PDA

View Full Version : Why to vote for Baldwin




nyrgoal99
10-19-2008, 09:22 AM
Im voting for chuck baldwin, because he is the closest to Ron Paul there is. Bob Barr is not like ron paul, and although he will get more votes, he doesnt stand for what we believe in. Remember when we voted for RP, we knew he wasnt going to win, but he supported what we believed in, so we voted for him. I am doing the same thing for Chuck Baldwin in NJ on Nov 4th, we well as my family and girlfriend.

5 votes for Baldwin in NJ

mitty
10-19-2008, 11:21 AM
yeah. baldwin is the closest to the message ron paul represents.

Richie
10-19-2008, 11:32 AM
Really, the only thing that separates Baldwin from Paul are his protectionist views. I'm still going to vote for him, though.

Brassmouth
10-19-2008, 01:01 PM
he doesnt stand for what we believe in.

Speak for yourself. Religious fools have done enough damage to this country over the past few decades. They wrecked the GOP. Baldwin is no different. On top of that Baldwin sounds like he couldn't pass an introductory economics class.

1 vote for Barr in NJ, along with many more.

nate4ron
10-19-2008, 07:05 PM
Really, the only thing that separates Baldwin from Paul are his protectionist views. I'm still going to vote for him, though.

And his theocratical and primitive views, sadly.

In 2004, as the Constitution Party's VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin said if he was president, he would ban women from serving in the military, since it is the role of the men to protect the women.

Just read the Constitution Party's platform. It's all about morals, such as pornography, marriage, Jesus Christ (no, I'm not joking), Christianity, the Bible, etc. What a slap in the face to the Constitution! How ironic! :rolleyes:

Is this what message Ron Paul has been preaching? Even though Bob Barr is not 100% on board with Paul, he is more secular and closer to the ideas Ron Paul has been preaching. Paul does not believe the government has a role in marriage, pornography, or acknowledging a specific religion over another.

Nirvikalpa
10-19-2008, 07:15 PM
Im voting for chuck baldwin, because he is the closest to Ron Paul there is. Bob Barr is not like ron paul, and although he will get more votes, he doesnt stand for what we believe in. Remember when we voted for RP, we knew he wasnt going to win, but he supported what we believed in, so we voted for him. I am doing the same thing for Chuck Baldwin in NJ on Nov 4th, we well as my family and girlfriend.

5 votes for Baldwin in NJ

9 votes for Chuck in NJ :) We're on a roll.

Could be 11 if I can sway my GP's.

Brassmouth
10-19-2008, 07:42 PM
And his theocratical and primitive views, sadly.

In 2004, as the Constitution Party's VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin said if he was president, he would ban women from serving in the military, since it is the role of the men to protect the women.

Just read the Constitution Party's platform. It's all about morals, such as pornography, marriage, Jesus Christ (no, I'm not joking), Christianity, the Bible, etc. What a slap in the face to the Constitution! How ironic! :rolleyes:

Is this what message Ron Paul has been preaching? Even though Bob Barr is not 100% on board with Paul, he is more secular and closer to the ideas Ron Paul has been preaching. Paul does not believe the government has a role in marriage, pornography, or acknowledging a specific religion over another.

QFT. You rarely, if ever, hear Paul saying anything about religion. The CP is just trying to make money catering to the "religious right." (oxymoron? I think so.) It's a shame those posers have been given even the slightest bit of attention here. Ah well, at least it's an accurate gauge of how many of us still don't understand what "liberty" is. Hopefully they'll wake up and join the rest of us before it's too late.

nate895
10-19-2008, 07:46 PM
In 2004, as the Constitution Party's VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin said if he was president, he would ban women from serving in the military, since it is the role of the men to protect the women.



Though I disagree somewhat with the reasoning, women in military combat roles (or anywhere close to the frontlines) is horrible from a logistical standpoint. They require more supplies, are less able to use heavy equipment, and men in the military feel like they need to look out for the women more in a subconscious manner, so they do not wind up using they full strength of their combat unit.

Brassmouth
10-19-2008, 07:52 PM
Though I disagree somewhat with the reasoning, women in military combat roles (or anywhere close to the frontlines) is horrible from a logistical standpoint. They require more supplies, are less able to use heavy equipment, and men in the military feel like they need to look out for the women more in a subconscious manner, so they do not wind up using they full strength of their combat unit.

The men are already brainwashed to follow orders without thinking, even to the point of murder and genocide. Brainwashing them not to care about their female peers over their male peers should be cake.

nate895
10-19-2008, 08:13 PM
The men are already brainwashed to follow orders without thinking, even to the point of murder and genocide. Brainwashing them not to care about their female peers over their male peers should be cake.

You still have the supply issues, as well as the equipment issues. You will never, however, be able to brainwash human nature away.

Brassmouth
10-19-2008, 09:10 PM
You still have the supply issues, as well as the equipment issues. You will never, however, be able to brainwash human nature away.

Yea I'm sure the tampon issue will be devastating to the military effort. :rolleyes:

And I believe murder is not in human nature. If soldiers can be crafted into murdering and raping, they can be crafted to ignore gender roles on the battlefield.