sound like FAUX "news":(

I asked her to show one of these polls............

~crickets

[scandinaviany3]

He's getting hit by a small, but vocal group of Libertarians and the people who always hated him. Big deal.

Agreed that is the real truth...:p

[ARealConservative]

Agreed that is the real truth...:p

delusional.

How about you and I compare financial, and other contributions we made to Paul's campaign over the last 18 months.

[qh4dotcom]

Whoever thinks Ron Paul is a nut...his/her brain can't be repaired

[LibertyEagle]

What about the rightwing Birchers? hm. They're not libertarian, not at all.

:rolleyes:

That's right, Joseph. Many "Birchers" are libertarian-conservatives. Just like Ron Paul.

You need to buy a clue about the political spectrum too. Birchers are more in the middle of the spectrum, as they believe in a limited Constitutional government. Anarchy, because it is a complete absence of government, is on the far right. Total government control is on the far left.

[GunnyFreedom]

Now you're staring to sound like FAUX "news":(

Actually, in any kind of formal debate, the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. While Sandra probably should not have made a positive counter-claim in her rebuttal, the original positive claimant was ARealConservative when he claimed that "only a small minority of RP supporters are happy about the Baldwin endorsement" and therefore the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement.

I personally believe that ARealConservative is wrong, and would like to see his sources for such a claim.

I have been around to 3 states campaigning for Ron Paul in the last 10 months, and in my experience, the RP people I encountered everywhere were very positive about Baldwin during the campaign.

I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of RP supporters suddenly changed their minds about Baldwin the moment RP stated that he'd be voting for him.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I don't like Bob Barr, and never did.

As I pointed out in other threads, oddly enough I dislike Bob Barr for a lot of the reasons I dislike Baldwin given his support of the CP platform.

A platform that looks like what Barr was following when he was in congress.

Crusade against Wicca.

Crusade against Gay Marriage.

Crusade against Drugs.

[Razorback Fan]

:rolleyes:

That's right, Joseph. Many "Birchers" are libertarian-conservatives. Just like Ron Paul.

You need to buy a clue about the political spectrum too. Birchers are more in the middle of the spectrum, as they believe in a limited Constitutional government. Anarchy, because it is a complete absence of government, is on the far right. Total government control is on the far left.

I think the Nolan Chart (http://www.nolanchart.com) puts it even better.

[GunnyFreedom]

I asked her to show one of these polls............

~crickets

The question is actually around your first positive claim, specifically:

Yesterday at 09:53 PM
ARealConservative stated: "the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision."

The fact is that it was your original positive claim in the referenced post which started the 'numbers exchange' and as the originator of the initiating positive claim, the burden of proof is actualy on you, not Sandra.

[ARealConservative]

Actually, in any kind of formal debate, the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. While Sandra probably should not have made a positive counter-claim in her rebuttal, the original positive claimant was ARealConservative when he claimed that "only a small minority of RP supporters are happy about the Baldwin endorsement" and therefore the burden of proof is on him to back up that statement.

I personally believe that ARealConservative is wrong, and would like to see his sources for such a claim.

I have been around to 3 states campaigning for Ron Paul in the last 10 months, and in my experience, the RP people I encountered everywhere were very positive about Baldwin during the campaign.

I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of RP supporters suddenly changed their minds about Baldwin the moment RP stated that he'd be voting for him.

The base of Ron Paul's support was 1.2 million voters.

Explain why Baldwin does not poll higher then he does. How is it that Bob Barr beats him in all the polls?

My proof is each and every poll showing Barr beating Baldwin regardless of this pseudo endorsement. Baldwin isn't even registering on the radar.

[speciallyblend]

The base of Ron Paul's support was 1.2 million voters.

Explain why Baldwin does not poll higher then he does. How is it that Bob Barr beats him in all the polls?

My proof is each and every poll showing Barr beating Baldwin regardless of this pseudo endorsement. Baldwin isn't even registering on the radar.

wel the same could be said about barr ,where is his money coming from, i was lp for 12 yrs and barr has made sure i will not donate to the lp or barr,so lets look at all the dough rolling in for barr from us,oo yeah it is not rolling in,because i/we will no longer support a lp party that supports a neo-con in the lp.........i suspect the lp will be saddened by their vote totals, i know plenty that will not vote barr now,so we will see on nov 5th wont we;)

how to kill a campaign in 45 minutes written by barr/mccain;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

wel the same could be said about barr ,where is his money coming from, i was lp for 12 yrs and barr has made sure i will not donate to the lp or barr,so lets look at all the dough rolling in for barr from us,oo yeah it is not rolling in,because i/we will no longer support a lp party that supports a neo-con in the lp.........i suspect the lp will be saddened by their vote totals, i know plenty that will not vote barr now,so we will see on nov 5th wont we;)

how to kill a campaign in 45 minutes written by barr/mccain;)

Who are you voting for? Obama, right? And I'm not lying on this one, sb really is supporting Obama. He wants welfare, just ask him! Don't take my word for it ;)

[ARealConservative]

wel the same could be said about barr ,where is his money coming from, i was lp for 12 yrs and barr has made sure i will not donate to the lp or barr,so lets look at all the dough rolling in for barr from us,oo yeah it is not rolling in,because i/we will no longer support a lp party that supports a neo-con in the lp.........i suspect the lp will be saddened by their vote totals, i know plenty that will not vote barr now,so we will see on nov 5th wont we;)

how to kill a campaign in 45 minutes written by barr/mccain;)

I'll guess that Barr receives 5-10X the vote total as Baldwin.

[Sandra]

polls:
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=278014

http://www.wrbnfm.com/

[durden0]

You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Bickering over ridiculous crap. All some of you have done in this thread is spew one hate attack after another. If I didn't know any better i'd say this sounds like a thread from redstate.com.

Please put down all the hate mongering about this third party candidate, or that one. We have a real crisis to deal with and real enemies who are trying to steal our money as we speak.

If you really believe in a message of freedom and liberty, try living it rather just paying it lip service.

[tpreitzel]

polls:
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=278014

TEST return


http://www.wrbnfm.com/

[Nirvikalpa]

Who are you voting for? Obama, right? And I'm not lying on this one, sb really is supporting Obama. He wants welfare, just ask him! Don't take my word for it ;)

How are you furthering this movement? Oh, right, wait:

Who were you going to work for? Obama, right? And I'm not lying on this one, Joe really was going to work for Obama. He was, just ask him! Please, take my word for it. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How are you furthering this movement? Oh, right, wait:

Who were you going to work for? Obama, right? And I'm not lying on this one, Joe really was going to work for Obama. He was, just ask him! Please, take my word for it. ;)

I never worked for him. But you are defending an Obama supporter... but I wouldn't expect any less of a protectionist like yourself. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with your pathetic nagging anymore, Nikki.

Go get your hip replacement ;)

[NightOwl]

Ron Paul is getting widely criticized online due to his "endorsing" Baldwin.

IMO, this time, the good Doc actually earned negative feedback by making a really huge mistake.

Doesn't Baldwin get credit for opposing the welfare state, being the most antiwar candidate in the race, and wanting to abolish the Fed? On everything else he's a federalist, so those issues are irrelevant. Seriously, why are people having such a hard time seeing this?

[Hamer]

Doesn't Baldwin get credit for opposing the welfare state, being the most antiwar candidate in the race, and wanting to abolish the Fed? On everything else he's a federalist, so those issues are irrelevant. Seriously, why are people having such a hard time seeing this?

Most people aren't only a few angry Barr supporters are. The fact is Chuck Baldwin is closer to Ron Paul's views than any other candidate running and now that Ron has Endorsed Chuck and not Barr there is a whine fest going on.

I will be donating to Chuck Baldwin this friday Sept 26th www.buckforchuck.com

[Knightskye]

Dr. Paul is against getting involved overseas. I think he should have done the same with the election.

It's definitely not getting us closer to unity or peace.

[GunnyFreedom]

The base of Ron Paul's support was 1.2 million voters.

Explain why Baldwin does not poll higher then he does. How is it that Bob Barr beats him in all the polls?

My proof is each and every poll showing Barr beating Baldwin regardless of this pseudo endorsement. Baldwin isn't even registering on the radar.

Don't just say, "there are polls," POST ONE. Link to a poll detailing the support for Barr vs Baldwin taken AFTER the RP endorsement. I'm not just going to 'take your word for it' that Barr is so many magnitudes beyond Baldwin in the polls.

That's not evidence, that's supposition.

As far as I know, the Associated Press has reported Baldwin polling OVER Barr, so forgive me if "because I said so" just isn't enough. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll guess that Barr receives 5-10X the vote total as Baldwin.

Again, you GUESS. If you make a positive claim in a debate, guessing is not evidence.

[LibertyEagle]

I never worked for him. But you are defending an Obama supporter... but I wouldn't expect any less of a protectionist like yourself. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with your pathetic nagging anymore, Nikki.

Go get your hip replacement ;)

Ah, but her statement about you saying repeatedly that you were going to go work for Obama is very TRUE. :)

[Time for Change]

You mean the same libertarians that have tried to sidetrack him from the very beginning?

Additionally, the same libertarians who cannot align behind their own candidate and make his name (which already has the "recognizable" factor in itself) a household item?
The ones that cannot openly support their own candidate and work together to get him some attention? Money? Debate time?

B.S.

I am starting to think the party is nothing more than a social group who appear to care less about trying to win the Prez race; rather, they appear to be an opposition party...opposing THEMSELVES...but what do I know.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ah, but her statement about you saying repeatedly that you were going to go work for Obama is very TRUE. :)

I was going to do some special ops for c4l. You conveniently "forgot" that part ;)

[Hamer]

I was going to do some special ops for c4l. You conveniently "forgot" that part ;)

Who the hell would want someone that was going to work for Obama doing any work for the C4L. If you were going to work for Obama you are nowhere near a libertarian.

[scandinaviany3]

Baldwin does not seem to be helping the whole "Ron Paul is a nut" argument from dying down any.

Any thoughts on this?

typical slime game that can be slapped away..they dont want baldwin to be given press..he will take votes away if given the press and they know it

Washington doesnt want to give up their cushy lifestyles

[LibertyEagle]

I was going to do some special ops for c4l. You conveniently "forgot" that part ;)

I never heard you say that; nor do I believe it.

[Bman]

I guarantee a good portion of Baldwin haters are anarchists and don't want to defend the sovereignty of this country nor do they want to protect our borders.

No. Know I've backed off this stance a bit. I'm personally at the point of being willing to listen to Baldwin. Although, I've said all along my vote in November will go to the 3rd party candidate who has the greatest potential for % of vote.

But the stance is that due to the nature of the CP's message, and Balwins past the resistance you encounter is more from people who strongly oppose any idea of a Theocracy.

Like I said after some of Balwins current remarks, I'm willing to listen to him a bit. But don't confuse why someone is against someone. You're pretty much hearing from your non-christian brothers. Attacking them won't help. Explaining how religion will play no part in their governments future will.

[mconder]

He's getting hit by a small, but vocal group of Libertarians and the people who always hated him. Big deal.

The atheist ones, who hate anyone who believes in a God.

[Bman]

The atheist ones, who hate anyone who believes in a God.

Atheists (not exactly me I'm agnostic) don't hate people who believe in God. They hate people who believe in God and try to get them to believe in God.

[ARealConservative]

Don't just say, "there are polls," POST ONE. Link to a poll detailing the support for Barr vs Baldwin taken AFTER the RP endorsement. I'm not just going to 'take your word for it' that Barr is so many magnitudes beyond Baldwin in the polls.

That's not evidence, that's supposition.

As far as I know, the Associated Press has reported Baldwin polling OVER Barr, so forgive me if "because I said so" just isn't enough. :)

there are countless polls - Bradley in DC have posted some of them.

If you want to disprove my assertions give it a go. It would be a hilarious attempt.

Otherwise, who gives a shit what you think.

[GunnyFreedom]

there are countless polls - Bradley in DC have posted some of them.

If you want to disprove my assertions give it a go. It would be a hilarious attempt.

Otherwise, who gives a shit what you think.

That would be a logical fallacy on the order of, "The moon is made of green cheese, and you can't prove it isn't, therefore it MUST be true."

This is why the burden of proof lies with the POSITIVE claimant, which us you.

The formal name of your informal fallacy is called "The Appeal to Ignorance."

Clearly, you are unable to provide evidence to support your assertions, or you would have provided some by now. :)

[libertarian4321]

If you're not a nut, well then, don't do nutty things.

I'm not supporting Baldwin.

However, Bob Barr has made a complete jackass of himself. He essentially baited Ron Paul into supporting the other guy.

Barr made his bed, now he must lie in it.

Frankly, I think Barr is either 1) the worst campaigner in history or 2) intentionally trying to sabotage the Libertarian Party.

[GunnyFreedom]

my money's on #2

[GunnyFreedom]

That would be a logical fallacy on the order of, "The moon is made of green cheese, and you can't prove it isn't, therefore it MUST be true."

This is why the burden of proof lies with the POSITIVE claimant, which us you.

The formal name of your informal fallacy is called "The Appeal to Ignorance."

Clearly, you are unable to provide evidence to support your assertions, or you would have provided some by now. :)

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad ignorantium


Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad ignorantium

[literatim]

Atheists (not exactly me I'm agnostic) don't hate people who believe in God. They hate people who believe in God and try to get them to believe in God.

Generally people who are atheist simply hate people who believe in God. Thought I think they simply hate God himself and thus hate people who associate with Him. Why else would they have a hard line belief that there is no possibility of a deity or deities? They become atheist because it is an extreme as opposed to agnostics who don't really care or know.

[kombayn]

Ron Paul is getting criticized because he endorsed a candidate who agree with the CP platform and the man talks all this NWO non-sense. He looks like a theocratic conspiracy nut-job just like... Alex Jones.

[ARealConservative]

That would be a logical fallacy on the order of, "The moon is made of green cheese, and you can't prove it isn't, therefore it MUST be true."

This is why the burden of proof lies with the POSITIVE claimant, which us you.

The formal name of your informal fallacy is called "The Appeal to Ignorance."

Clearly, you are unable to provide evidence to support your assertions, or you would have provided some by now. :)

your faulty assumption is that I have any interest in winning an internet debate.

I posted an opinion grounded in common sense and anecdotal evidence. I'll be happy to rub your nose in your own idiocy on November 5th if you would like.

[dawnbt]

why don't you attempt to do something constructive aside from contemplating campaigning for barack obama. We're at a critical point and you still engage in moronic shit.

What will you do when your mom loses her house?

+1000

[GunnyFreedom]

your faulty assumption is that I have any interest in winning an internet debate.

I posted an opinion grounded in common sense and anecdotal evidence. I'll be happy to rub your nose in your own idiocy on November 5th if you would like.

In other words, you don't know, don't care, and can't be bothered to waste your time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv_dqq3ZFsY

[dannno]

Ron Paul is getting criticized because he endorsed a candidate who agree with the CP platform and the man talks all this NWO non-sense. He looks like a theocratic conspiracy nut-job just like... Alex Jones.

So you are extremely adverse to Ron Paul's decision?


What do you mean NWO "non-sense"?? Perhaps it's just something you don't understand yet?

[dawnbt]

what i find most distasteful is you fight and cry foul against the very man you "supposedly" admire. Instead, you should be calling up the libertarian party and voicing your incredible displeasure at barr's behaviour. You should of been doing that all along when reason and others, hijacked by the neo-cons, were disparaging ron paul.

No, you weren't. You followed the exact same agenda that libertarians always follow - complacency. You now blame ron paul for the watered down effect, as if he alone coulda made the difference yet you spite him now when his decision doesn't gel with your plans.

You are blaming the wrong person.

+1000000

[Lord Xar]

your faulty assumption is that I have any interest in winning an internet debate.

I posted an opinion grounded in common sense and anecdotal evidence. I'll be happy to rub your nose in your own idiocy on November 5th if you would like.

uhmm. You do have an interest in winning as you keep replying and posting.

That is right, you posted an opinion that has NO COMMON SENSE and anecdotal evidence in relation to the argument you are posing.

What will you prove Nov.5th?

1988 Election:
Ron Paul - Libertarian --> 431,750, .5%

2000 Election:
Harry Browne - Libertarian --> votes: 384,431, 0.4%
Howard Phillips -Constitution --> votes: 98,020 , 0.1%

2004 Election:
Michael Badnarik -Libertarian -->397,265 , 0.32%
Michael Peroutka - Constitution --> 143,630, 0.12%

************************************************** ***********

So, it shows Ron Paul pulling the highest numbers for a libertarian president. Since then, the numbers have dropped. hmmm. Also, though not overly significant, the libertarian party has steadily - though minimally declined whereas the Constitution party increased. I can only imagine if the constitution party beats out the libertarians, they will they become infiltrated.

But lets see after Nov 5th, what the data shows.

p.s. As a side note: I want the libertarian party to flourish, as I do the constitution party. My issue is with the tactics the libertarian party faithful's are using against Ron Paul, and the complacency they show in promoting their own agenda. Yet, they have a shit load of energy to disparage Ron Paul.

[kombayn]

So you are extremely adverse to Ron Paul's decision?


What do you mean NWO "non-sense"?? Perhaps it's just something you don't understand yet?

First off, I'm not a drone. I can make my own decisions, it's his choice and he has to deal with the criticism and yes, I understand what the NWO is... a conspiracy theory and Hulk Hogan's pro-wrestling faction.

[dawnbt]

The question is actually around your first positive claim, specifically:

Yesterday at 09:53 PM
ARealConservative stated: "the reality is that it is a small minority of Paul supporters that respected this decision."

The fact is that it was your original positive claim in the referenced post which started the 'numbers exchange' and as the originator of the initiating positive claim, the burden of proof is actualy on you, not Sandra.

LOL! I love the arbitration!

[Lord Xar]

First off, I'm not a drone. I can make my own decisions, it's his choice and he has to deal with the criticism and yes, I understand what the NWO is... a conspiracy theory and Hulk Hogan's pro-wrestling faction.

Really? You truly believe the NWO is a conspiracy? wow. Ok. moving right along.

[dannno]

First off, I'm not a drone. I can make my own decisions, it's his choice and he has to deal with the criticism and yes, I understand what the NWO is... a conspiracy theory and Hulk Hogan's pro-wrestling faction.

The criticism is irrelevant to the principle. Ron Paul has received a boat load of criticism for things that he has done and for having views on things that he believes are right.

If he were being tactful, then he would have the backing of the establishment and he would probably be backing McCain in hopes for a cabinet position.

[kombayn]

Really? You truly believe the NWO is a conspiracy? wow. Ok. moving right along.

No I don't believe the NWO is a real-life conspiracy. It's just a conspiracy theory by people who want to sell books to people that think the NWO is a real thing.

[dannno]

No I don't believe the NWO is a real-life conspiracy. It's just a conspiracy theory by people who want to sell books to people that think the NWO is a real thing.

Maybe you should checkout those books to see whether their source material is accurate before you assume it is just a "theory" ;)

Have you spent much time learning about PNAC by any chance?

[dawnbt]

No I don't believe the NWO is a real-life conspiracy. It's just a conspiracy theory by people who want to sell books to people that think the NWO is a real thing.

Yeah, you may want to do some research and get back to us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvEqg_UlGaA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE&feature=related

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Who the hell would want someone that was going to work for Obama doing any work for the C4L. If you were going to work for Obama you are nowhere near a libertarian.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. douche

hamer, libertarians don't vote for protectionists that want to ban free speech.