| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Send A message
To all those who would dare lay bare our constitution to be raped and molested without any regard for which it stands. I say a vote for the patriot act equals a vote of no from freedom! If you let any of them get away with this major infraction on our liberties what then will be forgiven next? Oh but we must unite under a differnt party to make a difference. We need a third party. At what cost I ask you? The cost of your liberty for security of party? I'm sorry that you are so weak. Can you not stand on your own with fellow individuals? Must you jump into a collective mind to make a difference. For freedom of the individual. For Ron Paul and the "Campaign for Liberty".
Republicans Missed their Chance
Ron could have United All of the major 3rd Parties to vote Republican and probably took some Obaminations spelling clear victory in the fall no they are stuck with McLame.
What's interesting to me
What's interesting to me about the Barr haters here is that when someone posts a Chuck Baldwin news item everyone oohs and aaahs. Yet Mr. Baldwin has some very unlibertarian things to say about gambling, prostitution, etc.
Don't doom yourselves to failure in a quest for purity.
If you cannot forgive someone for their mistakes, and accept them for their face value when they come to you with open arms, I cannot see how you can call yourselves lovers of freedom.
What would you do if Bush renounced his past misdeeds, and said he wished to be one of us, and learn from us, worked with us on our projects? Considering his awful history it seems you would throw him to the wolves. No room in your hearts for forgiveness when someone wants to help you?
It seems an awful lot of people might be supporting Baldwin merely for the fact that he is a christian, rather than Libertarian principles seeing that Baldwin has some principles that aren't libertarian.
In retrospect, this behavior seems unchristian.
-------------------------
austinpetersen.com
I am not aware of any Barr haters
here. There are Barr disagree-ers here. There are Barr Pusher haters here. Barr is out of place here and so he is not well tolerated. People who keep pushing him and trying to get us to abandon Ron Paul before we are ready are very irritating. Barr Pushers are going to feel like we hate them, but actually, they are shoving themselves down unwilling throats and are bringing the bad emotion onto themselves. They are doing it, we are not. Labeling us Barr Haters is another thing Barr Pushers do wrong.
That's ridiculous
I've been a Paul supporter probably long before you ever heard of him, and I still am. And I also support Barr.
Anyone asking you to support Barr is not asking you to abandon Ron Paul. Barr is running the general election. Paul is not. Do you understand what that means? The general election is AFTER the nomination. Dr. Paul is not, and will not be, involved in that race. Keep on supporting Paul. That doesn't take away from Barr. And supporting Barr does not take away from Paul. They're both pushing the same message. I don't even see how you CANNOT support Barr, if you're in league with the Campaign for Liberty, which is a mission to spread the message of liberty. That's exactly what Barr is trying to do. Neither Paul's not Barr's race is about becoming president - Paul knew his chances were extremely small and expected not to win, and I'm sure Barr feels the same way. Both of their campaigns are about using the presidential race as a means to spread the philosophy of liberty, and to influence the debate in this country. If you don't get this, you don't get much at all of what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is/was about.
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).
That about sums it up.
Barr isn't hated, he's just irrelevant to the overall campaign to return to the Constitution. If he's sincere in his semi-conversion, in a hypothetical situation he'd probably be a better President than the Big Two but that's not saying much.
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Bingo
Then you just summed it up. Remember kiddies He's not hated. Just irrelevant!
Thank you sir!
Thank you sir!
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Barr and the rest
I see the many good arguments against Barr, they are right in many of their points. With Ron Paul no longer an option I ask this one question, who has enough support without us to get on the ballots? This alone does not make him a better person or candidate then Baldwin or others. What makes him my choice are two simple things, all of us can vote for him and if we get behind him both parties will see a threat from a 3rd party for the first time. I can't argue against voting Baldwin based on principle but I can argue for Barr to make an impact. I know he isn't in the top 3 choices of most but he is on the ballot with 6% of non-Ron Paul supporters. We can push that number to 16% easy and get him in the national debates. He is in many ways a TWP (typical washington politician) but that is who many Americans go for. I am a Christian and I will be supporting Barr based on the reasons above and reject your belief that people support Baldwin based solely on his religious values. I think it is a safe assumption that the people here have demonstrated the ability to think for themselves.
I am willing to forgive Bob Barr
For his horrible voting record in congress, and accept him with open arms. I am just not willing to vote for him or endorse him just yet. He has a lot of work left before he removes any doubt from our minds of his true intentions. The Libertarian convention was a mess this year, so we're not able to give a free pass to the candidates like previous years.
It's more than that. There's the tinfoil hat element.
A lot of these people think that Barr is a secret agent sent by the elites (whoever they are), to disrupt the Paul campaign (though these tinfoil hatters haven't been able to explain how it could disrupt it, since Barr is not running against Paul and has the same general campaign message as him). These people are just to far gone to get through too.
--------
Dr. Paul says Barr is an ally (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139448/page/1)
and would do "a very good job" as president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5YaqKf-yTg).
Watch for Barr the Glenn Beck Program Jun 5.
Oh god
go away
The DP is proof that the grassroots support for Ron Paul and his peaceful message of individual liberty is large, real, and not going away!
the only one wearing a
the only one wearing a tinfoil hat is billydee!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
One more time
I looked up Barr and Baldwin. I like Baldwin and I'm luke warm on Barr. You're talking to Ron Paul people here, they are reasonably intelligent.
Libertarians v. Baldwin
RP supporters are not of "one mind", something occasionally forgotten here. There are many libertarian supporters of Paul (which started before his 1988 run on the ticket), but that doesn't mean the libertarian party platform agrees with Paul today. While libertarians have much in common with Baldwin, they also have much in common with Kucinich. That doesn't mean libertarians are likely to vote for either.
With Baldwin, many libertarians would be highly skeptical of the religious underpinnings of his message (many / most are atheists), his message against reproductive choice (most are pro-choice), his message against immigration (a sizeable fraction favor free immigration once social programs and other economic incentives are eliminated in the US). Baldwin does not discuss gay marriage (libertarians are for it) or drug laws (libertarians are against them).
All that said, the libertarians and Baldwin would agree unequivocally on gun rights, eminent domain abuse, medical care for veterans, exiting the UN, homeschooling, economic freedom and US sovereignty.
It's not clear to me that there will be consensus among the various groups that came together to support Ron Paul about endorsement of Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.
Did you say
Did you say that many/most libertarians are atheists? I was certainly unaware of that. Hmmm, interesting....what insight does that shine into the libertarian party? I thought libertarians supported liberty for all and didn't give a hoot what religion somebody followed. But Libertarians wouldn't vote for a Christian????
Well then, Libertarians are as religiously biased as those they complain about and obviously seek to promote their own "religious" views. Yes, atheism is considered a "religion". That is so amusing...the group that claims to defend liberty the most...is religiously biased. LOL
Religion & the public debate
Libertarians clearly will vote for Christians, as those of us who voted for Paul in 1988 can attest.
The Libertarian Party platform (item 1.1) has this to say on religion:
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
http://www.lp.org/platform
I'm not sure it's fair to classify this view as an anti-religion bias. A better example of religious bias and abuse of executive power was on display when 401 children were taken from their mothers by the State of Texas. On the other side of the coin, where was the state in arrest and trial of Catholic priests as thousands of victims came forward over recent years?
For context, it's useful to look at how unique the United States is in terms of associating mainstream religious beliefs with fitness for government service and the general debate on public policy. The United States ranks 44th in a survey of 50 countries for percentage of the population that identifies as atheist.
http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/atheism-everywher...
http://web.archive.org/web/20070610084208/http://www.pitzer....
Comments that freely equate atheism with some kind of intellectual bias (as you claim), are much more common in the United States than elsewhere. While it may be readily accepted here, much of the world has chosen to separate religion and government more firmly. In this way the government plays no role for (or against) the practice of religion. This creates a framework that allows broad freedom of religious beliefs, and limits the enactment of laws that seek to coerce behavior based on the religious orientation of the political class. It also limits the political incentive for protection of large religious institutions that violate the law.
A government that creates and enforces laws based on claims derived from religious conviction and divinely-inspired findings that cannot be questioned or debated is a theocracy.
Thank you
but I really didn't need an extended lesson on Libertarians. YOU were the one who made the statement that many/most libertarians were atheists...not me.
wow that's a bit off try this
First I highly doubt that many/most are atheists in reality, without some kind of evidence it seems like a made up fact. Second (L)/libertarians obviously have no problem with Christians, Dr. Paul has already been their candidate , 1988, and they invited him back this year. What the (L)/libertarians probably find objectionable is the CP/Baldwin's use of Christianity as a basis for policy and stances on issues. From the (L)/libertarian perspective that seems a lot like a violation of the separation of Church and State, and an attempt to establish a Christian theocracy, which would undoubtedly be harmful to liberty. In short (L)/libertarians don't give a hoot what religion you are as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on other people. When you do try and force your beliefs on other people, especially through the government, they DO care, and will probably not vote for that person whether he's Chuck Baldwin or Mike Huckabee.
A man's religion
is never separated from his personal being or his overall beliefs about life and man's purpose - even if one is an atheist. Tell me a person's religion (if they truly practice) and I already know quite a bit about that person.
Chuck Baldwin states his personal beliefs...that doesn't mean he will use the government to force his beliefs on others.
As with Ron Paul...he did not support abortion but certainly does not intend to use the government to force people to his views nor did he agree with people holding Mormanism against Romney. I don't care WHAT one's religious beliefs are...more important is their view on the Constiution and governmental powers.
I am waiting to see how the cookie crumbles before I decide where to place my vote...however it will be based on the candidate's views on liberty and the Constitution. Their personal religious beliefs is their business as long, as you stated, they don't cram it down my throat. I really don't think Chuch Baldwin plans to do that. Has he said something that leads you to believe that he intends to use his government position to do so ???
Chuck Baldwin just got an
Chuck Baldwin just got an "F" rating from the Poker Players Alliance(http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/06/poker-play...), an online gambling legalization PAC. Chuck Baldwin not only disapproves of online gambling, but he disapproves of all gambling and thinks it should be prohibited. He obviously takes that stance for religious reasons. I haven't read anything by him about the War on Drugs, but I'd assume that he supports that too. I don't see how he is like Ron Paul. So I don't understand why Ron Paul supporters on this forum are promoting him. Ron Paul is religious, but at least he understands that it's not the US Government's job to enforce religion on everyone. Baldwin on the other hand, believes that it is.
Bob Barr got an "A+" rating from the Poker Players Alliance just like Ron Paul. And I'm pretty sure Barr is serious about it, because his VP Wayne Allen Root is a gambler and cares very much about that issue. Barr's congressional record is far from perfect. But Barr is the closest thing we will get to Ron Paul in the presidential election.
Or some people can just be a protesting retard and write-in "Ron Paul". Then they can wonder why their ballot didn't get counted afterwords.
Yikes, Chuck needs to study the philosophy of liberty
That position on gambling is extremely ignorant.
lol Chuck Baldwin has
lol Chuck Baldwin has supported Ron Paul with a zest! you need to go read Chuck Baldwins letters!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
who cares... gambling is
who cares... gambling is the least of my worries if the guy is going to reinstate the constitution as the law of the land.. thats all I care about! you guy s need to get over your single issue voting status! As for Barr, I could vote for him too! but his past voting record in congress SUCKS! voted for the iraq war and for the patriot act? come on! I would much rather have to put up with no gambling then lose my freedom and send people off to war!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Yes. Many things that
Yes. Many things that Baldwin believes are NOT something he would foist on the American People. He is into small government and you can BET RP would be his advisor. Barr may be ok, but his VP candidate REALLY put down Ron Paul and I would NEVER vote for him because of Root.
Im not using a single issue
Im not using a single issue voting status. I have a "NO RELIGION BEING SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION!" status. Baldwin is a christian nut job.
and what is Ron Paul?? he
and what is Ron Paul?? he is a devout Christian, same as Chuck Baldwin! Baldwin Loves Ron Paul and his stances! so now what do you think? you folks need to get over your bias towards Christians.. as Ron Paul republicans we or I recognize the part about not being able to legislate morality.. but i would rather give up minor things to have my absolute freedom and liberty.. who gives a flying rats tail what the stupid gambling commision or whoever they are think! gees... apples and oranges..
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
"Agree with thine adversary
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
—Matthew 5:25
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
In other words, you only
In other words, you only care about freedoms that you care about. Freedoms that other people might care about, such as gambling, you don't care about because you don't gamble.
So you don't believe in the general principle of freedom. You only believe in freedoms that are consistent with your Christian worldview.
That is a key difference between Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Ron Paul has stated that although he doesn't like gambling personally, he respects people's freedom to gamble. Chuck Baldwin on the other hand feels that it is his job to push religion on gamblers and prohibit them from enjoying their hobby.
Sure, we are talking about something as "trivial" as gambling here. But this "Your free to live your life as long as your not disobeying the Bible!" philosophy of Chuck Baldwin is a slippery slope into other problems down the road.
No, i think what he is
No, i think what he is stating is that we need to triage out the most important things first. Civil liberties with NO patriot act ....check......no more NAFTA superhighway or NAU.....check.....no more foreign policy of intervention.....check.......actually address the insidious nature of the Fed and try to push other currencies. Whether you can gamble or not should probably be a tertiary concern until the important stuff is covered. It's going to be hard enough just getting that stuff accomplished, much less things with far less ramifications on the future of the nation.