-38 votes

Virgil Goode is the only real alternative to Ron Paul not Gary Johnson

Why all this talk about wasting time with Gary Jonson rather the constitutionalist Virgil Goode? See PR is needed even within the Liberty movement. People just won't do the research themselves. Then they run off and vote for someone like GJ without even knowing there are far better options. We do the very same thing that we criticize the MSM for doing by censoring the constitution party. Which is the real liberty party. If your not going to vote RP then you should still vote Constitution.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

link !!!

cmon, i just wanna see his website,
link it up!!!!!!!

Goode isn't even on the

Goode isn't even on the ballot in enough states to win the election. Also, the guy is an ex GOP Congressman who has a sketchy voting record. He reminds me of Bob Barr. I'll be voting for Gary for sure.

"If your not going to vote RP

"If your not going to vote RP then you should still vote Constitution."

Too bad Goode didn't follow that advice.

A cursory check of his record shows he voted for the Patriot Act TWICE, as well as voting for the MCA and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act.

Goode's platform makes zero reference to repealing the Patriot Act.

Now what was that about Goode being the only real alternative to Ron Paul?

Flip-Flop

Goode has changed his position since joining the Constitution Party. If you're suspicious, you might suggest that it was only to conform with the Constitution Party position.
Regardless, a vote for Goode is a vote for the Constitution Party platform, not for Virgil Goode's GOP record, or his earlier Democratic Party record.

Voting for either Johnson or the Constitution Party are both reasonable choices for Ron Paul supporters. I personally prefer the Constitution Party as I am pro-life, though unenthused by Goode.
I might have preferred the Libertarian nominee had it been Bill Still, but the LP banned all mention of candidates other than Johnson in the run-up to their choosing their candidate. For some reason the leadership didn't seem to want the membership to be aware of their options

Manus
Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul

Manus, yes, if one is a

Manus, yes, if one is a die-hard pro-lifer Goode would seem to be the choice.

Your comment about the LP banning candidates other than Johnson makes no sense. There were events held leading up to the nomination where multiple candidates would speak before a crowd about their credentials and why they want to be the LP candidate.

Still seems like a decent enough person but he's living in fantasyland if he thinks his "solution" is a new fiat currency that isn't borrowed.

Sadly they did

You must not have been checking their website.
They did initially list candidates & link to their sites. However long before the former governor became the nominee, the other candidates were removed from the party's website.

Still's financial plan has historic precedence that worked, although like every other plan, it depends on the moral fibre of the executive. You can't argue that it's as bad as the current debt-based Fiat money. It is a means of escaping serfdom!

Manus
Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul

Huh? Where in history has a

Huh? Where in history has a fiat currency (borrowed or not) stood the test of time?

The moral fiber of congress is zero. Enough said. And when Still is on radio shows and a caller points out there are no safeguards in place to keep a new fiat currency from being destroyed he admits this is true.

I was pleasantly surprised

When I saw the sample ballot in my state of NC, I only saw Romney, Obama, and Johnson. I want to vote Libertarian, but Johnson is simply too liberal for me to vote for. I considered just writing in Ron Paul even though it wouldn't count, I'm sad to say I even considered voting for Romney, as horrible as that would've been, and I'm happy to say I no longer have to consider that, because I learned that Virgil Goode is an eligible write in candidate here in North Carolina. A vote for Goode will not be a wasted vote. I understand why some folks prefer GJ, and I wish that our state was like Maine where Ron agreed to be a write-in candidate so I could vote for him again as I did in the primaries, but while obviously Goode isn't perfect, he's right in line with my beliefs on the important issues of Life and Marriage, so he's the man I'm going to be voting for. Ultimately the impact all our votes, whoever we end up voting for, is going to be to show the major parties they can't take our votes for granted. I want to sit back on election night and feel happy that my vote counted, and that it counted against both major parties. Anyone who votes for GJ, Goode, or any of the other 3rd party candidates, will be able to feel that way, and it's going to be a great feeling. Hopefully at the very least, all our combined votes will keep whoever ends up winning well short of the 50% mark, that will be the true measure of our success on election night.

Virgil Goode is a neocon

I dont know how anyone could come to a different conclusion. Look at his campaign website, I'm surprised he's not Sean Hannitty's best friend. He shows a total lack of economic understanding, especially in the area of energy and healthcare, energy independence won't work and tort reform is a pathetic answer to healthcare costs. No significant mention of the federal reserve and the statement about getting troops out of Afghanistan wasn't even there the first time that I looked at his site, he probably just put it on there after he realized he could pull a little of the energetic Ron Paul support. The only thing that is specific on his campaign site is his plan to go after illegal immigration which again displays his pathetic understanding of free market economics and liberty.

No to Gary Johnson

Three reasons why no one should give Gary Johnson their vote:

1. He supports abortion

2. He supports Sodomite "marriage"

3. He supports open borders

Virgil Goode is much more in line with the morality of Ron Paul than the liberal Johnson. That is why I plan to vote Goode.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

(1) No, Gary Johnson does

(1) No, Gary Johnson does not "Support abortion". He does support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion without interference from the federal government in the early stages of pregnancy. Personally I see both sides to this argument, and am more in agreement with Dr. Paul's position on this than Gary Johnson's - - but to say he is PRO abortion is disingenuous.

(2) Supports "sodomite marriage" ?!?! . Gary Johnson supports the right of FREE PEOPLE to marry who they want to, without interference from the government! If YOU think gay marriage (or 'sodomite' marriage as you put it) is wrong, then don't marry a gay person! Simple solution! LIVE FREE and LIVE AND LET LIVE. How does a gay couple marrying infringe on your liberty? It doesn't - - so the government has no business interfering one way or the other.

(3) Open Boders: He actually supports a liberal work visa program, to allow workers to come and go to WORK, with appropriate background checks to keep criminals out. He believes that if immigrants have a legal way to come here most would do so rather than enter illegally, and they would NOT be able to sign up for social 'entitlement" programs like happens now with illegals. I am not sure if his approach will work to tell you the truth. But I'm sure what we are doing now isn't working.... why not try a new approach?

I don't know a lot about Virgil Goode, so this is not meant to disparage him in any way. But I do know a little about Gary Johnson and I've met his running mate Jim Gray, and you are not giving an honest characterization of their positions.

Morality Gives Freedom

(1). Anyone who supports or ignores abortion in complicit in the action. This is Catholic social teaching. Pope Pius XI said in 1930 (before abortion even became the norm), "Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to Heaven."
As the Bishop of Peoria said, "Any citizen or public official who helps to make abortion more widely available... commits a grave injustice against the most vulnerable members of the human family… One who supports legal abortion cannot avoid formal complicity by maintaining that he or she wills not abortion as such, but only the freedom of others to choose abortion. Anyone who supports legal abortions seeks to remove from one class of human beings a basic protection afforded to others. By helping to make abortion available, a person becomes formally complicit in its basic injustice, whether or not he or she would actively encourage anyone else to have an abortion. From the ethical point of view, there is no distinction between being "pro-choice" and being "pro-abortion."”
(2). Homosexuality is disordered. Since it contributes to a moral breakdown of society (and the purpose of government is to protect society) then it is perfectly within the power of the government to insure that these so-called “marriages” do not take place. Remember that the natural unit of society is the family.
One major problem with homosexual “marriage” advocation is that it makes the ability to procure a marriage a “right.” This is being shown in places like Hawaii and New York. In Hawaii homosexuals can now forcibly take a Church building for their “marriage” service, albeit without the Priest. In New York increasing pressure (in addition to lawsuits) are targeting Catholics who refuse to recognize the “marriages” of Sodomites. In California it’s now illegal for a Catholic minors who suffer from same-sex attraction to undergo conversion therapy into a heterosexual.
Another danger of legalizing homosexuality is that it leads to many more wrongs. For instance, the direct of a recent film “The Notebook” stated that since homosexual “marriage” is legal in many places, incest should be legal too- it’s the next logical step, as well as polygamy. This isn’t to say that anyone who supports homosexuality is supporting incest, but rather the groundwork for incest to be made legal.
The only right in regards to marriage that a person truly has is to marry whomever they want of the opposite gender.
Morality is the best safeguard against big government. As Patrick Henry said, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”
Best of Wishes,
DarthJ

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

then why not extend this concept and further protect society

by making it a crime for people to forget God?
Would you be opposed to a law which forced people to attend church?

Reading your postings, it makes me wonder if you feel it is possible to co-exist with people who are not religious; or with people who do not share your beliefs.

One of the problems I have with many religions (I am not religious by the way) is that they tend to preach there is nothing wrong with meddling in other people's lives. How would you feel if a majority of people who's morals conflicted with yours got in control, and then tried to implement their set of moral codes into your decisions about your own personal life? (ummm, let's see, gay rights group forcing private Catholic churches to host their weddings comes to mind.) IMO, the best way for people to co-exist, is to tolerate the fact that others might have a set of moral standards that are different than yours ... a Christian Scientist might think that it is "God's will" if a woman dies from complications with pregnancy, and they would not choose an abortion if the woman's life is in danger ... others would choose to have an abortion in this instance ... and I think in some non-Catholic viewpoints, abortion might not be considered immoral. So the old saying, if you think abortions are wrong, then don't have one, comes to mind. But as far as what other people choose, you really should mind your own business, if you expect others to mind their own business when it comes to your rights.

Although I feel it is wrong that the gay groups can sue churches for refusing to hold their weddings, there is a bit of poetic justice in it, considering the long history of the church shoving trying to shove their values down other people's throats.

The concept is the basis of government...

This is the greatest difference between the Voltairian mentality and that of traditionalists, including the cultural differences of the South and other parts of the United States. As a Christian, the first goal is to ensure that evils are not thrust upon the masses through government (in the style of Robespierre). As a Catholic, the “unrestrained freedom of man” is understood to be hollow. As Pope Pius IX stated, the things which can never be embraced are that “The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself….. (and that) the State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.”
Man does not have a right to practice grave error, especially when it concerns the infliction of harm upon his fellow man. This is the whole purpose of law and government. One could go about securing this on a state level rather than a federal, but at some point intervention is needed (as in the case of abortion).

As a native of Alabama, I will always strive to place it first and foremost over the interests of the rest of the so-called Union. Our culture is radically different than that of the other States, especially the Northern and Pacific States, on social issues. We have always believed that the Republic is a Christian one, and not a secular one. For that reason other religions (and atheists) are allowed to remain unharmed, though they should not force their error on humanity through Sharia law and secularism. I think the best way to secure that goal would be the separation of the cultures into their own nations, because in the long run the South will never agree with the liberals on these issues. G.K. Chesterton said it best, “This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately. And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common.” We in the South have little in common with the others and therefore should separate.

This undoubtedly will provoke anger on many here (and note that this is not an advocation for some Puritan-type society, but rather to preserve that Christian heritage handed down), but I hope y’all will take it in good light.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.” -GK Chesterton

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

Isn't that a slippery slope?

I don't find it offensive to suggest the South separating, but I do find it a bit odd to on the one hand, start off by talking how Christians should ensure that evil is not thrust upon the masses, then proceed to talk about the South's cultural tradition with Christianity ...
How do you reconcile that with the South's tradition of slavery and then after the civil war, the racism and discrimination? Would not those things be considered "evils" and although I know that the North was not pristine in their treatment of blacks, the South was certainly lagging with regard to getting rid of that evil.

Looking to the future

Well, no one is proposing a return to slavery. We live in very good relations with our fellow man. We also lionize our forefathers (like Lee) who advocated an end to that "peculiar institution." The future is a bright one. Check out the League of the South's website and H.K. Edgerton's site http://southernheritage411.com/inthenews.shtml

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

The Dark Ages are calling...

The Dark Ages are calling... They want their platform back.

French Revolutionist...

Says the Jacobin....

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

This abortion thing is a distortion.

Johnson actually believes that "right to life" is a state's issue which, of course, it is, constitutionally speaking. To say that somebody who supports states right "supports abortion" or "sodomite marriage," when these are not presidential duties at all or have anything to do with national office at all is just disingenuous and deceiving.

I disagree. GJ struggles on

I disagree. GJ struggles on state's rights.

Please back up the "he

Please back up the "he supports open borders" comment.

He's stated he's for open borders.

"Q: Would you open the borders and make it easier to immigrate legally?

A: My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

Q: Many Americans fear the flood of immigrants that would follow.

A: They would become taxpayers. They're just pursuing dreams---the same dreams we all have. They work hard. What's wrong with that?"

Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001 http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

What sort of man is interviewed by Playboy, anyway?

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

The link you provided states

The link you provided states he'd give illegals a 2-year limit to get a work visa or be deported. A work-visa is not citizenship and forces illegals to pay into the system.

That may be too liberal for some, but it's not amnesty, and it's certainly a better policy than Rombama's.

Plenty of accomplished and noteworthy people have been interviewed in Playboy. (It's a who's-who laundry list.)

As for the truck analogy, he's obviously referring to trade.

Mr Johnson has no idea....

Mr Johnson's solution is amnesty for all who apply. Natural cultures that have taken centuries to form- like those of Texas- who be submerged in a tide of immigration. This is nothing less than cultural suicide.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

Imagine if American Indians

Imagine if American Indians thought as you do. You and your ilk would be on a slow boat back to wherever your ancestors crawled out.

It's not who comes first, but who's right....

Funny, my ancestors sided with the Indians (Christian at this point) against progressives like yourself in the war of 1861. And, strangely enough, I also have Creek blood in me.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

With 20 million (or whatever

With 20 million (or whatever the number may currently be at) illegals present where is the cultural suicide now?

None of which are within the

None of which are within the the presidential scope of authority. So Goode can't help you on any of them and neither could Ron Paul if he were elected. Those issues don't really matter in a presidential election they are just a distraction used by the media to avoid the real issues of the election.

Gary Johnson is on all ballots therefore can be elected

He will bring the troops home and end the wars

He will submit a balanced budget

And cut foreign aid.

He is the only logical choice to move liberty forward!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Not completely true

The president signs all bills before they become a law. so marriage, abortion, and immigration are all issues he could have power over.

Gary Johnson is qualified

hes got the executive experience and record to show for it.