PDA

View Full Version : Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012? By Chuck Baldwin November 6, 2009




Volitzer
11-07-2009, 12:14 AM
Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012?
By Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
(Supplemental)


An Internet online poll is asking readers to pick Ron Paul's running mate
should he decide to run for President in 2012. Readers will remember that
Dr. Paul endorsed me in last year's Presidential election. If you would like
to vote for me (or someone else) in this online poll, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/yfmndfr

Plus, THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS are being printed now. In all likelihood, we
will begin shipping them sometime next week. To beat the rush, go here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Thank you for reading my columns.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

anaconda
11-07-2009, 12:16 AM
Sorry, Chuck.

Reason
11-07-2009, 12:17 AM
./vote for Napolitano

zach
11-07-2009, 12:27 AM
Not sure..

Kotin
11-07-2009, 12:47 AM
I want Schiff. if he is a senator.

RideTheDirt
11-07-2009, 12:49 AM
I want Schiff. if he is a senator.
Paul/Schiff might be the only duo who can get us out of this mess.

Liberty_Tree
11-07-2009, 12:52 AM
1st. Judge Napolitano

If he doesn't want it...

2nd. Chuck Baldwin

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 01:02 AM
No way. Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve like the Huckster. Secondly, I don't have too much faith in the CP precisely because of their theocratic leanings. Some of their positions are merely stated because it is in the Constitution and have no knowledge for why such pertinent edifices are in the Constitution. For me, I find without that educational awareness around the Constitution, some people treat the Constitution as a religion, and or misinterpret the Constitution.

For me....if I could pick Ron Paul Cabinet I'd go with:

P - Ron Paul
VP - Judge Nap.
Treasury - Thomas Woods
State Dpt - Lew Rockwell
Defense Sec - Some Austro-Libertarian who would restore us to the two year mandated Constitutional standing army limit.

That's what I'd like to see...good luck with that.

fj45lvr
11-07-2009, 01:08 AM
Baldwin could help garner the christian GOP but he doesn't really cross the lines and have a resume that would "sell" (even though resumes are really Bullshit).

I wish Walter Williams would go on the "Bucket List" campaign with Paul.

sevin
11-07-2009, 02:26 AM
R U guys fucking kidding? After Ron Paul wasn't in the running anymore, he endorsed CHUCK BALDWIN!

Original_Intent
11-07-2009, 02:36 AM
No way. Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve like the Huckster. Secondly, I don't have too much faith in the CP precisely because of their theocratic leanings. Some of their positions are merely stated because it is in the Constitution and have no knowledge for why such pertinent edifices are in the Constitution. For me, I find without that educational awareness around the Constitution, some people treat the Constitution as a religion, and or misinterpret the Constitution.

For me....if I could pick Ron Paul Cabinet I'd go with:

P - Ron Paul
VP - Judge Nap.
Treasury - Thomas Woods
State Dpt - Lew Rockwell
Defense Sec - Some Austro-Libertarian who would restore us to the two year mandated Constitutional standing army limit.

That's what I'd like to see...good luck with that.

If you can't discern the difference between Huckabee and Baldwin, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ass.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 02:37 AM
R U guys fucking kidding? After Ron Paul wasn't in the running anymore, he endorsed CHUCK BALDWIN!

Are we free-thinkers or a cult of personality? It would seem the former outweighs the latter, yet the latter lambasts the former. In a huge swing of ideological irony, these are the same type sycophantic idolizers that Obama uses. I was hoping this was the movement for individualism.....Don't worry folks, I know most of us here don't support the notion that Sevin here is espousing.

Volitzer
11-07-2009, 02:42 AM
Exactly and this is why Chuck is asking for an honest opinion about being RP's running mate.

He's got my support if RP chooses him.

sevin
11-07-2009, 03:44 AM
Are we free-thinkers or a cult of personality? It would seem the former outweighs the latter, yet the latter lambasts the former. In a huge swing of ideological irony, these are the same type sycophantic idolizers that Obama uses. I was hoping this was the movement for individualism.....Don't worry folks, I know most of us here don't support the notion that Sevin here is espousing.

THINK for just a second, just a split second...

...

Okay you're a free thinker and the politician you support more than any other endorses someone else, do you just ignore it?

I like Napolitano, Woods, and Schiff, too. But Baldwin stands for everything Ron Paul stands for. WTF are you talking about a cult of personality?

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 04:01 AM
THINK for just a second, just a split second...

...

Okay you're a free thinker and the politician you support more than any other endorses someone else, do you just ignore it?

I like Napolitano, Woods, and Schiff, too. But Baldwin stands for everything Ron Paul stands for. WTF are you talking about a cult of personality?

Because instead of enumerating the stances of Baldwin, you instead blurted: BUT RON PAUL! I don't care what Ron Paul has to say about Baldwin. I'll evaluate Baldwin myself. You basically said, well, Ron Paul endorses him so we have to endorse him, or like him also. If that isn't the definition of a cult of personality I don't know what is.

I'll evaluate on my own thanks, and I don't particularly like what I see. I'm pretty picky when it comes to those I support.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 04:02 AM
If you can't discern the difference between Huckabee and Baldwin, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ass.

So you don't believe Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve like Huckabee?

sevin
11-07-2009, 04:08 AM
Are we free-thinkers or a cult of personality? It would seem the former outweighs the latter, yet the latter lambasts the former. In a huge swing of ideological irony, these are the same type sycophantic idolizers that Obama uses. I was hoping this was the movement for individualism.....Don't worry folks, I know most of us here don't support the notion that Sevin here is espousing.

You know what, FUDGE YOU, Austrian Econ Disciple. Mods, you can ban me if you want. I don't care.

All I suggested was that because Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for the presidency in 2008, I would have thought that most people here would be in favor of Chuck Baldwin as a potential contender. If you believe Ron Paul, then why wouldn't you believe in the person he endorses? That's not a cult of personality, that's just common sense!

But then someone like Austrian Econ Disciple comes along and dares to compare my ideas to the cult of personality associated with Obama. What a prick. The cult of personality behind Obama's sorry ass is people believing he will help them based on his looks and tone of voice. When Ron Paul suggests that Chuck Baldwin is someone worth looking into, I listen because up to this point, I've agreed with 99% of everything he's said, all based on my own personal judgment, not because of a cult of personality.

Google Chuck Baldwin.


Go use your so-called "individuality" to vote for Obama in 2012, you ...

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 04:16 AM
You know what, FUDGE YOU, Austrian Econ Disciple. Mods, you can ban me if you want. I don't care.

All I suggested was that because Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for the presidency in 2008, I would have thought that most people here would be in favor of Chuck Baldwin as a potential contender. If you believe Ron Paul, then why wouldn't you believe in the person he endorses? That's not a cult of personality, that's just common sense!

But then someone like Austrian Econ Disciple comes along and dares to compare my ideas to the cult of personality associated with Obama. What a prick. The cult of personality behind Obama's sorry ass is people believing he will help them based on his looks and tone of voice. When Ron Paul suggests that Chuck Baldwin is someone worth looking into, I don't listen because of Ron's opinions or appearances, I listen because I've learned enough about his opinions to where I trust his judgment. Google Chuck Baldwin.

Go use your "individuality" to vote for Obama in 2012, you ....

Such antipathy. Yep, because someone like me would ever vote for Obama...I'll end up most likely voting for Mary Ruwart if Ron doesn't get the nomination.

I would also urge you to go back and read what you posted as your initial response. Check the tone, and presentation. It certainly didn't convey anything other than what I hear from Obamabots. Secondly, I even called out the irony based on ideology, so in no way am I saying you endorse the ludicrousness of his views.

sevin
11-07-2009, 04:36 AM
You're missing the point. The only reason I got upset is that you suggested that Ron Paul is a cult of personality. This is true to a degree, but it is nothing like the Obama cult.

It has to do with the fact that Ron Paul is the only politician who consistently endorses freedom, and I think it is a disgrace to compare this movement to Obama's cult of personality. Just because you have a leader and you agree with his views doesn't automatically mean you're a cult of personality. The people in Obama's cult aren't even thinking things through, it's all based on feelings. The people who like Ron Paul use their brains. So if Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin, then I think it's a good idea for them to learn about Chuck Baldwin.

The fact that you start getting critical when I bring up the person Ron Paul endorsed for the presidency in 2008, Chuck Baldwin, says a lot about you.

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 04:37 AM
Such antipathy. Yep, because someone like me would ever vote for Obama...I'll end up most likely voting for Mary Ruwart if Ron doesn't get the nomination.

I would also urge you to go back and read what you posted as your initial response. Check the tone, and presentation. It certainly didn't convey anything other than what I hear from Obamabots. Secondly, I even called out the irony based on ideology, so in no way am I saying you endorse the ludicrousness of his views.

Actually, you accused him of being in a ... what was it? --- oh yeah, "a cult of personality". Around here, those are fightin' words.

SimpleName
11-07-2009, 04:55 AM
Actually, you accused him of being in a ... what was it? --- oh yeah, "a cult of personality". Around here, those are fightin' words.

That was only after the "R U f**king kidding me?", which are themselves quite harsh considering they were directed at the previous posters. But my non-moderating doesn't count I guess.

Other than that, I have little. Wouldn't pick Baldwin, wouldn't be against it. I'd rather a few others.

nobody's_hero
11-07-2009, 04:59 AM
If you can't discern the difference between Huckabee and Baldwin, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ass.

Some people have an overt fear of all things religion—unable to discern between someone's personal beliefs and their political ambitions.

I am not a devoutly religious man, but if I had the choice between a Christian man who understands his limitations under the Constitution, or an athiest who is a tyrant with no regard for the law, then I'll throw in my support for the Sunday school teacher.

As for the topic at hand, I'm thinking that Chuck should maybe try going for a House or Senate seat first; it's more feasible.

Meatwasp
11-07-2009, 06:15 AM
I am not overly religious but I would vote for Chuck. We can win if we get the Christian vote. That is the only way so think about it. I have never heard him sprue out any of his religious beliefs

catdd
11-07-2009, 07:13 AM
Paul-Baldwin would work, but my first choice would be Nap.
They wouldn't dig up any dirt on those two that's for sure

ClayTrainor
11-07-2009, 07:41 AM
I like Chuck as a person and value his contributions, but no thanks on the VP, for various reasons. Mainly because, There are much better potential VP candidates.


That was only after the "R U f**king kidding me?", which are themselves quite harsh considering they were directed at the previous posters. But my non-moderating doesn't count I guess.

Nah, no bias here... :p

Theocrat
11-07-2009, 08:20 AM
I don't believe what I'm reading in this thread. Here we have a man who shares the same principles of a free republic as we do, was endorsed by Congressman Paul during the general election, and has been an writer teaching and exposing the evils of our poor government and policies for several years, and yet, some won't support him because he's passionate about God? Give me a freaking break! Do you not know that our country was founded by men who feared God and relied upon Him for the all the blessings of liberty we once enjoyed?

You know what. This "liberty movement" is going to fail if we continue to garner individuals who repeatedly attack and berate those who follow God. The sheer ignorance and hatred of those who can't stand any candidate or platform which honors God as the source of our liberties will be the downfall of any attempt for us to restore our republic. Some of you are nothing more than liberals with so-called libertarian leanings.

Cowlesy
11-07-2009, 08:29 AM
I like Chuck Baldwin (he gives a great freedom sermon), but he gets a little too black-helicopter occasionally in his columns, and the media would use it against him.

CountryboyRonPaul
11-07-2009, 08:33 AM
I think Baldwin could be a good choice politically to bring some more diversity into the movement.

Maybe cut some of the religious voters from their GOP umbilical cord.

Whether or not he would be a better choice than Schiff or Napolitano I can't say.... The people that support Schiff and Napolitano will already be supporting Ron Paul. But Baldwin can lure in some Huck voters.

I'm only thinking about the election though, not what would be best once in office. I would probably go with Napolitano otherwise.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 08:35 AM
I do not believe that a minister should be running for high office, PERIOD.

So no, Chuck. I don't want you to run with Ron in 2012.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 08:43 AM
I don't believe what I'm reading in this thread. Here we have a man who shares the same principles of a free republic as we do, was endorsed by Congressman Paul during the general election, and has been an writer teaching and exposing the evils of our poor government and policies for several years, and yet, some won't support him because he's passionate about God? Give me a freaking break! Do you not know that our country was founded by men who feared God and relied upon Him for the all the blessings of liberty we once enjoyed?

You know what. This "liberty movement" is going to fail if we continue to garner individuals who repeatedly attack and berate those who follow God. The sheer ignorance and hatred of those who can't stand any candidate or platform which honors God as the source of our liberties will be the downfall of any attempt for us to restore our republic. Some of you are nothing more than liberals with so-called libertarian leanings.

That's because our rights don't come from God, they come from humanity. Secondly, I don't care if your a Scientologist great for you, but it has no business in politics. And if you think I'm devoutly against religious men being in office I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, Patrick Henry supporter, and others like them.

Secondly, our Founding Fathers contrary to popular opinion were mostly Non-Christian. Many were Deists, others Non-Denominational, etc. The most revered man Thomas Jefferson was a deist. (And he kept religion out of the public square. He was almost militant about that)

I also don't look at the world through a lens of black and white. If Baldwin was like Paul and didn't bring up religion whatsoever into the public forum, then I would be more inclined to support such a VP nomination even then I still think there are vastly more qualified candidates.

catdd
11-07-2009, 08:46 AM
You can't just exclude ministers or it looks biased against Christianity. Once you open that can of worms you have to exclude any and all religions.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 08:53 AM
You can't just exclude ministers or it looks biased against Christianity. Once you open that can of worms you have to exclude any and all religions.

True.

I don't think anyone that is a leader of any religious group/religion should run for high office.

CountryboyRonPaul
11-07-2009, 08:58 AM
Would Ron Paul be looking at appointing a Supreme Court Justice in the next 4 years?

Can a VP be nominated?

...Because, Napolitano would make the best SC Justice EVER!

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 09:01 AM
I do not believe that a minister should be running for high office, PERIOD.

So no, Chuck. I don't want you to run with Ron in 2012.

Why?

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 09:04 AM
That's because our rights don't come from God, they come from humanity. Secondly, I don't care if your a Scientologist great for you, but it has no business in politics. And if you think I'm devoutly against religious men being in office I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, Patrick Henry supporter, and others like them.

Secondly, our Founding Fathers contrary to popular opinion were mostly Non-Christian. Many were Deists, others Non-Denominational, etc. The most revered man Thomas Jefferson was a deist. (And he kept religion out of the public square. He was almost militant about that)


I don't want to pull this thread off-topic, but I just need to call BS. :p

Good reading material on the subject:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175069

ForLiberty-RonPaul
11-07-2009, 09:11 AM
True.

I don't think anyone that is a leader of any religious group/religion should run for high office.

agreed. way to dangerous. I don't care if the person is religious, just don't want them to be in a position of power as it relates to that religion. You'll end up having conflicting loyalties.

history history history! This isn't about bashing God or whatever, it's about what has happened in the past.

JamesButabi
11-07-2009, 09:24 AM
I don't personally want Chuck Baldwin to be the VP (Im pulling for the judge), yet im utterly enthused that Chuck is thinking about this and asking voters to come to his support in polls. If nothing else, I would gladly contribute to a fund for Chuck to campaign in support of Ron. Hopefully this go around he would withdraw early and toss in his support for Ron. Something to think about for early strategizing.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 09:27 AM
agreed. way to dangerous. I don't care if the person is religious, just don't want them to be in a position of power as it relates to that religion. You'll end up having conflicting loyalties.

history history history! This isn't about bashing God or whatever, it's about what has happened in the past.

LE - what FL-RP said ^^^

editing to add - think about the Ft Hood guy that cracked. He may have joined the army with the best of intentions, not in any way anti-US; yet circumstances beyond his control cause his LOYALTY to become conflicted - to such an extreme that he actually cracked up.

That is what concerns me. I have no issue with individuals of faith holding high office - just LEADERS of religious movements - as they are leaders of those movements (I would think) as a result of their FERVENT belief and WILLINGNESS to demonstrate and act on that fervor.

That could become a problem down the line - thru circumstances beyond their control.

hueylong
11-07-2009, 09:29 AM
Ummm. There should be room in the r3volution for both religious, and not so religious people.

Freedom of thought is the core of libertarianism.

pcosmar
11-07-2009, 09:46 AM
It is apparent that most here know absolutely NOTHING about Chuck Baldwin or his positions.
It is obvious that they have neither listened to or read his writings. That oppose him for NO other reason than that he is a Christian Minister.
Very sad. and quite ignorant. :(

Educate yourself.
http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin041215.htm

Can Constitutionalists
Ever Come Together?
May 23, 2006
http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin060523.htm

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 09:48 AM
LE - what FL-RP said ^^^

editing to add - think about the Ft Hood guy that cracked. He may have joined the army with the best of intentions, not in any way anti-US; yet circumstances beyond his control cause his LOYALTY to become conflicted - to such an extreme that he actually cracked up.

That is what concerns me. I have no issue with individuals of faith holding high office - just LEADERS of religious movements - as they are leaders of those movements (I would think) as a result of their FERVENT belief and WILLINGNESS to demonstrate and act on that fervor.

That could become a problem down the line - thru circumstances beyond their control.

He wasn't a religious LEADER, was he?

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 10:28 AM
Have you had coffee yet? lol...

JenH88
11-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Ummm. There should be room in the r3volution for both religious, and not so religious people.

Freedom of thought is the core of libertarianism.

it seems once again people are more concerned with arguing who's more 'purely' libertarian.. while the whole time going directly against what they profess to support.. :rolleyes: freedom is at stake here, but too many are more concerned with fighting amongst themselves.. pull it together people..


It is apparent that most here know absolutely NOTHING about Chuck Baldwin or his positions.
It is obvious that they have neither listened to or read his writings. That oppose him for NO other reason than that he is a Christian Minister.
Very sad. and quite ignorant. :(

Educate yourself.
http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin041215.htm

Can Constitutionalists
Ever Come Together?
May 23, 2006
http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin060523.htm

great post.. in agreement 100%

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 10:34 AM
Ummm. There should be room in the r3volution for both religious, and not so religious people.

Freedom of thought is the core of libertarianism.

Who here is advocating repression of thought? There are those of us here who simply wouldn't advocate, nor support him being VP. He has every right to say what he wants, doesn't mean we have to support them. Besides, Ron Paul is religious, and this movement is growing due to his activism. Patrick Henry was staunchly religious. I won't support anyone who wears their religion on their sleeve, period, whereas I actively support and laud the former.

Dieseler
11-07-2009, 10:34 AM
Yeah, I'll take Chuck...

If its OK with the rest of you marooons.
:(

pcosmar
11-07-2009, 10:37 AM
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080108.html
Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?
by Chuck Baldwin
January 8, 2008

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html
Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul
by Chuck Baldwin
September 23, 2008

Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight.

Working Poor
11-07-2009, 10:42 AM
Yeah, I'll take Chuck...

If its OK with the rest of you marooons.
:(

I thought it was morons...

I don't dislike Chuck at all I just think the judge is hot I guess:p.

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 10:43 AM
Have you had coffee yet? lol...

Yes. On my second cup. I still haven't seen anything that said that the shooter was a religious LEADER. If you have, please point it out.

Original_Intent
11-07-2009, 10:43 AM
So you don't believe Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve like Huckabee?

Absolutely not. Huckabee obviously uses his religion to forward his political purposes. Baldwin stands firm in his religious beliefs, does not apologize for them, and often refers to them when explaining his positions.

You can claim to-MAY-to vs. to-MAH-to, but to me it is all about intent. and part of choosing a candidate to support is not just judging what he says but why you believe they say it. Huckabee, I believe, would do just about anything to forward his political career, he would be a Buddhist, a muslim or a Hari Krishna (I believe) if it would get him votes. My impression of Baldwin is just the opposite. He does not say things to get elected, he says what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. There is no question in my mind that Baldwin would stand firm in his faith no matter the cost. The fact that his faith has led him to correct principles of freedom and liberty (he is not 100% perfect but he is far, far better than most involved in politics, religious or otherwise.

I think the idea that if someone speaks of religion "in a public forum" that such would invalidate them for consideration for office is repugnant and despicable, and there isn't a Founding Father, religious, atheist, or otherwise, that wouldn't be spinning in their grave to hear such a thing spoken in America.

MsDoodahs, wow, what an eye opener that you feel that a minister should not be able to run for public office due to possible conflicts of loyalty and then bring the shootings at Fort Hood in as a supporting argument. All I can say is wow, I never thought I would hear such bigotry from you. If the person who had done that were atheist, and you had said you could never vote for an atheist because they obviously have no moral groundings (I AM NOT SAYING THAT, just as an example) you would have people coming out of the woodwork about lumping people together and we need to look at each person as an individual, yet you get away with lumping Christian's in with Muslim's, draw your conclusions based on that and no one says a whimper. It is obvious that the atheist influence on this site has had the desired effect - again saying that someone should not be able to run for office due to being a minister - :eek: I'm seriously blown away.

Meatwasp
11-07-2009, 10:45 AM
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080108.html
Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?
by Chuck Baldwin
January 8, 2008

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html
Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul
by Chuck Baldwin
September 23, 2008

thanks pcosmar for posting that. It will bring together the skeptics of Chuck together if they take the time to read the posts.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 10:53 AM
Yes. On my second cup. I still haven't seen anything that said that the shooter was a religious LEADER. If you have, please point it out.

Nancy, my point had NOTHING to do with the guy being a religious leader.

Do you seriously NOT grasp that?

pcosmar
11-07-2009, 10:55 AM
thanks pcosmar for posting that. It will bring together the skeptics of Chuck together if they take the time to read the posts.

You're Welcome.
I ran across Chucks writings while promoting Dr. Paul. He was a solid supporter and only entered the race (reluctantly) after Ron ended the campaign.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2576515036_df3a4a2437.jpg

I had intended to "write in" Ron Paul, but at the last minute cast it for Chuck (he was on the ballot here), he had Ron's endorsement and the same positions.
We are all going down the same road.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 10:58 AM
Wow, I'm shocked that you guys are shocked to read my position - as I'm pretty sure I've stated this here in the past.

This isn't a new stance for me; I've held this view for literally decades.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-07-2009, 11:03 AM
Absolutely not. Huckabee obviously uses his religion to forward his political purposes. Baldwin stands firm in his religious beliefs, does not apologize for them, and often refers to them when explaining his positions.

You can claim to-MAY-to vs. to-MAH-to, but to me it is all about intent. and part of choosing a candidate to support is not just judging what he says but why you believe they say it. Huckabee, I believe, would do just about anything to forward his political career, he would be a Buddhist, a muslim or a Hari Krishna (I believe) if it would get him votes. My impression of Baldwin is just the opposite. He does not say things to get elected, he says what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. There is no question in my mind that Baldwin would stand firm in his faith no matter the cost. The fact that his faith has led him to correct principles of freedom and liberty (he is not 100% perfect but he is far, far better than most involved in politics, religious or otherwise.

I think the idea that if someone speaks of religion "in a public forum" that such would invalidate them for consideration for office is repugnant and despicable, and there isn't a Founding Father, religious, atheist, or otherwise, that wouldn't be spinning in their grave to hear such a thing spoken in America.

MsDoodahs, wow, what an eye opener that you feel that a minister should not be able to run for public office due to possible conflicts of loyalty and then bring the shootings at Fort Hood in as a supporting argument. All I can say is wow, I never thought I would hear such bigotry from you. If the person who had done that were atheist, and you had said you could never vote for an atheist because they obviously have no moral groundings (I AM NOT SAYING THAT, just as an example) you would have people coming out of the woodwork about lumping people together and we need to look at each person as an individual, yet you get away with lumping Christian's in with Muslim's, draw your conclusions based on that and no one says a whimper. It is obvious that the atheist influence on this site has had the desired effect - again saying that someone should not be able to run for office due to being a minister - :eek: I'm seriously blown away.

Can you find where I said that talking about religion in the public decorum while running for office invalidates anyone? I said I will not support or endorse anyone who does. Did I say I would restrict them from running? This extremism of interpretation needs to end.

Secondly, I don't believe whatsoever in religion to explain ones position. Perhaps this is because I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, and many here are Constitutionalists. Who knows. All I know is that my belief in Natural Law is one that is inherent in humanity, not because we are supposedly created by a higher being, but because it is an axiom that we are born free.

Anyways, I am always logically consistent in my positions and I firmly believe in NAP so I'm just wondering why anyone would believe I would violate my staunch libertarianism...

PS: Pcos I admit I am not as educated in the religiousness of the Founders, however, I have read somewhat about Jefferson and deism in the Founders. I'll have to delve further into this sometime and I'll come back with hopefully a more educated response. Cheers.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
11-07-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes. On my second cup. I still haven't seen anything that said that the shooter was a religious LEADER. If you have, please point it out.

i was talking about Baldwin

ChaosControl
11-07-2009, 11:21 AM
Sure, I liked him and voted for him in 08.

jkr
11-07-2009, 01:10 PM
yep!

Brian4Liberty
11-07-2009, 01:30 PM
Yes Chuck, I want you to run. Why aren't you running for Governor right now? Congress? Senate? That experience is usually the first step.

LibertyEagle
11-07-2009, 01:44 PM
Nancy, my point had NOTHING to do with the guy being a religious leader.

Do you seriously NOT grasp that?

Apparently NOT, or I wouldn't be asking questions trying to figure out what you DO mean.

Here, you said...


I do not believe that a minister should be running for high office, PERIOD.

So no, Chuck. I don't want you to run with Ron in 2012.

I responded with "Why"?

And you came back with the following.
---------

Originally Posted by ForLiberty-RonPaul
agreed. way to dangerous. I don't care if the person is religious, just don't want them to be in a position of power as it relates to that religion. You'll end up having conflicting loyalties.

history history history! This isn't about bashing God or whatever, it's about what has happened in the past.


LE - what FL-RP said ^^^

editing to add - think about the Ft Hood guy that cracked. He may have joined the army with the best of intentions, not in any way anti-US; yet circumstances beyond his control cause his LOYALTY to become conflicted - to such an extreme that he actually cracked up.

That is what concerns me. I have no issue with individuals of faith holding high office - just LEADERS of religious movements - as they are leaders of those movements (I would think) as a result of their FERVENT belief and WILLINGNESS to demonstrate and act on that fervor.

That could become a problem down the line - thru circumstances beyond their control.
---------

So, at this point, I am thinking.... what's she doing mixing Baldwin being a pastor with the Ft. Hood shooter. wtf?? And then you go on with "LEADERS of religious movements". So yeah, I'm still confused about the comparison there. Moving on, so who do you think is a leader of a religious movement? Baldwin? How does being a pastor cause some of you guys to think that he/she might have "conflicting loyalties" more than say, just an everyday Christian? Or, is that a problem for some too?

NOTE: BTW, I voted for Napolitano in the poll. :p

mconder
11-07-2009, 02:01 PM
The Evengelical Christian crowd is one part of the liberty/conservative voting block that Ron Paul does not appeal to. Adding Chuck Baldwin to the ticket is brilliant.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Apparently NOT, or I wouldn't be asking questions trying to figure out what you DO mean.

So, at this point, I am thinking.... what's she doing mixing Baldwin being a pastor with the Ft. Hood shooter. wtf??

Okay, I'll try to clarify my view.

Chuck Baldwin is a LEADER inside a religious movement. He is PASTOR Chuck Baldwin. This, in my opinion, indicates that Chuck's religious beliefs are FERVENT. Were he not a FERVENT believer, the man would NOT be a pastor, and I have the expectation that PASTORS intend to demonstrate LEADERSHIP among their flock. Ergo, Chuck Baldwin is a LEADER inside a religious movement.

Political high office holders - like Presidents - can find themselves dealing with some situations outside their control. In some instances, I believe that the serious issue/circumstance a President might have to deal with could be an issue that would CHALLENGE their personal religious beliefs; circumstances that very well might cause CONFLICTED LOYALTY.

Because I believe that leaders within religious movements are those who believe WITH FERVOR, I believe that they should not run for President, as having FERVENT religious beliefs makes them, in my opinion, MORE LIKELY to experience such conflicted loyalty.

It is in this respect - the aspect of conflicted loyalty causing extreme stress to the human being - that I was using the Ft. Hood shooter. I never said the Ft. Hood guy was a religious leader; as far as I know, he was not. The reports I have heard seem to indicate he was deeply religious...FERVENT? Maybe so.

Conflicted loyalty is a bad thing - it can cause a man to crack. Since I believe religious leaders are FERVENT believers, and because I believe high office like President puts the officeholder in circumstances where conflicted loyalty is more of a risk, I therefore do not believe religious leaders should run for high office.


And then you go on with "LEADERS of religious movements". So yeah, I'm still confused about the comparison there.

Hope that clarified my position.

Flash
11-07-2009, 06:38 PM
Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012?

I like Chuck Baldwin but would wish he had more political experience.

MsDoodahs
11-07-2009, 06:44 PM
Well, yeah, hon, there's that, too...but I am trying to be NICE. :p

catdd
11-07-2009, 06:53 PM
And there is the crux of the matter. It's not important which religion a person belongs to, it comes down to what kind of person he is.
Chuck Baldwin is an honest, decent man IMO who has found a way of combining the Bible with the liberty message.
His entire mindset is one of liberty and freedom. Show me a Black Muslim with those qualities and I'd vote for him.

Original_Intent
11-07-2009, 07:04 PM
And there is the crux of the matter. It's not important which religion a person belongs to, it comes down to what kind of person he is.
Chuck Baldwin is an honest, decent man IMO who has found a way of combining the Bible with the liberty message.
His entire mindset is one of liberty and freedom. Show me a Black Muslim with those qualities and I'd vote for him.

+1

devil21
11-07-2009, 07:08 PM
Sorry Chuck but this argument is utterly pointless right now and only serves to divide the supporters. Fail.


Looks like he wants to make sure he's not forgotten in the run up to 2012.

Brian4Liberty
11-07-2009, 07:23 PM
The Evengelical Christian crowd is one part of the liberty/conservative voting block that Ron Paul does not appeal to. Adding Chuck Baldwin to the ticket is brilliant.

Why does Ron Paul not appeal to them?

Original_Intent
11-07-2009, 07:32 PM
Why does Ron Paul not appeal to them?

He's not Huckabee... /duck

Flash
11-07-2009, 07:36 PM
Ron Paul/Gary Johnson

catdd
11-07-2009, 07:41 PM
Why does Ron Paul not appeal to them?

I've wondered that. Must be because he is not a a pro war junkie that seems to go with the Empire Building, Zionistic mentality.

devil21
11-07-2009, 07:43 PM
I've wondered that. Must be because he is not a a pro war junkie that seems to go with the Empire Building, Zionistic mentality.

That and he refuses to wear his religion on his sleeve and legislate/govern accordingly. The evangelicals (present company excluded of course) WANT someone that legislates/governs according to their religious beliefs. RP won't do it.

Dieseler
11-07-2009, 07:47 PM
Ron Paul / The Pope
2012
Throw the Damn Thang!

robert9712000
11-07-2009, 08:46 PM
Im gonna have to agree with theocrat and original intent,you do come across as a hypocrite austirn econ.

you seem to be of sound mind,and if you are you should recognize the vices that can corrupt a man to make him lose his way and what may have once been honest passion to further the cause of liberty has turned into a man that will compromise his beliefs to try to make others happy or to fit his needs.

What is that vice?The vice is that when a man isnt accountable in his mind to someone higher than himself he can easily become arrogant and prideful which clouds his judgment.

I think that's what describes you ,clouding your judgment and making you a hypocrite.you'll in one voice express the importance of freedom and liberty and in the next voice judge a man and deny his ideas to have consideration in your mind simply based on the knee jerk reaction to have too condemn anything resembling religion ,hence invalidating them to have equal consideration in your thoughts


Can you find where I said that talking about religion in the public decorum while running for office invalidates anyone? I said I will not support or endorse anyone who does.

see the contradiction ?? you invalidate someone in your mind and wont support them simply for being religious( and if a person truly believes in God i would find them deceitful if they hid there beliefs.I want my politicians to be brutally honest,even to the point of coming across as eccentric,because that expresses the character trait of humility,sincerity and meekness.Those are the quality s i seek in the man that i want to represent me

fj45lvr
11-08-2009, 12:46 AM
Why does Ron Paul not appeal to them?

Mostly because of Paul's view on the limitation of the Federal Government to the 10th amendment and its proper powers ---such that Paul is NOT supportive of the religious rights fervor to consistently violate that by trying to throw support behind laws/policies that are NOT powers under Federal jurisdiction.

The christian right doesn't like the fact that he's not behind voting "yes" on various bans on things they don't want to see in society (even though Paul may not want to see those things to, he is smart enough to know that you are "selling out" by doing EXACTLY what the left does in ignoring Federalism.

In addition Paul's foreign policy is not "gung-ho" on killing the Islamists (something the Christian right loves in their support for zionism).

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 01:04 AM
Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012?
By Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
(Supplemental)


An Internet online poll is asking readers to pick Ron Paul's running mate
should he decide to run for President in 2012. Readers will remember that
Dr. Paul endorsed me in last year's Presidential election. If you would like
to vote for me (or someone else) in this online poll, go here:

[/URL]http://tinyurl.com/yfmndfr (http://tinyurl.com/yfmndfr)

Plus, THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS are being printed now. In all likelihood, we
will begin shipping them sometime next week. To beat the rush, go here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html)

Thank you for reading my columns.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

[URL]http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php)

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Personally, I'd support Chuck as Ron's VP in 2012, but we need to keep our options open at the moment. A decision should probably be made within the next few months, though.

nobody's_hero
11-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Chuck is about the best thing the liberty movement has to pry the old Christian right off of their foreign policy views. Chuck doesn't think the U.S. should be the policeman of the world, and proposes that we bring our troops home. Hardly anyone else on the right (excepting Ron Paul) will even discuss the issue.

If his message strikes a nerve with the Christian right that undeclared wars are not fit and proper for a 'Christian nation' (whether you believe it to be or not, the point is that less wars would be good for athiests and religious-folk alike; at least we can agree on that), then for heaven's sake, we could at least give the man a pat on the back.

I have seen enough of Chuck to know that he respects the rule of law (Constitutional Republic), not the rule of man (dictatorship/oligarchy like what we have now). Even if he did support federal intrusion into the drug war, or banning abortion, or banning gay marriage, he is entitled to his views and does not become a hypocrite until he fails to abide by the Constitution to accomplish those goals (that is—if he has any desire to do those things on a federal level; but I haven't heard much about that). At that point, he would become a hypocrite just like anyone else who has taken an oath to support and uphold the U.S. Constitution and fails to safeguard it from usurpation.

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Okay, I'll try to clarify my view.

Chuck Baldwin is a LEADER inside a religious movement. He is PASTOR Chuck Baldwin. This, in my opinion, indicates that Chuck's religious beliefs are FERVENT. Were he not a FERVENT believer, the man would NOT be a pastor, and I have the expectation that PASTORS intend to demonstrate LEADERSHIP among their flock. Ergo, Chuck Baldwin is a LEADER inside a religious movement.

Political high office holders - like Presidents - can find themselves dealing with some situations outside their control. In some instances, I believe that the serious issue/circumstance a President might have to deal with could be an issue that would CHALLENGE their personal religious beliefs; circumstances that very well might cause CONFLICTED LOYALTY.

Because I believe that leaders within religious movements are those who believe WITH FERVOR, I believe that they should not run for President, as having FERVENT religious beliefs makes them, in my opinion, MORE LIKELY to experience such conflicted loyalty.

It is in this respect - the aspect of conflicted loyalty causing extreme stress to the human being - that I was using the Ft. Hood shooter. I never said the Ft. Hood guy was a religious leader; as far as I know, he was not. The reports I have heard seem to indicate he was deeply religious...FERVENT? Maybe so.

Conflicted loyalty is a bad thing - it can cause a man to crack. Since I believe religious leaders are FERVENT believers, and because I believe high office like President puts the officeholder in circumstances where conflicted loyalty is more of a risk, I therefore do not believe religious leaders should run for high office.

Hope that clarified my position.

Yes. It sounds like you believe that if someone is a luke-warm Christian, it's fine. But, anything beyond that, no way. It sounds rather odd to me, but to each their own.


And if someone would EXCLUDE someone from consideration JUST BECAUSE they were a person of faith, I would say THEY were in need of a "serious mindfuck check".


And there is the crux of the matter. It's not important which religion a person belongs to, it comes down to what kind of person he is.
Chuck Baldwin is an honest, decent man IMO who has found a way of combining the Bible with the liberty message.
His entire mindset is one of liberty and freedom. Show me a Black Muslim with those qualities and I'd vote for him.

Exactly.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 12:55 PM
Yes. It sounds like you believe that if someone is a luke-warm Christian, it's fine. But, anything beyond that, no way. It sounds rather odd to me, but to each their own.




I think religious zealots - of any flavor - make bad choices for political leaders.

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 12:58 PM
Ron Paul / Count Dracula
2012
Change you can sink your teeth into!

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 01:04 PM
I think religious zealots - of any flavor - make bad choices for political leaders.

Tell that to our Founders.

Meatwasp
11-08-2009, 01:05 PM
Tell that to our Founders.

Oh Liberty you crack me up. LOL

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 01:06 PM
I think religious zealots - of any flavor - make bad choices for political leaders.
I 100% agree.

In terms of marketing, If smashing through the left v right paradigm is our goal (which it should be), the strategy of choosing another devout Christian on a republican ticket, is pure fail. I also think it would be fail in terms of collecting votes, in the general election. The image of 2 devout Christians running together as republicans, will be a huge struggle for us, simply because it screams "christian-Right", in terms of image. We all know better, but most people won't be so easy to sell on the idea, especially those who we would need to convert in the General.

It will make us appear as we're just part of the left vs right paradigm. Ron needs someone less "traditional" to run with him. I'm not against the concept of him running with another Christian, at all, just not such a hardcore one who clearly puts a lot of emphasis on his own faith, in nearly all of his work.

These are just my personal hang-ups about Baldwin. I wouldn't oppose Ron Paul running with him, if that's his choice, and I like Chuck as a person and as a libertarian but, I do not like the marketing strategy of him becoming Rons VP, one bit. In terms of marketing, i cannot see this as a good ticket for our movement.

Don't get me wrong. Chuck is a good guy, and a great asset to libertarianism. :)

Endgame
11-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Johnson and Schiff (if he makes the senate) or Paul.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 01:10 PM
In terms of marketing, If smashing through the left v right paradigm is our goal (which it should be), the strategy is pure fail. I also think it would be fail in terms of collecting votes, in the general election. The image of 2 devout Christians running together is as republicans, will be a huge struggle for us, simply because it screams "christian-Right", in terms of image. We all know better, but most people won't be so easy to sell on the idea.

It will make us appear as we're just part of the left vs right paradigm. Ron needs someone less "traditional" to run with him. I'm not against he concept of him running with another Christian, at all, just not such a hardcore one who clearly puts a lot of emphasis on his own faith, in nearly all of his work.

These are just my personal hang-ups about Baldwin. I wouldn't oppose Ron Paul running with him, if that's his choice, and I like Chuck as a person and as a libertarian but, I do not like the marketing strategy of him becoming Rons VP, one bit. In terms of marketing, i cannot see this as a good ticket for our movement.
Don't get me wrong. Chuck is a good guy, and a great asset to libertarianism. :)

:)

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2009, 01:17 PM
He's not Huckabee... /duck

Yeah, an actual minister may be more appealing to some religious fundamentalists...


I've wondered that. Must be because he is not a a pro war junkie that seems to go with the Empire Building, Zionistic mentality.

But neither does Chuck Baldwin.


That and he refuses to wear his religion on his sleeve and legislate/govern accordingly. The evangelicals (present company excluded of course) WANT someone that legislates/governs according to their religious beliefs. RP won't do it.

Chuck certainly wears it on his sleeve, but does he want to legislate it?


Mostly because of Paul's view on the limitation of the Federal Government to the 10th amendment and its proper powers ---such that Paul is NOT supportive of the religious rights fervor to consistently violate that by trying to throw support behind laws/policies that are NOT powers under Federal jurisdiction.

The christian right doesn't like the fact that he's not behind voting "yes" on various bans on things they don't want to see in society (even though Paul may not want to see those things to, he is smart enough to know that you are "selling out" by doing EXACTLY what the left does in ignoring Federalism.

In addition Paul's foreign policy is not "gung-ho" on killing the Islamists (something the Christian right loves in their support for zionism).

Yeah, but isn't Chuck pretty much on the same page as Ron on all of those issues?

I am still not seeing what makes Chuck so much "better" to the religious right, other than the fact he is a pastor...

emazur
11-08-2009, 01:24 PM
Baldwin should not run w/ Paul. Paul appeals to people who consider themselves to be either on the right or the left, while Baldwin would only appeal to right wingers (whether you think that's fair or not, that is how it will be perceived). Paul already to a degree has the undeserved reputation of being a Christian-wingnut (remember all the Christian~evolution questions from the Reddit interview?), and adding Baldwin to the ticket would magnify this perception 100 fold and cost Paul a good chunk of voters. Baldwin (and I think his whole party) also seems to despise Muslims:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2002/cbarchive_20020201.html

The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception. Mohammed built the Islamic faith on violence, coercion, and intimidation. Contrary to Bush's claim, the Koran is anything but "holy." In fact, it is among the most unholy books ever written. It blatantly and repeatedly calls for the slaughter of non-Muslim people. The Koran also encourages terrorism and plunder. Christians and Jews are specifically targeted for discrimination in the Koran. Furthermore, only communism rivals Islam in sheer numbers of people persecuted and killed. .
We don't need this tainting people's views on Paul's tolerance.

I'd be fine if Baldwin had some position in a Paul administration, but choosing him for VP would be a mistake.

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 01:25 PM
I voted for Napolitano, because he is getting some name recognition, which is extremely important. He isn't partisan, in that he calls both parties on their bullshit, and he is extremely good at delivering our overall message and THAT is extremely important.

If we run no-names, they will finish the same way. No one will ever find out about them. Ron was great at delivering the message to us, but not to the general public. They had no clue what he was talking about and completely misunderstood most of what he was saying. The Judge is much better at communicating, in my opinion.

With regard to the previous discussion of candidates of faith. I dunno guys, sometimes it comes across like the only people some in this movement will approve of, are atheists. Since atheism is a religion of sorts too, just one of a different context, it seems to me that some of you just might be applying the same yardstick that Christians have been accused of applying when evaluating candidates. Some of you want someone of your own faith; just like some Christians.

For me, and me only, I don't want someone who is lukewarm on ANYTHING. Whether that be their faith, liberty, or the Constitution. Because to me, that is what created this damn fix we're in, to begin with.

emazur
11-08-2009, 02:48 PM
With regard to the previous discussion of candidates of faith. I dunno guys, sometimes it comes across like the only people some in this movement will approve of, are atheists. Since atheism is a religion of sorts too, just one of a different context, it seems to me that some of you just might be applying the same yardstick that Christians have been accused of applying when evaluating candidates. Some of you want someone of your own faith; just like some Christians.

For me, and me only, I don't want someone who is lukewarm on ANYTHING. Whether that be their faith, liberty, or the Constitution. Because to me, that is what created this damn fix we're in, to begin with.

I think hardly anyone here specifically wants an atheist candidate (after all, we are all huge Ron Paul supporters), we just don't want a candidate who we think might try to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans in some way through their political decisions.

Flipping this around - would you prefer as a candidate who was
a) an atheist and didn't really discuss religion in terms of politics & other matters
or
b) a hardcore atheist like Dawkins or Hitchens who goes around saying Americans would be better off w/o religion?
I'm an atheist and I strongly would prefer choice A. Given the choice between a moderate atheist Ron Paul or a Christian Ron Paul that won't let his religious beliefs override his political decisions, I can honestly say I have no preference.

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 02:54 PM
I think hardly anyone here specifically wants an atheist candidate (after all, we are all huge Ron Paul supporters), we just don't want a candidate who we think might try to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans in some way through their political decisions.

Flipping this around - would you prefer as a candidate who was
a) an atheist and didn't really discuss religion in terms of politics & other matters
or
b) a hardcore atheist like Dawkins or Hitchens who goes around saying Americans would be better off w/o religion?
I'm an atheist and I strongly would prefer choice A. Given the choice between a moderate atheist Ron Paul or a Christian Ron Paul that won't let his religious beliefs override his political decisions, I can honestly say I have no preference.

I want someone who has shown by words and action that they will support liberty for ALL Americans and will adhere to their oath of office to abide by the Constitution. That's what I want.

FSP-Rebel
11-08-2009, 03:04 PM
If I remember correctly, the VP isn't chosen til after the primary is over and the nominee has been picked. We need to get Ron the nomination before we worry about a running mate.

Still, I voted for the Judge because he's credible and has qualifications that can't be taken away from him.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Baldwin (and I think his whole party) also seems to despise Muslims:


The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception. Mohammed built the Islamic faith on violence, coercion, and intimidation. Contrary to Bush's claim, the Koran is anything but "holy." In fact, it is among the most unholy books ever written. It blatantly and repeatedly calls for the slaughter of non-Muslim people. The Koran also encourages terrorism and plunder. Christians and Jews are specifically targeted for discrimination in the Koran. Furthermore, only communism rivals Islam in sheer numbers of people persecuted and killed. .

Wow, harsh comment, that.



Chuck Baldwin is an honest, decent man IMO who has found a way of combining the Bible with the liberty message.


That - I have a problem with.

Liberty cannot be COMBINED with a religion.

robert9712000
11-08-2009, 04:05 PM
ya cause having laws that come from the bible like thou shall not kill and steal go against liberty,i should be allowed to steal if im short on rent or kill the guy that cut me off in traffic.

yes its sarcasm,but my point is,what is it about religion that freaks so many of you people out?

please dont give me the crap about bush or other leaders doing horrible things in the name of God.Theres always gonna be someone who twists the bible to meet there own agendas,but they surely dont represent what it says in the bible .Atleast your a fool if you allow it to represent for you.

I think alot of people are conditioned that any form of religion goes against the sacred popular phrase "separation of church and state" and dont realize that the original intent had nothing to do with keeping all forms of religion out of politics

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

all it means is that the goverment cant force you to be a christian or a muslim and they cant prevent you either.I dont think baldwin wants to force all atheists to become christian

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 04:44 PM
yes its sarcasm,but my point is,what is it about religion that freaks so many of you people out?

Well, if you want a serious answer, I don't like the concept of a universal tyrant or those who feel the need to "worship" something they can't even prove a physical connection to.

I fear the concept of people making decisions based on faith, not reason.

catdd
11-08-2009, 06:19 PM
"I fear the concept of people making decisions based on faith, not reason."

Need I remind you that Isaac Newton was a devout Anglican? I'm not a religious person in the ordinary sense, but I could sit here all year and counter posts like that one just for the fun of it.

Justinjj1
11-08-2009, 07:07 PM
I dont know if I would even vote for Ron Paul if Chuck Baldwin was his VP.

devil21
11-08-2009, 07:09 PM
I dont know if I would even vote for Ron Paul if Chuck Baldwin was his VP.

Well thats just dumb.

pcosmar
11-08-2009, 07:23 PM
I fear the concept of people making decisions based on faith, not reason.

Global Warming
Eugenics

Justinjj1
11-08-2009, 07:27 PM
Well thats just dumb.

Not really. I think religious fundamentalism is just as much of a threat to liberty as big government. And yes I have researched him and a lot of his writings and speeches reek of theocratic posturing.

devil21
11-08-2009, 07:33 PM
Not really. I think religious fundamentalism is just as much of a threat to liberty as big government. And yes I have researched him and a lot of his writings and speeches reek of theocratic posturing.

You really think RP would let his VP govern in the manner that RP does not? RON PAUL would be running the show, not Chuck Baldwin. You would vote for some status quo candidate just to avoid the possibility of a religious person like Baldwin having *any* influence? I hope you're kidding or you're a troll.

pcosmar
11-08-2009, 07:35 PM
I will let Ron Paul chose his running mate. If there is an election.

Original_Intent
11-08-2009, 07:54 PM
.

Wow, harsh comment, that.




That - I have a problem with.

Liberty cannot be COMBINED with a religion.

Wow, Ms Doodahs I never pegged you as a theophobe. :(

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 08:13 PM
Baldwin running with Ron Paul would only subtract from the proportion of people willing to listen. Constitution Party people would likely support Ron Paul anyway, so Baldwin wouldn't draw many more of them in (not that there are too many anyway), but the media exploitation of Baldwin's involvement would totally alienate non-religious people on the fence about Ron Paul's message...especially the "quasi-liberal college age" demographic. I know a lot of strong Christians here lament the fact that the country is becoming less and less religious, but the fact is, politicians as super-religious as Baldwin (and Huckabee ;)) scare the living shit out of more and more people each and every generation. As Austrian Econ Disciple said, Chuck Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve (as does the Constitution Party). This kind of thing scares and alienates young people, and with good reason...and alienating young people, our future, is the worst thing we could possibly do for the future of liberty.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:33 PM
Global Warming
Eugenics

Neither of those stem from reason, but faith in government power. I worked with environment Canada as a weather analyst for over 2 years, and there is no consensus amongst the professionals i worked with about Global warming. The conclusions stem from clever propaganda, not science or reason.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 08:36 PM
Personally, I hope Ron Paul does run and chooses Chuck just to finally expose that nonsense that liberty and Christianity are incompatible. Anarchy doesn't equal constitutional liberty. Constitutional liberty demands personal responsibility and a set of minimal laws to prevent anarchy and chaos. Oh, no, a mother won't be able to murder her child at whim. Oh, no! ;) So, Ron, if you're going to run, choose Chuck. ;)

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Personally, I hope Ron Paul does run and chooses Chuck just to finally expose that nonsense that liberty and Christianity are incompatible.

In terms of marketing our message, it will make libertarianism appear as a "christian right" viewpoint and damage the label, imo. I think this ticket would actually set us back as a movement, but that's just my opinion.



Anarchy doesn't equal constitutional liberty. So, Ron, if you're going to run, choose Chuck. ;)

So are you saying anarchy is incompatible with liberty? Government is required for liberty?

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 08:41 PM
Personally, I hope Ron Paul does run and chooses Chuck just to finally expose that nonsense that liberty and Christianity are incompatible. Anarchy doesn't equal constitutional liberty. So, Ron, if you're going to run, choose Chuck. ;)

What you're wanting is for Chuck Baldwin's association with Ron Paul to make people increasingly associate Christianity with pro-liberty views. What you'll get is, otherwise receptive young people will associate Ron Paul's message with evangelical theocrats, and they will run in the other direction as fast as they possibly can.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 08:43 PM
In terms of marketing our message, it will make libertarianism appear as a "christian right" viewpoint and damage the label, imo.

No, it won't. Frankly, the few people who would object to a strict constitutionalist like Chuck should probably hitch their wagon to an anarchist unassociated with Ron. ;)


So are you saying anarchy is incompatible with liberty? Government is required for liberty?

Of course. The question is how MUCH government (minimal) is required and at what level. Sorry, as nice as the concept may be, individuals can't be a law unto themselves. Life proves the latter truth which is why we have minimal laws dealing with murder, etc. ;)

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:43 PM
What you're wanting is for Chuck Baldwin's association with Ron Paul to make people increasingly associate Christianity with pro-liberty views. What you'll get is, otherwise receptive young people will associate Ron Paul's message with evangelical theocrats, and they will run in the other direction as fast as they possibly can.

Truth.

This is a decision that is not to be taken lightly. We need to consider the marketing aspect first and foremost. We need to maximize on the educational value of a 2012 campaign, and smash through the left vs right paradigm. We are essentially going to be advertising a message, and there are right and wrong ways to do this. Advertising can make or break a solid product.

We have a solid product but we need to really worry about how we market it, if we are to use the 2012 run to our advantage.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:47 PM
Frankly, the few people who would object to a strict constitutionalist like Chuck should probably hitch their wagon to an anarchist unassociated with Ron.

Oh really? So you'd like the anarchists out of the liberty movement?

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of this. After all, he did invite an anarcho-capitalist to speak against the FED in congress. He also constantly refers to lew Rockwell as his #1 website that he reads. He constantly refers to Rothbard as an intellectual hero of his, as well as Mises.

Ron Paul has always associated with anarchists, so why do you want us to leave Ron Paul?



Of course. The question is HOW much government (minimal) and at what level. ;)

The problem is, it always grows no matter how hard to try to limit it. If you remove 95% of cancer, do you really expect it not to grow back? :)

pcosmar
11-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by pcosmar
Global Warming
Eugenics

Neither of those stem from reason, but faith in government power. I worked with environment Canada as a weather analyst for over 2 years, and there is no consensus amongst the professionals i worked with about Global warming. The conclusions stem from clever propaganda, not science or reason.

Exactly, but that faith is the religion that is running this country.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:50 PM
Exactly, but that faith is the religion that is running this country.


I agree. Faith is a dangerous concept, in general, imo. :)

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 08:51 PM
No, it won't. Frankly, the few people who would object to a strict constitutionalist like Chuck should probably hitch their wagon to an anarchist unassociated with Ron. ;)
What are the demographics where you live, exactly? I'm not trying to be patronizing, but my gut instincts tell me that you live in a very strongly Christian area, and you're not familiar with just how terrifying someone like Chuck Baldwin is to, say...disillusioned lefties in their early 20's. This isn't an anarchy/minarchy issue whatsoever, because we have atheist minarchists and Christian anarchists here, and everything in between. This is an issue of marketing liberty in a country where evangelical Christians scare the shit out of most young college students and college-educated urbanites/suburbanites (and this is only becoming more and more true as time goes on).



Of course. The question is HOW much government (minimal) and at what level. ;)

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 08:53 PM
Oh really? So you'd like the anarchists out of the liberty movement?

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of this.

Why don't you ask him personally? Association doesn't necessarily imply approval of ALL aspects of an ideology. ;)




The problem is, it always grows no matter how hard to try to limit it. If you remove 95% of cancer, do you really expect it not to grow back? :)Naturally and obvious. Humans will always have to deal with their nature in some manner. Again, the real question is the manner, i.e. minimal law, necessary. ;)

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 08:56 PM
Why don't you ask him personally? Association doesn't necessarily imply approval of ALL aspects of an ideology. ;)

Did i say it did?

Many of Ron Pauls major influences happen to be anarchists. Do you reject this?



Naturally and obvious. Humans will always have to do with their nature in some manner.



Why we can never abolish government (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=217107)


Again, the real question is the manner, i.e. minimal law, necessary. ;)

So you believe in minimal law, not natural law?

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 08:59 PM
What are the demographics where you live, exactly? I'm not trying to be patronizing, but my gut instincts tell me that you live in a very strongly Christian area, and you're not familiar with just how terrifying someone like Chuck Baldwin is to, say...disillusioned lefties in their early 20's. This isn't an anarchy/minarchy issue whatsoever, because we have atheist minarchists and Christian anarchists here, and everything in between. This is an issue of marketing liberty in a country where evangelical Christians scare the shit out of most young college students and college-educated urbanites/suburbanites (and this is only becoming more and more true as time goes on).

I live in Wyoming, the adopted home of Dick Cheney (puke), which certainly is NOT a bastion of Christianity. ;)

Well, if evangelical Christians "scare the shit" out of most young college students, then the problem is likely "most young college students". Christianity shouldn't scare anyone. ;)

ForLiberty-RonPaul
11-08-2009, 08:59 PM
would anyone here have a problem with a Buddhist becoming President (that is of course if you could find one who actually would run)

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:01 PM
would anyone here have a problem with a Buddhist becoming President (that is of course if you could find one who actually would run)

Nope, not me. I wouldn't have a problem with a Christian either. I want Ron Paul in the white house after all :)

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 09:02 PM
I don't live in Wyoming, the adopted home of Dick Cheney (puke) which certainly is NOT a bastion of Christianity. ;)

Well, if evangelical Christians "scare the shit" out of most young college students, then the problem is likely "most young college students". Christianity shouldn't scare anyone. ;)

Maybe it IS the problem of "most young college students," but does that matter? The question is, are you going to be stubborn, say, "It's your problem," and continue letting this crucial demographic ignore the liberty message...or are you going to try to sell the liberty message to this crucial demographic in a way that won't frighten them?

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:02 PM
Well, if evangelical Christians "scare the shit" out of most young college students, then the problem is likely "most young college students". Christianity shouldn't scare anyone. ;)

Many Christians scare the living crap out of me, and many are great people. I have a very religious family, and i love them all. The words of Jesus are just fine for the most part, though i'm not a Christian. I wish more Christians would take the time to understand them.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:04 PM
Did i say it did?

Many of Ron Pauls major influences happen to be anarchists. Do you reject this?

I don't know. Go back and reread your remark. Again, "major influences" don't imply ALL aspects of an ideology. Frankly, I couldn't care less about major influences on a person's life. I care about the end product of ALL influences on a person's life. Shall we talk about Christianity's influence on Ron's life? ;) I didn't think so.

Again, the point is that Chuck would likely make a fantastic VP for Ron if he decides to run in 2012.

Anti Federalist
11-08-2009, 09:05 PM
For me, and me only, I don't want someone who is lukewarm on ANYTHING. Whether that be their faith, liberty, or the Constitution. Because to me, that is what created this damn fix we're in, to begin with.

Now yer talking.

FWIW, I'll vote for Baldwin.

Someone already suggested this and they are correct: the VP slot is essentially a do-nothing position that Judge Napalitano would be wasted in.

Paul/Baldwin 2012 and appoint Napalitano to the AG's office.

Yeah, I could work with that.

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 09:07 PM
Baldwin running with Ron Paul would only subtract from the proportion of people willing to listen. Constitution Party people would likely support Ron Paul anyway, so Baldwin wouldn't draw many more of them in (not that there are too many anyway), but the media exploitation of Baldwin's involvement would totally alienate non-religious people on the fence about Ron Paul's message...especially the "quasi-liberal college age" demographic. I know a lot of strong Christians here lament the fact that the country is becoming less and less religious, but the fact is, politicians as super-religious as Baldwin (and Huckabee ;)) scare the living shit out of more and more people each and every generation. As Austrian Econ Disciple said, Chuck Baldwin wears his religion on his sleeve (as does the Constitution Party). This kind of thing scares and alienates young people, and with good reason...and alienating young people, our future, is the worst thing we could possibly do for the future of liberty.

They voted for Obama and they will do it AGAIN; that is, if they vote at all.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:07 PM
I don't know. Go back and reread your remark. Again, "major influences" doesn't imply ALL aspects of an ideology?

No it does not. If i am majorly influenced by Rock music, does that mean it's the only music i listen to? No



Frankly, I could care less about major influences on a person's life. I care about the end product of ALL influences on a person's life.
So the End Justifies the means?



Shall we talk about Christianity's influence on Ron's life? ;) I didn't think so.



I'm more than Glad to. His Christianity does not offend me.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:10 PM
They voted for Obama and they will do it AGAIN; that is, if they vote at all.

I've had a rather large amount of success converting Obama sympathizers and socialists to the free-market, lately.

Socratic method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) + Natural Law and Austrian Economics principles = The key to winning any debate in favor of liberty and the free-market, with any ideology. All you need is an honest person, willing to answer your questions.

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 09:11 PM
Maybe it IS the problem of "most young college students," but does that matter? The question is, are you going to be stubborn, say, "It's your problem," and continue letting this crucial demographic ignore the liberty message...or are you going to try to sell the liberty message to this crucial demographic in a way that won't frighten them?

How about this? How about not trying to be all things to all people. Because when you try to do that, you risk being nothing to anyone.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:12 PM
No it does not. If i am majorly influenced by Rock music, does that mean it's the only music i listen to? No



Good for you. You missed my edit and the point. We agree on at least ONE thing. ;)

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:14 PM
Wow, Ms Doodahs I never pegged you as a theophobe. :(

Probably because I'm not; I have no objection to religion, or even to fervent belief - just not a fan of religious leaders running for high office. :)

catdd
11-08-2009, 09:14 PM
They voted for Obama and they will do it AGAIN; that is, if they vote at all.

That's probably true. Most of them will never vote Republican.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:14 PM
Good for you. You missed my edit and the point. We agree on at least ONE thing. ;)

This one?


Again, the point is that Chuck would likely make a fantastic VP for Ron if he decides to run in 2012.

Look, i could vote for that ticket, if wasn't a Canuck, haha. I can and will support Paul/Baldwin if that's the ticket. I just don't think its' very wise in terms of marketing our message to the masses.

I'm in marketing for a living, so this is just my perspective on our strategy. I do like Chuck, and value him, don't get me wrong about that. :)

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm more than Glad to. His Christianity does not offend me.

Feel free to start. We're all eager to hear why Ron's Christianity doesn't bother you while Chuck's allegedly does. Admit it. You just don't want to have someone who might "preach" or correct you within earshot. Well, if you have kids, hopefully they'll read your remarks one day. I'm sure your kids won't want to hear correction, either. ;)

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Ron Paul / Georges St-Pierre
2012
Please give them this shot for Title.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Feel free to start. We're all eager to hear why Ron's Christianity doesn't bother you while Chuck's allegedly does. Admit it.
I don't like the concept of such a strong Christian image, as the ticket, i will gladly admit, and haven't been holding back on that.

In terms of marketing and expanding our movement, it's got 100% fail written all over it, in my opinion.



You just don't want to hear someone preach to you. Well, if you have kids, hopefully they'll read your remarks one day. I'm sure your kids won't want to hear correction, either. ;)

You're right, i don't want to have someone preach to me. Is that so wrong?

What correction are you referring to?

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 09:22 PM
Ron Paul / The AntiChrist
2012
It evens out the ticket.

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 09:24 PM
They voted for Obama and they will do it AGAIN; that is, if they vote at all.

I didn't vote for Obama. :D


How about this? How about not trying to be all things to all people. Because when you try to do that, you risk being nothing to anyone.

I agree; we don't want to pander. However, we also don't want to associate the liberty movement too strongly with a separate movement with its own baggage (the evangelical movement), either.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:28 PM
Feel free to start. We're all eager to hear why Ron's Christianity doesn't bother you while Chuck's allegedly does. Admit it. You just don't want to have someone who might "preach" or correct you within earshot. Well, if you have kids, hopefully they'll read your remarks one day. I'm sure your kids won't want to hear correction, either. ;)

Whoa - are you SERIOUS?

You think it would be ACCEPTABLE who gets up and "preaches" to the American people?

:eek:

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:28 PM
I don't like the concept of such a strong Christian image, as the ticket, i will gladly admit, and haven't been holding back on that.

In terms of marketing and expanding our movement, it's got 100% fail written all over it, in my opinion.


"I don't like the concept of such a strong Christian image"

Thankfully, your inappropriately negative and biased views on Christianity are not even close to the majority. The majority of Americans have a Christian upbringing thankfully even if it's lukewarm at best. No, you really mean in terms of expanding anarchists within the movement to restore constitutional liberty. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon to restore constitutional liberty. Notice, jumping on the bandwagon doesn't equal driving the wagon. ;)




You're right, i don't want to have someone preach to me. Is that so wrong?
Yes, for obvious reasons, e.g. your kids. ;)

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Ron Paul / The AntiChrist
2012
It evens out the ticket.

lol....

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:31 PM
"I don't like the concept of such a strong Christian image"

Thankfully, your inappropriately negative and biased views on Christianity are not even close to the majority.
Inappropriately negative? C'mon man. I'm talking in terms of marketing here, not trying to challenge the Christian Faith, or express my views on it.

If you want to debate my views on faith, pm me or take this to the Religion forum. This is not the right place.


No, you really mean in terms and expanding anarchists within the movement to restore constitutional liberty. Feel free to jump on the bandwagon to restore constitutional liberty.
Do you realize why i'm here, and do you know how much I've contributed to the constitutional movement?

If you don't want my help, tell me. :)


Notice, jumping on the bandwagon doesn't equal driving the wagon. ;)


Sorry, i'm just not a follower. It's not my style :)





Yes, for obvious reasons, e.g. your kids. ;)

My kids won't be followers either.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:31 PM
Whoa - are you SERIOUS?

You think it would be ACCEPTABLE who gets up and "preaches" to the American people?

:eek:

Oh, no! I can't seriously mean that a POTUS might "preach" to the people. Whoa, am I serious?

Yes, I'm mocking you for your feigned nonsense. "Preach" also means correction whether correcting kids or the people. In my context, "preaching' doesn't necessarily mean a sermon. ;)

Anti Federalist
11-08-2009, 09:31 PM
Ron Paul / The AntiChrist
2012
It evens out the ticket.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/image.php?u=21748&type=sigpic&dateline=1256606950

pcosmar
11-08-2009, 09:34 PM
In terms of marketing and expanding our movement, it's got 100% fail written all over it, in my opinion.



I don't want to "market" the movement. I don't want folks giving lip service to something they don't believe in. I don't want to water it down or dress it up.
It is what it is. Freedom. It doesn't come easy or cheap. It costs blood.
We will not vote in freedom. It is long past that, and we are outnumbered by those that want handouts and promises.
Ron Paul's run was educational. To build a base, a core of believers.
I do not expect that we will win an election. I only hope the Liberty will live on in places.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:34 PM
In terms of marketing and expanding our movement, it's got 100% fail written all over it, in my opinion.

Absolutely correct.


You're right, i don't want to have someone preach to me. Is that so wrong?

Not wrong at all.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 09:34 PM
My kids won't be followers either.

Personally, I can't wait to see the results ... ;) Seriously, I hope your kids turn out just fine. I'll pray for them Clay, alright? ;)

Actually, I'm glad "anarchists" are willing to help restore constitutional liberty, not instill anarchy. ;)

Anyway, it's been fun, Clay. I'll be eager to hear your remarks on Ron's response to your questions about his Christian faith. ;)

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:37 PM
Oh, no! I can't seriously mean that a POTUS might "preach" to the people. Whoa, am I serious?

Yes, I'm mocking you for your feigned nonsense. "Preach" also means correction whether correcting kids or the people. In my context, "preaching' doesn't necessarily mean a sermon. ;)
Wrong...


preach  [preech] Show IPA
Use preach in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
–verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preach

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:38 PM
Personally, I can't wait to see the results ... ;) Seriously, I hope your kids turn out just fine. I'll pray for them Clay, alright? ;)

Sure...



Actually, I'm glad "anarchists" are willing to help restore constitutional liberty, not instill anarchy. ;)

We are here to stop the government, period. Government is the anti-thesis to liberty.

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

:)



Anyway, it's been fun, Clay. I'll be eager to hear your remarks on Ron's response to your questions about his Christian faith. ;)

What? I think you're totally misreading my words.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Oh, no! I can't seriously mean that a POTUS might "preach" to the people. Whoa, am I serious?

Yes, I'm mocking you for your feigned nonsense. "Preach" also means correction whether correcting kids or the people. In my context, "preaching' doesn't necessarily mean a sermon. ;)

Oh, I see. You believe it's okay for the POTUS (or veep) to "correct" the people.

That's sooo much better.

:rolleyes:

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Wrong?
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
No religious context there.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Wrong?
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
No religious context there.

Well that's true, but it's certainly not an appealing concept without religion either, and that is the 6th version of the word, which means it's pretty uncommon

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 09:44 PM
Wrong?
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
No religious context there.

To do this

THIS is a reference to the things listed above #6, all of which have a religious context....

Anti Federalist
11-08-2009, 09:44 PM
I don't want to "market" the movement. I don't want folks giving lip service to something they don't believe in. I don't want to water it down or dress it up.
It is what it is. Freedom. It doesn't come easy or cheap. It costs blood.
We will not vote in freedom. It is long past that, and we are outnumbered by those that want handouts and promises.
Ron Paul's run was educational. To build a base, a core of believers.
I do not expect that we will win an election. I only hope the Liberty will live on in places.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h277/123donnay/33415_formatted_welldone30f.gif?t=1257738257

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 09:45 PM
To do this

THIS is a reference to the things listed above #6, all of which have a religious context....

ahh good point! I didn't catch that. :)

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 09:51 PM
To do this

THIS is a reference to the things listed above #6, all of which have a religious context....

Too late, he already agreed with me in the post above yours.
Nanny nanny boo boo.
:D


ahh good point! I didn't catch that. :)

Don't cheat now!!!

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 09:57 PM
Some guy in another forum wrote this about Dr. Paul in an argument with another supporter.
Is it relevant?
I thought it was a great post anyway, so I'm sharing it.


There it is... right there...

Dude, I should be glad you are defending the old man... the problem is that you belong to some 'side' and everyone else must too.

Divide and conquer, much?

Always a side with you people with sides. Whether I agree on 4 of 5 points you make, why would one jump in a box with anyone who has a side.

Here's the deal, politicians choose sides... defend to the death that SIDE good or bad.

Ron Paul ran with a side to PROVE A POINT (he said so)... He wouldn't bend-over for that SIDE... HE HASN'T!!!

That's is what's wrong with this thread, You poke at someone because you have labeled them or your limited perspective requires that the are in a box with others.

He votes HIS & HIS constituents’ conscious... not a party line vote... a rare service for any person that is representing others!!

Further, his values have no party. If they did... it would be a party that died right after the signing of our Constitution!!

So by saying that you are on the side of Congressman Paul, you are saying that you are on the side of the (original)Constitution... Otherwise you're confused... because I don't see many standing with Paul's values who aren't lumping, dividing, mis-representing or mearly retards standing juxed (like the OP)... you are not on his "SIDE" by being a Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, etc...

Because he is none of these things.

He is a man, who believes in limited government and understands the principals that forged this nation out of a tyrannical rule... and he wants you to understand this society so we don't have to be dragged down by old, adverse ideals like those of OP's who like to group people (be on the side of the groupers/dividers)

His kind used to be called "Free Men"

And there are others...

"Too dangerous to live... Too rare to kill"

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 10:05 PM
I didn't vote for Obama. :D
Yes, but the vast majority, DID.


I agree; we don't want to pander. However, we also don't want to associate the liberty movement too strongly with a separate movement with its own baggage (the evangelical movement), either.

Oh really, "we" don't; do we? Who else do you want to exclude? What do you consider liberty to be? If we are unable to walk our talk and have respect for others' faith, or lack thereof, we are nothing but a pack of hypocrites.

Last time I knew, we stood for liberty for ALL.

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 10:16 PM
Ron Paul / Fedor Emelianenko
2012
32/1 MMA Record
Getting Legislation through the Senate will not be a problem.
House... Don't make me come over there.

MsDoodahs
11-08-2009, 10:16 PM
Oh really, "we" don't; do we? Who else do you want to exclude? What do you consider liberty to be? If we are unable to walk our talk and have respect for others' faith, or lack thereof, we are nothing but a pack of hypocrites.

Uh....well....there are some here who have no respect for the views of others...

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 10:31 PM
Wrong...


preach  [preech] Show IPA
Use preach in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
–verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.

[/URL][URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preach)

Precisely wrong, but generally correct ;) ... but I see someone else got to it first. You'll have to excuse me, I'm having network problems. Maybe, I'll start another thread in Off-topic... ;p Anyway, you missed my point again. A sermon is basically a reproof which ALWAYS contains a moral basis - obviously. ;) Unfortunately for anarchists, Ron constantly issues sermons, e.g. ending the Federal Reserve. Why does he and I want to do so? Uh oh, I'm feeling the pains of a morally based reproof. ;)

Dieseler
11-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Wrong ... but I see someone else got to it first. You'll have to excuse me, I'm network problems. Maybe, I'll start another thread in Off-topic... ;p

Aye, I preach at my kids all the time.

tpreitzel
11-08-2009, 10:37 PM
Aye, I preach at my kids all the time.


Good for you. We all do whether we want to admit it or not. Sometimes "preaching" is just plain necessary. ;) LOL

LibertyEagle
11-08-2009, 10:39 PM
Uh....well....there are some here who have no respect for the views of others...

If someone has shown that they will adhere to their oaths of office to abide by the Constitution, it should not matter WHAT religion someone has, or whether they have one at all.

But., yes, this thread has been quite enlightening.

Jordan
11-08-2009, 10:49 PM
I tend to agree with MsDoodahs. I wouldn't vote for someone who is the leader of any religious organization as president. I wouldn't want the conflict of interest nor the ability of a religious leader to push his/her agenda through legislation.

I'm not too keen on the Constitution Party either. One of its greatest downfalls, in my own opinion, its its stance against gay marriage. In their own platform on their website, gay marriage is not opposed on the basis that government should stay out of private matters, instead the Constitution Party opposes it because "No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."

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

God. God. God. God. God.

God damn, get the hell out of my government.

Mini-Me
11-08-2009, 10:55 PM
Yes, but the vast majority, DID.
LE, unless and until we reach these people and change that, we are doomed. Remember, middle aged-people today are tomorrow's elderly and next week's distant ancestors, but the group I'm talking about will comprise tomorrow's "leaders," for good or ill. Young people are the future, and young people will always be the future. If we alienate them today (or the young people of next generation, etc.), the movement will die with the older generations, or at the very least it will stagnate until we learn how to reach more people without focusing on too narrow of a target audience (e.g. Christians only, like the Constitution Party's target demographic).



Oh really, "we" don't; do we? Who else do you want to exclude?
You misunderstand me, and I'm kind of disappointed that you took that from my post. I'm not wanting to "exclude" anyone. I just don't think it would be wise of us to RALLY BEHIND someone who is openly flying another banner (with its own baggage) at once, and promote them into a figurehead/leadership position in the movement. How would you feel about Larry Flynt being Ron Paul's VP? He's pretty libertarian. ;) Would you consider that a wise choice, or would you think it a horrible move that would alienate the social conservatives in the movement for no good reason? (Granted, Larry Flynt probably isn't as libertarian as Chuck Baldwin anyway, but hopefully you can overlook that a bit and see through to my more general point. Actually, Larry Flynt might actually bring new people in, since most Larry Flynt fans probably aren't already Ron Paul fans, but I digress...;))

I'm sure you'd agree with me that Ron Paul picking someone with Larry Flynt-esque excesses for VP would not be the best way to grow the movement. The reason is, nothing good would come from making a VP choice that polarizes people unnecessarily. Other than railing against a few full-blown racists, I've never really been one of those "shut up and gtfo, you're hurting the movement!" people. However, nearly universal inclusion is very different from being careless about who we rally behind and make into a figurehead. Do you not agree?


What do you consider liberty to be? If we are unable to walk our talk and have respect for others' faith, or lack thereof, we are nothing but a pack of hypocrites.

Last time I knew, we stood for liberty for ALL.
Yes, indeed. What have I said that contradicts any of this? Liberty is for everyone. However, if you're going to market liberty to people (to achieve more for yourself, your loved ones, and your countrymen/countrywomen), you might not want to rally behind a figurehead who scares the poop out of the people you're trying to recruit.

Dreamofunity
11-08-2009, 11:01 PM
I'm not that big of a fan of Baldwin as VP (I'm fine with the man personally) mainly because I don't think independents/liberals/anyone besides the religious right would vote for such an avid christian. I think having Baldwin as VP would set back any advancement Paul made with those voters.

Same with the Judge. As much as I like and admire the man, I don't know if someone that works for Fox News is viable in the long run given the partisan politics. I can see liberals playing with the idea of voting for Paul given how bad Obama would have handled things by then, but not willing to support someone from Fox. Although that would be a totally bad ass ticket.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Same with the Judge. As much as I like and admire the man, I don't know if someone that works for Fox News is viable in the long run given the partisan politics. I can see liberals playing with the idea of voting for Paul given how bad Obama would have handled things by then, but not willing to support someone from Fox. Although that would be a totally bad ass ticket.

Yes, the FOX news association is the Judge's biggest problem. Of course, it would only become a problem in the General Election, when we need to try and convert some dems and moderates.

I still think he's the best one, with the most potential. The Judge doesn't hold any of the foolish pro-war Fox News positions, so he might be able to smash through the paradigm.

Theocrat
11-08-2009, 11:13 PM
My, how many Christophobes we have in our forums. So much for liberty thinkers.

ClayTrainor
11-08-2009, 11:16 PM
My, how many Christophobes we have in our forums. So much for liberty thinkers.

There are rational arguments as to why Baldwin is not a good candidate, and it's not because we fear his religion. I have no problems with Ron selecting a Christian as his VP, but a preacher is not wise. This is a marketing argument, in terms of image and marketability to those trapped in the left vs right paradigm.

Bman
11-08-2009, 11:28 PM
My, how many Christophobes we have in our forums. So much for liberty thinkers.

This fear comes from types of comments that even you've made. Comments such as the Federal government shouldn't be able to make rules on personal rights, but the state should.

Chuck has said some things to make me think maybe he is not a radical, of course he's said some things that make me think maybe he is. It's a case of who is he. Chuck from twenty years ago or the guy tryng to get support last year. Which you'll have to excuse me of questioning whether or not I am looking at a wolf in sheeps clothing.

The fear is that some people are so religious that they will try to enforce their morality on others at a state level. If this is the case you will find your ideas to be a complete failure and will again wonder why the federal government has gotten permission, from the people, to make the outlandish power grabs that it has made.

Pauls' Revere
11-08-2009, 11:34 PM
So, Ron Paul is running then?!?

pcosmar
11-08-2009, 11:36 PM
My, how many Christophobes we have in our forums. So much for liberty thinkers.

Yup, the "religious right" has done more harm to both Christianity and politics than anything else.
I have little hope for this country.
sad, there is so much potential. :(

Theocrat
11-08-2009, 11:37 PM
This fear comes from types of comments that even you've made. Comments such as the Federal government shouldn't be able to make rules on personal rights, but the state should.

Chuck has said some things to make me think maybe he is not a radical, of course he's said some things that make me think maybe he is. It's a case of who is he. Chuck from twenty years ago or the guy tryng to get support last year. Which you'll have to excuse me of questioning whether or not I am looking at a wolf in sheeps clothing.

The fear is that some people are so religious that they will try to enforce their morality on others at a state level. If this is the case you will find your ideas to be a complete failure and will again wonder why the federal government has gotten permission, from the people, to make the outlandish power grabs that it has made.[Emphasis mine]

The State is already forcing its beliefs on us (compulsory healthcare), and that from a non-Christian paradigm. That is the point. Politics, government, law, etc. are not neutral. The rejection of one worldview is just the adoption of another. In our present case, we have a humanistic worldview where the State is God, imposing its dictates upon the rest of us. Yet, that is the worldview those of you who reject God share with those of the State.

Bman
11-08-2009, 11:50 PM
[Emphasis mine]

The State is already forcing its beliefs on us (compulsory healthcare), and that from a non-Christian paradigm. That is the point. Politics, government, law, etc. are not neutral. The rejection of one worldview is just the adoption of another. In our present case, we have a humanistic worldview where the State is God, imposing its dictates upon the rest of us. Yet, that is the worldview those of you who reject God share with those of the State.

This is what drives me nuts when I talk to you. You don't seem to be able to see how your words are reversable/interchangable.

specsaregood
11-09-2009, 12:02 AM
I'm not a Christian, I would vote for Mr. Baldwin (I voted for him in the last election); but I don't think he is the best VP choice.

Bman
11-09-2009, 12:04 AM
I'm not a Christian, I would vote for Mr. Baldwin (I voted for him in the last election); but I don't think he is the best VP choice.

^ this is where the truth really lies.

Peace&Freedom
11-09-2009, 07:06 AM
I am a two time statewide Libertarian candidate, and three time LP state chair who would vote for Mr. Baldwin as Paul's VP. The aggressive secularists who have dominated the Libertarian movement and party for a generation have not demonstrated why a defacto atheist position which represents just 5% of the population, should be more attractive to voters, a much, much larger fragment of whom are Christian/sectarian. The nomination of secular LP candidates and a secular-leaning LP platform over that time has certainly not shown itself to be effective in gaining votes beyond the 1% zone.

The frank truth is that the threat posed by authoritarian humanism is far worse than that presented by traditional authoritarian theocracy---and humanism (man as God) is really just another, more modern form of theocracy. Further, there are non-authoritarian theocratic systems (like the anarchistic system of ancient Israel, and the Christian governing concepts of the founding fathers). Baldwin has not promoted authoritarianism, other than the CP's overly protectionist trade rhetoric, and he was the one Paul endorsed last year for President.

It's time the humanists among us stopped necessarily equating any expression of God and government with authoritariansm, or using that canard as cover to mask an effectively hostile posture towards religion. Let us welcome the Author of Liberty into the liberty movement.

FrankRep
11-09-2009, 07:10 AM
R U guys fucking kidding? After Ron Paul wasn't in the running anymore, he endorsed CHUCK BALDWIN!

Very true, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-09-2009, 07:16 AM
I am a two time statewide Libertarian candidate, and three time LP state chair who would vote for Mr. Baldwin as Paul's VP. The aggressive secularists who have dominated the Libertarian movement and party for a generation have not demonstrated why a defacto atheist position which represents just 5% of the population, should be more attractive to voters, a much, much larger fragment of whom are Christian/sectarian. The nomination of secular LP candidates and a secular-leaning LP platform over that time has certainly not shown itself to be effective in gaining votes beyond the 1% zone.

The frank truth is that the threat posed by authoritarian humanism is far worse than that presented by traditional authoritarian theocracy---and humanism (man as God) is really just another, more modern form of theocracy. Further, there are non-authoritarian theocratic systems (like the anarchistic system of ancient Israel, and the Christian governing concepts of the founding fathers). Baldwin has not promoted authoritarianism, other than the CP's overly protectionist trade rhetoric, and he was the one Paul endorsed last year for President.

It's time the humanists among us stopped necessarily equating any expression of God and government with authoritariansm, or using that canard as cover to mask an effectively hostile posture towards religion. Let us welcome the Author of Liberty into the liberty movement.

Religion has nothing to do with Politics. I have no problem with someone being religious and holding office, as I've said before many times. My problem is with those who openly politicize their religion. Keep your religious views to yourself. Everyone who openly parades their religious views for all to see have an ulterior motive and it is rarely inline with my political philosophy. Therefore, I will never support anyone who openly parades their religion on the political forum and offices they hold. Ron Paul doesn't.

What is there to bring to the discussion when you bring up a topic like religion in the public sphere? Nothing. To buy some votes? I don't like any politicians that pander to minorities, or majorities. You win or lose on your philosophy of Government.

The problem with the LP isn't from the Rothbardian side, nor adapting your Christian theocratic views don't help either. Look at Bobb Barr. Good riddance. The problem, like all third-parties have is the strangle hold of the MSM and the laws that favor the two-party system. Besides I'm an agnostic, but you don't see me parading that around when I talk about the role of Government do you? Because it has no bearing whatsoever. Keep it to yourself, please.

bobbyw24
11-09-2009, 07:16 AM
Ummm. There should be room in the r3volution for both religious, and not so religious people.

Freedom of thought is the core of libertarianism.

Amen, brother.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-09-2009, 07:25 AM
[Emphasis mine]

The State is already forcing its beliefs on us (compulsory healthcare), and that from a non-Christian paradigm. That is the point. Politics, government, law, etc. are not neutral. The rejection of one worldview is just the adoption of another. In our present case, we have a humanistic worldview where the State is God, imposing its dictates upon the rest of us. Yet, that is the worldview those of you who reject God share with those of the State.

Where does the Anarcho-Capitalist fit into your worldview? We simply don't. To you, we don't exist. Pick up Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty.

For one, what good is it to simply go from one Totalitarian State to another? So one is humanistic the other theocratic. Wow, we certainly have made some strides towards liberty there.....

I reject God or at least all iterations in the modern world and I also reject the State.

I seek to dismantle the State, and in doing so form a Stateless Society in-line with Rothbardian principles. Natural Law, Private Property, Liberty, Self-Determination, etc. You, nor "God", nor the "State" have any legitimate authority over me. Only I have absolute authority to my actions, my desires, my wants, and my property. Hands off.

eOs
11-09-2009, 07:33 AM
[Emphasis mine]

The State is already forcing its beliefs on us (compulsory healthcare), and that from a non-Christian paradigm. That is the point. Politics, government, law, etc. are not neutral. The rejection of one worldview is just the adoption of another. In our present case, we have a humanistic worldview where the State is God, imposing its dictates upon the rest of us. Yet, that is the worldview those of you who reject God share with those of the State.

Says the Theocrat

Bucjason
11-09-2009, 07:39 AM
I'd support the ticket with Baldwin on it.

fgd
11-09-2009, 09:36 AM
Ugh, theocrats.

Look, the Christian Theocrat "Constitution" Party doesn't amount to squat. Why would we let them ride our coattails? Baldwin's an opportunist and a charlatan.

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 09:54 AM
Says the Theocrat

Actually, no, you might want to read the Humanist Manifesto.


Ugh, theocrats.
What's that supposed to mean?


Look, the Christian Theocrat "Constitution" Party doesn't amount to squat. Why would we let them ride our coattails?
I thought this wasn't about political parties. Did I miss the memo or something?


Baldwin's an opportunist and a charlatan.
Have any proof on that?

tpreitzel
11-09-2009, 09:59 AM
Actually, no, you might want to read the Humanist Manifesto.

But, we just might scare some of the "young college students". ;)

Good Lord! I have faith that Truth will ultimately prevail in spite of the laughable opposition arrayed against it. :)

Theocrat
11-09-2009, 10:03 AM
I am a two time statewide Libertarian candidate, and three time LP state chair who would vote for Mr. Baldwin as Paul's VP. The aggressive secularists who have dominated the Libertarian movement and party for a generation have not demonstrated why a defacto atheist position which represents just 5% of the population, should be more attractive to voters, a much, much larger fragment of whom are Christian/sectarian. The nomination of secular LP candidates and a secular-leaning LP platform over that time has certainly not shown itself to be effective in gaining votes beyond the 1% zone.

The frank truth is that the threat posed by authoritarian humanism is far worse than that presented by traditional authoritarian theocracy---and humanism (man as God) is really just another, more modern form of theocracy. Further, there are non-authoritarian theocratic systems (like the anarchistic system of ancient Israel, and the Christian governing concepts of the founding fathers). Baldwin has not promoted authoritarianism, other than the CP's overly protectionist trade rhetoric, and he was the one Paul endorsed last year for President.

It's time the humanists among us stopped necessarily equating any expression of God and government with authoritariansm, or using that canard as cover to mask an effectively hostile posture towards religion. Let us welcome the Author of Liberty into the liberty movement.

Amen!

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 10:06 AM
However, nearly universal inclusion is very different from being careless about who we rally behind and make into a figurehead. Do you not agree?

Yes, I agree with that Mini-Me. And as I said earlier, Baldwin was not my first choice either. What amazed me though was the seeming vitriol that some were espousing against the man, just because of his strong faith. You know, I don't like it when a politician goes around flinging around their religion as a means to gain votes. That disgusts me. But frankly, that is not what I have seen Baldwin do.

What really concerns me is that it is looking a lot like some here would not vote for anyone besides Ron Paul, who happened to be a strong Christian. Ron is a very unique individual, so maybe some are just overlooking his Christianity. That's the feeling I am starting to get and it is not very settling.

Dieseler
11-09-2009, 10:22 AM
Ugh, theocrats.

Look, the Christian Theocrat "Constitution" Party doesn't amount to squat. Why would we let them ride our coattails? Baldwin's an opportunist and a charlatan.

You guys have a coat?
Could of fooled me.
Last time I looked Ron Paul was a Republican.

Dreamofunity
11-09-2009, 11:53 AM
Does anyone seriously think Huckabee would be able to win a general election given his outspoken religious fervor?

While I think Huckabee is a total hack, and Baldwin to be a very respectable man and christian with true convictions in what he believes and says, the general population won't make a distinction from "minister" or an overly zealous christian politician.

Baldwin, great man, not a great VP pick.

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 12:35 PM
Does anyone seriously think Huckabee would be able to win a general election given his outspoken religious fervor?

While I think Huckabee is a total hack, and Baldwin to be a very respectable man and christian with true convictions in what he believes and says, the general population won't make a distinction from "minister" or an overly zealous christian politician.

Baldwin, great man, not a great VP pick.

This. ^^

And - I believe that the neocons who control the GOP will in fact give the nomination to HUCK - precisely because they KNOW he is a loser for the party, and the neocons who control the GOP must ensure that BO gets a second term.

AuH20
11-09-2009, 12:38 PM
I am a two time statewide Libertarian candidate, and three time LP state chair who would vote for Mr. Baldwin as Paul's VP. The aggressive secularists who have dominated the Libertarian movement and party for a generation have not demonstrated why a defacto atheist position which represents just 5% of the population, should be more attractive to voters, a much, much larger fragment of whom are Christian/sectarian. The nomination of secular LP candidates and a secular-leaning LP platform over that time has certainly not shown itself to be effective in gaining votes beyond the 1% zone.

The frank truth is that the threat posed by authoritarian humanism is far worse than that presented by traditional authoritarian theocracy---and humanism (man as God) is really just another, more modern form of theocracy. Further, there are non-authoritarian theocratic systems (like the anarchistic system of ancient Israel, and the Christian governing concepts of the founding fathers). Baldwin has not promoted authoritarianism, other than the CP's overly protectionist trade rhetoric, and he was the one Paul endorsed last year for President.

It's time the humanists among us stopped necessarily equating any expression of God and government with authoritariansm, or using that canard as cover to mask an effectively hostile posture towards religion. Let us welcome the Author of Liberty into the liberty movement.

Very true. I'm not religious but agree with your points.

Bucjason
11-09-2009, 02:56 PM
Baldwin's an opportunist and a charlatan.


If that were the case he'd run as a Republican and actually get elected...

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 03:02 PM
If that were the case he'd run as a Republican and actually get elected...

Isn't that what his question on running as the RP veep is all about - running as a Republican?

Theocrat
11-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Ugh, theocrats.

Look, the Christian Theocrat "Constitution" Party doesn't amount to squat. Why would we let them ride our coattails? Baldwin's an opportunist and a charlatan.

You take a look at any of the issues (http://www.baldwin08.com/IssuesList.cfm) which Dr. Baldwin stood for during his campaign for President, and then explain to me why he would be a horrible VP candidate for Congressman Paul. Otherwise, I think you're only showing us that you have a problem with any candidate who is passionate and outspoken about his Christian faith. Then I have to ask you who are you to deny Dr. Baldwin his freedom to live by and express his Christian faith in public?

jmdrake
11-09-2009, 03:09 PM
1st. Judge Napolitano

If he doesn't want it...

2nd. Chuck Baldwin

Good choices! I know some want to kick the "theocrats" to the curb, but Chuck was a very important part of the Ron Paul coalition.

Side note - why was "Mell Watt" even on the list?

Other good names: Schiff, Ventura (for me anyway), Lou Dobbs and Rand. Rand could be a problem for a gut reaction against dynasties, and he does need some political experience under his belt. Hopefully by 2012 he'll at least have been a U.S. senator for 2 years. ;)

Original_Intent
11-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Well, I signed a pledge that I would be on this site forver and they would have to pry RPF from my cold dead fingers, but I have got to say this viewpoint that anyone who is highly religious or a religious leader is not welcome in politics has me looking for the exit.

AuH20
11-09-2009, 03:13 PM
The man's deeds are more important this his religion. I'm shocked at some of the responses.

jmdrake
11-09-2009, 03:21 PM
This fear comes from types of comments that even you've made. Comments such as the Federal government shouldn't be able to make rules on personal rights, but the state should.


I'm curious. Have you ever read anything that Ron Paul wrote regarding gay marriage or abortion? Ron Paul's position on both of those issues is that the federal government has no business involved in them one way or the other and that they should be resolved by the state!

Really. I have this sinking suspicion that some people have never bother taking the time to learn any of Ron Paul's positions that might be at odds with their own. They project their own views on Dr. Paul. That's just scary. I realize there are some things I disagree with Dr. Paul on and I'm cool with that. And while I reserve my right to disagree with Dr. Paul or anyone else, I'm not going to rule out some other candidate that he has supported just because that other candidate supports something I disagree with. For example I disagree with Dr. Paul's position on net neutrality. But I'd never say "I could never vote for candidate X because he doesn't support net neutrality". Same for 9/11 truth.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-09-2009, 03:23 PM
Well, I signed a pledge that I would be on this site forver and they would have to pry RPF from my cold dead fingers, but I have got to say this viewpoint that anyone who is highly religious or a religious leader is not welcome in politics has me looking for the exit.

Again. You don't actually read what is said, you formulate what you thought you read and then take it to the extreme. I don't care if you are highly religious or a religious leader, but the moment your religion seeps into the political sphere I will not support them, period.

Anyone who parades their religion about in politics and then calls themself a Christian goes against the teaching of Christ himself. Christianity today is highly perverted from what Christ actually espoused. He was against organized religion. Anyways, continue on.

jmdrake
11-09-2009, 03:23 PM
Well, I signed a pledge that I would be on this site forver and they would have to pry RPF from my cold dead fingers, but I have got to say this viewpoint that anyone who is highly religious or a religious leader is not welcome in politics has me looking for the exit.

It's a view of an unfortunately over vocal minority. Last year when a poll was taken here between Baldwin and Barr, Baldwin won handily. This was before the Ron Paul endorsement. The person who posted the poll complained about "theocrats taking over".

ClayTrainor
11-09-2009, 03:32 PM
If Baldwin gets teh VP nod, i can at least look forward to my "I told you so" moment. The marketing argument against Paul choosing somone like Baldwin as his VP is extremely important and viable. If Paul chooses Baldwin, we don't have a hope in hell of impacting anyone other than some republicans who aren't completely satisfied with huckabee. You will never smash through the paradigm with such a ticket, but i understand that many people here are more "conservative" than "libertarian".

We need to smash the paradigm with our image and presentability. Baldwin is FAR from the best choice for VP and that ticket would set our movement back at least 4 years, in my opinion.

Dieseler
11-09-2009, 03:37 PM
Ron Paul / JmDrake
2012
Why Not,
You got anything better?

dannno
11-09-2009, 03:38 PM
R U guys fucking kidding? After Ron Paul wasn't in the running anymore, he endorsed CHUCK BALDWIN!

...and Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader and Bob Bar....

Dieseler
11-09-2009, 03:38 PM
If Baldwin gets teh VP nod, i can at least look forward to my "I told you so" moment. The marketing argument against Paul choosing somone like Baldwin as his VP is extremely important and viable. If Paul chooses Baldwin, we don't have a hope in hell of impacting anyone other than some republicans who aren't completely satisfied with huckabee. You will never smash through the paradigm with such a ticket, but i understand that many people here are more "conservative" than "libertarian".

We need to smash the paradigm with our image and presentability. Baldwin is FAR from the best choice for VP and that ticket would set our movement back at least 4 years, in my opinion.

I've seen people fight to the bloody end to get their "I told you so" moment.

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 03:38 PM
If Baldwin gets teh VP nod, i can at least look forward to my "I told you so" moment. The marketing argument against Paul choosing somone like Baldwin as his VP is extremely important and viable. If Paul chooses Baldwin, we don't have a hope in hell of impacting anyone other than some republicans who aren't completely satisfied with huckabee. You will never smash through the paradigm with such a ticket, but i understand that many people here are more "conservative" than "libertarian".

We need to smash the paradigm with our image and presentability. Baldwin is FAR from the best choice for VP and that ticket would set our movement back at least 4 years, in my opinion.

Tell the truth, Clay.

You're just an anti-Christian meany, trying to cover your anti-Christian meanieness in big fancy terms like "marketing argument." :p

lol....

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 03:39 PM
Ron Paul / JmDrake
2012
Why Not,
You got anything better?

I would vote for that ticket!

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 03:41 PM
If Baldwin gets teh VP nod, i can at least look forward to my "I told you so" moment. The marketing argument against Paul choosing somone like Baldwin as his VP is extremely important and viable. If Paul chooses Baldwin, we don't have a hope in hell of impacting anyone other than some republicans who aren't completely satisfied with huckabee. You will never smash through the paradigm with such a ticket, but i understand that many people here are more "conservative" than "libertarian".

We need to smash the paradigm with our image and presentability. Baldwin is FAR from the best choice for VP and that ticket would set our movement back at least 4 years, in my opinion.

Yes, and it is such a great marketing argument to bash people of faith and anyone who wants a limited constitutional government. Yup, that's the ticket. Now, THAT should bring in a wide arena of voters. :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 03:42 PM
...and Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader and Bob Bar....

Actually, it was Baldwin he endorsed. Don't you remember? He was irritated at Bob Barr for pushing him for an endorsement. :p:)

Dieseler
11-09-2009, 03:44 PM
I would vote for that ticket!

I would to.
Barely know the man but I'll say this, If Bush could say the he had looked into Putin's soul, I reckon I have read enough of jmdrake's post to say I have done the same of him.

jmdrake
11-09-2009, 03:46 PM
Ron Paul / JmDrake
2012
Why Not,
You got anything better?

LOL. It's all I can do to try to keep Matt Collins on as Davidson County GOP vice chair. :(

Anyway, my wife has finally soured on Obama (somewhat) so I might get her vote. ;)

Dieseler
11-09-2009, 03:49 PM
LOL. It's all I can do to try to keep Matt Collins on as Davidson County GOP vice chair. :(

Anyway, my wife has finally soured on Obama (somewhat) so I might get her vote. ;)

Hang in there brother.
:)

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 03:56 PM
Yes, and it is such a great marketing argument to bash people of faith and anyone who wants a limited constitutional government. Yup, that's the ticket. Now, THAT should bring in a wide arena of voters. :rolleyes:

Who's "bashing" people of faith?

I haven't noticed any of that going on in this thread.

"AND anyone who wants a limited constitutional government."

Really? REALLY?

Where exactly did individuals participating in this thread "bash" "anyone who wants a limited constitutional government?"

I realize that it is very distressing for some alleged Christians to accept that putting a PASTOR on a political ticket would render that ticket unviable in the country today, but that is the reality.

Mini-Me
11-09-2009, 04:00 PM
Yes, I agree with that Mini-Me. And as I said earlier, Baldwin was not my first choice either. What amazed me though was the seeming vitriol that some were espousing against the man, just because of his strong faith. You know, I don't like it when a politician goes around flinging around their religion as a means to gain votes. That disgusts me. But frankly, that is not what I have seen Baldwin do.

What really concerns me is that it is looking a lot like some here would not vote for anyone besides Ron Paul, who happened to be a strong Christian. Ron is a very unique individual, so maybe some are just overlooking his Christianity. That's the feeling I am starting to get and it is not very settling.

LE, the problem here isn't with Christians running for office. It's not that petty or that personal, and I think you're letting your own Christianity put you on the defensive here. Christians are fine. (Now, atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, are totally unelectable, but that's another story.) The problem is with people who "smell a bit like theocracy" running for office. Ron Paul is a Christian (and a damn good one), and that's great, but you know what? He doesn't go around talking about his religion all the time. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, because he believes in showing people your character through your actions, not your words. Ron Paul is a Christian, but he is not scary to social liberals/libertarians, because he shows zero interest in legislating his social mores, and there are no hints that he might secretly feel otherwise.

Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, is not just a Christian. Chuck Baldwin is an evangelical preacher who used to be state chair of the Florida Moral Majority. Unlike Ron Paul, he wears his religion on his sleeve and makes it a focal point. From what I recall, didn't he make a speech last year that made a lot of supporters nervous, because he spent so long talking about his religion? (This is hazy to me, but I recall discussion on the forum about it.) This doesn't necessarily mean he's pandering to get votes, but being overtly religious is just who he is as a preacher. Unfortunately, in a position of power, I'm not sure if he would restrain himself from legislating morality...and even if he would, we'd certainly have a hard time convincing other people of that! Remember, the Constitution Party is a-okay with CENSORING SPEECH at the federal level if they deem it "obscene:"

We call on our local, state and federal governments uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
You asked what I believe liberty is. Well, this part of the Constitution Party platform is NOT IT, and it is a dealbreaker for me. Although I know where Ron Paul stands here (the First Amendment says what it says), I do not know where Chuck Baldwin stands. Given his rhetoric and status as an evangelical preacher who was the Constitution Party's Presidential nominee last year (and it's not like people are trying to "retake" the Constitution Party like they are the Republican Party), I get the strong feeling he's with the Constitution Party on this one, and that I cannot support.

Granted, Baldwin wouldn't likely ever hold the kind of power where he could actually legislate his morality, but the problem is what kind of message standing behind him could broadcast, i.e. "we're a movement of socially conservative Christians who want to go back to the good ole days." This is NOT a message I'd be happy about sending.

What the socially conservative Christians in this movement need to understand is this:
tpreitzel is acting like he doesn't care what young people think. Yeah, that's a smart move. HALF OF THE COUNTRY is socially liberal or libertarian. Young people - who are quite frankly a far more important target demographic than any other, because they will live longer - are MUCH more socially liberal than older generations. Ron Paul may be a socially conservative Christian in his own right, but this is not a socially conservative movement. It's a socially neutral big tent movement, which is why Ron Paul was so easily able to draw in people from all over the social spectrum. Someone with Ron Paul's tolerance and restraint is able to unite tight-laced family-values Christians and promiscuous hippies under the same banner. Chuck Baldwin cannot do that, and by wearing his religion - not just Christianity, but evangelical Christianity - on his sleeve, he gives socially liberal people the heebie jeebies. We cannot afford to alienate half the country by carelessly shedding our social neutrality.

Original_Intent
11-09-2009, 04:06 PM
Just FYI to all I did select Baldwin as a choice, but he would not be my first choice. In fact of those listed I think he would be my 4th choice.

And all of the protestations to the contrary (that any Christian bashing is taking place) I am sorry, to say that someone spekaing publicly about religion invalidates them for office or [crocodile tears] makes that ticket unviable in today's America [/crocodile tears] is quite simple a load of BS that the atheist agnostic crowd would like you to swallow. The real final nail in the coffin of a political campaign in America is to be an "out of the closet" atheist or agnostic. What's pathetic is that gets us Bible thumpers with no morals ala Clinton and Bush. And I am sure the day is coming when an atheist or agnostic will be able to be elected, and even though it will invalidate me for future consideration as a candidate to some people, I say God help us when that happens.

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 04:09 PM
LE, the problem here isn't with Christians running for office. It's not that petty or that personal, and I think you're letting your own Christianity put you on the defensive here. Christians are fine. The problem is with people who "smell a bit like theocracy" running for office. Ron Paul is a Christian (and a damn good one), and that's great, but you know what? He doesn't go around talking about his religion all the time. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, because he believes in showing people your character through your actions, not your words. Ron Paul is a Christian, but he is not scary to social liberals/libertarians, because he shows zero interest in legislating his social mores.
Well, he certainly made it clear where he stands on abortion, eh? And he's done that on other social issues too. But, at one point in time, we had the good sense to realize that since he was a constitutionalist, he would return the decision to the states and let them decide. But, he made it pretty clear which way he would vote as a citizen of his state. I'm pretty confident that Baldwin believes the same.

YouTube - Christian conservative Ron Paul on C-SPAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb1osemR4ys)


Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, is not just a Christian. Chuck Baldwin is an evangelical preacher who used to be state chair of the Florida Moral Majority. Unlike Ron Paul, he wears his religion on his sleeve and makes it a focal point. From what I recall, didn't he make a speech last year that made a lot of supporters nervous, because he spent so long talking about his religion? (This is hazy to me, but I recall discussion on the forum about it.) This doesn't necessarily mean he's pandering to get votes, but being overtly religious is just who he is as a preacher. Unfortunately, in a position of power, I'm not sure if he would restrain himself from legislating morality...and even if he would, we'd certainly have a hard time convincing other people of that! Remember, the Constitution Party is a-okay with CENSORING SPEECH at the federal level if they deem it "obscene:"

You asked what I believe liberty is. Well, this part of the Constitution Party platform is NOT IT, and it is a dealbreaker for me. Although I know where Ron Paul stands here (the First Amendment says what it says), I do not know where Chuck Baldwin stands. Given his rhetoric and status as an evangelical preacher who was the Constitution Party's Presidential nominee last year (and it's not like people are trying to "retake" the Constitution Party like they are the Republican Party), I get the strong feeling he's with the Constitution Party on this one, and that I cannot support.

Granted, Baldwin wouldn't likely ever hold the kind of power where he could actually legislate his morality, but the problem is what kind of message standing behind him could broadcast, i.e. "we're a movement of socially conservative Christians who want to go back to the good ole days." This is NOT a message I'd be happy about sending.

What the socially conservative Christians in this movement need to understand is this:
tpreitzel is acting like he doesn't care what young people think. Yeah, that's a smart move. HALF OF THE COUNTRY is socially liberal or libertarian. Young people - who are quite frankly a far more important target demographic than any other, because they will live longer - are MUCH more socially liberal than older generations. Ron Paul may be a socially conservative Christian in his own right, but this is not a socially conservative movement. It's a socially neutral big tent movement, which is why Ron Paul was so easily able to draw in people from all over the social spectrum. Someone with Ron Paul's tolerance and restraint is able to unite tight-laced family-values Christians and promiscuous hippies under the same banner. Chuck Baldwin cannot do that, and by wearing his religion - not just Christianity, but evangelical Christianity - on his sleeve, he gives socially liberal people the heebie jeebies. We cannot afford to alienate half the country by carelessly shedding our social neutrality.

I think perhaps some people are forgetting that back when our country was founded, that pastors were some of the most ardent patriots there were. And the fact that the vast majority of our Founders were Christians and spoke of it openly, very often, makes me kind of wince when I hear so many (and not just in this thread), so strongly turn their nose up at Christians. Listen, I can understand that everyone is more than perturbed by those who supported the neocons, in what they believed was a scriptural instruction to stand on the side of Israel. But, if we hope to win a primary in the Republican party, this wholesale hating on Christians needs to stop. Including all the digs. You've been around long enough to see it, Mini. If this movement wants no part of Christians, THEY WILL NEVER win a Republican primary. NEVER.. And that is the bottom line.. The same pertains to the bashing of older Americans.

As far as whether we are socially-neutral, if we are trying to claim that, then we probably should stop the bashing of old people, Christians, Jews, etc., etc., that I have seen posted all over this board. Also, I'm not thinking that being socially-neutral is the same as being socially-liberal; although it seems a lot of people think it is. Neutral is neutral.

Mini-Me
11-09-2009, 04:10 PM
Just FYI to all I did select Baldwin as a choice, but he would not be my first choice. In fact of those listed I think he would be my 4th choice.

And all of the protestations to the contrary (that any Christian bashing is taking place) I am sorry, to say that someone spekaing publicly about religion invalidates them for office or [crocodile tears] makes that ticket unviable in today's America [/crocodile tears] is quite simple a load of BS that the atheist agnostic crowd would like you to swallow. The real final nail in the coffin of a political campaign in America is to be an "out of the closet" atheist or agnostic. What's pathetic is that gets us Bible thumpers with no morals ala Clinton and Bush. And I am sure the day is coming when an atheist or agnostic will be able to be elected, and even though it will invalidate me for future consideration as a candidate to some people, I say God help us when that happens.

...but of course, if someone said "God help us when a Christian is able to be elected," there would be a damn uproar on this forum about bashing Christians. :rolleyes: Double standard much?

Bucjason
11-09-2009, 04:11 PM
Isn't that what his question on running as the RP veep is all about - running as a Republican?


No. You can be a vice president and not be in the same party. John McCain, for example, toyed with the idea of having democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

Baldwin is a registered CP party member...not exactly the best strategy if you're a "oppurtunist" who's only goal is to get elected- hence the reason I thought that was a bogus comment.


Besides , are we not getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of ourselves?? Before you pick a VP you have to win the nomination...

Mini-Me
11-09-2009, 04:21 PM
Mini, here's the thing, if we are trying to claim we are a socially neutral movement, then we probably should stop the bashing of old people, Christians, Jews, etc., etc., that I have seen posted all over this board. Also, I'm not thinking that being socially-neutral is the same as being socially-liberal; although it seems a lot of people think it is. Neutral is neutral.

Yes, neutral is neutral. Ron Paul can pull that off. A lot of people can pull that off, but Larry Flynt can't, and neither can Chuck Baldwin.

About bashing of Christians: I agree that goes on with a few posters, but LE, I think you have shown by this thread that you have a very low threshold for what you consider "bashing." View my above reply to Original_Intent about his prayer for God to help us when atheists and agnostics become electable. :rolleyes: If someone said the same about Christians, THAT would be bashing, but nobody has said anything anywhere NEAR that in this thread. However, this thread somehow has more Christian-bashing than atheist-bashing? I don't follow.

Where are posters bashing old people, by the way? I mean, I'm sure there are a few random comments, but I certainly haven't seen a trend. That is, of course, unless you're applying a very low standard for bashing and including what I said about young people being a much more important target demographic, which is really just common sense.

ClayTrainor
11-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Yes, and it is such a great marketing argument to bash people of faith and anyone who wants a limited constitutional government. Yup, that's the ticket. Now, THAT should bring in a wide arena of voters. :rolleyes:

Wow, way to totally misread my words... :rolleyes:

Remember the person who made this video?

YouTube - Constitution Revolution 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-jcS3ItRY)

I don't bash the constitution, though i do question it, just like i questions just about everything else.

ClayTrainor
11-09-2009, 04:25 PM
I've seen people fight to the bloody end to get their "I told you so" moment.

haha, i won't fight for it.

I just know it's coming, if Baldwin is the VP. Marketing is what i do, and i'm pretty good at it... as arrogant as that sounds.

MsDoodahs
11-09-2009, 04:37 PM
No. You can be a vice president and not be in the same party. John McCain, for example, toyed with the idea of having democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

Baldwin is a registered CP party member...not exactly the best strategy if you're a "oppurtunist" who's only goal is to get elected- hence the reason I thought that was a bogus comment.


Besides , are we not getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of ourselves?? Before you pick a VP you have to win the nomination...

Worse than that - before you win the nomination, the person has to decide to run!

catdd
11-09-2009, 04:43 PM
There may be a market for a Christian duo after people have had a belly full of "progressive" liberal politics.

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 04:46 PM
Yes, neutral is neutral. Ron Paul can pull that off. A lot of people can pull that off, but Larry Flynt can't, and neither can Chuck Baldwin.
There is only one Ron Paul. The closest thing to him was Barry Goldwater, Sr. That's two in my entire lifetime.


About bashing of Christians: I agree that goes on with a few posters, but LE, I think you have shown by this thread that you have a very low threshold for what you consider "bashing."
No, I've just been a member for a long time and I've read a whole lot of posts. Was I pulling on some of them when I responded in this thread. Yeah, probably. It's pretty hard not to, when you see them so very often.


View my above reply to Original_Intent about his prayer for God to help us when atheists and agnostics become electable. :rolleyes: If someone said the same about Christians, THAT would be bashing, but nobody has said anything anywhere NEAR that in this thread. However, this thread somehow has more Christian-bashing than atheist-bashing? I don't follow.
You and I just disagree, Mini, and we both should be able to be fine with that. :) I know the role that Christian principles played in the founding of our country and I am not going to deny it. The church was not to be the government, but it was never intended that politicians not express their faith. Our Founders did OFTEN.

I've heard in this thread that we need to be careful not to run off the liberal-leaning young people. Isn't that kind of like putting the cart before the horse. They're not exactly flocking to us, or haven't you noticed? Most are still mesmerized by Obama.

Before we have any hope of winning a Presidential election, we first have to win the Republican primary. To do that, we need to be sure we aren't running off all of the REPUBLICANS. Because THEY are the ones who vote in the Republican primary. If we cannot win THAT, our candidate will never make it to the general election.


Where are posters bashing old people, by the way? I mean, I'm sure there are a few random comments, but I certainly haven't seen a trend. That is, of course, unless you're applying a very low standard for bashing and including what I said about young people being a much more important target demographic, which is really just common sense.

Oh, it's been prevalent for quite a long time. Do you remember this famous post? :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1090054&postcount=1

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 04:47 PM
Worse than that - before you win the nomination, the person has to decide to run!

lol. True, that. :)

Mini-Me
11-09-2009, 05:06 PM
There is only one Ron Paul. The closest thing to him was Barry Goldwater, Sr. That's two in my entire lifetime.
Perhaps, but it's still kind of hard to get less socially neutral than an evangelist preacher (or a porno king, for that matter). I suppose picking an abortion doctor would probably kick the alienation factor up a notch though. :eek: I agree that we're probably not going to see another Ron Paul anytime soon, but all of our other candidates for lower offices (Rand, Schiff, Kokesh, Harris, Medina, etc.) seem to tow the line pretty well. :)



No, I've just been a member for a long time and I've read a whole lot of posts. Was I pulling on some of them when I responded in this thread. Yeah, probably. It's pretty hard not to, when you see them so very often.


You and I just disagree, Mini, and we both should be able to be fine with that. :) I know the role that Christian principles played in the founding of our country and I am not going to deny it. The church was not to be the government, but it was never intended that politicians not express their faith. Our Founders did OFTEN.
Yes, but we're not having a conversation about what display of religion is traditionally acceptable; we're having a conversation about what display of religion is and is not going to alienate people today, in the here and now, given the country's current demographics. In general, someone who is electable must possess the traits, "Christian, but not too overtly religious." Pretty much anyone else - from atheists to evangelist preachers - really has the deck stacked against them.


I've heard in this thread that we need to be careful not to run off the liberal-leaning young people. Isn't that kind of like putting the cart before the horse. They're not exactly flocking to us, or haven't you noticed? Most are still mesmerized by Obama.
Unfortunately, very few are flocking to us of their own accord in general, though I suppose the jury is still out on the Tea Partiers. We can't let that make us stubborn and insular though; no matter how difficult it is, we need to capture as many people as we can, and the younger the better.



Before we have any hope of winning a Presidential election, we first have to win the Republican primary. To do that, we need to be sure we aren't running off all of the REPUBLICANS. Because THEY are the ones who vote in the Republican primary. If we cannot win THAT, our candidate will never make it to the general election.
This is true, but keep in mind how many independents (and former Democrats) voted for Ron Paul in the last primary. When someone has such cross-partisan appeal, it is not solely the traditional Republican base voting in the Republican primary. Besides, we won't need to worry about a VP choice until the general election anyway, so those are the circumstances that any VP discussion should take into account. Right now is too early to even be infighting about this, but since Chuck brought it up... ;)



Oh, it's been prevalent for quite a long time. Do you remember this famous post? :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1090054&postcount=1
I remember reading that post, but only when it was referenced long after the fact (I think by you actually). MsDoodahs made that only a few weeks after I joined, and only about a month and a half or so after I started reading. If there was a lot of old people bashing back then, it was too long ago for me to remember (being as I'm getting "older" myself and having memory problems ;)). Has there been a lot of it going on recently though? Even if there was a trend during the campaign, I haven't seen such a trend recently.

dannno
11-09-2009, 05:19 PM
Actually, it was Baldwin he endorsed. Don't you remember? He was irritated at Bob Barr for pushing him for an endorsement. :p:)

....and McKinney and Nader ;)

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 05:23 PM
Has there been a lot of it going on recently though? Even if there was a trend during the campaign, I haven't seen such a trend recently.

Uh, yes. Why do you think we now have a Religion subforum? :p

LibertyEagle
11-09-2009, 05:26 PM
....and McKinney and Nader ;)

Show me where, because I am not seeing it.


The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-09-2009, 05:37 PM
*Cough* *Cough* Hey LE, you should check out Ron Pauls 1988 LP Presidential run. Lots o' talk about Self-Government, Self-Determination, and Market-........Anarchy :p

You know I'm just yanking your chain. Besides one of the early groups to help form the RLC was the LP Radical Caucus.....and Ron Paul was an early member of the RLC.

Ok, as fun as that was, I hope ballot access laws and other related legislation get reformed. It's funny how people pronounce the US as democracies when foreign Governments are more "democratic" than we are. Of course we know the US is not a Democracy, but the public actually thinks we are...

devil21
11-09-2009, 06:19 PM
Show me where, because I am not seeing it.


http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

Im sure you remember the ill fated (because of Bob Barr) press conference where RP 'endorsed' ANY third party choice. His official endorsement was Baldwin because that's who RP voted for, since he could only vote for one candidate.

Dreamofunity
11-09-2009, 06:55 PM
I'm just curious, this is mostly directed at LE since they seem to be the most vocal but any avid christian can answer:

Would you support and vote for someone that held identical political opinions and policies as Ron Paul but openly denied the existence of God?

Knowing the general population of voters, would this person make a good VP?

What about one that didn't believe in or deny a god, and kept his religious views out of the political aspect of his life entirely?


I think most of the "Anti-christian" sentiment as it is perceived here actually have no problem with christians in political office, as evidenced by their support for the good Dr. but dislike the notion of someone that intertwines their religious views with their political ones. As well as the marketable argument, which I think is solid for both an athiest or a preacher.

pcosmar
11-09-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm just curious, this is mostly directed at LE since they seem to be the most vocal but any avid christian can answer:

Would you support and vote for someone that held identical political opinions and policies as Ron Paul but openly denied the existence of God?

Knowing the general population of voters, would this person make a good VP?

What about one that didn't believe in or deny a god, and kept his religious views out of the political aspect of his life entirely?


I think most of the "Anti-christian" sentiment as it is perceived here actually have no problem with christians in political office, as evidenced by their support for the good Dr. but dislike the notion of someone that intertwines their religious views with their political ones. As well as the marketable argument, which I think is solid for both an athiest or a preacher.

I would take a look, but it is a moot point.
Does not exist.

Dreamofunity
11-09-2009, 07:07 PM
I would take a look, but it is a moot point.
Does not exist.

Hypothetical ;)

I'm sure there are plenty on this forum, say if one ran for office.

catdd
11-09-2009, 07:29 PM
It was his message that drew me to him and I didn't find out about his religion until afterwards, so I would say yes. But there's a lot more to him than just the message and there's no telling how much of it comes from his spirituality. Does his courage, fortitude, and honest come from his relationship with God?
Impossible to tell.

Volitzer
11-09-2009, 09:00 PM
Do You Want Me To Run With Ron Paul In 2012?
By Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
(Supplemental)


An Internet online poll is asking readers to pick Ron Paul's running mate
should he decide to run for President in 2012. Readers will remember that
Dr. Paul endorsed me in last year's Presidential election. If you would like
to vote for me (or someone else) in this online poll, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/yfmndfr

Plus, THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS are being printed now. In all likelihood, we
will begin shipping them sometime next week. To beat the rush, go here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Thank you for reading my columns.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Volitzer
11-09-2009, 09:00 PM
Wow 24 pages I am glad we are giving this such a lively debate.

Promontorium
11-09-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't really like that this was so viciously [yet gloriously (by post #)so] sidetracked by arguments about religion. I say this, only because there are enough threads about that already.

Sidetracking the sidetrack (novel the notion);

I think the VP should be someone more moderate and more well known. If Ron Paul runs in 2012, I don't want any of this "running to educate" or "running solely on principle" haberdashery.

On those premises, Ron Paul was a resounding success in the last campaign. He has become more mainstream because of it, without changing his positions.

If he wants to be "drafted" again, without really trying, without being cutthroat, diehard, unyielding, I hope to hell he gives us a heads up, I'll be sure not to pay attention or give any support.

Ron Paul 2012 TO WIN. Or someone else. And it is for this, I'm not interested in running the fringe of the fringe as VP.

constituent
11-09-2009, 10:35 PM
What's it going to hurt?

BuddyRey
11-09-2009, 10:39 PM
How about Thomas Woods? Then Andrew Napolitano could be a Supreme Court Justice, arguably a more influential position than VP.