The case against Chuck Baldwin...

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?


He is trying to default to the "US against THEM" mentality. Bigotry is coming to the surface when frustration gets out of hand. Let's hate what we do not understand.

If you really mean what you said in your PS, then you should understand where I am coming from. And that includes no religion being allowed to influence our legislation or our Constitution.
 
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].

My solution is that the CP is not a freedom party, and that Baldwin is not a freedom candidate. There are some in the CP who are. But they are all people who have problems with the CP platform and do not endorse it. Baldwin does. Vote for someone else.
 
The thing is Neil, I don't think you understand that you are furthering that mentality, with your posting. :(


I am pointing out the facts. There are many people who were simply unaware of Baldwin's real stance on the issues, and that the Constitution Party is in no way Libertarian.

If that causes division, that is not my fault. I didn't write the Constitution Party Platform, nor did I tell Baldwin to support it. If his own policies cause division in the movement blaming me is like shooting the messenger.
 
And I do feel they have a right to be in the movement.

That speaks volumes right there.

That's all I needed to hear from you to realize you're a douche.
 
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.

He never said he hated Christains or religions. Just leave it out of the government.
 
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??)

Everyone is a communist to you neocon.
 
He never said he hated Christains or religions. Just leave it out of the government.

We are supposed to have freedom OF religion; that is not the same thing as freedom FROM religion.

If a candidate planned on making Christianity the sanctified religion, that would be wrong. I have not seen Baldwin suggesting that at all.
 
Then you're not for individual liberty. Your actions has already proved that to me though.

Individual liberty is not limited to members of the Libertarian party.

Good thing too, because kiddie porn and smoking dope are not on the top concerns of many in this movement. :p
 
Liberty Comes From God, Not Man

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, I agree with you. Liberty is a concept which only thinking men and women can fully grasp, and liberty is only understood rightly if men and women trust in their Creator for its security. True liberty comes from God, and it begins when men become free from their own sinful nature, which is a necessary precondition for self-government. If men cannot overcome sin (by making themselves slaves to sin through living in unrighteousness), then they will never be free. Their acts will be done without any moral restraints, and thus, immorality and chaos will ensue society until it collapses into utter ruin.

Our Founders understood this principle so well. Consider the words of John Qunicy Adams when he stated,

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings [Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850], pp. 22-23.)

Fisher Ames, the framer of the First Amendment, even had this to say about the foundations of liberty:

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits...it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington [Boston: Young & Minns, 1800], p. 23.)

If a man rejects true religion, then morality will be decimated. If there is no morality, then liberty cannot exist. The true thinking man or woman understands this, and those who would oppose such a principle are simply mistaken in their understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from.

Many on these forums would have us believe that liberty can exist without God. All one has to do is turn back the pages of history to catch a glimpse of nations which once believed that. What happened in those nations was that man's vain attempt to decide what liberty their people should have (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) led to the slaughter and suffering of millions of others whom they deemed not worthy of liberty. This was accomplished all under the self-righteous "atheistic" state. By removing God, they removed the only sure foundation for liberty to flourish, and the end result was total destruction of their regimes.

Liberty without God is only libertinism, and that is simply not the way for any rational, moral person to live.
 
*Yawn* Another stupid "lets bash Chuck Baldwin - Bob Barr - Ralph Nader - Cynthia McKinney" thread. It seems some people have nothing better to do then to attack the people Ron Paul supports. Look you stupid morons who attack patriot presidential candidates. NONE OF THEM HAVE A CHANCE TO FREAKING WIN ANYWAY! IT'S ONLY A PROTEST VOTE! SO SHUT UP ALREADY!

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
No qualifiers, no reasoning. Just a mild attack. Clearly I am not a candidate worthy of your support because I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin.

I am not angry with you, but this just further proves my point.

That you're an idiot? Yes. That proves your point quite nicely. The fact that your wasting precious time and energy attacking a candidate that agrees with Ron Paul on the important issues and also HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING ANYWAY shows you are not worthy of political office. You have no political savvy. If you were attacking Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader I would say the same thing. Those of us with any common sense are either A) aiming are guns and McCain and Obama (you know, the two socialist candidates THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING) or B) doing what we can to support liberty minded candidates. Hey, if you don't like the Ron Paul presidential slate, find a congressional candidate support. (BJ Lawson for example?) Otherwise you're wasting your time and everyone else's.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
Yes, I agree with you. Liberty is a concept which only thinking men and women can fully grasp, and liberty is only understood rightly if men and women trust in their Creator for its security. True liberty comes from God, and it begins when men become free from their own sinful nature, which is a necessary precondition for self-government. If men cannot overcome sin (by making themselves slaves to sin through living in unrighteousness), then they will never be free. Their acts will be done without any moral restraints, and thus, immorality and chaos will ensue society until it collapses into utter ruin.

If a man rejects true religion, then morality will be decimated. If there is no morality, then liberty cannot exist. The true thinking man or woman understands this, and those who would oppose such a principle are simply mistaken in their understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from.

+1776. The modern LP is too hostile to the acknowledgement of God and often too univocal, "one size fits all" in its application of liberty principles. The current CP is too protectionist, and often too indelicate in the way it emphasizes Christian concepts of government. The LP talks about liberty without natural follow-up activity to actually realize or restore it to the real world. The CP promotes concrete actions to regain personal and national sovereignty, the needed precondition for exercising liberty, but often at the expense of taking the time to directly promote liberty.

The way out of useless wrangling over these points was shown by Ron Paul, who bonded the two parties behind his quest for the Republican nomination, and who would have gotten both parties nomination had he asked for it. This by itself shows the supposed gap is bridgable, if we focus on rallying around Paulite candidates in the future (Christian Libertarians who promote the constitution) there is no need for the schism over these secondary issues to keep dividing us.
 
Well when you consider that one of the posters named themselves "Theocrat" I guess that should figure wouldn't it?

These people are not even trying to deny that Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat.

As for why I am posting here, I believe Dr. Paul made an error supporting Chuck Baldwin. And I believe anyone who would support theocratic government is not truly for freedom at all.

You're free to think whatever you want.

Just stop whimpering about what we think already.

Go knock on some doors or something.
 
Back
Top