Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, & Ron Paul

The big debate on the Right: On Nolan Charts, Bradley Jansen takes issue with Cody Quirk’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin (rather than Bob Barr) in these pages.

22 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, & Ron Paul”

  1. Brian D Says:

    Jansen totaly tears Quirk a new one. But honestly if Barr and Baldwin got into a fistfight Baldwin could easily win if he had a bible in his hand to thump him with.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    I am just sorry that supporters of Baldwin and Barr feel it necessary to attack one another’s nominees. The enemy is McBama not each other. That is why they are called “minor parties”.

  3. Rich Moore Says:

    Chuck Norris says “Ron Paul only one I trust now”...

    I’ve read Chuck Norris’ new NY Times best sellter (#14) on our Founders, “Black Belt Patriotism,” and he concedes repeatedly to Ron Paul and Founders. Regrets and recants NEOCON, RINO world… And shows signs toward backing Constitutional Party! Says “Ron Paul only one I trust now”... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs2sXsKZpmk

    See Chuck speak about his frustration at http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/10/07/the_bailaholics

    His new book at http://www.amazon.com/Black-Belt-Patriotism-Reawaken-America/dp/1596985585

  4. Michael Says:

    I agree with you, NewFederalist. While the supporters of one third party candidate are entitled to differ with supporters of another, they should all be united on at least one thing: sending the message that, instead of being fooled into voting for whichever major party candidate repels them less, they are thinking outside the box and voting for principle (and patriotism) by voting third party.

  5. PainfullyAware Says:

    Baldwin Is Vehemently Against The Funny Money System.

    The rest of the issues are moot to me at this moment.

    I am voting for Baldwin.

  6. Mike Angwin Says:

    Read the Constitution Party platform and understand clearly what these people are suggesting…

    The Costitution Party seeks to turn the United States into a Christian Iraq, a theocracy. Supporting them is supporting a party that only wants to make government small enough to fit into your bedroom.
    Bob Barr is not, I agree, the ideal candidate, but he is a candidate who can take the Libertarian party to the next step, facilitate automatic ballot access in 2010 and 2012 and thereby save valuable resources for actual elections. This will pave the way for better and better candidates in the future who can win wider and wider public support and make no mistake about it, we cannot move this nation towards liberty until we do win.
    I ask each of you to not abandon our quest for liberty at the first hint of internal dissent and turn to a party that opposes the very concept of liberty itself. Remain Libertarian, remain strong, remain committed, and remian focused on what lies ahead of us.
    Vote Libertarian. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

    //ike

  7. Bradley in DC Says:

    PainfullyAware,

    Dr. Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all want to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Barr says in the current Reason magazine interview asking should we get rid of the Fed, “[That] would be a goal of our administration. I do not believe it is appropriate for unelected, unaccountable individuals—that is the Federal Reserve Board members—to be controlling and attempting to manage our economy.”

    I spoke at the Mises Institute earlier this year explaining how to transition to sound money:

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/285572

    What is Baldwin’s plan?

  8. DJ Says:

    Well, it’s nice to see people are somewhat starting to get along again. We don’t need anymore in-fighting within the Third Parties, as it’s only dividing people into seperate hostile factions, instead of cooperating and agreeing on forming a coalition of pro-freedom ideas. Unlike the Two-Party, we don’t have the luxury for seething hatred and attacks. To have all the 3rd Candidates agree on four very powerful precepts is not just something we should respect, but something we should be willing to expand upon.

    Apologetically, I’ve thrown a few barbs at Barr. While I may agree that the Libertarian platform has the best chance to be propelled with the Big Two, I sincerely believe he can’t do it alone, and that exclusion only creates animosity. Remember that we’re up against Big Government, Big Money, and Big Corporations. With such a mammoth opposition, we need to unify, and considering all the 3rd Candidates, they are much more aligned towards our ideals then Obama or McCain.

    On the matter of principle, me being mistaken with a previous comment on another article, I’ve realized that sometimes you do have to change them for the cause of liberty. Would it not be right to have a principled Socialist to change to become a principled Libertarian? Hardly likely, but possible nonetheless, and at this point, we need all the help we can get.

    The Establishment if far more evil then any of the Third-Party candidates combined. NewFederalist is right…

  9. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” The Costitution Party seeks to turn the United States into a Christian Iraq, a theocracy. Supporting them is supporting a party that only wants to make government small enough to fit into your bedroom.”

    Response : Perhaps I should be more diplomatic but it is important to state the obvious truth - the writer of the above is a stupid ass. Chuck Baldwin supports the freedom to worship in any religion as does the CP. Since the nitwit writing above didn’t notice it I will educate him - We live in America. It was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. That is THE REASON WHY all others religions can worship in this nation. This should be so simple to understand but there are unfortunately endless idiots and fools like the above writer who could understand this but simply refuse to. They are as common as sand; obvious products of our educational indoctrination system who are simply unable and unwilling to even attempt to think as they obediently parrot whatever they are told.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  10. Tannim Says:

    Hey, Grundmann, how is your man Keyes doing? Oh, yeah, not well…

    And how is that Treaty of Tripoli reading assignment coming? Oh, yeah, not well, either…

    Just because America was founded by people who were majority Christian does not mean America is a Christian nation. Your type always seem to get that wrong. Put it another way: Just because a building was built by people who worship a god does not make the building a church.

    But you can believe what you want; that’s the great beauty of this nation. Even the natives saw that before Manifest Destiny and Eurpoean stupidity screwed it up…

    And then you wonder why the CP never gets anywhere even when they are all politically on the same page…

  11. Tannim Says:

    Frankly, I have arrived at NOTA ‘08 and will write THAT in. You folks in NV can at least vote that line without a write-in, lucky you—all 50 states should have that option!

  12. C. Al Currier Says:

    .... arrived at NOTA ‘08 .... Tannim Says:

    Go NOTA, Go! Rah, rah NOTA!

    NOTA 4 POTUS ‘08.

  13. Ken Says:

    With bias on this site for Barr, who can believe anyone. Just look to the banner on this site. Where are all of the banners for third parities? Oh, just Barr I guess.

  14. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Tannim Says:

    October 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
    Hey, Grundmann, how is your man Keyes doing? Oh, yeah, not well…”

    Response - Tannim : Alan Keyes is not ” my man.” The true candidate of the American Independent Party of California is Chuck Baldwin as a write-in candidate. Previous officers of the AIP were ( and still are ) both extremely corrupt and operatives of the Republican Party. Using Republican Party money they filed false documents with the California Secretary of State office to deceive them that the AIP supports Alan Keyes. This is a total lie but they have ( to this point ) been successful in their corruption which will be stopped and overturned but unfortunately not before the name of Alan Keyes replaces Chuck Baldwin on the California ballot. Alan Keyes is, as with his fake AIP followers/supporters, a extremely corrupt individual who in no sense represents the AIP or its national affiliate of the Constitution Party. A vote for Alan Keyes is a vote for corruption.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  15. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    Alan Keyes (for President) and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (for Vice President) is the
    ticket of the American Independent Party of California. The party joined the
    America’s Independent Party of Fenton, Michigan on June 27th, 2008. The
    above ticket was pick at the 2008 Convention within the California Secretary
    of State Building on July 5, 2008. I was the elected Chairman of the Convention. Don Grundmann should know better because he was marked present at that convention and spoke at that AIP convention. He just lost
    on his choice, viz., Baldwin & Castle.

    Don Grundmann holds no office on the AIP state central committee and has
    never been a Vice Chairman of this party.

    Let’s elect Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake in 2008.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    Baldwin does well in an anti-immigration Numbers USA survey that would put Baldwin’s positions opposite Dr. Paul’s (whose are the same as Barr’s). Interestingly though, Quirk goes on at length making personal attacks on Barr’s history—but fails to mention how the group he likes gives Barr an “excellent” rating based on an “Assessment of Past Immigration Actions in Political Office” of “Congressional, Gubernatorial and Mayoral actions” where Baldwin, who has never held public office, gets no rating at all. Experience must not count for anything.

    = Then again, if we held Barr to these last two sentences, Barr’s experience would be terrible compared to the experience that McCain and Obama have as politicians.
    Better a candidate like Baldwin, whose integrity and character is fully intact from not serving in office- then someone like Bob Barr, who has had to flip flop on a lot of major issues to become the LP Prez. candidate.
    Again Baldwin scores better then Barr, and therefore Americans concered about immigration can easily vote for Baldwin over Barr.

    Again according the the Numbers USA survey, Baldwin gets “excellent” ratings for these issues: Reduce legal immigration, Stop future illegal immigration, Mandatory workplace verification, Punish employers who hire illegal aliens, Local Enforcement of federal immigration laws, Implement entry-exit system, End sanctuary cities, Prohibit states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and Prohibit in-state tuition to illegal aliens (Barr generally gets a “fair” to “poor” rating on the same questions). I will come back to the question of whether or not these are the “correct” positions that represent Dr. Paul’s stated views and philosophy, but first I have to ask—as Dr. Paul is so fond of asking before voting on any legislation—where is the authorization in the constitution for the president to act on these questions?

    = Apparently the President has the power to sign congressional legislation dealing with these matters, or working with congress on drafting such legislation.

    One would think that a presidential candidate of the “Constitution Party” claiming the views of Dr. Paul would understand the limitations on the federal government vis-a-vis the sovereign states.

    = If we’re still talking about immigration, the rules regardling naturalization is left to Congress to regulate.

    Quirk claims that Barr tried to “ban” Wicca from the military and therefore that Baldwin has a better record on religious liberty. He cites a group that explains the simple fact that then-Congressman Barr issues a press statement: “BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES.” Does Quirk equate ending taxpayer funding with taking away our liberties?

    = Nice try but your spin doesn’t work, he didn’t want to end taxpayer funding of Wicca in the military, he wanted to literally ban it from the military!

    Barr stated about Wicca in the miilitary:

    “...sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.’ ”

    &

    “...What’s next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastafarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?...”

    And he concludes his Press Release:

    “A print of the painting, ‘The Prayer At Valley Forge,’ depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations.”

    These statements don’t sound Libertarian, in fact he’s making Christianity sound better then Wicca here. Funny how Barristas are quick to shoot down anything religious coming out of Chuck’s mouth.

    Such hypocracy.

    The implication here is that Quirk has bought into the progressive notion that if the government is not subsidizing a right or liberty then they are prohibiting it—which is, of course, the justification for government funding for the “right to abortion” otherwise poor women might not be able to afford the procedure and “lose their right.”

    = Better get your hearing checked, because I was talking about Barr wanting to literally ban Wicca from the military. LOL!
    BTW, each state had medical exceptions for abortion before Roe v. Wade.

    Dr. Paul, of course, does not share this interpretation. I am explicitly refraining from an examination of the Constitution Party here; others can look at their platform and candidate and make their own assessment.

    = Better then reading a typical LP article taking the CP platform out of context.

    Quirk aims to put a wedge between Dr. Paul and Bob Barr on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here again, his argument fails.

    = Not exactely, that went to show Bob’s flipp flopping on the issue.

    Dr. Paul has said he would have voted for Barr’s measure had he been elected earlier.

    = Exactely, and Ron still supports it, unlike Bob. However, I was only talking about Bob & Chuck only on that matter. And you fail in this argument.

    All three candidates think the issue ought to be left to the states, and all three oppose a Constitutional ban. The positions of the three are basically similar in approach regarding abortion as well, although Quirk stoops to personal attacks of decades-old allegations-

    = The fact that Barr held anti-Libertarian views, or stances that are contrary to Libertarian beliefs previously is a matter that needs to be brought up. The other issues illustate how those incidents of the past could hamper his personal conduct as POTUS.

    -Dr. Paul emphatically opposes the use of personal attacks to make policy arguments. Unfortunately, Quirk resorts to personal attacks on Barr when not even trying to make any policy arguments at all.

    = Funny how Barristas (Barr supporters) on TPW have resorted to vicious, bigoted attacks on Baldwin and the CP and even on the subject of religion in general. I’m only returning the favor- this is what you get.
    BTW, I’m not running for President, nor was I seeking Paul’s endorsement, I don’t have to meet Ron’s standards, neither to the Libertarians on TPW- which eagerly engage in personal attacks on Chuck and the CP.

    I will readily concede that working at the Moral Majority is probably a more ethical place than Congress, but I do not see how that makes one better qualified to be president.

    = For one, Chuck doesn’t have to worry about political baggage from the past, and two- it would be easier for a outsider to reform Washington DC, then one that was a part of the problem there.

    Even more distressing, having a more colorful past seems to be more of a political benefit than a hindrance.

    = That doesn’t work on all voters.

    We are talking about the same electorate that chose Bill Clinton for a second term. Quirk seems to place a great deal of personal importance on integrity and principle. That is his right. The truth is that two of the three have reputations for being principled in Congress.

    = Count Barr out then.

    The article then moves to an examination of Barr and Baldwin’s positions on free trade: “[Comparing] Bob’s position of the Free Market to Chuck’s position, I put my trust fully in Chuck. In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.” Wow. First of all, I hope someone else can verify (or more likely refute) that that is a fair characterization of Baldwin’s positions.

    = You can’t? Please convince me that Baldwin is not a friend of the American Workingman or that he doesn’t want to protect or jobs.

    I suppose the simplest way of considering the dirigiste arguments espoused in the link to Baldwin’s position would be to quote the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises from his authoritative Human Action which guides Dr. Paul:

    It is certainly true that our age is full of conflicts which generate war. However, these conflicts do not spring from the operation of the unhampered market society. It may be permissible to call them economic conflicts because they concern that sphere of human life which is, in common speech, known as the sphere of economic activities. But it is a serious blunder to infer from this appellation that the source of these conflicts are conditions which develop within the frame of a market society. It is not capitalism that produces them, but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to check the functioning of capitalism. They are an outgrowth of the various governments’ interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital.

    = Yet Ron still endorsed Chuck Baldwin, I guess Ron may have some Protectionist leanings after all.

    Of course, if Baldwin’s anti-immigration policies had been in effect then, they would have kept Mises out of this country.

    = Yet there were better immigration laws on the books back then, including quotas. Baldwin’s policies wouldn’t have been needed if some of those laws were kept on the books. The US currently has the most liberal immigration laws there are and we’re paying for it.

    Bear in mind that Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual promoting classical liberal ideas who escaped from Nazi Europe.

    = Did he enter the US illegally, however?

    Had their been no Mises in the United States, it is doubtful that Dr. Paul would have entered politics at all.

    = Dr. Paul was inspired by a number of political thinkers, like Ayn Rand, not only Ludwig. In fact it was Friedrich Hayek’s ‘Road to Sefdom’ which got him on the political road, not only Mises. Your argument is not working.

    The bottom line is that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all agree more than they disagree.

    = Then why the constant attacks from Barristas on Chuck? What did Chuck do to them? Why is Chuck and the CP being dragged through the mud on Third Party Watch?

    Any of them would be better, on the whole, than the status quo—or either of the two main major party contenders. All three would aim to cut spending drastically, eliminate the Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, end our interventionist foreign policy and nation-building overseas, etc. There are, to be sure, policy issues that separate Barr and Baldwin…but Baldwin supporters would be well served hiding those differences if they want to claim that Baldwin shares the views of Dr. Paul (and Bob Barr).

    = Yet the flip-floping of Barr’s views can’t be hidden. And attacks on Chuck from Barristas will only bring them to the limelight.

    Quirk ends with this argument that “Chuck Baldwin is a man that people outside of the constitutionalist mindset can support” and that Baldwin’s campaign is just getting started. I will add that Quirk’s own arguments and personal opinions show that Baldwin has won the support of at least one person “outside of the constitutionalist mindset.”

    = Ron is not alone in supporting Chuck.

    As far as Barr’s campaign being over, his poll support has been climbing slowly but surely over the past few weeks—and isn’t October a bit late for Baldwin’s campaign to be just getting started?

    = Better getting started then being ‘over’ like Barr’s. Please use better arguments next time.

  17. libertyforone Says:

    If Hitler ran as a third party candidate would you shout at people who tried to stop him as being stupid infighters? Don’t get all nuts because you think I just said that Baldwin is Hitler. I am not. I simply pose the question to ask why are we so gung ho to support third party candidates that try to control people’s lives? Just because a person is a third party candidate does not mean that they are for liberty. Fighting against bigotry is never wrong. We should all as liberty seekers demand that those we support also support liberty for ALL.

    Baldwin would prohibit homosexuals from having the freedom to marry in this country. That is not acceptable. It is not infighting, it is the standard fight against anyone that will use force against others. Why does Baldwin get a pass? Shouldn’t he have more scrutiny if we, the seekers of liberty, are going to show him to the world as an example of what we want?

    Baldwin doesn’t understand a thing about free trade and his Baldwin Doctrine seeks to prevent others from trading with us and buying stocks in this country. Since when do libertarians seek isolation?

    Baldwin proudly states that he supports a pair of border guards who shot an unarmed man, covered it up, and got caught and rightfully went to jail. How is it infighting to argue against government force?

    So many people are so weak on the basic issues of freedom and Austrian Economics and without these basics, people are easily led astray.

    If we do not rail against a party calling itself the Constitution party that makes a mockery of that doctrine, then we fail miserably.

    I could go on and on, there are not one or two issues, there are many where the CP takes a radical turn from the words in the document they pretend to honor. Don’t take my word for it, read his own website and the issues of the party. Baldwin is not shy about forcing his moral views on others. He would prevent people from gambling, (on the things that he doesn’t like, the stock market is fine, but don’t you dare play poker), he would prevent people from doing drugs (again, only the drugs of his choice, alcohol and caffeine are fine, marijuana- even though it has proven health benefits falls into the category of evil that he must stop), he is against women choosing to have abortions, be prostitutes, or even be in the military.

    For those of you that are new to this movement. Liberty means allowing people to do what they want with their lives. You do not get to legislate morality. You support freedom, even those things that you disagree with. Whether or not you feel this way, the Constitution prohibits government power against personal liberty. That is not to say that the document has been twisted until it now has very little strength left to it, but those who say that they are going to fight for the Constitution, must fight for those freedoms. Or they are being terribly misleading.

    Sadly, the CP and Baldwin seek to insert more government power into a document that restricts that power. To that end, they are not Constitutionalists in the way the rest of us are using that word.

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
    Edmund Burke

    If we, defenders of liberty are terrified of stepping on toes because we don’t want to ruffle feathers, then we might as well support Democrats and Republicans - after all, they do not support liberty either.

    On the other hand, if you honestly want to use guns to force others to morally act the way you want, then perhaps this man is for you.

    I have a problem with lovers of liberty defending Baldwin, because his views are distinctly anti-freedom. Baldwin is no different from Obama or McCain. All want to use government force to rule your lives. So, don’t pretend he is worth supporting just because he a member of a third party.

  18. Ron Moss Says:

    Sombody needs to gather the third Party votes for one Ron Paul and get “R” done

  19. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Mark Seidenberg Says:

    October 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
    Alan Keyes (for President) and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (for Vice President) is the
    ticket of the American Independent Party of California. The party joined the
    America’s Independent Party of Fenton, Michigan on June 27th, 2008.”

    Response - The American Independent Party of California never left and is still the California affiliate of the national Constitution Party. The event of 6-27-08 that the liar Seidenberg refers to was a phone State central Committee meeting ( illegal in itself according to the party by-laws ) which was designed to keep the majority of the state central committee from either even knowing about it or voting in it had the ” meeting ” even been legal. At this ” meeting ” a minority of committee members voted to disaffiliate from the CP to the ” America’s Independent Party,” a new national party founded by the ultra corrupt Alan Keyes. This meeting was conducted in secret and by phone because the corrupt conspirators; including the outright liar Mark Seidenberg; knew that they would lose in a actual true vote of the full Central Committee. A fake document from this fake meeting was then filed with the Secretary of States office to decieve that office that the AIP had disaffiliated from the CP. Hence the conspirators deliberately worked to deceive a governmental agency via the filing of false documents. Mark Seidenberg is part of a ultra corrupt group of Republican Party operatives; inclusive of Tom Hoefling, Ed Noonan, Mark Robinson, and Alan Keyes; who, using Republican Party money, conspired to file false documents with the California Secretary of State office in order to deliberately deceive that office regarding the actions of the party. Chuck Baldwin is the write-in candidate for President of the American Independent Party of California. Alan Keyes gained ballot access by a action of complete fraud and corruption. A vote for Alan Keyes is a vote for corruption.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    If Hitler ran as a third party candidate would you shout at people who tried to stop him as being stupid infighters?

    = Why do Libertarians need to shout at Baldwin when he shouldn’t be considered a threat to Barr. Obviously your adopting the Gobbels tactic of scapegoating.

    Don’t get all nuts because you think I just said that Baldwin is Hitler.

    = Which is like calling George Washington a racist and a fascist, why don’t you go back to your ANSWER meeting?

    I am not. I simply pose the question to ask why are we so gung ho to support third party candidates that try to control people’s lives?

    = And Barr isn’t? What makes you think he’ll stay a ‘Libertarian’ when he is elected to office? Are we so gung ho to support LINO candidates?
    (Libertarian In Name Only)

    Just because a person is a third party candidate does not mean that they are for liberty.

    = Good point, that’s why I question Barr’s motives.
    Yet its ironic that Baldwin signed that “We Agree” statement with Ron, Cynthia, and Ralph, which addressed protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the people.
    Yet Mr. Barr didn’t sign it- that should raise red flags for you.

    Fighting against bigotry is never wrong. We should all as liberty seekers demand that those we support also support liberty for ALL.

    = The attacks on Baldwin and the CP have been bigoted in the bashing of christianity and anybody who is a principled christian. Talk about hypocracy, as I said before.

    Baldwin would prohibit homosexuals from having the freedom to marry in this country.

    = Actually he would leave that to the states, as much as he is personally opposed to homosexuallity. But then again, you have to put that LP spin on it.

    That is not acceptable. It is not infighting, it is the standard fight against anyone that will use force against others.

    = Then why don’t you start attacking Cythina McKinney and the Green Party too? After all they also want to use “Force” on the issues of the enviorment, the economy and even on social issues.
    SUCH HYPOCRACY!

    Why does Baldwin get a pass?

    = Baldwin hasn’t been getting a pass on TPW at all, in fact it is Mr. Barr who’s been getting a pass more then Chuck here.
    SUCH HYPOCRACY!

    Shouldn’t he have more scrutiny if we, the seekers of liberty, are going to show him to the world as an example of what we want?

    = Then why aren’t you giving McKinney and Nader scrutiny here? Why the critical focus on Baldwin only?

    Baldwin doesn’t understand a thing about free trade and his Baldwin Doctrine seeks to prevent others from trading with us and buying stocks in this country. Since when do libertarians seek isolation?

    = Since when have we last had a Protectionist economy? It’s been awhile and funny how the Stock Market and our economy is going down the drain still.

    Baldwin proudly states that he supports a pair of border guards who shot an unarmed man, covered it up, and got caught and rightfully went to jail. How is it infighting to argue against government force?

    = A pair of Guards that were doing their jobs and shot a DRUG DEALER, in which the Mexican government coerced witnesses and pressured our government to lock then up for good. And funny how the evidence against them is on shakey ground.
    But of course people like you are the reason why the LP can’t make great inroads into the conservative base, or among the general electorate, despite being well organized.

    So many people are so weak on the basic issues of freedom and Austrian Economics and without these basics, people are easily led astray.

    = Funny how Libertarians are led astray on hypocracy and vanity, so easy they are to nominate a flip-flopper known for his conservative voting record.

    If we do not rail against a party calling itself the Constitution party that makes a mockery of that doctrine, then we fail miserably.

    = So basically the LP cannot tolerate any other political party that claims adherence to the US Constitution and the founding fathers, you cannot tolerate any political competition to be in existance. Thank You for showing the Fascist/Social-Darwinist logic of the LP attacks on Baldwin and the CP, I will be sure to quote you in another article.
    SUCH HYPOCRACY!

    I could go on and on, there are not one or two issues, there are many where the CP takes a radical turn from the words in the document they pretend to honor.

    = Yet the LP and even Mr. Barr’s acting on caring about the US Constitution is a joke, especially in light of your support for homosexual ‘liberty’ and Barr’s support on the Cali supreme court’s ruling.

    Don’t take my word for it, read his own website and the issues of the party. Baldwin is not shy about forcing his moral views on others.

    = Libertarians are not shy about forcing their anti-CP views here or their intent on the destruction of the Constitution Party. BTW Chuck Baldwin talking about what is morally right in his personal view, not his campaign platform. I guess if Baldwin is forcing people to adopt his views by your logic, then you’re oppressing me right now in my views,
    How Fascist of You!

    He would prevent people from gambling,

    = Funny how that’s from the CP Platform, not from his campaign website.
    BTW, that plank talks about opposing the federal government from sponsoring/promoting/involvement in gambling, and getting rid of federal legislation that doesn’t allow the states to regulate gaming. This wording conforms to the 10th Amendment, you argument just popped.

    (on the things that he doesn’t like, the stock market is fine,
    but don’t you dare play poker),

    = Man would Gobbels love you for his properganda department!

    he would prevent people from doing drugs (again, only the drugs of his choice, alcohol and caffeine are fine, marijuana- even though it has proven health benefits falls into the category of evil that he must stop),

    = Again this is from the CP Platform, where it says:

    “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.”

    = And again, it’s talking about state prohibition, NOT federal.
    The Party also wants to ban it from being imported too, which shouldn’t be a problem since pot can be grown here too. So this plank conforms very much to the Constitution, and again, the 10th Amendment.
    There’s also this from that plank-

    “..At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.”

    =So the CP doesn’t support the ‘guilty until innocent’ mentality that our government has on suspected drug users. This conforms to the 4th Amendment.
    Another argument just popped.

    he is against women choosing to have abortions, be prostitutes, or even be in the military.

    = the Unborn have rights too, they are future US Citizens. Prostitution is a degrading disgusting career, in Nevada, they are talking about banning it eventually. The CP plank doesn’t seek to ban women from the military, just from combat, get your facts straight.

    For those of you that are new to this movement. Liberty means allowing people to do what they want with their lives. You do not get to legislate morality.

    = Funny how the US Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states and even the congress from legislating social issues. In fact the 10th Amendment seems to allow the states free reign on legislating the subject of morality.

    You support freedom, even those things that you disagree with. Whether or not you feel this way, the Constitution prohibits government power against personal liberty.

    = Yet allows the states to regulate matters not addressed in the Constitution. In fact States had a LOT of leeway until the 14th Amendment.

    That is not to say that the document has been twisted until it now has very little strength left to it, but those who say that they are going to fight for the Constitution, must fight for those freedoms. Or they are being terribly misleading.

    = Yes, you are misleading. And states have the right to legislate matters not left up to Congress, including on those “freedoms” of gay marriage, prostitution, and other vices.

    = Samuel Adams once said: “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

    Sadly, the CP and Baldwin seek to insert more government power into a document that restricts that power.

    = From reading the platform, they seek to give more power to the states as by the 10th Amendment, which is a very constitutional goal. If that is big government to you, then may I suggest living in Somalia, where you don’t have to worry about government at all.

    To that end, they are not Constitutionalists in the way the rest of us are using that word.

    = Because the way you use it is the way liberals see our Constitution as a living document.

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
    Edmund Burke

    If we, defenders of liberty are terrified of stepping on toes because we don’t want to ruffle feathers, then we might as well support Democrats and Republicans - after all, they do not support liberty either.

    = Well, you are supporting a closeted Republican, and your trying to step on our toes and not the toes of the major parties.

    On the other hand, if you honestly want to use guns to force others to morally act the way you want, then perhaps this man is for you.

    = Where does Baldwin advocate violence in order to achieve morallity? please show me. Otherwise you’re doing Gobbels proud.

    I have a problem with lovers of liberty defending Baldwin, because his views are distinctly anti-freedom.

    = Nope, as much as the founding fathers despised religious dominance, they upheld morality & religious expression in government still. Your views are anti-Constitutional, as you seek to suppress the 10th Amendment in order to force the states to let every vice have no restriction.

    Baldwin is no different from Obama or McCain.

    = Baldwin is no Washington insider or flip=flopper, like Barr. In fact Ron didn’t have a problem endorsing him!

    All want to use government force to rule your lives. So, don’t pretend he is worth supporting just because he a member of a third party.

    = If you want to talk about government force, lets talk about Barr trying to force Wicca out of the US military, or his support for DOMA.

    And if Baldwin wants government force, why does he say this on his campaign site:

    “I oppose any legislation and/or executive order, that deprives the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of “combating terrorism” or “protecting national security.” Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as “Patriot II”).”

    http://baldwin08.com/Issue-PersonalFreedom.cfm

    POP! Your arguments are done.

  21. William Says:

    Here’s an idea: everyone who wants to vote for Baldwin, go and vote for him. Everyone who wants to vote for Barr, go and vote for him. Vote your conscience. Neither of these candidates has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything, this is just a vote for conscience.

    I will personally be voting Barr because I want him to get enough votes to give the Libertarians automatic ballot access in future elections. I also think he is the best choice actually running. But that’s just my opinion.

    I’ve taken issue with the CP on here before, but there’s really no point. Both sides of this argument are firmly entrenched in our beliefs, so it isn’t going to change anything. We ought to just vote our conscience and be done with it. This isn’t a call for “unity” behind a third party—frankly I find unity to be overrated.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    Here’s an idea: everyone who wants to vote for Baldwin, go and vote for him. Everyone who wants to vote for Barr, go and vote for him. Vote your conscience. Neither of these candidates has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything, this is just a vote for conscience.

    = Good idea and ‘No Comment’.

    I will personally be voting Barr because I want him to get enough votes to give the Libertarians automatic ballot access in future elections. I also think he is the best choice actually running. But that’s just my opinion.

    = Well, I’m voting CP & for Baldwin for the same reasons.

    I’ve taken issue with the CP on here before, but there’s really no point. Both sides of this argument are firmly entrenched in our beliefs, so it isn’t going to change anything. We ought to just vote our conscience and be done with it. This isn’t a call for “unity” behind a third party—frankly I find unity to be overrated.

    = If the other side wants to call it quits on the attacks, so will I. Though I didn’t start this fight in the first place.

Leave a Reply