264 responses to “Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President”

  1. Randy

    [Fluidly Unsure]The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    The only people that the CP "requires" to accept their ideas, is those people who wish to join and become officers of the CP.

    Like any other political party, we expect our members to be faithful to our platform.

    Under no circumstances does the CP support forcing any non-members of the party to accept their Christian faith and party platform.

    You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party, and quite frankly we don't care what your personal beliefs are.

    Your grossly mistaken belief that the CP is somehow going to try to force all Americans to become Christians and adhere to the CP platform, is quite naive.

    [Fluidly Unsure]The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Nobody's asking you to "commit" to the CP. Voting for Chuck Baldwin is not a "commitment", any more than my past votes for both individual Republicans and Libertarians is a "commitment" to either of those parties.

    [Fluidly Unsure]BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Nobody's trying to win you over. You're flattering yourself if you think either of my previous posts were in any way directed toward you.

    By the way, the primary purpose of the Crusades was to resist the Muslim takeover of Europe. If the Crusades had never occurred, you'd be living under Sharia law right now, if you hadn't already been killed for being an "infidel".

    I told the simple, verifiable truth about numerous major secular governments of the 20th Century. If that offends you, I'm not sorry.

    The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow "superior" when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.

    Especially in light of the overtly secular and brutal dictatorships of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro etc.

    [Fluidly Unsure]The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Thanks, but we're not interested in compromising our beliefs, just to satisfy the whims of those who are opposed to some of those beliefs.

    Compromise was the downfall of the Republican Party, which is now merely a mirror image of the Democratic Party at the leadership level.

    Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Fluidly Unsure

    The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin's web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.

    The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.

    BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.

    The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like "while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there".

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Randy

    [Fausticus]"Hear hear. The CP can’t use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians…that’s just speaking with a forked tongue. If you’re for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform."[/Fausticus]

    You're clearly misrepresenting the Constitution Party (CP). Please show us where any candidate or official of the CP has claimed that the CP is "as libertarian as the Libertarians".

    The CP stands on its own merits. We're not Libertarian Party (LP) wannabes.

    Last time I checked, the LP officially supported a policy of "open borders". In the age of international terrorism/criminal syndicates/drug dealing, Red Chinese encroachment in the Western Hemisphere etc.--"open borders" is a policy of national suicide.

    With its "open borders" policy, the Libertarian Party stands against American sovereignty and liberty. Which is why I don't stand with the Libertarian Party.

    When "former" CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv in Ron Paul's back, Ron very wisely endorsed Mr. Chuck Baldwin, a man eminently more principled than Bob Barr.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Randy

    [Lyndon Olson]"Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you."[/Lyndon Olson]

    Very well said and quite true, Lyndon. Some people have a knee-jerk fear, bordering on paranoia, of devout Christians in government. However, the secularism these same people advocate doesn't have a very good track record:

    Soviet Regime of Lenin and Stalin (both militant atheists)--Secular and officially atheist--Approximately 45 million people murdered. Millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc. Shut down church-operated private schools and destroyed thousands of churches in Russia and occupied countries.

    Nazi Regime of Hitler (who was bitterly anti-Christian)--Secular--Approximately 10 million murdered, and tens of millions more died in the world war the Nazis precipitated. The Nazis shut down all church-operated private schools in Germany, and destroyed thousands of churches in occupied Europe and Russia.

    Fascist Regime of Mussolini (a militant atheist who publicly attacked Christianity)--Secular--Entered into a complete politico-military alliance with the Nazis, and collaborated in many Nazi crimes against humanity, as well as perpetrating many of their own.

    Red Chinese Regime of Chairman Mao (a militant atheist)--Secular-- Murdered at least 60 million people, millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    Regime of Pol Pot (a militant atheist)--Secular--Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    Regime of Kim Il-Sung (a militant atheist)--Secular--Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    The 20th Century was "The Century of Secularism" in governments around the world, and tens of millions more people were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned and tortured than in any other century in world history.

    The blood of well over a hundred million people is flowing from the hands of the apostles of government secularism.

    Of course, the advocates of secularism will propose a false dichotomy of "It's got to be either secularism or theocracy".

    Which is NOT true. Like the America created by our founding fathers, it can be a government based on GENERAL Judeo-Christian principles like "Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Which is NOT the same thing as establishing a theocracy and official state religion of Christianity, which the Constitution Party opposes just as strongly as the secularists.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Lyndon Olson

    Maybe a more accurate assessment of this isn't exactly in line with either side. It's understandable that some would be skittish about the religious comments from the Constitution Party, or even Chuck Baldwin as an individual, depending on the context. But it's unlikely that their choice of words is evidence that the party is a group of would-be dictators, trying deviously to use enough religious verbiage to rally the troops, but not enough to admit to everyone else what they're up to. More likely it's a product of a group of well-meaning Christians who have a high regard for liberty and integrity but haven't fully thought through the proper role of government in a free society. But, to be fair to Baldwin and his supporters, they do seem to have thought this through about 100 times more intensively than 99% of Democrats and Republicans.

    I hope that Constitution Party supporters continue to ponder this issue, and engage others in discussions about it. Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group's Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don't be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you. Let's keep a healthy discussion going; if we're reasonable about it, everyone benefits.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Fausticus

    Hear hear. The CP can't use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians...that's just speaking with a forked tongue. If you're for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Fluidly Unsure

    Mr Peroutka,

    I hope you didn't think I was claiming you would establish a "theocracy". I never used the word. However, what their web-site claims to want to implement sounds similar to what many, if not most, think of as a "theocracy".

    If the CP wishes to dispel people's thoughts along those lines then they may want to take down the statements such as “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations”.

    Then there is Baldwin's statements. His references to a redeemer reeks of the religious arrogance of a revealed religion- something I find offensive and threatening to say the least. His call to commit to Almighty God sounds like the verbage used by monotheistic religions that all must bow down to their vision of God and nothing else. Those words are not damning in and of themselves and only show a potential for a government lead by religion. But when you combine Baldwin's words with the CP's statements, the potential becomes a solid threat.

    Bottom line, if there is a misunderstanding about the CP's position then it is their own fault. They are providing everybody with enough ammo to shoot anything the party says.

    Where you fall in all of this, I don't know. Your emphasis on a creator could be deistic enough to be acceptable. While I haven't done enough research on your position, I am sure of the CP's and Baldwin's self-proclaimed positions and find them to be unacceptable.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Randy

    The claim that the Constitution Party (CP) supports the implementation of a theocracy, is absolutely false. CP leaders addressed this bogus charge four years ago:

    "I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false—a complete canard."

    --Michael Peroutka
    Constitution Party 2004 Presidential Nominee

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. longshotlouie

    The Revolution Was .....
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Fluidly Unsure

    I would also like to respond to an article referred to; "the great conservative hoax" by Lew Rockwell.

    To imply conservatives believe in preemptive warfare is misleading. Both our military actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan started as self-defense. They morphed into something else later on, but it started as a self-defensive measure because of the actions of 9-11, Sadam's past support of terrorists, and Sadam's refusal to pay attention to the treaties he signed.

    With the exception of the 4th of July, the only time I know of that conservatives are "wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state" was when we were reacting to warfare against us. Sometimes humans need a little cheer-leading.

    We do not condemn civil liberties any more than liberals who want to take away our right to smoke, eat, or drink what we want. Conservatives do not casting aspersions on religious liberty,

    Ok; many conservatives herald the jail, the electric chair, and brute force as the answer to all of society’s problems. Those ideals must be fought. But not all conservatives believe so and the actions of the conservatives that don't do not lead to actions of those that do as Mr Rockwell claims.

    Yes I hate (fear is a better word) the left because it proclaims the state as the answer to all evils. That is why I call them "statists".

    If some conservatives love the past more than liberty, then they are not alone. Look at the "progressive" movement that wants to avoid all change (except in political propaganda) and shield us from the effects of our freedom. At least they have a holistic hatred towards change that includes animals, the climate, and minerals.

    I still say an attachment to nationalism only happens on July 4th, and the dislike some have towards self-determination is dwarfed by other positions on the political spectrum.

    When he says they "thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy", is he talking about the Constitution Party?

    At least Rockwell didn't condemn conservatives because they are heartless and don't care about the welfare of others. That is the only part of the article that makes sense to me.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Fluidly Unsure

    Informative but misleading. It skims over the threatening ideas I read at both Baldwin's web site and Constitution party's site. Just because they call themselves constitutionalists doesn't mean they support what I read when I read the constitution.

    Baldwin and his party are both nightmares waiting to happen. They seem to want to return to the system of government common before John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. While I don't think I've read them actually saying this, but what I have read implies that they believe the government is not an institution of the people that can be altered by the people when the people find it necessary. They seem to think that government is an institution of God and to disagree with it is to disagree with God. If Baldwin has any chance in this vote, I hope I am wrong.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Eber

    An informative article about Chuck Baldwin is the following:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance151.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Fluidly Unsure

    I've been thinking about the statement that "The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration."

    For the reasons enumerated above, I do find the constitution party to be a major threat. And I don't see McCain or Palin to be anymore than holding different "values" than I do. The only place I can see that being a problem is stem-cell research.

    But to use a person's religion as a pivoting factor in and of itself is a major threat. Yes, politicians will make decisions based on the value system they hold as true, just as you and I would. But as long as the government isn't forcing their version of worship on others then it shouldn't matter.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Edward

    Lance,

    If you want to punish Barr or Baldwin, then don't send him any donations...that's what I did after Barr angered Ron Paul by not showing up at his 3rd party press conference...I didn't send him a penny after that...but I still voted for Barr in order to help the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

    Let's suppose that Ron Paul has a change of heart and decides to be the 2012 LP nominee...do you want him to have automatic ballot access or do you want him fighting the courts, the 2 party system and wasting his campaign cash to get on the 2012 ballots? And if Ron Paul strongly endorses the 2012 LP nominee, do you want that nominee fighting the courts too?

    If you reply please talk about 2012.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Lance Heard

    Edward, ins't not voting for barr and Baldwin punishing the nominees for the positions they took against Ron Paul and others like him who were trying to do more thatn just promote a Libertarian agenda?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Edward

    To Eric and those writing-in Ron Paul's name,

    The third party candidates may not have a chance, but the 2012 liberty candidates need your 2008 vote. Not voting for Barr or Baldwin is equivalent to punishing the 2012 Libertarian or Constitution Party nominees who need your 2008 vote plus thousands of others to get automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. I don't think that it is fair that if I don't vote for Barr or Baldwin, the 2012 LP or CP nominee will have to fight the courts and 2-party system to get on the 2012 ballots.

    I voted on Monday....and I wrote-in Ron Paul on the ballot...but not for President...I wrote him in for Florida State Representative District 106...I had to choose between voting for someone named Richard L. Steinberg or doing a write-in.

    So now I can say I have voted for RP

    My vote for President went towards helping the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Lance Heard

    After reading this I have decided to write in vote for Ron Paul. I also want to say that all of the posts I read only confused the issue for me, they did not help in any way. I can only assume that the posts were to state personal opinions. I wanted those of you who posted to have that feedback.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Fausticus

    I greatly admire Ron Paul's eloquence in the defense of economic freedom in the US...but I feel very frustrated that he would endorse a church-and-state candidate seemingly just to spite Bob Barr. It seems very irresponsible and divisive. After all, the group with momentum, the third largest political party in the nation, is the Libertarian Party. Why not rally behind its nominee? Barr is the best proponent of libertarian ideals of all the candidates running for President, so it would make sense to make your choice based on that, not on the fact that Ron Paul put a one line endorsement of the other guy in the last sentence of a letter.

    Look, we all know that none of these people have a chance at getting elected - Barr, Paul, or the 'Constitution' party. So doesn't it make sense to try and consolidate our votes behind the one most likely to garner the most votes anyway?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Eric Martin

    None of these third-party candidates have a chance, so let's vote for the best; take a stand. Vote for Ron Paul by writing him in.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Fluidly Unsure

    Heavy heart because we have to vote the least of 2 evils? With the except that my heart is about 10 years younger, we are on the same track.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. JD4x4

    Well, here I am on the deadline day in my state for a write-in candidate to register as such (for it to be actually counted and not discarded).

    My heart is the heaviest it has ever been in my 57 years on the planet because Dr. Paul is not on my sample ballot. Ironically this situation is somewhat at odds with what I think Dr. Paul believes.

    I must now vote the lesser evil. But on what level of "evil"? The candidate that I agree with THE MOST is not an 'official' option so my vote will TRULY be thrown away this election year!

    So, I'll hope against hope that on election day Dr. Paul's name will magically & electronically appear as a write-in 'choice' when I actually cast my ballot. I'll have to make my decision only then.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. millanza

    Sorry, not buying it. I'll still write-in Ron Paul. It's only one vote, but it's my vote.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. heckYes

    I voted Chuck Baldwin! He may not win, but he definitely is the best choice up there. Everyone should always vote their conscience

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Klint

    I don't see how Ron Paul can support Chuck. Read Chuck's trade policy ideas

    "A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs"

    I know Ron Paul is a big follower of Austrian Economics. This line of economics and Chuck's policies are fundamentally opposed. Has Chuck ever heard of comparative advantage? Do nations trade or do individuals? Is a tariff on imports a restriction on individual liberty? Does Chuck really think we should put a tariff on bananas large enough so that we can grow them in the US where you would need a greenhouse to do so?

    Other than having a poor understanding of basic economics the Constitution party is mainly on board with individual liberty.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Fluidly Unsure

    Thank you Edward.

    After rereading the comments, your statement "If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself." gave me some hope and another path to look for so I did some research.

    Unfortunately, what I found was contradictory to itself and I'll have to ponder it.

    In one paragraph, he emphasizes a natural law and man's Creator. His inclusion of Redeemer worries me though.

    "Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man's Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."
    http://www.baldwin08.com/ARTICLE-Baldwin_A_Salute_To_Our_US_Constitution.cfm
    Paragraph 5

    The very next paragraph can be taken different ways.
    "On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves--and commit to Almighty God--to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    He may be invoking a Deistic interpretation of God, but considering the party he is coming from I doubt it. The statements can be used by any of the monotheistic religions of the middle east but completely excludes everything else.

    He also does not say what should be done to someone who ignores their "responsibilities" and does not "commit to the almighty God". That is a red flag to me.

    So far, Chuck Baldwin looks to me like he is against the freedom to express religious beliefs without repercussions. I say this as someone who is not against God-- my days as an Atheist ended years ago along with my partying days. I say this as someone who is not against the constitution, just this particular interpretation of it.

    So far, I haven't seen anything that changes my opinion. However, this does make me wonder if Sarah Palin is as big a threat. More research is necessary.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Fluidly Unsure

    I can't get past the statement describing the constitutional party. (2nd paragraph in the section "The constitution party".)

    "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations"

    And the 5th principle is rather subjective. We can only guess what their interpretation will be. But combined with the paragraph quoted above, you have a recipe for disaster.

    "5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;"

    To some of the writers above; whose interpretation of history do you accept? Have you read any letters of the founding fathers? Do you consider an unofficial letter of intent to be more binding than an organizations authoritative bylaws? Have you ever read history of the church during the 16th century? Are you twisting "origin of species" because of today's neo-fundamentalists like Shermer?

    Someone once said (in more explicit terms) that you don't need to eat a full platter of excrement to know it's not filet mignon. The plate in front of me is too disgusting for me to look at much less put in my mouth.

    I will vote for whoever fits best in my own opinions and I will not blindly vote with one party or against two. Both are blind and ignorant votes.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Dan

    I just looked up where the Constitution Party stands on the "Issues", listened to the vids, read the wiki, etc...

    2nd Amendment rights? Check.
    Abolish the Fed? Check.
    Repeal the 16th? Check.
    Oppose illegal immigration? Check.
    Kill NAFTA, GATT, etc? Check.
    Stop supporting UN? Check.
    Cut foreign aid? Check.
    English as our Official Language? Check.
    End Social Security? Oh I'm getting happy now...
    Election reform? Keep it coming!!!
    Ban porn? Silly issue to make a stand on... good luck with that.

    Good enough for me: I'm in.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Seth

    I'm still voting for Dr. Paul unless he can be directly underneath the future president. Chuck Baldwin is good but Dr. Paul is the George Washington of this revolution!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Mrsdonut

    Dr. Ron Paul is still getting my vote!

    I'm writing him in because I can't lay my head down at night knowing I voted for someone with whom I do not share the same beliefs with. (McCain or Obama)
    I want those Washington insiders and the people who look at the ballot to know that there are people out there that try to fool us in to thinking there are only two choices in this race. I want them to see that Dr.Paul's message has been heard and that we are not 'undecided' in this election. My decision is made- Dr. Paul for President.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. steve

    It doesnt matter who you vote for..They are not going to win.Just as long as you vote for someone other than dem/rep.We are sending a message that we are tired of the same ol bs.We need to make the citizens aware of the scam being played on the American people(or world for that matter)Govt is to big and way out of control.This will take time to get the corruption out of our govt.Just keep telling people whats going on.Stand up and let your voice be heard or slowy become a slave to the powers that be.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Richard Philips

    In regards to Mr. Brennan's post.
    Who cares about "Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" anyhow.
    We have our own Constitution and I go by that not the united nations!
    My 50 cents.
    Richard age 61

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Brennan

    It is my humble opinion that Chuck Baldwin is a good man, but we must remember not all great men make great leaders. He does not have the fire that Ron Paul has, and he is too adherent to his religious life for me. To be against abortion is all right, if you have the right reasoning behind it. To be against gay marriage is not right, as every gay couple should be treated as any other normal citizen. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
    "Chuck also believes that the values of marriage between a man and a woman are very important. Values are something young people need and want. They need to know that the people in charge are willing to adhere to a set of values that put them first and foremost."
    Is that stating that gay married couples have no values?
    I myself am not gay, although i respect people's freedom to live their life the way they want, and not depending on how any certain religion or country states how they should live and what they can and cannot do(except things that hurt others of course, but gay couples don't hurt anyone else.) Unless, one might argue that they hurt their adopted children. If that is the case, argue about gay couples' right to adopt and not their right to marry.
    My 50 cents.
    -Brennan N., age 15

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Justin Daniel

    Thank God there is someone out there who still believes in what America was meant to be. No one who has ever ran for President has spoke and acted with more conviction and passion than Ron Paul. I wish you were still in this fiasco election Mr. Paul, but whoever you endorse will get my vote. Although, I can't wait until 2012. The main problem I see is our mass media, or as I call them, the destroyers of individual thought. I don't have an exact percentage poll on the mater, but I'm willing to bet at least 75% of Americans aren't even aware they have a third choice in this election. Why? Fox News, Cnn, and every other mind controling, upsurd News station out there. If this was really a democracy, every canidate would have a chance to debate the issues in front of a nation wide audience. Instead we have a corney, media based monopoly between two scripted bafoons. Thats what we get, instead of a man who can speak his mind with passion at a moments notice who is RON PAUL! P.S.-SOCIALISM SUCKS!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. MountainDoc

    Thank you Dr. Paul for all the work you've done for restoring the constitution, and hence protecting the people with it. I never thought an endorsement would sway my vote one way or another, but after seeing how principled you truly are, I'll be voting for Baldwin. After listening to his speeches, its clear his zeal for the constition and freedom burns just as deep as Dr. Paul's.

    For those who are worried about a theocracy because Chuck Baldwin is religious should take a hard look at his speech to the JBS 50th year aniversary. He has no plans to publically force people to worship the way he does, or even at all - and he makes that statement. I'm a firm believer that religous liberty (and also the decision to abstain) should extend to everyone, even politicians =).

    True faith is going to affect the way a person lives their life or governs, and thats ok so long as they uphold the constitution, don't overstep the constitution, and allow others to make their own religious decisions. Public displays of faith (or lack there of) by an individual shouldn't be disdained as impinging on the rights of those of different religions or those who have no religion, but instead should be seen as the purest form of expressing the own right to religious freedom.

    Cheers!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. J.Oftedahl

    I was voting for ron.....but I will change to Chuck. I am 27 years old from MN....and as a young voter in this election...its important that in the next 20 years we can look back and see how a movement began.....all great things have small beginings ( I learned about that when my son was born prematurely and has blossumed into the fighter he is today)....and that is why I want my son to understand how in 2008 there was a movement to VOTE for a movement....so that in 2012...5% turns to 15% and in 2016 it tunrs to 45% ..until finnally in 2020...we can look back and say we all threw the rock.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply