Ron Paul officially endorses Chuck Baldwin

[SleepWalkerX]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

Originally posted by: Ron Paul
I?ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I?m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

:laugh: The Libertarian Party is probably kicking itself in the nuts for nominating that asshole.

In case you've never heard of Chuck Baldwin there are two youtube videos that paint a good picture of what Chuck Baldwin represents.

Chuck Baldwin, If I Were President (part 1)
Chuck Baldwin, If I Were President (part 2)

I have only found one qualm with Chuck Baldwin. Instead of just repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving the issue of abortion as a state issue he would rather have Congress vote towards passing legislation to make abortion illegal. Luckily, as president he can't do this.

Chuck Baldwin is someone I could vote for. So now I have to decide between Chuck Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul and wasting my vote, or not voting.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

Originally posted by: Ron Paul
I?ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I?m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

:laugh: The Libertarian Party is probably kicking itself in the nuts for nominating that asshole.

In case you've never heard of Chuck Baldwin there are two youtube videos that paint a good picture of what Chuck Baldwin represents.

Chuck Baldwin, If I Were President (part 1)
Chuck Baldwin, If I Were President (part 2)

I have only found one qualm with Chuck Baldwin. Instead of just repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving the issue of abortion as a state issue he would rather have Congress vote towards passing legislation to make abortion illegal. Luckily, as president he can't do this.

Chuck Baldwin is someone I could vote for. So now I have to decide between Chuck Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul and wasting my vote, or not voting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuckle chuckle chuckle, stir the cauldron, add spunk water gathered by the light of a new moon and eye of Newt, tempest in a teapot, spare me the wrath of the Lilliputians.

Let me put it to you this way SleepWalkerX, if you purport your self to represent the best thinking of a libertarian party with some relevant thing to say for itself in today's election, and then say "Chuck Baldwin is someone I could vote for. So now I have to decide between Chuck Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul and wasting my vote, or not voting.[/quote]", the only certainty that nihilistic position will lead to is the certainty of wasting your vote.

 

[BoberFett]

Lemon Law is right. You should just vote for McCain. Because I sure as hell don't planning on voting for Obama with the way his disciples act.

 

[badkarma1399]

The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
the only certainty that nihilistic position will lead to is the certainty of wasting your vote.

Your vote is worthless no matter who you vote for. No presidential election was won by one vote, so it doesn't matter. Just vote for who you like the best and don't worry.

Looking back, I think it was a big mistake for Ron Paul not to run as a Libertarian. It would have been an awesome way to further his momentum instead of just dropping out.

 

[MadRat]

I'd rather waste a vote on change (going 3rd party) than voting for bad democrat and/or republican candidates. Its not a wasted vote, its my voice being exercised. I'll look over the 3rd party candidates before declaring one over another. Quite frankly some of them are just as bad as obama/mccain.

 

[First]

Barr is too much of a pragmatist for Paul to have endorsed him. Paul is too stubborn to budge on what he deems "unalterable principles", when in reality he's just as much of an ideologue at times as those he rails against.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
the only certainty that nihilistic position will lead to is the certainty of wasting your vote.

Voting for more government, the one bending you over, isn?t a wasted vote?

Beware what you wish for comrade, but then I have to expect you understand and desire this result. For whatever reason, you enjoy being the puppet.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

Interestingly, the inflation and turmoil did not begin until AFTER the trillions in government bailout. Why make the situation worse?

 

[badkarma1399]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

What the hell are you talking about? Libertarians don't hold a single office in Congress, how can they be responsible?

The free market is not to blame for this economic mess. Its the free market corrupted by government. How many subsidies, bills, regulations, restrictions are there that deliberately hinder the free market for individual gain? Lobbyists extort huge amounts of funding for their own gain, Anti-trust laws are used against unions, oil is subsidized over clean energy, the government is rushing to bail out every irresponsible failing business, punishing those who were successful, legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act forces businesses to take horrible risks, and any new regulation usually only puts pressure on small businesses, not huge multi-billion corporations. Face it, Government = Big Business. Increasing the size and power of the government increases the size and power of corporations and those at the top. This isn't some socialist utopia. The reality is that the only way to give power back to the public is to take it away from the government. The government should ensure that the market is fair, but it doesn't need to control it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

When people removed religion, they replaced that devout faith with government and those who govern them. To speak ill of them is blasphemy, ergo the problem must be inherent in the freedom of the individual.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuckle chuckle chuckle, stir the cauldron, add spunk water gathered by the light of a new moon and eye of Newt, tempest in a teapot, spare me the wrath of the Lilliputians.

Let me put it to you this way SleepWalkerX, if you purport your self to represent the best thinking of a libertarian party with some relevant thing to say for itself in today's election, and then say "Chuck Baldwin is someone I could vote for. So now I have to decide between Chuck Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul and wasting my vote, or not voting.

", the only certainty that nihilistic position will lead to is the certainty of wasting your vote.
[/quote]

Are you basically saying that because my beliefs mostly align with the Libertarian Party that I should vote for the Libertarian Party regardless of its leaders? That I should still vote for Bob Barr even though he claims he is a Libertarian, but actually voted for all the things that libertarians are fearful of in the past?

I judge my leaders based on the content of their character, not their political affiliation, thank you. We didn't strictly judge one person's character close enough. And we've paid for it. That's what I've realized.

Bob Barr's character has been tested and he does not resemble someone I can see leading this country with the policies I see fit. I still have to do more research on Chuck Baldwin though. His religion and past history as a pastor is also a big turnoff for me.

I am currently divided between the belief that we can have a limited government that only protects our basic human rights without growing into the abomination it is today and the idea that we should abolish the concept of the monopoly of force. So if I believe the first idea then I should be voting for limited government. If I believe if the second idea then it doesn't matter whether I vote or not because the monopoly of force will exert coercion whether I participate in voting or choose to ignore the authority that demands consent. However, if I vote that might imply consent.

So I guess you see my dilemma now.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

The public is doing something about it right now!! The market is! That's the beauty of the market. Even the most corrupt businesses can't compete with the actions of free people! The market is saying that house prices are too high! The market is saying that these banks, despite having the full confidence of the government, have acted recklessly and deserve to be downsized! But the government is trying to keep the system in tact and trying to patch every poor economic decision its made. Why? Why not let free people decide how goods and services should be run instead of the select beaureaucrats in washington?

 

[Lemon law]

No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

The only cure for libertarians now is to put head deep in toilet, flush toilet, rinse and repeat as many times as needed to finally understand that economic regulation is needed because greed is never good.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

Good grief. :disgust:

These regulations were not in place to regulate anything even resembling a "free market."

 

[IronWing]

Pyre, not pile.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

The only cure for libertarians now is to put head deep in toilet, flush toilet, rinse and repeat as many times as needed to finally understand that economic regulation is needed because greed is never good.

Which part of a free market advocates fractional lending and runs up trillions in government debt?

Talk about clueless...

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only cure for libertarians now is to put head deep in toilet, flush toilet, rinse and repeat as many times as needed to finally understand that economic regulation is needed because greed is never good.

Its greed when you're not the one creating wealth. It reminds me of a joke actually.

Three (former) business executives are in prison for ?white-collar? crimes, and they are comparing stories.

The first one said, ?I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of price gouging.?

The second one said, ?I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing and unfair competition.?

The third prisoner said, ?I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of price-fixing and collusion.?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

GWB has NOT advanced the case of free markets. He has progressed your beloved socialist ideas. He is a socialist just like almost every president we've had for the past 100 years.

Read some more perspectives on the issue at hand. Did a lack of regulation cause this mess?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

GWB has NOT advanced the case of free markets. He has progressed your beloved socialist ideas. He is a socialist just like almost every president we've had for the past 100 years.

Read some more perspectives on the issue at hand. Did a lack of regulation cause this mess?

Considering the last 100 years have been, by far, the most successful and prosperous in all of U.S. history, I'm not exactly sure what you're railing against even if that were true (which it most certainly is not).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Lemon Law is right. You should just vote for McCain. Because I sure as hell don't planning on voting for Obama with the way his disciples act.

So you're gonna vote for the guy that McCain's disciples are voting for?

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Looking back, I think it was a big mistake for Ron Paul not to run as a Libertarian. It would have been an awesome way to further his momentum instead of just dropping out.

I agree. But OTOH I'm not surprised. While I understand the distaste for Barr, I said years ago here that Paul was a Constitutionalist, and not an true Libertarian. And now that he's inflicting this kind of damage on the LP, I wonder if he isn't really a Republican after all.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

This is comical.
First, the Wall Street people aren't libertarians. How much Wall Street money goes to the LP?
Second, corruption got us into this mess, not free markets. And now corruption is giving the Wall Street people bailouts on our dime. There is NOTHING free market about that.

Every economic system, from free markets to communism, relies upon the ethics and morality of the people who participate in it. You could have the world's most regulated economy, and if the regulators are corrupt, then so will be that economy. You could have the world's freest free market, and if the participants are ethical and moral, then so will be that free market.
Now, the thing is that you think that the former is less likely than the latter, and I think that means you have a religious-like faith in authority. IMO they're equally likely. The people don't change just because the system does.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, you absolutely clue less libertarian types cannot see your own funeral pile burning . All these damn years, you libertarians have been advocating pure and free Adam Smith type markets, now your dirty work has been accomplished by GWB&co, and now, as a result, theory failed, regulation needed, this nation is on the verge of total economic collapse.

The only cure for libertarians now is to put head deep in toilet, flush toilet, rinse and repeat as many times as needed to finally understand that economic regulation is needed because greed is never good.

Um, are you kidding me? We are in late stage socialism right now, call it liberalism or neo-conservatism, these are the current powers and they couldn't be farther from free market principles. Short list of socialist interventions:

1. Centralized price fixing of interest rates: sends the wrong signals to investors to prevent politically inconvenient recessions, incentivizing massive misallocations of capital investment. Enables catastrophic insolvency, market scapegoating and further socialist interventions.
2. An unconstitutional, non-market determined money: easily manufactured at no labor or material cost by the banking industry that controls it, transferring purchasing power from those who have to work for them to the recipients of this free money in wall street and in the government without asking the working man. Morally reprehensible and enables bailout legislation to deal with the insolvency that #1 creates.
3. Fractional Reserve Banking: government enables the banking industry to fraudelently loan out credit many times what it actually has in reserves and earn interest off of it. The effect cascades as a result of successive deposits of this phantom credit between banks and enables bank runs and extremely unstable leverage, creating an environment that all but necessitates an FDIC and central bank to be lender of last resort in the event of a run, which of course leads to the creation of #1.
4. Heavy subsidization: enables corporate lobbying for government handouts of forcibly appropriated money as an anti-competitive advantage
5. Income-taxation, a direct tax on production, very difficult to enforce without intimidation tactics, enables special tax credits as an anti-competitive advantage
6. Anti-competitive regulation: who's regulating the regulator? Idealist FDA powers to ban products from being chosen on the market have led to anti-competitive bans such as Stevia. Special legislation such as NAFTA, a 100-page "free-trade" agreement acting as a pretense to lower tariffs to get the WTO to raise tariffs
7. Nationalization of industry: enables predatory anti-competitive takeovers for the largest institutions of smaller institutions, enables government monopoly in industry financed by forcibly appropriated money.
8. Medicare, SS: Unsustainable, government run ponzi schemes purporting to be welfare measures. New investors paying old investors in real time, continually increasing tax rates to remain solvent, continually changing rules about retirement age to remain solvent. Trust fund anually tapped by congress to spend the excess by replacing them with government promises of future dollars (bonds). CPI-adjusted payouts, allowing government to underpay by understating real inflation.

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't matter. Nobody cares.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
The constitution party is too deeply rooted in religion IMO. While I agree with most of his stances, I disagree with his abortion and immigration ones. Its still a toss up for me, because overall the libertarians best represent me.

Libertarians = the Wall Street people who got us all into this economic mess having even more free reign and even less the public can do about it.

Actually if we were in a true free market following Libertarian views, these greedy wallstreet people would go bankrupt and its the end of the story for them.