The case against Chuck Baldwin...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Congressman Paul has officially endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin. I guess this means you shouldn't be supporting Dr. Paul anymore, since he's supporting a theocrat (which you consider detestable). If that's the case, then I question why you're still posting on these forums.

That statement you quoted does not denote an official endorsement.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Dear mr stevenson...I guess ya better mark Ron Paul off your list. ToNes

Ron Paul: Against Gay Marriage But For States’ Rights

By Douglas Burns 8/31/07 4:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul firmly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, communications director Jesse Benton tells Iowa Independent.

But Paul, a Texas congressman with a raft of libertarian viewpoints, consistently opposes efforts to amend the Constitution to deal with gay marriage.

While he’s opposed to the substance of a high-profile Polk County Iowa judge’s ruling that set aside the Hawkeye State’s ban on same-sex marriage, Paul wants the matter right where it is: with the states in the process now under way in Iowa, Benton said.


Ron Paul is a "one man one woman" kinda guy but he says leave it to the states and to the people...on this I agree..although I would like to see government OUT of the marriage business all together and leave marriage to the churches as a ceremony before GOD..where it belongs. property, etc can be dealt with through contracts of other types. Tones

 

[DAFTEK]

I don't care what you people say!

I'm still voting for Chuck Baldwin! Unless i hear otherwise from the good doctor all this bullshit back and forth is stupid!

Would you rather i vote McCain, would that make you happy? cuz i sure wont vote for Crackhead Obama!

Dushbag Barr lost all respect from Ron Paul so unless you say what exactly the fuck you want out of this QUIT FUCKING POSTING ALL THIS BULLSHIT!!!!

Thank You!

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Spoken like someone in an angry mob.

You just proved my point too. You are not thinking, unless Dr. Paul says "jump" you won't do anything on your own.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Dear mr stevenson...I guess ya better mark Ron Paul off your list. ToNes

Ron Paul: Against Gay Marriage But For States’ Rights

By Douglas Burns 8/31/07 4:07 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul firmly believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, communications director Jesse Benton tells Iowa Independent.

But Paul, a Texas congressman with a raft of libertarian viewpoints, consistently opposes efforts to amend the Constitution to deal with gay marriage.

While he’s opposed to the substance of a high-profile Polk County Iowa judge’s ruling that set aside the Hawkeye State’s ban on same-sex marriage, Paul wants the matter right where it is: with the states in the process now under way in Iowa, Benton said.


Ron Paul is a "one man one woman" kinda guy but he says leave it to the states and to the people...on this I agree..although I would like to see government OUT of the marriage business all together and leave marriage to the churches as a ceremony before GOD..where it belongs. property, etc can be dealt with through contracts of other types. Tones

Who's God?

 

[Brassmouth]

Thank you. I would hope that they could actually entertain debate on the subject. Productive debate. This issue has been driving a wedge in the movement that I fear we cannot recover from. Theocrats are coming out of the woodwork into the various chat rooms and forums that used to be secular in nature telling us that now the Ron Paul movement is theocratic. And if we are not, then we don't belong here.

Yes, I've seen this too. I've always believed that liberty is an abstract concept that only thinking men and women can fully grasp. Unfortunately, thinking is not something religious zealots do very well.

It's ok though, religion is dying is almost all the other civilized nations of the world, and my generation seems to be (at least from what I've seen) particularly secular and hostile to religious dogma. Maybe the internet is the cause?

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.

George Washington:

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country."

 

[Brassmouth]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.

George Washington:

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country."

I have no problem with religious people in general, just the zealots who are audacious enough to believe that they have a right to impose their beliefs on others. This is why I could never support Baldwin on principle.

I'm sure he's a good guy, with good intentions, but he just doesn't understand what liberty means.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

That is my point as well. As George points out in the quote that I just put above. The path to true piety needs little political direction. The point being, TRUE PIETY is not something forced on someone by law.

 

[H Roark]

We had debated this issue pretty extensively in the forums, but someone thought it would be the opportune time to erect strawmen in the room and attempt to compromise confidence in the only pro-liberty candidate left running for president. This person has brought forward several arguments that I've seen pop up and I will address them here...

First of all, recently Chuck Baldwin during a debate we had on RevolutionBroadcasting.com made it clear he would fight to keep illegal drugs out of our country, using the power of the executive to do this. Even if he allows the states to make their own laws concerning drugs, this would still continue the drug war and the violence it causes. And is not respective of the rights of individuals to do with their own bodies as they like.

I've read the quote from Chuck Baldwin stating this and you falsely link keeping illegal drugs from entering our country through foreign sources to infringing on a states right to legalize drugs. Have you ever heard of sanctions? They can include prohibiting goods from entering the US through a foreign source, but are still legal to manufacture and purchase within our borders.

"I support the Constitution Party platform and was on the comitee that wrote the platform."

Since you've done a great job affirming how Baldwin is such a stickler to the CP platform, I encourage people to look at what it says about drugs... http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug Abuse

You will see that throughout the CP platform the 10th amendment is frequently referenced (even in dealing with drugs and gambling). The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If another religion permits gays to marry, then the CP position and Chuck Baldwin's position would violate the 1st amendment. Because it would prevent people of that religion from allowing gays to marry.

WRONG! You forgot to mention the little detail about the state's sanctioning of this hypothetical marriage. The CP or Chuck Baldwin could care less if a couple of guys conducted a ceremony and got "married" via some type of religion. The problem lies in with the state's involvement.

Baldwin is totally correct in simply expressing the definition of marriage. Oh the audacity! Seriously, I hope we're smarter than that to be attacking someone for stating the obvious!

Even Ron Paul when asked about this issue at a debate basically said that we don't need to legislate marriage and that all you need to do is "look it up" [the definition of marriage]. Personally, I am also of the contention that government has no business in recognizing ANY type of marriage (which inherently is heterosexual). Of course there is a difference between marriage and civil unions however.

The CP platform that Chuck Baldwin says he supports, and joined the party because of (And that his VP Darrell Castle sat on the platform commitee that wrote it) makes it clear that the 1st amendment gives them the right to determine what is speech and is not, according to their religion. It says the same thing about profanity. And it calls on the government to regulate the internet towards this end as well.

I will concede that the CP platform does call for the regulation of pornography, and I disagree with this stance as well. But the practicality of implementing such a regulation nullifies the idea, especially when we're talking about the realm of the internet. If flipping through a porno is that important to you that you will overlook all of Baldwin's positive positions such as...

• 
  ABOLISHING THE FEDERAL RESERVE

• Ending the federal income tax and IRS

• Opposing the NAU, UN and other globalist bodies threatening our sovereignty

• Withdrawing troops from Iraq and putting a STOP to our empire building

• Getting US out of all the managed trade deals ie NAFTA and CAFTA...

• Opposing the Patriot Act and REAL ID

Then maybe you should reaccess your priorities. And please tell me how wanting to repeal the Patriot Act is not a matter of 1st amendment rights? Its obvious you place some social issues that also happen to run counter to Christian doctrine higher up on your list of priorities.

Its easy to be critical when you don't offer any solutions...

I am not saying vote for McCain/Obama. And I am not saying vote for Barr either. Barr's voting record looks like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress. I absolutely feel people should vote third party this year. The problem is if we cast all our support behind Chuck Baldwin we are sending a message to the people that his platform alienates that they are not welcome in this movement. And I cannot abide that. At all.

WTF are you saying anyways? This worthless little conclusion of a post is nothing but a masquerade to try to legitimize your attack. You have a problem if everyone on here supports Chuck Baldwin? Well don't worry, I can be the first to tell you thats not going to happen (and you know it). Sorry if you're a sensitive pussy but my voting for Baldwin shouldn't have any affect on you or anyone else here, because after the election is over its back to the drawing board. Alienation? Hah! Your silly thread has done a fine job of doing just that.

You offer no solution, in fact voting for Baldwin seems to satisfy what your asking for [see bold].

 

[DAFTEK]

Spoken like someone in an angry mob.

You just proved my point too. You are not thinking, unless Dr. Paul says "jump" you won't do anything on your own.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well I am not an atheist and I don't hate religion. I just have seen the horrors of theocracy and read about it extensively on this soil. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the various sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes murder on one another. It is no wonder they went out of their way to keep religion out of the constitution.

Actually Neil, you're Wiccan, aren't you, and that is one of the reasons you hate God and Christians?

Baldwin isn't a theocrat, anymore than Ron Paul is.

Leave people to their own faiths, Neil. Just like you want to be left to yours.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, I've seen this too. I've always believed that liberty is an abstract concept that only thinking men and women can fully grasp. Unfortunately, thinking is not something religious zealots do very well.

It's ok though, religion is dying is almost all the other civilized nations of the world, and my generation seems to be (at least from what I've seen) particularly secular and hostile to religious dogma. Maybe the internet is the cause?

Yes, Oh Happy Day! Because destroying Christianity has been a long-standing agenda of the powers that be and a prerequisite for a one-world religion to be ushered in, along with world government.

Looks to me like the government brainwashing programs have paid off. Just dandy.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

 

[LibertyEagle]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

Uh, that's not really fair to group all Libertarians like that. Anymore than it is for all Christians to be grouped like the brainwashed who believe that it is fine to kill innocent Muslims.

I have no problem with the Libertarian party as a whole. I will continue to vote for the individual whom I think is best, regardless of the party they belong to.

P.S. What difference does it make whether Ruwart is a wiccan? If we could just all respect each other's personal religious choices and let it be, things would work out much better. Don't ya think?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

uh...i was trying to support your words...you won't be getting that from me anymore. tones

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Its easy to be critical when you don't offer any solutions...



WTF are you saying anyways? This worthless little conclusion of a post is nothing but a masquerade to try to legitimize your attack. You have a problem if everyone on here supports Chuck Baldwin? Well don't worry, I can be the first to tell you thats not going to happen (and you know it). Sorry if you're a sensitive pussy but my voting for Baldwin shouldn't have any affect on you or anyone else here, because after the election is over its back to the drawing board. Alienation? Hah! Your silly thread has done a fine job of doing just that.

You offer no solution, in fact voting for Baldwin seems to satisfy what your asking for [see bold].

There is nothing useless about this post. There is something useless about your reply. It seems to me that you are just trying to attack me to detract from the hard data being offered. Thank you for proving that you bring nothing to the table as far as actual debate.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Actually Neil, you're Wiccan, aren't you, and that is one of the reasons you hate God and Christians?

Baldwin isn't a theocrat, anymore than Ron Paul is.

Leave people to their own faiths, Neil. Just like you want to be left to yours.

I think I have maintained over and over in this thread that I do not hate Christians, or their God.

I do hate tyranny. And that includes Tyranny brought on by religious theocracy.

I haven't asked anyone to change their faith at all. I have asked people to find a candidate for President to vote for who is not going to try and force their religious beliefs into law.

Your lashing out only proves my point again I am afraid. You have no logical debate. Your ad hominem's are also out of control. Your losing. And it shows.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Yes, Oh Happy Day! Because destroying Christianity has been a long-standing agenda of the powers that be and a prerequisite for a one-world religion to be ushered in, along with world government.

Looks to me like the government brainwashing programs have paid off. Just dandy.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about destroying Christianity. If someone tries to harm the rights of Christians to practice their religion I will be right there next to them protesting.

I think the Romans feeding Christians to Lions is just as offensive as Christians burning heretics. Both are great reasons to seperate church and state, and never allow the government to persecute or legislate to respect a specific religion.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Amen Libery Eagle..way to go. The communists knew they had to destroy Christianity in the USA in order to take it over from within. Communists don't like religion at all...but because Christianity was the glue in the UsA..they had to get rid of it, and they have done a damn fine job of it. I swear not to vote for a libertarian EVER..i'm so sick of the libertarian atheists on this thread it has made me turn my back on the libertarian party. They obviously dispise christians...and I think they need to seek medical help for their bigotry. TONES (I notice there are a lot of wiccans in the LP..is mary ruwart a wiccan??)

You are so off base it is not even funny. I have several Christian friends. It is not a sign that I despise Christians just because I don't want their religion OR ANY OTHER RELIGION to be a force in our Constitution's intrepretation. I want this country to be a place where people of any religion can live free.

But that also includes making no laws based in any one of them. Not my religion, not your religion, not Islam, not Buddism, none. Period.