3rd Party Debates

[josephcaptain of 100]

Anyone watch the 3rd party debates? Only Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader Showed. Baldwin presented himself well. Nader was Nader.

Bob Barr did not show up, again.

[jeremy.ashtoncaptain of 50]

I watched the debate off and on. From what I saw, I thought Baldwin was pretty good on most issues and enjoyed the part where he discussed his relationship with the Latter-day Saints. However, he clearly is not Ron Paul.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Barr is consistent in that he feels such debates are mere window dressing and provide false hopes to people. When the MSM is criticized for excluding candidates, they can point to this debate to "justify" their position.

Barr's position is to go where the audiences really are rather than mostly talking to the choir. He and I are opposed to Ron Paul's initial asking for people to vote for ANY 3rd party candidate NO matter where they stood on issues other than the four all agreed to including BTW Barr.

Soory to rain on some peoples parade.

[ldsffcaptain of 1,000]

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8s04LHH6-I

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBBOrQqkvKI

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeHB8Pi5U8c

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SHCPC5fYW8

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqT8loJFJ8

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTP0P001sNI

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz7djASZIc

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKW15GBSbho

C-SPAN:Third Party Debate Nader & Baldwin Pt9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f0ig-9kJ2o

[Proud 2b Peculiarcaptain of 1,000]

I listened to it online, and I truly appreciated what I heard. nader could not win me over, but Baldwin definitely still gets my vote. I wondered why Barr and Sylvia were not there.

I think that many people tuned in online and will yet see it, and I think that the latter two missed out on opportunity.

[josephcaptain of 100]

I can not vote for Barr for one primary reason: he is running on a party's ticket that endorses gay marriage and abortion. I feel that his reasons for not attending the debate (as stated by Capt Moroni) are a bit disingenuous. I do believe that his metamorphosis from a card carrying Republican to a Constitutionalist is sincere. He needs to find a better way to voice his Constitutional beliefs. To me, running as a Libertarian sends mixed messages.

The only thing that the Libertarians have going for them is better "brand recognition". Libertarian principles are not Christian Conservative principles (IMHO).

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Fellow Rebel , Barr has clearly stated on his campaign website and everywhere he speaks that he is now opposed to a Federal Marriage amendment which he voted for when a Congresscritter but would help states to get Marriage amendments passed using the moral suasion of his office as President. He says the issue is a states rights one. This stand by Barr is making trouble for him in some circles of the LP, some even trying to get him pulled from the LP ticket. So Barr is couregous and supports moral issues but at the state level whereas Baldwin wishes to give m orilty over to the central government, That is a big error!!!

I don't think my explanation is strained to anyone who has actually run for office and knows his time is best used where many people will hear his issues. The web broadcast does NOT IMO meet that criteria. It was mostly heard by the choir. Now if you show me that the MSM gave it major coverage (C=Span has a very small audience), I will "eat my hat". Any takers? I will suplly the hat.

Now... a poll. How many feel centralizing a Marriage Amednement is a great idea even though it places even more power into the central govt';s hands. VS,,, encouarging Marriage amendments with ecah state's constituion?

[ldsffcaptain of 1,000]

Now... a poll. How many feel centralizing a Marriage Amednement is a great idea even though it places even more power into the central govt';s hands. VS,,, encouarging Marriage amendments with ecah state's constituion?

I think doing what I am asked by my priesthood leaders is the best course for me. And so I voted on amending the state constitution. I wished men worshiped Christ.I wish government would not continue their destroying agency through more laws and regulations. Our government is a totalitarian government. This is a cursed land and will be until Christ comes again and men worship Him freely.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Ldsff, good for you as it is up to the state to make such a decision NOT the federal government. FWIW, I voted for the NC Amendment defining marraige as between people of the opposite Sex but would vote against any ayyempt to amend the US Constitution.

[josephcaptain of 100]

Marriage is a state's rights issue. A federal law on marriage would be a curse to this nation. It would give Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Barney Frank power to oppress us with their corrupt standards.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Fellow Rebel, than why are you supporting Baldwin and The CP who is FOR anational constitutional amendment? I'm confused my friend.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I do not like the idea of an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage, as I consider it a states rights matter. However, the First Presidency asked, in a letter that was read in our ward at least, that members contact their congressional representatives and urge them to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

To clarify, we were asked by the First Presidency to support an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It appears Chuck Baldwin is on the same page with the First Presidency on this one, and I have had to accept something I disagreed with in principle.

[josephcaptain of 100]

Capt.

Oh joy! Again I find myself immersed in the dark waters of ignorance (but I am use to these murky waters as I find myself swimming at this water hole quite frequently ). I did not know that Baldwin supported such an amendment. I was unaware that the GAs had ask for a national decree. You and Ludbaek are always honest in your arguments, so I will take this to be true.

Even though I believe that a wiser course is to allow the states to retain control, as the Constitution explicitly states, I will support the Prophet and the Apostles. And, I guess, even Chuck Baldwin.

As someone who is very keen to his Southern ancestral history, I have deep, deep emotions on the rights of local governments to be protected from an oppressive federal government. Unchecked federalism is destroying this nation.

I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy…. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.-Lord Acton, in a letter to Robert E Lee right after the war

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Sorry I will NOT follow the GAs on this one: it is wrong and most important to do so is highly unconstitutional. I'm stunned that the GAs ask us to violate the INSPIRED Constitution. Joseph Smith must be turning over in his grave. I rarely go against counsel but I don't believe that anyone is infallible: only Jesus Christ.

I know I'm an apostate.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Right or wrong, my understanding of D&C 98:7 is that anything added to or stricken from the US Constitution after the 12th, or maybe the 10th Amendment, or subsequent to 6 August 1833, "cometh of evil." It seems to me that the subsequent amendments themselves either introduced an evil or were an attempt to prevent an evil practice. For example, it seems the 15th, 18th,& 24th Amendments were intended to put a stop to certain evils. Since the Constitution was written only for a moral people, and Americans haven't always done all that great when it comes to morality, these amendments, like the proposed amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, were considered necessary to put right certain wrongs. I consider it unfortunate that the Lord apparently had to condone yet another amendment to our Constitution, which, BTW, like the 18th Amendment, could be repealed by yet another amendment.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Speaking of following the GAs on a controversial issue, there are mulitple instances of members ignoring or defying recommendations of the Church First Presidency. Just look at the record of LDSs in Congress , and consider how they have stayed in Congress.

[ldsffcaptain of 1,000]

I feel Heavenly Father understands we all have our opinions on a variety of matters, but this is not the point of this life. It is my understanding that we are here to prove to Him that we will follow His will in all we do. It is my understanding to follow our priesthood leaders is obeying the Lord’s will and that trumps all when it comes to proving myself to the Him. (Thank goodness for mercy because I do not measure up at times.)

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

ldsff, IF such an order came from the GAs to turn in my guns, I would consider these GAs using rightious dominion whose result is loss of the Priesthood therefore they would be in apostacy. It's happened before in the Restored Church. Now if Jesus told me through the HG turn in my guns, I would do it. There are too many wolves in sheeps clothing. I know that the HG would NEVER mislead me or lie to me. Enough said on this matter.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Make that unrighteous dominion...

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

ldsff, IF such an order came from the GAs to turn in my guns, I would consider these GAs using (un)rightious dominion whose result is loss of the Priesthood therefore they would be in apostacy.

Boy Cap I would think long and hard about that if I were you. If the united voice of the prophets asked me to do something who is it that I am rejecting if I tell them to kiss off? Whether by My voice or the voice of my servants..

[ChelCThe Law]

I wonder how the course of history would have been changed had Abraham refused to bring Isaac to the alter because he knew better. Sometimes we need to realize that our wisdom may fail us, and that is where faith picks up the ball. If questions remain in your mind about the counsel of church leadership then you need to take that to the Lord, not publicly declare it as false.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

ChelC, read my post closely. I'm NOT claiming that the GAs are false??? Mark's criteria would have to occur before I would do it and then ONLY after 100% confirmation by the HG. Without guns, there is no hope to save our Constitution unless there was direct intervention by God. That intervention could occur but IMO the HG would let me know that was the reason for the gun turnin command.

[ChelCThe Law]

I was referring not to your conversation with Mark, but to this:

Sorry I will NOT follow the GAs on this one: it is wrong and most important to do so is highly unconstitutional. I'm stunned that the GAs ask us to violate the INSPIRED Constitution.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

ChelC, I beleive my answer to Mark also clarifies my strong words you quoted. IF not, let me know?

[ChelCThe Law]

It's possible I'm missing something, but no, I'm not seeing the clarification.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

ChelC, I'm not trying to be combative but I don't know what else I can say.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

I think ChelC is suggesting that one not criticise the GA's publicly if you disagree with them. In the case of the gun example, you said they would be apostate if they asked you to turn your guns in unless the HG confirmed it to you. I have no problem with that. But ChelC quoted you from another thread in which I believe Lundbaek quoted the GA's saying there needs to be a constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriage. Your response was this

Sorry I will NOT follow the GA's on this one: it is wrong and most important to do so is highly unconstitutional. I'm stunned that the GA's ask us to violate the INSPIRED Constitution.

So apparently you are in open disagreement with the GA's and are publicly criticising them, essentially, as you posted earlier, calling them false or apostate. I think that's where ChelC is suggesting to take the issue up with the Lord and not publicly. IF that's the case (she'll have to speak for herself), I agree.

[Captain Moronicaptain of 1,000]

Shadow, thank you for calling me down for saying it publicly concerning turning in my guns. I was WRONG!!!


Do you think that I would be a hypocrite and a liar to answer the TR question that I sustain the GAs? Does that mean a person must agree 100% even when the HG has witnessed otherwise? It seems if one answers YES that I shouldn't say yes to the question then I must accept the GAs as infallible which even JS said he wasn't infallible?

I'm not asking these questions for just the sake of argument. They are to me extremely important questions in my relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ and in Heavenly Father.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Sustaining the brethren is not the issue. Publicly disagreeing with them, no, publicly saying they are wrong is the issue.

[ChelCThe Law]

Yes Shadow, that's exactly what I was trying and failing to convey.