c-spanarchives.org — Link to C-SPAN 2 video of the Freeandequal.org Presidential Debate held in Washington, DC on 10/23 at 9:00pm EST. Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, and Ralph Nader, an Independent candidate, participated in the debate.
Oct 24, 2008 View in Crawl 4
unicornyOct 24, 2008
Cspan played a video that she posted on youtube about it. In it she sounds upset that Nader had more of a role in selecting the date, place and format. I have no way to evaluate her claim.
Closed AccountOct 24, 2008
Ralph rocked. The constitutionalist is a neocon christian zionist in constitutionalist's clothing. Ron Paul was way better. In the phone discussion after the debate, some guy called in and spoke the truth about the NWO meme being a politically correct diversion for world government, globalist, international banker, "free trade agreement," (and I say this politically correctly myself) zionism. The caller nailed it. Ralph nailed it pretty hard for Ralph, and Cynthia Mckinney is still eating sour grapes. She's great, and she got screwed, but when you're a third party candidate, when you get a chance to be heard, you need to show the f**k up. Same for the other guy.
chocula78Oct 24, 2008
I wish Bob Barr made an appearance. Baldwin is a very good speaker, but I don't agree with his policies and his background as a minister and baptist. I fear that his religous beliefs would have too much influence on his policy decisions.
frankthomasOct 24, 2008
shopped
morganmgheeOct 25, 2008
It's really dull until you listen one time and it's concerning something important to you. After that, it's like using a friends brand new faster than light computer then going home to use your old slower than snails computer. The cspan version of the debate has been viewed 1247 times in about 22 hours. A (one version of many) youtube copy (vid#1of9) has had 411 hits in less than 12 hours. <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAVdRNlBvY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAVdRNlBvY</a> Oh, here's one that garnered 3,022 views in less than 24 hours and is only a clip. <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYl_rPR47o">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYl_rPR47o</a> Here's one with 1489 views in 17 hours <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8s04LHH6-I">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8s04LHH6-I</a> cspan junkies upload has seen <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBAPklDhDY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBAPklDhDY</a> in those same 17 hours. Well, you get it.
chocula78Oct 25, 2008
I should have been more clear. It's not that I don't "agree" with his background, but it is not one I would want for a president. Check his website and look up his stance on gay marriage (<a class="user" href="http://baldwin08.com/Pro-Traditional-Marriage.cfm).">http://baldwin08.com/Pro-Traditional-Marriage.cfm) ...</a> It reeks of religious influence by stating:"Chuck Baldwin is the best candidate for voters who cherish the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Chuck does not consider the issue of marriage to be a contoversial [that misspelling is actually on the site] issue or an issue that is exclusionary. It just makes common sense."It just makes common sense? No, it doesn't because with a 50% divorce rate and an average of 7 years for marriages in this country, I think the institution of marriage has done a good job of destroying itself. Why is it so controversial to let two people of the same sex marry and raise children? If they love each other and love their children, isn't that a much better environment than a split couple where the child spends weekends with dad and the weekdays with mom? Call it a civil union if that makes your bible thumping self feel better. I am an atheist, my wife is an atheist, but we are MARRIED. So, if two men or two women want to express their right the choose a union they should have the right to get married and call it as such. Marriage is no longer a religious institution.Bob Barr, a true constitutionalist, recognizes the issue is a STATE issue. And my wife and I would only vote for state representation that shares our beliefs on this issue, among the other important ones. This is why Baldwin's religious background turns me off to him.
Closed AccountOct 25, 2008
"Call it a civil union if that makes your bible thumping self feel better."I misses the part of my post where I thumped my 17 Bibles : )I agree the civil unions should be allowed, but you may not have considered that if you allow the government to change the definition of words such as marriage, you effectively give the government unlimited power. I hope that is scary.The Bible specifically forbids Christians from passing any sort of judgment on persons outside of the Christian Church in 1 Corinthians 4:12 and 13. I do not know if Baldwin has attempted this, but if he has, he should not be doing so."It just makes common sense? No, it doesn't because with a 50% divorce rate and an average of 7 years for marriages in this country, I think the institution of marriage has done a good job of destroying itself."Marriage and the family unit is what every stable civilization has been based on. Marriage has not eroded itself, society has eroded marriage. There are many reasons for this, but 1 example is socialism - the more socialism in a country, the higher the divorce and single parent or no parent kid rates are. Either way, most all divorces are motivated by selfishness on the part of at least o of the divorcees.I never thought of marriage as a religious institution.I agree that the 10Th amendment forbids the Federal government from having anything to do with marriage - marriage is a right that governments can either recognize or fail to recognize. Governments can never take rights away, they can only violate them.I would vote for a person of any religious view if I thought they would honor their oath to support and defend the US Constitution.
rothbardosaurusOct 31, 2008
Unless I missed something, the Baldwin link does not appear to articulate how he plans to support his view of marriage. If he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage, then he is every bit as much a constitutionalist as Bob Barr, because he would be pursuing the correct path toward getting the federal government to rule on marriage.As for myself, I believe both federal *and* local governments should keep their hands off our marriages. Marriage is a private contract between two individuals. Government has no right to decide what forms of mutually agreed upon contracts between sovereign individuals are acceptable.