A Sea Of Red

Never heard of this guy until this evening, Chuck Baldwin, here is his opinion on the presidential race (conservative angle) asking why evangelical conservatives are largely ignoring Scorcho's signature for their candidate and other flashpoint ideas: (Interesting articles I've read through so far.)

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23154.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24949.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27442.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23632.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27204.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24174.html Have Christians Becomes Dupes

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25205.html Falwell Tribute

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25521.html Moral Majority article

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/pro ... ldwin.html Other articles.





FYI: A quick bio check reveals Lynchburg/LU ties:

EDUCATION: After graduating from La Porte High School in 1971 Chuck attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, for two years. He then married and moved to Lynchburg, Virginia. He enrolled in the Thomas Road Bible Institute (now known as the Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University) and graduated with his Bible Diploma. He then earned his Bachelor of Theology and Master of Theology degrees via external degree programs from Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Chuck received his first honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Christian Bible College. He received his second honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida. On this occasion Dr. Baldwin brought the Commencement Address to a crowd of over 5,000.

...Some of the choice spiritual and political leaders of the nation have spoken in this pulpit including Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell...

...Moral Majority Leader: from 1980-1984 Dr. Baldwin served as Pensacola Chairman, and then State Chairman of the Florida Moral Majority...

I'm still firmly behind my candidate of choice. Apparently, so are quite a few others, even though you'd never know it from watching the evening news. I made a five hour drive to the Outer Banks yesterday and on the way here I saw two Ron Paul '08 stickers and one car that had all of the windows painted with Ron Paul support slogans. I saw no stickers (or window paint) for any of the other candidates from either side.

Ron Paul '08. Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility and liberty for all.

And Isolationism. Don't forget the hard-line isolationism.

That's like the cherry on top of the neo-Libertarian sundae.

It sure as heck beats being hero for every country in the world....

I don't like being the World's Policeman but I think I would much less enjoy being the World's Couch Potato.

Ron Paul......hopefully, he will take care of some our useless tax dollars

I was leaning towards RP until I heard him interviewed by Laura Ingraham.
When asked about Iraq and if he thought it was a worthy cause (freedom for Iraqis, rape rooms shut down, mass graves no longer being filled, democratic state in mideast, etc.)
He stuttered his way through an answer worthy of Barack Obamba
No thanks

some could argue....what does Iraq have to do with america

jmdickens wrote:some could argue....what does Iraq have to do with america

Some could argue...... what did Nazi Germany have to do with america

Maybe it was that whole world domination/holocaust thing......

some would argue a lot because half our budget and troops are there

FlameDad wrote:

jmdickens wrote:some could argue....what does Iraq have to do with america

Some could argue...... what did Nazi Germany have to do with america

Maybe it was that whole world domination/holocaust thing......

umm....check your history...alot of americans hated jews.....its called money, and the war was making us lots of it

sorry too much caffeine....

no, i am just honest

My thoughts on the Constitution Party -- http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/088053.html and http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/088053.html

As far as the Iraq war -- it doesn't matter whether I think it was the right decision. We're there now. We need to do our best to make sure that our troops can get the job done. Is it a mess? Maybe so -- but it's our mess. We should be the one to clean it up.

AND re: WWII and Hitler: I like what Gingrich and Forstchen had to say in 1945. The dumbest thing Hitler did in the war was to declare war on the US on December 8. I really think that we'd have left them alone, in spite of FDR's wishes to help out Britain. We probably would have invaded Japan in 1943 and wrapped up the Pacific theater. In any case -- Hitler needed to be stopped, and we helped to do it. Hussein needed to be stopped, and we did it. Unfortunately, the planning didn't go much past that point.

El Scorcho wrote:I'm still firmly behind my candidate of choice. Apparently, so are quite a few others, even though you'd never know it from watching the evening news. I made a five hour drive to the Outer Banks yesterday and on the way here I saw two Ron Paul '08 stickers and one car that had all of the windows painted with Ron Paul support slogans. I saw no stickers (or window paint) for any of the other candidates from either side.

Ron Paul '08. Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility and liberty for all.

I hear ya, Scorcho, I skew independent and I am very intriqued by Paul myself. You'll recall I posted the initial articles about Paul on here in the thread where you stated your disillusionment with Republicanism in its current form in addition to politics in general. I was actually glad to find a commentary that addressed some of the very topics that have crossed my mind about christians, conservatives & politics.

The articles above are interesting reads, indeed. Interestingly, alot of independents and the more conservative democrats I know have told me they are leaning towards Paul if he can somehow pull off the nomination.

phoenix wrote:My thoughts on the Constitution Party -- http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/088053.html and http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/088053.html

As far as the Iraq war -- it doesn't matter whether I think it was the right decision. We're there now. We need to do our best to make sure that our troops can get the job done. Is it a mess? Maybe so -- but it's our mess. We should be the one to clean it up.

AND re: WWII and Hitler: I like what Gingrich and Forstchen had to say in 1945. The dumbest thing Hitler did in the war was to declare war on the US on December 8. I really think that we'd have left them alone, in spite of FDR's wishes to help out Britain. We probably would have invaded Japan in 1943 and wrapped up the Pacific theater. In any case -- Hitler needed to be stopped, and we helped to do it. Hussein needed to be stopped, and we did it. Unfortunately, the planning didn't go much past that point.

Bingo.

Here's my rule of thumb:

* "You are not qualified to occupy the highest executive position in the land if you have no experience in the executive branch at any level." *
To put it in sports terms, that would be like Charlie Weis retiring at Notre Dame and the Irish hiring one of the boosters to coach the team.

On the Republican side, this eliminates Hagel, Duncan Hunter, Fred, McCain, Mike Pence, Newt, RP, and Sam Brownback. On the Democratic side, this wipes out Obama, Chris Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Mike Gravel and Wesley Clark.

This leaves, on the Republican side, Rudy, Mitt and Mike Huckabee with actual executive "game-time" experience. For the Donks, Hillary (never actually elected to the exec but you can't say she doesn't have the experience), Bill Richardson, and, oddly enough, the former mayor of Cleveland Dennis Kucinich.

In order of vote elimination:

• I won't vote for Kucinich b/c he's a crazy little garden gnome.
  
  I won't vote for Hillary b/c she's just flat crazy. I'm serious. She frightens me like no presidential candidate since Greg Stillson.
  
  Aside from being Bill Clinton's bag man, Richardson has no record whatsoever to speak of. He's out.
  
  As a Christian who understands the concept of spiritual authority, there's no way I'm voting for an avowed cultist, so Mitt's out.
  
  I like Huckabee's moral stands but his record as governor of Arkansas is spotty at best. He's out.

That leaves Rudy. I don't some of Rudy's moral positions but he has actually run a small country and done so far more effectively than most of his predecessors, even aside from 9/11. If he's the nominee, that's where I'm putting my vote.

RagingTireFire wrote:Here's my rule of thumb:

* "You are not qualified to occupy the highest executive position in the land if you have no experience in the executive branch at any level." *
To put it in sports terms, that would be like Charlie Weis retiring at Notre Dame and the Irish hiring one of the boosters to coach the team.

On the Republican side, this eliminates Hagel, Duncan Hunter, Fred, McCain, Mike Pence, Newt, RP, and Sam Brownback. On the Democratic side, this wipes out Obama, Chris Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Mike Gravel and Wesley Clark.

This leaves, on the Republican side, Rudy, Mitt and Mike Huckabee with actual executive "game-time" experience. For the Donks, Hillary (never actually elected to the exec but you can't say she doesn't have the experience), Bill Richardson, and, oddly enough, the former mayor of Cleveland Dennis Kucinich.

In order of vote elimination:

• I won't vote for Kucinich b/c he's a crazy little garden gnome.
  
  I won't vote for Hillary b/c she's just flat crazy. I'm serious. She frightens me like no presidential candidate since Greg Stillson.
  
  Aside from being Bill Clinton's bag man, Richardson has no record whatsoever to speak of. He's out.
  
  As a Christian who understands the concept of spiritual authority, there's no way I'm voting for an avowed cultist, so Mitt's out.
  
  I like Huckabee's moral stands but his record as governor of Arkansas is spotty at best. He's out.

That leaves Rudy. I don't some of Rudy's moral positions but he has actually run a small country and done so far more effectively than most of his predecessors, even aside from 9/11. If he's the nominee, that's where I'm putting my vote.

Hey, commander cuckoo-bananas ran a large state before being elected, too. Besides, JFK was a senator, too, with no executive experience. Same with that Lincoln guy, who was just a one-term rep.

Is it hypocritical to vote for someone who is against your morals?

Ed Dantes wrote: Besides, JFK was a senator, too, with no executive experience. Same with that Lincoln guy, who was just a one-term rep.

I'm going to ignore the Daily Kos portion of your statement and skip right to the end. I stand by what I said, which was not that a non-executive couldn't be elected but that they were not suited for the job.

Kennedy was an unqualified political playboy who made an absolute mess of everything foreign policy-related.

Lincoln was, by all accounts, a stand-up guy but he was also a neophyte who backed into the presidency in 1860 when the Democrats split the vote by nominating two candidates. History also shows that he was a horrible war-time commander who was villified at the time as much by Northerners as he was by the South.

Ironically, both men's respective "hero of the Union" legacies were cemented by virtue of the fact that they were assassinated in office before they could really screw things up.

RagingTireFire wrote:And Isolationism. Don't forget the hard-line isolationism.

That's like the cherry on top of the neo-Libertarian sundae.

You call it isolationism, I call it working our way out of our giant debt to China.

Rudy, Romney and Thompson would be four more years of exactly what we've had from the executive branch for 6+ years now. I'm not interested in that at all. I'm also not interested in Round 2 of the 90's, which is where Clinton/Obama/Edwards, etc. would take us.

If we don't get serious about fiscal responsibility we're going to be screwed in a very short time. Nation building, unnecessary wars (yes, plural) and free-for-all social programs have left our nation teetering on the edge of financial collapse.

Disagree? Watch this interview with the U.S. Comptroller General:

(Yes, there's some RP propaganda in there, but the point still stands.)

isolationism and debt are completely seperate issues. I don't see how you can just choose to ignore the dangers of being an isolationist in favor of reducing our national debt. Last I checked (and it's actually been a while) our national debt to GDP ratio was still completely in the norm for industrialized countries. Not to mention it's not like China can just liquidize it's US tresury bonds without effecting China. Who would buy all of their lead laced junk?

I dont think isolationism is the answer but niether is putting our noses and every little thing around the world (I am not talking just Iraq here)...our military is spread so then all around the world and its costing us millions....

we need to be involved with other countries, but we don't need to go further into to debt to do so

ps..scorcho, the more i hear you talk the more I think you and I hold very similar views...I am not quite as politically minded so therefore am not as educated about all the issues as you seem to be...but i seem to always agree with you whenever you say something about politics...it just seems to make sense to me

thepostman wrote:I dont think isolationism is the answer but niether is putting our noses and every little thing around the world (I am not talking just Iraq here)...our military is spread so then all around the world and its costing us millions....

we need to be involved with other countries, but we don't need to go further into to debt to do so

That's a very narrow view of the bottom line. Our military involvement around the world, WW2 and beyond, is what has carried American culture around the globe and opened up vast economic markets for American investment. The worldwide American military has spurred the greatest economic boom in the history of mankind.
Furthermore, the idea that it's costing us exponentially more to have troops over in some foreign country is absurd. From a strictly cost perspective, they'd be costing us millions regardless of where they were.

scuzdriver wrote:Is it hypocritical to vote for someone who is against your morals?

Not necessarily. I think it's more hypocritical to publicly support someone because of their stance on moral issues if you yourself don't embrace those morals privately.

I don't agree 100% with any one person or party on all the issues, so unless I vote for myself, I'm most likely voting for someone who is against my morals.