Paul has endorsed Baldwin

[nayjevin]

nayjevin was here

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Indy,

Have you read the Republican platform? It is equally unappealing.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

 

[BuddyRey]

Has Ron Even Read The CP Platform?

While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I might come back to RPF's (if I don't get banned for this post), but I'm really pissed!!


F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul at the LP convention in 1988.
I used to consider him a hero.



This January I was shocked and dismayed by the (old) newsletter scandal.

* Are the animals still coming from the cities Ron?
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* How did you not know about all the homophobic filth in your newsletters Ron??
F' You Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


/How does Ron stay so calm?

Indy, I respect and understand your anger, but, looking at it from RP's perspective, he had very few good choices and decided on the most anti-Empire, anti-Federal Reserve candidate available. I loathe Baldwin and his party's position on pretty much every social issue, plus the irrational protectionist border and trade policies. But I understand why Ron Paul chose Baldwin, and I don't think it was because he shares Baldwin's homophobia (as evidenced by this clip, Ron Paul is no homophobe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE ).

My theory is that Ron Paul waited so long to endorse somebody because none of the candidates (even Barr) was very appealing.

 

[ultimaonliner]

My theory is that Ron Paul waited so long to endorse somebody because none of the candidates (even Barr) was very appealing.

You're probably right. I'm disappointed that he didn't realize with the total lack of worthy candidates that RP didn't step up.

RP knows that he would be the ONLY 3rd party candidate with an actual chance at creating shockwaves in the general election.

He would have done more for the movement by running, than all his work as a congressman.

 

[RickyJ]

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man.

I agree this is not correct. All teachings are not related to assumptions about God and man. Teachings in math and science make no assumptions about anything. If something can't be proven in science it is a theory only. Evolution is a theory only. Even though some would love to ram it down our throats as a fact.

I think I know what the CP party meant here, they just worded it wrong. What I think they meant is that there is no such thing as being non-religious. You have to believe (have faith) in something because everything is not know as a fact. Even if you are an atheist you are religious because you are basing your belief on something you can't prove, which requires faith.

 

[anaconda]

OK, then...Baldwin it is!

I am voting to empower Ron Paul.

I will back him up at the voting polls.

This is politics!

 

[nathanmn]

Youtube or it didn't happen.

 

[Bman]

Christians are people. True Christians cannot come to you as anything but Christians. They just happen to be people you don't like. Ron Paul is also a Christian.

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I wonder if you could please direct me to the source of Chuck Baldwin (Not the CP) stating such a thing. Thanks!

I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Personal opinions of individual people are not exactly relevant to a choice of federal governmental policies, nor SHOULD such things be relevant.

Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

I don't think anybody has tried to make Chuck Baldwin the standard bearer of the Liberty Movement.

 

[Bman]

I wonder if you could please direct me to the source of Chuck Baldwin (Not the CP) stating such a thing. Thanks!

Well before I even go that far. Since I don't bookmark everything I read. Can you point out to me were he's stated opposition to some of his parties platforms.

Personal opinions of individual people are not exactly relevant to a choice of federal governmental policies, nor SHOULD such things be relevant.

Well now. That would depend on whether or not someones personal opinions were their deciding factor on how they would vote on a situation. To say you want things voted on at a state level, does not mean that you won't use your personal opinions there. It's the whole reason KKK members like Ron Paul. Forgive me for being very skeptical. All I have are his beliefs and alliances past and present. He has no voting record.

I don't think anybody has tried to make Chuck Baldwin the standard bearer of the Liberty Movement.

Well then what would you call trying to make Chuck the current center focus of this movement?

 

[Dary]

I really wanted to vote for Ron Paul.

But I think that I'm going to go with Charles Jay, the Boston Tea Party's 2008 presidential nominee.

 

[Mister Grieves]

I don't know if this has been said, but I think this is less an endorsement for Baldwin than it is a clear non-endorsement for Barr.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well before I even go that far. Since I don't bookmark everything I read. Can you point out to me were he's stated opposition to some of his parties platforms.

First and foremost, you have made the positive claim, that Chuck Baldwin, the person, believes that Church doctrine should be the basis for governmental policy. As the positive claimant, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Secondly, I don't know that there has ever been a case in the history of the US where a candidate's platform was in lockstep with their party's platform.
Chuck has personally stated the principles which should govern the actions of the POTUS, many of which can be found at his website. It was those same principles which led him to endorse and work for the election of RP from the very start.

Well now. That would depend on whether or not someones personal opinions were their deciding factor on how they would vote on a situation. To say you want things voted on at a state level, does not mean that you won't use your personal opinions there. It's the whole reason KKK members like Ron Paul. Forgive me for being very skeptical. All I have are his beliefs and alliances past and present. He has no voting record.

Chuck Baldwin has been sharing his philosophy of Federal Govt for nearly a decade, and has worked his fingers to the bone trying to get RP elected because they share the same concept of the role of Federal Govt. CB only stood up to run when it became totally clear that RP would not be the nominee, and that under no circumstances would he, himself run third party.

CB may not have a voting record, but he has at least 8 years of actions to measure against his word...and as it happens, they do indeed match.

I understand that you are skeptical, but I have to wonder what the source of that skepticism is.

Well then what would you call trying to make Chuck the current center focus of this movement?

The only people I see making Chuck the center focus right now are all those screaming about how evil he is for being a Christian, and claiming that he is a theocrat without any evidence to back up said claims.

I have heard all kinds of insane propaganda being slung at Chuck, and it all seems to boil down to "we hate him because he is a Christian pastor." quite aside from his actual platform, policies, or positions.

Quite frankly, it is the people screaming how much they hate him, and repeating lies about him, that is keeping him front and center right now. Just because I am working to combat the M$M-like lies and propaganda being directed against him does not mean I am trying to keep him front and center, it just means that I detest lies and propaganda in general, and on general principle.

 

[mitty]

Maybe you miss the point. Yes Ron is christian but he was not supporting Christianity as the ruling autority of government.

I do like plenty of christians. I just don't support their beliefs. Unlike writen in 2peter 1:19-21 I don't believe that any man can say they've been given the word of god and say based upon such what should be deemed right and what should be deemed wrong.

Nor do I want to be merely tolerated by my government.

That is why I'm voicing my refusal to accept or support Chuck Baldwin as the flag bearer of the liberty movement.

lol.

you do realize that ron paul endorsing baldwin does not make baldwin the "flag bearer of the liberty movement" right?

you obviously haven't been paying attention and are blinded by your bigotry.

ron paul considers each of us the "flag bearers of the liberty movement". you don't like his endorsement of baldwin? get off your ass and do something yourself to further the cause of liberty.

 

[anaconda]

I don't know if this has been said, but I think this is less an endorsement for Baldwin than it is a clear non-endorsement for Barr.
Reply With Quote

Yup.

 

[Bman]

First and foremost, you have made the positive claim, that Chuck Baldwin, the person, believes that Church doctrine should be the basis for governmental policy. As the positive claimant, the burden of proof is on YOU.

1. IT IS HIS PARTIES PLATFORM! He can say whatever he wants. If he does not address this particular subject silence will always be viewed as acceptance.

2. With alliances and memberships to groups such as the Florida Moral Majority how can one not be skeptical of Chuck.

3. In the groups section of his website why is their no place for Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Agnostics. Why is one group special in belief and the others overlooked?

Look I don't have to go far to find comments or links that justify my concern. And it's quite pointless to post links that clearly show that Chuck himself thinks Christianity should be the ruling force over Government. He has done so in statements about France. He has attacked womens rights on many levels. RIght of choice, right of employment, right of dress and apparell. He has again and again tried to suppress gays through his rhetoric. He has supported the war on drugs. He has supported the banning of Porn and such.

I won't even get it to some of the other stuff.

Quite simply. If you guys want us non-christians to think Chuck is a good idea, it's going to take more than well ROn Paul supports him and they are exactly a like. For some strange reason ( or more likely logic based on previous comments.) we don't see Chuck as viable at the moment. He has a lot of denouncing to do. And we're not holding our breathe.