My THREE QUESTION test for Chuck Baldwin.

[Deborah K]

Do you think demanding a candidate respects people's right to live their lives how they see fit is self serving?

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion. I would think there would be other issues that would concern you more like, do they ascribe to austrian economics, non interventionism, abolishment of the IRS and the dept. of education. I dunno, just sayin.

 

[humanic]

I'd be interested in hearing Chuck's honest answers to these questions and would hope that they would be "yes" on all accounts. Regardless, I support his candidacy.

 

[socialize_me]

Wait...with us being involved in two wars, a national debt exploding, taxation up the ying-yang, the trillion dollar bailout, and your biggest worries are whether or not we can burn a book, drug addicts, and prostitution?? Someone needs to prioritize here!! If the War on Drugs is more important to you than the War on Terror, then we'll get nowhere. So basically you'd rather be able to smoke marijuana if that meant occupying countries, costing trillions of dollars, and loss of human life. People in this movement are so obsessive about this War on Drugs thing...it's important, but it's not to the point where you should not support someone who wants to pull out of Iraq but believes drugs should be illegal. To me, life is much more important than being legally able to shoot myself up with heroin. I get what you mean by "personal liberty", but what good is liberty if you're dead?? I mean seriously..the War on Drugs is hardly along the lines of the Patriot Act-violation of rights. Completely separate level, but it's the make-or-break for your support of Baldwin?? Sheesh!!

 

[dannno]

Great post, OP.


There is a possibility I will be able to write-in Chuck Baldwin here in California, but I might have a better chance getting my vote counted by writing in Ron Paul..

There are write-in campaigns going for both and I haven't decided which one to support.

 

[Fyretrohl]

Disqualifying a national candidate because he runs on a platform that is national correct, but has personal beliefs at the state level that are different than yours?

Simply put, these issues don't matter. They are not for the Fed to decide. It is better handled at the state level. Would you rather vote for a candidate who understands the feds role and the limitations of his office or one who will ignore EVERYTHING you believe in?

Seriously, if Chuck Baldwin says 'It is not the Federal Governments place and I will egt them out of it', this sounds like your perfect NATIONAL candidate.

 

[Menthol Patch]

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion. I would think there would be other issues that would concern you more like, do they ascribe to austrian economics, non interventionism, abolishment of the IRS and the dept. of education. I dunno, just sayin.

I will not vote for a candidate unless he is a true fiscal conservative. That means he would abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing, reduce the size of government so that it abides by the constitution, abolish the FED, etc.

I will not vote for a candidate unless he is willing to support people's rights to live their life how they see fit. That means that he would support the legalization of all drugs, pardon everyone in prison for victimless crimes, support free speech, etc.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Wait...with us being involved in two wars, a national debt exploding, taxation up the ying-yang, the trillion dollar bailout, and your biggest worries are whether or not we can burn a book, drug addicts, and prostitution?? Someone needs to prioritize here!! If the War on Drugs is more important to you than the War on Terror, then we'll get nowhere. So basically you'd rather be able to smoke marijuana if that meant occupying countries, costing trillions of dollars, and loss of human life. People in this movement are so obsessive about this War on Drugs thing...it's important, but it's not to the point where you should not support someone who wants to pull out of Iraq but believes drugs should be illegal. To me, life is much more important than being legally able to shoot myself up with heroin. I get what you mean by "personal liberty", but what good is liberty if you're dead?? I mean seriously..the War on Drugs is hardly along the lines of the Patriot Act-violation of rights. Completely separate level, but it's the make-or-break for your support of Baldwin?? Sheesh!!

The war on drugs is an abomination!

People are in prison today because they simply chose to put substances into their own body.

For example, if you don't think the war on drugs is a big issue then I hope you do not have a problem if they made ice cream illegal.

 

[Deborah K]

Disqualifying a national candidate because he runs on a platform that is national correct, but has personal beliefs at the state level that are different than yours?

Simply put, these issues don't matter. They are not for the Fed to decide. It is better handled at the state level. Would you rather vote for a candidate who understands the feds role and the limitations of his office or one who will ignore EVERYTHING you believe in?

Seriously, if Chuck Baldwin says 'It is not the Federal Governments place and I will egt them out of it', this sounds like your perfect NATIONAL candidate.

Good point!

 

[Menthol Patch]

I'd be interested in hearing Chuck's honest answers to these questions and would hope that they would be "yes" on all accounts. Regardless, I support his candidacy.

Do you know a way of contacting someone in his campaign and passing these questions along?

 

[Menthol Patch]

Good point!

So you think if the government made ice cream illegal and arrested a thousand people in your state, broke up their families, and ruined their careers the Federal government should not get involved?

 

[Arklatex]

Basically Menthol Patch wants to assure that Baldwin endorses the constitution in all situations above his own personal views.

Seems like question from an honest Patriot.

 

[socialize_me]

The war on drugs is an abomination!

People are in prison today because they simply chose to put substances into their own body.

For example, if you don't think the war on drugs is a big issue then I hope you do not have a problem if they made ice cream illegal.

Again Menthol Patch, I didn't say I didn't agree that the War on Drugs is bad; I'm simply disagreeing with the post and many people's belief here. Baldwin opposes the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. For whatever reason, the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and the ability to burn Bibles are more important than the Government wiretapping, searching and seizing your property unwarrantly, and throwing you in jail without a trial??? Wowzah...

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Basically Menthol Patch wants to assure that Baldwin endorses the constitution in all situations above his own personal views.

Seems like question from an honest Patriot.

Exactly.

I will only vote for a candidate that believes in everyone's freedom in every situation.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not to support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".

Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Again Menthol Patch, I didn't say I didn't agree that the War on Drugs is bad; I'm simply disagreeing with the post and many people's belief here. Baldwin opposes the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. For whatever reason, the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and the ability to burn Bibles are more important than the Government wiretapping, searching and seizing your property unwarrantly, and throwing you in jail without a trial??? Wowzah...

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

No, it's all equally important.

Chuck Baldwin already supports ending the war in Iraq, ending the Patriot Act, and abolishing the IRS. I now need to know if he supports personal freedom.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

I totally agree.

The fact is that right now in the USA you can go to prison for simply choosing to put a substance in your own body. If you do not have the freedom over your own body all other freedoms are meaningless.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Can anyone here pass along these questions to someone in the Chuck Baldwin campaign?

 

[V4Vendetta]

Baldwin supports states rights on all those issues.

 

[constitutional]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

He was on a internet radio show not long ago. I want to know the answer to those three questions too.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

If there were a man who could be considered the "perfect" liberty candidate, except for him not wanting to immediately legalize all drugs, then you Menthol would be stubborn enough not to support him. I'm not saying I actually care for Baldwin, just pointing out that you constantly talk about the drug war.

Almost seems like your a one issue voter at times, as if a persons right to snort coke was as important as abolishing the Fed. Well its not, so you should become familiar with the term "protest vote".

Health freedom is kind of a big issue. If a person cannot ingest a substance in the privacy of their own home, while not a potential harm to anyone, then nobody can really make the case that there's liberty at all.

Not to mention, the drug war destroyed more freedom in this country than anything else in the last 30 years, and it has only made the problems worse. IMO, it's the most retarded policy possible and any politician defending it isn't fit for office.

Where did I say this hypothetical perfect candidate would be defending the drug war? Both Barr and Baldwin speak out against the drug war all the time. I just said it is acceptable to put the issue on the back burner for a little bit, in order to reach the White House and address more important issues first.

So say hypothetically Ron Paul had a serious chance of winning the Presidency, his platform was the same except as it is now but he would not immediately legalize all drugs. Menthol is saying he would not vote for him, and that is the kind of retarded nonsense I am addressing here. His position is unjustifiably silly.

If a candidate supports keeping any drug illegal on any level of government then they do not understand liberty, and it will reflect in their other positions as well.

No Brandon, as much as I'd like for it to be that simple, its not.

The quote "perfect liberty candidate" I spoke of in my first post, may just acknowledge the practical difficulties in reaching the White House with a policy of immediately legalizing all drugs. Do you have any idea how horribly a candidate with that position would be treated? They would not be allowed to exist in the race. As someone who just finished reading the Fountainhead, trust me I hate practical difficulties as much as the next man. However I'm still reasonable enough to vote in a man who is anti-war, anti-Fed, anti-tax, etc. even if he can't legalize all drugs due to practical hurdles.

Yes, being for the immediate legalization of all drugs, and legalizing prostitution, etc is a clear sign that one respects peoples rights to do with their body what they wish. I understand that, but any man running for Prez with that position basically would not be allowed to exist. And it is acceptable to push aside these relatively unimportant issues (unimportant compared to the Federal Reserve, Iraq war, etc) to someone who isn't a damn fool.

Even someone who's lifestyle consists of snorting coke off a hooker everyday, ought to have enough sense to vote for the "perfect liberty candidate" I spoke of.

That's right! I will not vote for any candidate that does not support legalizing all drugs and would pardon all non violent drug users.

You consistently word-dance around all of my posts, or don't even attempt to understand what I'm talking about. How much more clear can I get?

If you do not have the freedom over your own body all other freedoms are meaningless.

So when I don't have the freedom to legally snort coke (I can get away with it illegally), all of sudden due to some mystical decree from Menthol Patch , the right to not to be fucking enslaved and forced to fight in Iran becomes meaningless. Get the fuck out.