Ron Paul endorses Chuck
- Thread starter orafi
- Start date
unreconstructed1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 31
I'm sorry, but I can't in full faith support a party which makes it so blunt that they have an obviously theocratic agenda. I am a slightly right constitutionalist libertarian. and sometimes that makes me seem split on certain issues, but I assure you I'm not.
take abortion for example. personally, I find abortion to be morally bankrupt, and completely obscene, yet I don't believe for one minute that the FED ought to have any say in the matter. I believe that that is an issue, like many, that should be left up to the States to decide.
I also believe in Jesus, I believe that this Republic was based upon Christian values, but I don't believe that the FED should be able to push a theocratic agenda down my throat. I believe in prayer in schools because schools are another issue that should be left up to the States.
essentially, if you want to see what I believe that the FED should have a say in, read the constitution. If it's not specifically enumerated as a function of the FED, or specifically prohibited from the STates, then the FED should have absolutely no say in the matter.
Where does that leave me with the Constitution Party? While I sincerely respect MR Baldwin, and I agree with him on many points, party choice IS a deciding factor in my decision on whether or not to support a candidate, because party choice is simply that, it is a choice. for whatever reason, each candidate has chosen to be a representative of that party.
The Constitution Party, while sounding good on the surface, has a quite obvious theological agenda. from the way they describe themselves, you'd expect Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell to be campaigning as their candidate, not a constitutionalist. Honestly, adherents to the constitution Party seem to be nothing more than paleoconservative Republicans, rather than members of another Party. While there are a few things about Barr that I can't agree with, Dr. Paul isn't running, and Barr seems to me to be the closest candidate to match my political ideologyas far
as Pauls endorsement goes, he needs to be very careful at this point. I can completely understand his frustration at Barr's snub, but at the same time I can also understand Barr's choice.
Dr. Paul has united a lot of people under a single banner. Dr. Paul has become a rallying point, much like Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson were in their day. If he is diligent and remains focused on the course, we could very likely see a major third party threat to the Statist control of the System, and if carefully worked at on a state and local level, we could very well see a third party president in office in our lifetime. but he isn't going to do it by snubbing the candidate of the largest of the third party currently in operation.
personally, I would love to see a constitution party/Libertarian party merging. without the theological baggage, both parties share identical platforms, and combined they would truly be a massive threat to the system.
Constitutionalist Libertarian Party. now that's a part that I would proudly claim membership to...
take abortion for example. personally, I find abortion to be morally bankrupt, and completely obscene, yet I don't believe for one minute that the FED ought to have any say in the matter. I believe that that is an issue, like many, that should be left up to the States to decide.
I also believe in Jesus, I believe that this Republic was based upon Christian values, but I don't believe that the FED should be able to push a theocratic agenda down my throat. I believe in prayer in schools because schools are another issue that should be left up to the States.
essentially, if you want to see what I believe that the FED should have a say in, read the constitution. If it's not specifically enumerated as a function of the FED, or specifically prohibited from the STates, then the FED should have absolutely no say in the matter.
Where does that leave me with the Constitution Party? While I sincerely respect MR Baldwin, and I agree with him on many points, party choice IS a deciding factor in my decision on whether or not to support a candidate, because party choice is simply that, it is a choice. for whatever reason, each candidate has chosen to be a representative of that party.
The Constitution Party, while sounding good on the surface, has a quite obvious theological agenda. from the way they describe themselves, you'd expect Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell to be campaigning as their candidate, not a constitutionalist. Honestly, adherents to the constitution Party seem to be nothing more than paleoconservative Republicans, rather than members of another Party. While there are a few things about Barr that I can't agree with, Dr. Paul isn't running, and Barr seems to me to be the closest candidate to match my political ideologyas far
as Pauls endorsement goes, he needs to be very careful at this point. I can completely understand his frustration at Barr's snub, but at the same time I can also understand Barr's choice.
Dr. Paul has united a lot of people under a single banner. Dr. Paul has become a rallying point, much like Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson were in their day. If he is diligent and remains focused on the course, we could very likely see a major third party threat to the Statist control of the System, and if carefully worked at on a state and local level, we could very well see a third party president in office in our lifetime. but he isn't going to do it by snubbing the candidate of the largest of the third party currently in operation.
personally, I would love to see a constitution party/Libertarian party merging. without the theological baggage, both parties share identical platforms, and combined they would truly be a massive threat to the system.
Constitutionalist Libertarian Party. now that's a part that I would proudly claim membership to...
Similar threads
