It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it.
Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now.
Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches.
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage issue and don't believe in getting a license from the state to get married. As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
All I have said is that Chuck Baldwin is infinitely preferable to Obama, who doesn't even mind infanticide, and McCain, who seems to think that it is perfectly all right to kill any number of Americans in bs wars for the benefit of the MIC and the bankers.
As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
And, if Baldwin spoke out against America's military imperialism and demanded that the money stay in the pockets of taxpayers, (close 700 bases in 130 countries) then how many families would feel pressured to terminate pregnancies because we can no longer keep mothers at home and survive on a single income?
The federal govt is the cause of so many of the problems they pretend to try to solve (and always with criminal sanctions not "socialist subsidies" to expectant mothers because that money is earmarked for military contractors and Israel) and they, the true criminals create boogie persons (some class of citizens, but never "too much govt" or over reaching power hungry politicians and their fellow closet mates, Christian fanatics) to keep us from seeing the truth.
Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"?
Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate.
Any attempt to sell him as "Ron Paul Lite" is horse shit.
Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Show me, if you can, where the Constitution authorizes government payments to foreign governments or welfare for any individual. I can wait. Have you ever read the little book, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat? If not, I highly recommend it and you can read it online here. I suggest if you want Chuck to answer your questions then who better than you to ask him?
I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here.
But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn.
But go into our wallets? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!
By what logic is the taxpayer's purse sacrosanct but the body of a woman open to govt compliance inspections?
The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it.
And, (like welfare) abortion should not be a federal question or mandate for the states either way. Just as murder is a state law, so should be any laws pertaining to abortion. It is not an issue that the constitution addresses just as slavery was not a question that the federal govt was lawfully empowered to settle.
I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby.
No offense but, it would help if you weren't intentionally obtuse when I try to explain things that require some intelligence which you obviously have. I expect that from numb nuts but not from you.
1. I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here.
2. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn.
3. The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it.
4. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby.
1. Good for you. But you know, this board "ain't my first rodeo" as they say. So I was probably posting that somewhere else when you were posting it here (maybe even before).
2. Not quite. I responded to your questions, even though I don't much care for your tone. When it comes to the human body murder is illegal. Period. Murder, at least as most people define it, means to take an innocent life. Ron Paul, a man I admire very much, has delivered something over 4,000 babies in his career and is opposed to abortion so I think I am in pretty good company--and the fact is that many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds of non aggression. You seem to value the right to privacy very highly and I do too but when rights are in conflict something has to give. The right of the baby to live, once conceived, takes precedence over any right to privacy of someone else. You know, when people talk about being "pro choice" they are not talking about killing a wildebeest or something indefinable and unrecognizable, but a living human being. That is my position. May not change your mind and I can accept that.
3. I don't dispute that the transfer payments are made but I certainly do dispute the legality of it. If it isn't Constitutional it isn't legal because the Constitution itself is "the supreme law of the land" and the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear enough to all but the most severely brain damaged that powers not expressly given to the federal government were still the province of the people and/or the states.
4. I don't advocate any foreign aid whatsoever, at least not government to government aid which I have denounced on this very thread. I have no problem with any American citizen giving his or her money to any cause they believe is just and to anyone they feel is worthy of their help no matter where they are or who they are. But any time a government takes money through coercion and fear from those who have earned it and gives it to someone they favor more, whether it is some vote-buying scheme or aid to some of their "friends" in other governments, it is still theft and should be looked at as such. I regard them as thieves.