Comments:Republican Congressman Ron Paul endorses Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
This is more dysfunctional than an episode of Dynasty.
This is the right choice...
Yes, I believe he did. The American people could then make a more informed decision. Voting for someone you truly believe in is more important than voting the lesser of two evils. I could not live with myself if I voted for either Dem's or Rep's in the Presidential election, when I do not believe that their change is the change that we desperately need. I watched both the Democrat and the Republican conventions. From what I saw Obama's change was going back to the old spend and expand the government. The Republican's are not much better since they have expanded government spending tremendously over the last 8 years. There are certain things that should be left to the states to manage. If education was left at the state level then we could save a lot of money by not having to fund the Dept of Education because the states would be funding there own local departments. Don't get me started on taxes. What is wrong with a straight 10% across the board tax as oppose to the messed up tax system we have today. People should not have to higher an accountant so they can get back as much as they can in their tax refund. I keep hearing how there was surplus in the late 90's. How could their be a surplus if we still had a hugh trillion dollar debt? Any way I suggest you check out one of the third party candidates for real change. It is better than voting for someone you do not believe would best represent your views. As for me I am voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. He best represents my views than anyone else I have found today.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582 Friends - please read this new and important piece by Dr. Paul.
- There was a "surplus" in the 90's because the government was taking in more money than they spent, thus helping reduce the national debt --18.104.22.168 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For the above question of how a surplus works with a trillion dollar debt, a federal government budget surplus would imply the debt is not getting larger, and there is money which could have been (theoretically) used to pay off the debt. I think that a big part of that surplus in the Clinton years, though, was due to fancy accounting, and not due to actually taking in more money than they were spending. The debt we owe to the Federal Reserve is bull, though (and that's something like 40% of the public debt). How does the government pay back the interest and principle on that? By "borrowing" money from the Fed (the Fed creates it out of thin air), at interest. 22.214.171.124 17:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course he did. Would he really support Barr? I don't think so. Too bad he didn't do it long ago though. Chuck is a far better choice.
I am glad Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin is very close to Dr. Paul's views, ie pro life, pro constitution and anti Fed. I have placed a Chuck Baldwin sign in my yard and will walk my precinct for Chuck.
Rick Martin, Buhl, Idaho
Chuck Baldwin, although a church pastor with a strong pro-life stance, believes correctly that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to rule on abortion, save for a constitutional amendment. Little by little, the Democratic and Republican parties are starting to realize that their two party dictatorship is starting to be seen by the American people for the sham it really is. I believe that Bob Barr forced Paul into making some kind of endorsement by not attending the press conference, making many Libertarian voters question their own plans to vote for Barr and wondering who else they should consider voting for. I don't believe that Paul made this endorsement out of spite. Barr shot himself in the foot by wrongly choosing to skip the press conference, big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does it matter?
Is there any cite for the claim that "Snubgate" has actually caused Barr to "rapidly decrease in popularity"? Sure, there are a lot of people complaining on-line about him, but by and large they're the same people that were complaining about him before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually began for a brief time to actually warm up to Ron Paul, who was giving a broad endorsement to alternative politics, but now he turns his back on that and gives a sole endorsement to fucking Chuck (wants to build a bible based government) Baldwin? Nothing even remotely constitutional about this guy, I'd rather vote for McCain and Obama while eating dogshit then vote for him.
"Although he refers to himself as "The Abraham Lincoln of this generation", he has also spoken of Lincoln (along with Woodrow Wilson) as one of the two "worst presidents" in history. Baldwin is also a supporter of private schools and an opponent of the Department of Education."
-Wikipedia Article on Chuck Baldwin
This shows that the man is clearly not educated. He practically called himself the worst choice for President and is still running. Instead of education reform he wants to get rid of the whole system so only the elite can be educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Third party politics should be about a professional bid for a more diverse political scene, not a popularity contest. Paul did the right thing to delegitimize Barr's grandstanding. —Shii (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If he wanted to be a wuss, yes.
He should have endorsed himself, declared himself an American for America, and urge everyone to simply write in his name if he can't get on the ballot. If you walk up to an electronic voting booth, federal law mandates that there be an "other" box - check it and when they come up to you to verify and give you a physical ballot to write on and sign, vote for who you want! Be it Paul, Bush, a sock, whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)