The case against Chuck Baldwin...

[Brassmouth]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

Who cares if he's pro-life and morally opposed to gay marriage? He believes in an invisible man, what else do you expect?

Rational people don't think RP is some sort of Messiah. He is a man. That is all.

 

[Brassmouth]

Neil, have you e-mailed your complaints to the Chuck Baldwin Campaign, asking them about his party's platform? If you haven't, then I suggest you do so because your immature whining on Ron Paul Forums is quite annoying.

I suppose he would annoy you, especially since the Baldwin theocrats can't seem to come up with any argument that can justify their candidate's anti-liberty beliefs.

No. You fail. You fail because you don't understand that the need to protect individual rights when the individual in question just hasn't escaped the womb yet. That's the libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul understands this. You don't apparently.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Libertarians are just as split on abortion as every other ideology. Most of us are pro-choice, though, because we are not sexist and we realize we don't have any authority to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You fail.

 

[jmdrake]

I suppose he would annoy you, especially since the Baldwin theocrats can't seem to come up with any argument that can justify their candidate's anti-liberty beliefs.



Libertarians are just as split on abortion as every other ideology. Most of us are pro-choice, though, because we are not sexist and we realize we don't have any authority to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You fail.

Ron Paul isn't libertarian nor is this a "libertarian movement". But the main reason you fail is because you refuse to admit the fact that reasonable people (like RON PAUL) can believe that a six month old fetus is an individual. Thus you fail to protect the rights of ALL individuals. Really abortion comes down to this one belief. No sane person would argue that a woman had a right to kill a premature infant. But some people such as yourself take the arbitrary view that a six or even 9 month old viable "fetus" isn't an individual. Sure you have the right to believe that, as illogical as it may be. But it colors the facts. It's like people who thought African slaves were not "human". Some who opposed slavery did so because of religious reasons, but others did so because the (rightly) realized that people of African descent are individuals and their right to freedom overrides the slave owners right to property. But the ultimate reason that you fail is that you've proven to me why I could never be a libertarian. I briefly considered it because of my (some) positive interactions with libertarians during the campaign. But the post campaign actions of (many though not all) libertarians here has been deplorable and an actual affront to the liberty they claim to uphold. Also as for the stupid "sexism" charge, you should realize that women are by in large more anti abortion then men.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Who cares if he's pro-life and morally opposed to gay marriage? He believes in an invisible man, what else do you expect?

Rational people don't think RP is some sort of Messiah. He is a man. That is all.

True. But this is the man you CLAIM to have supported. It's irrational to say you can't support another candidate because he takes the views that you apparently didn't find too objectionable about the candidate you supported. It's like an Obama supporter attacking John McCain for supporting the bailout or vice versa.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Mini-Me]

True. But this is the man you CLAIM to have supported. It's irrational to say you can't support another candidate because he takes the views that you apparently didn't find too objectionable about the candidate you supported. It's like an Obama supporter attacking John McCain for supporting the bailout or vice versa.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I think the main difference here is simply that more people trust Ron Paul not to legislate his personal views than Chuck Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin was chairman of the Moral Majority, wears his religion on his sleeve, and apparently spent most of an entire campaign speech talking only about religion (though I did not personally hear the speech), so it should not be difficult to understand why many people do not place as much trust in his self-restraint as they do in Ron Paul. Furthermore, Chuck Baldwin wholly endorses the platform of the Constitution Party - something I don't think Ron Paul does - and as I mentioned in another post, that platform includes some doublespeak and...

...some black marks, such as, "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy." This is under their section on Pornography, and they're talking specifically about banning it here, even at the federal level. What else falls under "obscenity" rather than "speech" to the Constitution Party? I do not like the idea of the federal government deciding what counts as free speech and what does not. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law..." and I'm not sure what part about "no law" is really so hard to understand.

In other words, no matter their similarities, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul are two totally different animals. I like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but there's really no debating that he's much farther down Bible Lane than Ron Paul has ever been.

 

[strapko]

These libertarian types REFUSE to admit that Ron Paul is PRO LIFE and for ONE MAN one WOMAN. tones

You [Personal insult redacted]... if you ever listened to Ron Paul you will clearly understand that he doesn't want to tell people how to run their lives! YES he has his own views, and I respect them, but what I respect more is that he doesn't want to force his agenda on others. Unlike your christian fascist ass. That is why we 'libertarian', 'Anarchist', 'Agnostics', 'Atheists' and individuals alike support Ron Paul, because he would never use the law to put a ban on what You see morally wrong.

 

[WillieKamm]

The important things? The 1st amendment is not important? Equal rights for people to do with their bodies and their lives as they please is not important?

You fail.

No you fail. Your good and well taken points, and you have some are totally overshadowed by your miserable nagging personality which manages to shine through even on the internet. If you are on the front line of shock troops that will save us all from our one world fate then we are all truly doomed. Vilify Chuck Baldwin, as if we have all kinds of great choices in this nasty election. Baldwin plays to a constituency that is big in the Constitutional Party. Are you so narrow in your thinking to assume that even if Baldwin had a viable chance to win that he would force us all to become born agains or Baptists 5 minutes after his inauguration? You have no knowledge or appreciation for the religous roots of this country that held it in such good stead for generations. A big part of the societal breakdown and hideous dumbing down of this country results from us tearing away from our religious moorings. I see this, and I'm not even a regular churchgoer. Lastly, you remind me of Trotskyites and Stalinists in my youth, who would argue over every niggling little point in a futile effort to prove who was more ideologically pure. Go find a secure vacuum packed bubble and go crawl in it.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

No. You fail. You fail because you don't understand that the need to protect individual rights when the individual in question just hasn't escaped the womb yet. That's the libertarian argument against abortion. Ron Paul understands this. You don't apparently.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I am kind of curious where you got the idea that I was pro choice? As I have never said anything like that.

We talked about gay marriage, we didn't talk about abortion. My stance on abortion is the same as Ron Paul's.

Please don't ASSume.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I think the main difference here is simply that more people trust Ron Paul not to legislate his personal views than Chuck Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin was chairman of the Moral Majority, wears his religion on his sleeve, and apparently spent most of an entire campaign speech talking only about religion (though I did not personally hear the speech), so it should not be difficult to understand why many people do not place as much trust in his self-restraint as they do in Ron Paul. Furthermore, Chuck Baldwin wholly endorses the platform of the Constitution Party - something I don't think Ron Paul does - and as I mentioned in another post, that platform includes some doublespeak and...


In other words, no matter their similarities, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul are two totally different animals. I like Chuck Baldwin as a person, but there's really no debating that he's much farther down Bible Lane than Ron Paul has ever been.

Well said.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Baldwin advocates following the Constitution. There's no need to freak out that he's a Christian and you're not.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

No you fail. Your good and well taken points, and you have some are totally overshadowed by your miserable nagging personality which manages to shine through even on the internet. If you are on the front line of shock troops that will save us all from our one world fate then we are all truly doomed. Vilify Chuck Baldwin, as if we have all kinds of great choices in this nasty election. Baldwin plays to a constituency that is big in the Constitutional Party. Are you so narrow in your thinking to assume that even if Baldwin had a viable chance to win that he would force us all to become born agains or Baptists 5 minutes after his inauguration? You have no knowledge or appreciation for the religous roots of this country that held it in such good stead for generations. A big part of the societal breakdown and hideous dumbing down of this country results from us tearing away from our religious moorings. I see this, and I'm not even a regular churchgoer. Lastly, you remind me of Trotskyites and Stalinists in my youth, who would argue over every niggling little point in a futile effort to prove who was more ideologically pure. Go find a secure vacuum packed bubble and go crawl in it.

And your miserable personality strikes me even across the internet as being the little pipsqueak who would run his mouth like that over the internet and not have a word to say if you ever met me in person.

Your ad hominem's don't make me wrong. You fail.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Moderator Note

Ok guys... COOL IT with the personal insults.

Keep it civil please.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Baldwin advocates following the Constitution. There's no need to freak out that he's a Christian and you're not.

Is this the part of the conversation where we repeat that Baldwin says that he will follow the Constitution and then I have to repeat that is MEANINGLESS when he and his theocratic fascist party believe the constitution is an extension of biblical law? And that their understanding of what following the Constitution means is a horrible perversion of the 1st amendment?

Thought so.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Is this the part of the conversation where we repeat that Baldwin says that he will follow the Constitution and then I have to repeat that is MEANINGLESS when he and his theocratic fascist party believe the constitution is an extension of biblical law?

Thought so.

Neil, he believes that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles. It was, in my opinion too. However, the Founders were also very clear that all Americans should have freedom OF religion and to my knowledge, that is what Baldwin believes too. It's only my opinion, but I think you are blowing this all out of proportion. Reminding people that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles doesn't hurt you. It is to remind people of some basic facts, such as our rights are not granted by government, they are owned by US. Whether you believe they are natural rights or something God gave to you, is not important. What is important is that YOU OWN THEM. If we concede that government granted them, then we give them the power to take them away.

Look, I wouldn't vote for a Falwell either, or that nutjob preacher that wants to escalate war so that the world will end. I forget his name right now. I wouldn't be for these type of people, because I do think they would promote what you seem to be concerned about. But, I honestly do not think Baldwin is that way. He spends a lot of time talking about Christianity, because he's trying to knock some sense into all the Evangelicals who are promoting unconstitutional wars, etc. I've read Baldwin's articles for a couple of years and he has been taking them to task for quite awhile.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, he believes that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles. It was, in my opinion too. However, the Founders were also very clear that all Americans should have freedom OF religion and to my knowledge, that is what Baldwin believes too. It's only my opinion, but I think you are blowing this all out of proportion. Reminding people that the Constitution was founded upon biblical principles doesn't hurt you. It is to remind people of some basic facts, such as our rights are not granted by government, they are owned by US. Whether you believe they are natural rights or something God gave to you, is not important. What is important is that YOU OWN THEM. If we concede that government granted them, then we give them the power to take them away.

Look, I wouldn't vote for a Falwell either, or that nutjob preacher that wants to escalate war so that the world will end. I forget his name right now. I wouldn't be for these type of people, because I do think they would promote what you seem to be concerned about. But, I honestly do not think Baldwin is that way. He spends a lot of time talking about Christianity, because he's trying to knock some sense into all the Evangelicals who are promoting unconstitutional wars, etc. I've read Baldwin's articles for a couple of years and he has been taking them to task for quite awhile.

Read the report I linked earlier.

Baldwin said he supported the platform, and had no problem with it, and joined the party because of it.

Until he comes forward and says he does not agree with the parts of that platform that are flat out theocratic fascism, then he is not taking anyone to task.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Neil, you seem to be so blinded with hate for God, that you can't see past it.

It's not people like Baldwin that you need to be afraid of.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, you seem to be so blinded with hate for God, that you can't see past it.

It's not people like Baldwin that you need to be afraid of.

People keep saying that, even though it is a total fallacy. I don't hate "God". You fail to see the point.

I don't want ANY religion having authority over the Constitution. PERIOD. Not mine, not yours, not Islam, not Hindu, not Shinto. NONE.

Who do I need to be afraid of?

Is it the Christian Judge who told two Wiccans that they were not allowed to teach their child their own religion as a condition of their divorce where the issue of their child's religious upbringing was in no way being contested?

What about the Congressmen who tried to have the religion of Wicca banned from the Military, because after all, Wiccan's who are fighting for the country don't deserve to practice their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion. (This was Bob Barr by the way)

What about the politicians in the Christian Coalition who fought to prevent Wiccan Veterans who die honorably defending this country from having their own headstone at Arlington? After all, even though they died for their country they don't deserve a memorial that reflects their beliefs right?

Is it the people who protest the funerals of soldiers because they say that deaths in Iraq is their God punishing the United States for it's tolerance of Homosexuals?

Is it the people who live in Islamic theocracy's who beat women for not wearing their veils?

What about the Romans who fed Christians to lions?

Is it George Bush telling us that his foreign policy was influenced by "God" telling him to invade Iraq?

Or maybe Sarah Palin telling us that war is "God's war"?

What about the Shinto Theocracy in Japan that convinced men to fly their planes into aircraft carriers? And justified horrible atrocities against the people of China?

My opponent is not your God, or any other God. It is MEN who want to remove the freedom of choice of others to choose to live their lives and worship as THEY choose.

I know it would be easier to try and say I just irrationally hate Christians, but that is very far from the truth. The truth is however, that Chuck Baldwin's party platform that he says he totally supports advocates a Theocracy. Theocracy is not compatible with religious freedom. Or freedom at all unless your lucky enough to be of the same religion as the Theocracy is governing by. I would be just as against any other theocracy based on any other religion. Including my own.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's not Christianity, Neil. Those are people who are using Christ's name in vain. Do you honestly believe Christ would agree with blowing up innocent people? Of course he wouldn't. These are some of the same people that Baldwin has been trying to wake up.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

That's not Christianity, Neil. Those are people who are using Christ's name in vain. Do you honestly believe Christ would agree with blowing up innocent people? Of course he wouldn't. These are some of the same people that Baldwin has been trying to wake up.

Who is Baldwin trying to wake up when he advocates no equal rights for gays?

Who is he trying to wake up when he advocates a Party's platform that calls for censorship? And the war on drugs?

So which Christians get to be in charge of the Theocracy that the CP platform advocates? There are so many to choose from after all.

That is why the founding fathers fought to keep religion out of the Constitution. Because there where so many Christians who believed they were the only REAL Christians and that anyone else should be dunked in water, tortured, or burned as heretics.

The fact that religion is so up to individual intrepretation is EXACTLY why it does not belong in government, but "between a man and his God" as so many of the founding fathers said.

No religion in government. That is the only safe and fair way.

 

[Unspun]

Who's God?

Your grammar is terrible.