Baldwin Or Barr - Poll

[scandinaviany3]

so what is the concern on gambling?

you know i might not be understanding the gambling claim but in the states i was in over the years the indian reservations is where this is mostly all at.

Since by treaty the indian nations control their lands what say can any president have over such gambling?

I might not be understanding things but i think the indian nations have this casino model as their primary source of survival.

I dont therefore see why this is a concern whatsoever

 

[familydog]

Baldwin didn't say, "Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble". Rather, he said, "Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling". That's the key. He's imaging (and advocating) a country where the majority collectively assert rights over individuals in the area of all gaming. So long as this is at the state level and not the federal, Baldwin is happy.



Yeah, but Ron Paul ALWAYS follows up these statements with a statement of the right of the individual to make this decision. Every time. That's why I think Ron Paul would fight hard for this right -- because he says he will and because he does.

Seriously, if Baldwin said all this against guns while running as the nominee of a party with an anti-gun party platform, what do you think the NRA would rate him?

Imagine if the platform stated "Guns promote an increase in crime and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of the gun industry, such as shooting events, or subsidization of the gun industry in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of gun possession." Wouldn't you expect a candidate running under such a platform who disagreed with it to state so clearly and emphatically? I would. If, rather, he said, "Can you imagine a country without legalized guns?", what conclusions would you draw? I realize you like the guy, but his record to date is quite clear.

I'm glad we had this conversation. Going in, I had questions about Baldwin. Now, I'm 100% convinced of where he stands, based on the strong evidence.

I'm glad we had this conversation too. It made me realize that even people in this movement are capable of hypocracy, smears, and double standards. Thanks

Besides, the CP platform on gambling is actually more libertarian than the Libertarian platform. But we can sweep that under the rug

 

[TheEngineer]

you know i might not be understanding the gambling claim but in the states i was in over the years the indian reservations is where this is mostly all at.

Since by treaty the indian nations control their lands what say can any president have over such gambling?

I might not be understanding things but i think the indian nations have this casino model as their primary source of survival.

I dont therefore see why this is a concern whatsoever

Apparently Baldwin wants state law to apply on reservations (or, more accurately, the CP platform calls for that).

My issue is Internet poker. Ron Paul is a champion of our cause, while Baldwin appears hostile to this freedom.

 

[familydog]

So, Familydog, since you don't like the "F", what would you rate him? And, he can't be a "?", both because he's on the record and because he's running on a platform that's on the record.

I wouldn't give him a rating at all yet since I have nothing credible to go off of. But I'm, you know, fair like that.

 

[TheEngineer]

I'm glad we had this conversation too. It made me realize that even people in this movement are capable of hypocracy, smears, and double standards. Thanks

Besides, the CP platform on gambling is actually more libertarian than the Libertarian platform. But we can sweep that under the rug

I've proven my point with real data. You've produced nothing but insults. I realize you like Baldwin, but I'd challenge you to find ONE QUOTE where he advocates this liberty. I'd also like to know what you'd rate Baldwin if you were me, given the evidence.

And, what's libertarian about condemning gaming without proof, then calling for collectivist banning at the state level? "Libertarianism" doesn't always equal "states rights".

 

[crazyfingers]

Apparently Baldwin wants state law to apply on reservations (or, more accurately, the CP platform calls for that).

My issue is Internet poker. Ron Paul is a champion of our cause, while Baldwin appears hostile to this freedom.

"Apparently Baldwin wants"

"Baldwin appears hostile"

Sorry but you're making assumptions that are most likely incorrect. You're the one making the assertion that he wants to ban gambling, so the onus of proof is on you. Besides, I play poker online, but if this is your most important issue, you seriously need to rearrange your priorities. At least Baldwin stands for a foreign policy of noninterventionism, and strong national sovreignty. That's more than can be said for Barr/Root.

 

[TheEngineer]

I wouldn't give him a rating at all yet since I have nothing credible to go off of. But I'm, you know, fair like that.

LOL. He has a ten year record of condemning gaming, without once saying "while I hate gaming, I'll strongly defend the freedom of individuals to participate in it". He's also running on a platform that condemns it. What's not credible? Seems you're just in the tank for this guy.

 

[crazyfingers]

LOL. He has a ten year record of condemning gaming, without once saying "while I hate gaming, I'll strongly defend the freedom of individuals to participate in it". He's also running on a platform that condemns it. What's not credible? Seems you're just in the tank for this guy.

It seems like you're in the tank for Bob "the surge is working" Barr and Wayne "the war on terror has just begun" Root, just because they happen to agree with your pet issue. Who cares about their positions on issues of actual consequence...

 

[qh4dotcom]

I'll support both....although Baldwin needs to get ballot access in all 50 states to have any kind of a chance.

 

[familydog]

I've proven my point with real data. You've produced nothing but insults. I realize you like Baldwin, but I'd challenge you to find ONE QUOTE where he advocates this liberty. I'd also like to know what you'd rate Baldwin if you were me, given the evidence.

And, what's libertarian about condemning gaming without proof, then calling for collectivist banning at the state level? "Libertarianism" doesn't always equal "states rights".

You have proven nothing but the the fact that Baldwin dislikes gambling. What real data? You mean Baldwin's voting record of wanting gambling banned? Or his list of statements saying he wants gambling banned? I didn't see those, you'll have to point them out to me. I never insulted you. I simply pointed out you produced a smear. I insulted your work. Big difference.

Hows this. You have said nothing but things like oh..ilike a lot of things about Baldwin but this one issue gets me....Yet you have not named any other issue that you like about him and how he is promoting the cause of liberty (in those areas, least from your perspective). So, taking a cue from you, I'm going to assume that you hate him because he is Christian. I mean, given your history of lack of saying anything nice about him. You're obviously a bigot Of course, I'm joking. I was just pointing out how rediculous you sound.

What's not libertarian about getting the government out of promoting an activity? Why should the government promote an recreational activity at all? Should the government promote alcohol? Should they use taxpayer money to promote it? I'm looking at the platform that you quote, and I see nothing anti-liberty in it. They say they want to get rid of lotteries. How is that anti-freedom? Maybe you should read this afticle, and tell me just how libertarian the lottery is. I'm from the state with the most elaborate and famous lottery system in the country. It is essentially a voluntary tax. The revenue goes to the state to pay for entitlements that the state shouldn't be paying for in the first place. Yeah, getting rid of the lottery is real anti-liberty.

Getting the government out of subsidizing Indian casinos? I thought libertarians were against all government subsidies? Why should a private business be recieving government money at all? For economic development? Oh, that must be like bulldozing some houses to build a factory under eminent domain. Real libertarian

 

[countrykidz4freedom]

I like baldiwn 1000000000x more than barr. In my personal opinion, Barr seems like a neo-con plant to slow down and divide our revolution.

My thoughts run along the same lines as this. I think we should be very wary about Barr.

 

[TheEngineer]

"Apparently Baldwin wants"

"Baldwin appears hostile"

Sorry but you're making assumptions that are most likely incorrect. You're the one making the assertion that he wants to ban gambling, so the onus of proof is on you. Besides, I play poker online, but if this is your most important issue, you seriously need to rearrange your priorities. At least Baldwin stands for a foreign policy of noninterventionism, and strong national sovreignty. That's more than can be said for Barr/Root.

The platform clearly reads that they want to end federal enabling of Indian gaming and return that to the states. I don't necessarily disagree, but the preamble makes their position regarding gaming pretty clear.

And, to clarify, I never said Baldwin wants to ban gambling. Rather, I said it appears he'd be unlikely to champion our liberty, given his track record.

And, I'm not sure why we're always so willing to give our freedoms away. Statements like "if this is your most important issue, you seriously need to rearrange your priorities" are the ones statists use on us to convince us we shouldn't fight for our liberties.

 

[TheEngineer]

I wasn't intending to hijack this thread. I started a new one at www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=141266 .

 

[Razmear]

Colbert bump

currently 83 Baldwin, 87 Barr

eb

 

[RPTXState]

Will either of them be on the ballot in Texas? Our ballot access laws are draconian.

 

[WRellim]

My thoughts run along the same lines as this. I think we should be very wary about Barr.

Trust Bob... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=105ZE1Ysbn8

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

How long has Chuck Baldwin been a member of the Constitution Party? I know Bob Barr has been a libertarian for about 5 years. It won't do anyone any good if your state doesn't have Baldwin on the ballot.

 

[Volitzer]

Bob Barr is former CIA and Bilderberg placed to keep the Libertarian Party politically impotent.

 

[BigRedBrent]

I only voted so that the split would be at exactly 50%.

 

[WRellim]

How long has Chuck Baldwin been a member of the Constitution Party? I know Bob Barr has been a libertarian for about 5 years. It won't do anyone any good if your state doesn't have Baldwin on the ballot.

Wow... this stuff just gets more and more exaggerated, doesn't it (it's like a game of "Chinese whispers")


No, Bob Barr has NOT been a member of the Libertarian Party for 5 years, nor for 4 years, and not for 3 years... and not even for the 2 years that just about everyone claims... Bob Barr actually joined the Libertarian Party sometime around December 12 to 15, 2006.
(cf http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/15/ap/politics/mainD8M1ILB00.shtml ) and apparently almost immediately was made the Libertarian Party's regional representative for the South -- purportedly recruiting candidates & such (whether he recruited hundreds or none at all, I have no idea, and I don't think he really cared about that part either -- the main value of the spot was that it IMMEDIATELY gave him a seat on the LNC). Which means he was a member of the LP for possibly a whopping huge handful of days before it was announced that he had already been made one of its directors -- and subsequently he was a member for a whole extensive and massively long 1 year, and 6 months (or thereabouts) when he was crowned it's new "pragmatic" King and Savior.


Meanwhile, Chuck Baldwin left the Republican Party in protest over the Bush-Cheney ticket in the year 2000; joined the Constitution Party shortly thereafter, becoming very active working within the party on a local, state and national basis. Indeed, a measly, scant, tiny, and completely insignificant four years later, Chuck Baldwin was chosen as Michael Peroutka's running mate and the Vice Presidential candidate on the Constitution Party ticket in the year 2004. This spring we was elected the Presidential nominee at the national convention over the former Republican Alan Keyes, who had joined the CP a relatively modest amount oftime prior to his seeking its nomination.