Since Ron Paul will not run in Nov. can we support Chuck Baldwin on the grassroots?

[TheEngineer]

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...e-anti-gambling-quotes-from-baldwin/#comments

Another reason for me not to support Chuck Baldwin. Well, I actually never had interest in a theocratic party anyways. It would be like an Obama hater voting for him after accusing him of being Mr. Communist.

P.S. I have no problem with the State running a gambling ring, it's a lot of extra money for the state to use for their budget.

Thanks for the plug!

I hope you'll all check it out. One poster said he works on the Baldwin campaign and said he'll get an answer. I hope he is who he says he is and that he can get an answer, one way or another. I really hope Baldwin had a change of heart.

 

[kombayn]

^If he's against state-gambling, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But then he needs to reform his stance on porno and the separation of Church and State, which according to the CP platform is not going to happen. He'll never earn my support, but I don't want to discourage other Baldwin supporters from not supporting him. But I'll always let my opinion be known about his stances on the issues which I don't agree with.

 

[familydog]

^If he's against state-gambling, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But then he needs to reform his stance on porno and the separation of Church and State, which according to the CP platform is not going to happen. He'll never earn my support, but I don't want to discourage other Baldwin supporters from not supporting him. But I'll always let my opinion be known about his stances on the issues which I don't agree with.

What is Baldwin's position on church and state?

 

[TheEngineer]

Update

I've been trying to get an answer from the Baldwin campaign on their stance on Internet poker for a few weeks now. I received a response from Anita Andrews on Tuesday, 6/10, informing me that I'd receive a response within 48 hours. I received another reply on Thursday, 6/12 from B______ (I ought to not post her full name, I suppose) requesting another 48 hours to decide. She wrote "I promise to have something concrete to you by Friday night. Thanks a ton for the patience." Well, that's the last thing I heard from the campaign.

I sent reminders on Monday, 6/16 and Thursday, 6/19 for a follow-up. I put a read receipt request on the Thursday email -- it was read by two people from the campaign. No answer.

If Baldwin were with Ron Paul on this, it seems the campaign would just send a one sentence reply of affirmation. I await a response, but this isn't encouraging.

 

[MMolloy]

Update

I've been trying to get an answer from the Baldwin campaign on their stance on Internet poker for a few weeks now. I received a response from Anita Andrews on Tuesday, 6/10, informing me that I'd receive a response within 48 hours. I received another reply on Thursday, 6/12 from B______ (I ought to not post her full name, I suppose) requesting another 48 hours to decide. She wrote "I promise to have something concrete to you by Friday night. Thanks a ton for the patience." Well, that's the last thing I heard from the campaign.

I sent reminders on Monday, 6/16 and Thursday, 6/19 for a follow-up. I put a read receipt request on the Thursday email -- it was read by two people from the campaign. No answer.

If Baldwin were with Ron Paul on this, it seems the campaign would just send a one sentence reply of affirmation. I await a response, but this isn't encouraging.

Although I would like to see Baldwin's campaign reply favoring Internet Poker... It is not near the top of my list of issues:

1) Chuck Baldwin was working on RP's campaign as if he was one of us... endorsing him (on video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg), writing articles critical of RP's opponents (Huckabee -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin411.htm; McCain -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin426.htm Giuliani -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin400.htm etc), giving speeches for him, appeared in adds for him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXg7mhVXBIk&feature=related) etc.
2) He's against the war and would, like RP, bring our troops home from Iraq and around the globe.
3) He's Pro-Life... you can't believe in individual rights and still believe it is ok to take another's life away because they inconvenience you. http://baldwin2008.com/issues/life/
4) He'd do away with the FED, Income Tax, NAFTA etc [And without changing our monetary system we will not change our foreign policy (keep the FED = more wars)]
5) No War on Terror or Empire Building http://baldwin2008.com/issues/sovereignty/
Etc.

 

[anaconda]

What the heck is with the obscenity/censorship issue with a party that calls themselves the "Constitution" party?

 

[TheEngineer]

Although I would like to see Baldwin's campaign reply favoring Internet Poker... It is not near the top of my list of issues:

1) Chuck Baldwin was working on RP's campaign as if he was one of us... endorsing him (on video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg), writing articles critical of RP's opponents (Huckabee -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin411.htm; McCain -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin426.htm Giuliani -- http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin400.htm etc), giving speeches for him, appeared in adds for him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXg7mhVXBIk&feature=related) etc.
2) He's against the war and would, like RP, bring our troops home from Iraq and around the globe.
3) He's Pro-Life... you can't believe in individual rights and still believe it is ok to take another's life away because they inconvenience you. http://baldwin2008.com/issues/life/
4) He'd do away with the FED, Income Tax, NAFTA etc [And without changing our monetary system we will not change our foreign policy (keep the FED = more wars)]
5) No War on Terror or Empire Building http://baldwin2008.com/issues/sovereignty/
Etc.

Baldwin may be with you, but someone who'd ban interstate online poker by forcing banks to be the Internet gaming police isn't with me. As he'd veto the gaming bills Ron Paul has cosponsored, I'd suggest he's not 100% with any of us. To me, this indicates a tendency to outlaw all sorts of freedoms on the basis of legislating morality.

Barr, OTOH, believes everything you posted about Baldwin, but without the tendency to legislate morality. Barr will also actually be on ballots, and he'll get mainstream media coverage. We need that to push the message of liberty to the masses.

 

[Truth Warrior]

OP Question? Answer: YOU can, I won't.

 

[Bison]

Hey Engineer, instead of speculating maybe you should write Baldwin and ask him if he is against people playing poker against a computer that is rigged to take their money.

He may just tell you that he is against legislating intelligence.

Who knows?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I wrote to Baldwin and asked him some questions on issues...I got ZERO response. I wrote to Wayne Allen Root about his stance on amnesty and got TWO very nice personal lengthy emails. I wrote to the Chair of the LP about and issue and got TWO personal responses. I'm definately going with the LP. TONES

 

[kombayn]

^+1, I'm not completely sold on the Barr/Root ticket. They're running a GOP-lite platform. I don't want to vote for Obama and there is no need to since he already has California locked-in. So I'm looking at Ralph Nader, Write-In Ron Paul (which won't count) or not voting at all. I really want Barr/Root to have a stronger rhetoric for personal freedoms.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hey Engineer, instead of speculating maybe you should write Baldwin and ask him if he is against people playing poker against a computer that is rigged to take their money.

He may just tell you that he is against legislating intelligence.

Who knows?

LOL at claiming online poker is rigged. I guess that's why we need big government to protect us from ourselves, huh? You sound like a big government statist (I wouldn't be so blunt had you not taken your tone with me).

As for intelligence, I've made a fair amount of money playing. Many have. It is a game of skill. Even if that weren't the case, I'd still believe we should have this right. I have no desire to be "protected" by a federal ban that nanny-stater big government statists like YOU want. Ron Paul wants this freedom as well.

You should vote for Baldwin. He's clearly your candidate.

 

[TheEngineer]

I wrote to Baldwin and asked him some questions on issues...I got ZERO response. I wrote to Wayne Allen Root about his stance on amnesty and got TWO very nice personal lengthy emails. I wrote to the Chair of the LP about and issue and got TWO personal responses. I'm definately going with the LP. TONES

I had the same experience.

 

[TheEngineer]

Wow...I can't believe how many people here have chosen to put me down for advocating online poker rights -- a liberty Ron Paul strongly supports. I guess you Baldwin supporters feel a need to rip apart anyone who disagrees with him on anything. Lots of luck with that.

 

[familydog]

Wow...I can't believe how many people here have chosen to put me down for advocating online poker rights -- a liberty Ron Paul strongly supports. I guess you Baldwin supporters feel a need to rip apart anyone who disagrees with him on anything. Lots of luck with that.

Says the guy who rips apart Baldwin for "opposing" his view on gambling

 

[TheEngineer]

Says the guy who rips apart Baldwin for "opposing" his view on gambling

Didn't rip him....merely discussed his position on liberty. He is running for office, so it seems to be fair to discuss.

Don't worry about his positions, though. Just attack anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[familydog]

Didn't rip him....merely discussed his position on liberty. He is running for office, so it seems to be fair to discuss.

Don't worry about his positions, though. Just attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Now now, let's play fair. I don't ever recall attacking you

 

[MMolloy]

Baldwin may be with you, but someone who'd ban interstate online poker by forcing banks to be the Internet gaming police isn't with me. As he'd veto the gaming bills Ron Paul has cosponsored, I'd suggest he's not 100% with any of us. To me, this indicates a tendency to outlaw all sorts of freedoms on the basis of legislating morality.

Barr, OTOH, believes everything you posted about Baldwin, but without the tendency to legislate morality. Barr will also actually be on ballots, and he'll get mainstream media coverage. We need that to push the message of liberty to the masses.

NO, Barr does not believe everything I just stated! HE'S BLUFFING!!! Bush said "No Nation Building TOOOOOOO"

Wake up!

The War on Terror will continue under Barr/Root!

War on Terror = Never Ending War = NWO or 1984

And so what if Baldwin didn't pat your ego with a quick response to a fringe issue that he's probably still working out the wording for... get over it.

 

[winston_blade]

Yes, let's support a guy who is on the ballot in 8 states.

 

[MMolloy]

Yes, let's support a guy who is on the ballot in 8 states.

That's what I love about Baldwin bashers... they never misrepresent the facts!

The Constitution Party was on the ballot in 34 states in 2004!