Virgil Goode Virgil Goode: What's the scoop?

[misean]

The last time I read the CP platform, it didn't say anything about prostitution. Their stance on drug use is that the federal drug war is unconstitutional, and the issue should reside with the states or with the people. Their position on gambling is that the government shouldn't promote gambling through state lotteries or state owned casionos. That's a libertarian position.

"Goode is an advocate of a federal prohibition of online poker. In 2006, he cosponsored H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[23]"

Nothing Libertarian or Paulian about that. Gary Johnson on the other hand has taken a strong, correct position on the issue.

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%. He was a Democrat for most of his time in office.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

In a sense, Goode is correct in saying all of that. He's merely stating his opinion of what he would do, and what will happen if immigration continues at the current rate.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%.

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%.

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

Johnson would repeal Roe v. Wade, so effectively their stances would bring about the same results.

 

[J. W. Evans]

how many states' ballots will Goode be on?

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

 

[cavalier973]

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

Romney got him kicked off the ballot, in the mistaken notion that liberty advocates detest Obama so much that, absent any other viable choice, that they would vote for him. He's also trying to get Johnson kicked off the ballot in a few states.

 

[erowe1]

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

Johnson is for repealing Roe v. Wade. Paul is for repealing Roe v. Wade. One calls himself pro-choice, the other calls himself pro-life.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Agreed - this whole "abortion controversy" between Johnson and Paul is manufactured, both offer the exact same policy prescription.

 

[erowe1]

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

I'm pretty sure he's not on the ballot in IN. The CP does not have automatic ballot access here. And there's no way he got the signatures to get onto a general election ballot without me hearing about that.

On the other hand, the LP is on the ballot here. And that's another factor for people to consider. If Goode is really the one they prefer, then will he actually be on their ballot? If not, and they're just trying to make a statement, Johnson might be a better way to do it. That said, I did write in Baldwin in 2008, and have no regrets about that.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Johnson already said in a prior debate if he got the nomination Ron would be his vice president. I think it's obvious he'd put Ron in his cabinet...

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Agreed - this whole "abortion controversy" between Johnson and Paul is manufactured, both offer the exact same policy prescription.

"Every abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn human being. When politicians in both parties claim to be pro-life but favor abortions because of the criminal behavior of the father, as in rape or incest, they are politically rejecting that hard truth. What other violations of the natural law will they condone for political expedience?"

-Napolitano

http://takimag.com/article/abortion_and_rape_andrew_napolitano/print#ixzz24yL9LFnw

We know what is in his heart - Johnson fundamentally opposes the natural law because he rejects the basic right to life of the unborn. Even if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, as Napolitano said, what other violations of the natural law would Johnson support?

 

[erowe1]

We know what is in his heart - Johnson fundamentally opposes the natural law because he rejects the basic right to life of the unborn. Even if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, as Napolitano said, what other violations of the natural law would Johnson support?

Does Goode support nationwide federal regulation of abortion? If so, that's a violation of natural law. What other violations of natural law does Goode support?

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Does Goode support nationwide federal regulation of abortion? If so, that's a violation of natural law. What other violations of natural law does Goode support?

I don't think so - I think he argues in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade as well; however, this is irrelevant.

Let's say person A supports executing person B because person B killed an innocent person. Let's say person C supports executing person B because person B is a Jew. A and C may agree on the basic action to be taken, but their reasons for believing what they believe are fundamentally different, and person C's position ought to be rejected, even if you agree with the outcome. Right reason is as important as good ends.

 

[erowe1]

I don't think so - I think he argues in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade as well; however, this is irrelevant.

If everything else you say is true, then how could this be irrelevant? Why should disrespect for natural law disqualify Johnson but not Goode?

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

If everything else you say is true, then how could this be irrelevant? Why should disrespect for natural law disqualify Johnson but not Goode?

It's not just one's actions that can oppose natural law, but what is in their mind. I don't want to vote for someone who advocates libertarian policies, but admits that he is a pedophile.

 

[erowe1]

It's not just one's actions that can oppose natural law, but what is in their mind. I don't want to vote for someone who advocates libertarian policies, but admits that he is a pedophile.

Fair enough. But again, why does this standard apply to Johnson and not to Goode?

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Fair enough. But again, why does this standard apply to Johnson and not to Goode?

Because Goode doesn't support, you know, ending people's heartbeats.

 

[erowe1]

Because Goode doesn't support, you know, ending people's heartbeats.

I'm not sure if that's true. It certainly wasn't when he was in Congress.

Also, being against empowering the state to stop someone from killing someone is not the same as supporting the killing.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

I'm not sure if that's true. It certainly wasn't when he was in Congress.

Also, being against empowering the state to stop someone from killing someone is not the same as supporting the killing.

If an individual could stop someone from being killed, yet they do nothing, then they are morally complicit in the death. Because government is no different than individuals, the same is also true of any government.