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

[RickyJ]

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

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

 

[qh4dotcom]

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/18/AR2008091804059.html?wpisrc=newsletter

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

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

 

[eric_cartman]

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

 

[A. Havnes]

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

I was kind of hoping that he wouldn't endorse anybody, either, especially since there's a 99% (statistic made up by me) chance that we'll have to take our country back by ourselves anyway. I think the reason he did it was because he knew so many people were going to write him in, which wouldn't do any good. He endorsed somebody to try and encourage people to vote third party.

Oh, and for Baldwin haters who claim that a single endorsement can completely turn them off from a campaign (no names mentioned), you should definately rethink your assessment. Does Baldwin wear his faith on his sleeve? Yes. Does he have some rather biased writings? Yes. However, where it truly counts, he's right on the money. At least that's what I've come to the conclusion of.

I didn't think an endorsement would mean a whole lot to so many people. We all fell in love with Ron Paul's message, right? Then regardless of whom he endorses, and for whatever reasons he endorses (I hate you Barr), we should still vote for whomever we feel best represents that message. Is Baldwin a carbon copy of Dr. Paul? No. But he's a whole lot closer to it than either McCain or Bob Barr or Nader.

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

 

[topaz420]

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

 

[Brassmouth]

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

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

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

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

That's called 'bigotry.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me.

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Corporate Resource Council, The Health Risks of Gay Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

IMHO.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

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

 

[BuddyRey]

My perspective on Baldwin:

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

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

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

 

[Mark]

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

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

 

[freelance]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

My perspective on Baldwin:

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

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

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

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mark]

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

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

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

lol touche' -

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

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

=========

I'm in CD 13

 

[GunnyFreedom]

lol touche' -

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

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

Good show! I highly reccommend this for everyone.

=========

I'm in CD 13

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

 

[constituent]

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

Well... except for health freedom of course.

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

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

LoL, through the LP?

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

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

What a joke.

 

[constituent]

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

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

So you do support full decriminalization, correct?