Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Baldwin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roscelese (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 7 December 2010 (→Sanctity of Life Act). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In addition to being a political activist

... he is also an ordained minister. His activities in that endeavor need to be included to present a complete biography of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.235.50 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Obama knows a lot of embarrassing people, or at least it would appear so from your list. Well done making that point. Jim Lahey (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semitic references

I just happened across this column by Chuck Baldwin. Lays it on a bit thick with the semitic references, don't you think?

The moneychangers of Jesus' day were the equivalent of the international bankers of our day. With the consent and approbation of the Jewish leaders, these bankers set up shop in the Temple. [...] Of course, the exchange rates benefited only the bankers and Jewish leaders (and Caesar, who collected a tax on the exchange, of course). For everyone else, the system was nothing more than legalized extortion.

Yuck. --FOo (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOo, I believe that you may not be correctly apprehending the context of Dr. Baldwin's commentary in that article. The focus is not on the Jewish leaders (specifically, the Sanhedrin and the priests managing the day-to-day affairs of the Temple) but rather on the greediness of the moneychangers themselves. It does allude to the certainty that there was collusion between the moneychangers and the government (i.e. the Sanhedrin, the priests, and Caesar, along with whatever "rake" of the profits that the Roman tax agencies were collecting.

To understand fully what was going on, you may need to know that the moneychangers served a particular purpose: Jews visiting from afar or coming to Jerusalem to observe the seasonal ritual sacrifices had to secure for themselves certain animals or offerings of grain, fruit, etc. to offer to the Lord (YHWH). For obvious reasons, a family making the trip from Corinth or perhaps Rome could not make this trip with the high-quality oxen or sheep without great expense, or bring food offerings without risk of spoilage in a time without refrigeration or other adequate forms of kosher food preservation techniques.

The Jewish pilgrims would then bring gold coin (either in Roman coin or provincial coin) to buy the necessary sacrificial animals or offerings; in order to do this, there was a medium of exchange needed for the various weights and sizes of coins transacted into the Jewish and Tyrian coin required for the Temple ceremonies (see Jesus and the money changers for more information on this).

Consider then, that the object of Dr. Baldwin's commentary, as well as the lesson of this incident as recorded in the Bible, was not intended as an anti-Semitic act or even a judgment against the moneychangers on account of their Jewish identity.

The judgment was against the idea of letting greed so completely dominate one's thinking that it corrupts the very purpose for which they conducted their trade: for Jesus's purpose, defiling God's House - the Temple; for Dr. Baldwin's purpose, the pillaging and ongoing violation of American trust by kleptocrat politicians and greedy bankers.

One need to look no further (in the USA) than the ongoing destabilization of the financial system with the nationalization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and enormous government bailouts of failed corporations; greed threatens to overthrow our economy into years and possibly decades of zero- or negative-growth.

Now if that article by Dr. Baldwin had contained other suspicious verbiage along the lines of "Jewish Bankers" or "International Jewish Consortium" or other baiting words, I would whole-heartedly agree with your assessment. However, the only unfortunate thing that is noteworthy is that the leaders colluding with the moneychangers (who themselves need not necessarily be Jews: for the business was almost certainly conducted in the outermost precinct of the Temple known as "the Court of the Gentiles", due to the strict observance of Jewish law forbidding such conduct in the innner parts of the Temple complex.

I hope this may help set your mind at ease regarding Dr. Baldwin's comments.

Respectfully,

--Onos (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism?

Is Chuck Baldwin a white supremacist sympathizer? According to this article, [1], he is a member of the League of the South, which doesn't prove anything on its own, but when you combine that with his frequent contributions to VDARE, the fact that he accepted Jerome Corsi's endorsement, and his previous appearance on The Political Cesspool radio show, Chuck Baldwin starts looking rather "suspicious". I'm not going to add anything to the article yet, but if anyone has a source that either proves or disproves that Baldwin is a racist, that'd be nice. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, keep a watch. 208.102.0.136 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this comment. I came here wanting to learn more about Baldwin since Ron Paul endorses him. I do not think it is conclusive that The Political Cesspool is affiliated with white supremacists because the Pew organization says they are. I think a link between Chuck Baldwin and The Political Cesspool article in Wikipedia would be sufficient - and let that article decide what is NPOV and factual about TPC. To mention their opinion here is to infer that Chuck Baldwin is a white supremacist because he appeared there; which itself is a bit of a reach. See the comment above about Associations. Therefore, I removed the sentence and ask that you re-consider before adding the association and conclusion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.30.193 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racist David Horowitz interview?

I found a transcript of Baldwin interviewing David Horowitz [2] and I must say I'm quite stunned with Horowitz. Baldwin himself wasn't saying anything racist, but he appeared to agree with what Horowitz was saying.

I think that should be mentioned either in this article or in the page on his presidential campaign. I mean, if Baldwin can nod his head and agree with David Horowitz when he begins talking, I think voters need to know that. I know a few (non-racist, libertarian-leaning) people who like Baldwin just because Ron Paul recommended him, but they aren't aware that Baldwin is not a colorblind libertarian; he's a theocrat! People need to know these kinds of things before they cast their votes. I've already mentioned on the Bob Barr Presidential Campaign talk page that I was quite impressed with how Bob Barr refused an endorsement and a donation from white-supremacists at Stormfront. Baldwin, it seems, is cut from quite a different cloth, and I think voters in the US need to know this. I'm just unsure of how to incorporate that into his article. Any help would be appreciated. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist?

I almost couldn't believe it when I read that "A double standard for sexual predators?" I mean, if a 15-year-old girl is "built like a 20-year-old", IS THAT HER FAULT? IS IT???

Besides its usually boys that have a harder time controlling themselves girls are always the ones responsible for saying no. If a boy has a ton of sex they are congradualted but a girl is considered a slut this is a ridiculous double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.34.96 (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I think that my additions to this article will spell "the beginning of the end" for this man's candidacy. Who could vote for him after reading all he's written?

Stonemason89 (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here for your agenda. We are not here to bring the end to anyone's candidacy, nor endorse them. Your views in this statement alone shows to me that you possibly have bias regarding this candidate, and that it might be best for you to not edit the article any longer. Wikipedia has a strict neutrality policy.
Your opinions of Chuck Baldwin also do not belong on this talk page. This talk page is for use of improving this article, not for forwarding your opinions on the subject. This is not an open discussion forum. Please attempt to be neutral and discuss the article, not the subject. The359 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that supporters of Obama should be building up Baldwin, since he might take votes away from McCain. :-) Redddogg (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on his political views

An anonymous user tried to remove all my additions to this page re: Baldwin's political views by claiming my page was "biased". He/she overhauled the whole thing and replaced it with a blatantly pro-Baldwin, and much shorter, section. In doing so, he/she removed quite a bit of detail that definitely IS relevant to the article.

If you think there is too much negative information about Baldwin in here, then ADD mitigating information, rather than deleting information that is already on the page. Going in and bulldozing entire sections because you feel uncomfortable about the subject matter is censorship, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Censor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonemason89 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that my edits were too biased, then please post a message on the talk page explaining why you feel this way. Deleting entire sections without even bothering to discuss your reasons for doing so is cowardly. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentances like "echoing claims made by the Stormfront-operated anti-King website" run into issues with WP:NOR.Geni 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I am the anonymous user who made the edits. Stonemason89, your edits to the article are blatantly biased. For example, look at the following reasons you gave to justify some of your edits:

"Apparently, he's a male chauvinist pig; or should I say a pig WITHOUT lipstick?" "Now Baldwin is positively giving me the heebie-jeebies. I can't stand racists" "wow, this Baldwin guy looks really creepy to me. I hope he doesn't win."

These are completely invalid reasons for making edits. Furthermore, these comments are simply cluttering up the history page.

"Deleting entire sections without even bothering to discuss your reasons for doing so is cowardly." -- I explained the reason for my edits far, far better than you explained yours. Making an edit simply to call someone a "male chauvinist pig" is what is cowardly.

You even seem to acknowledge your own bias: "Perhaps I worded that statement a bit too strongly"

Within the article itself, you include tangential information that was included solely for the purpose of biasing the article. Here are several examples:

"He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third[24], echoing claims made by the Stormfront-operated anti-King website" -- Why incorporate this unnecessary information that his views echo those of Stormfront? Should someone go through and draw comparisons between every single fact of the man's life and statements to others' lives and statements?

Apart from Baldwin's website, the only other times I have ever seen that claim made have been on blatantly racist and neo-Nazi websites, including Stormfront, AmRen, and the like. It is most certainly a lie, and it raises questions about whether Baldwin considers these kinds of sourdces to be reliable; why else would he parrot a rumor that no one else appears to have endorsed, except for hardcore racists?
Similarly, in the past week Baldwin was also caught using the "European Union Times", an online newspaper founded by the wife of a neo-Nazi, as a source for his claim that Barack Obama is preparing for a civil war. [3]. Finally, he has also gone on the record as referring to the end of apartheid in South Africa as that country's "demise". Pretty much everyone I know would agree that only a racist (or a closeted one) would show nostalgia for the apartheid era. Sure, most of what Baldwin writes isn't overtly racist (it's more of the dog-whistle variety), but even so, when Baldwin reviewed Gods and Generals, he made a remark in which he implied that Southern slavery was a "misunderstood" institution (as well as conflating it with Christianity). Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other guests on the show have included David Duke and the neo-Nazi musical duo Prussian Blue (band). The Political Cesspool's host, James Edwards, believes that interracial relationships like those depicted in the movie The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants are a form of "white genocide". [16]" -- So David Duke was a former guest on the show. So what? Since I'm certain that Larry King has probably hosted at least one racist on his show over the years, is every guest thereafter on Larry King Live to be condemned?

No, but Larry King doesn't identify his show as "pro-White", either, nor has he ever referred to David Irving as a "survivor of the Jewish Holocaust against free speech". Edwards has done both. And it was Edwards himself (the show's host!) who called interracial marriage "white genocide". If Larry King himself ever said anything like that, he'd be taken off the air almost instantly! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With my edit, I was trying to remove the snarky comments and selective quotes like the ones that appear above. As far as I could tell, these comments were included not to provide a thorough understanding of the topic at hand but simply to bias the article. I did indeed remove some of the information entirely from my edit because it was so blatantly biased, but most of the insight provided by the quotes that you included in your earlier edits has been integrated into my description of Baldwin's views. The original quotes may not be there, but the insight provided by these quotes generally remains. I think my edit is valid.

You accuse me of not adding any information. I disagree. For example, on the discussion of Abraham Lincoln, you tried to depict Baldwin as a hypocrite by juxtaposing the "I am like Abraham Lincoln" quote with the "Abraham Lincoln is one of the two worst presidents" quote. After reading the actual articles that you pulled these two quotes from, I realized that you were once again manipulating the information. Therefore, I explained that Baldwin's quote "I am like Abraham Lincoln" quote was simply referring to Baldwin's aspiration of unexpected, sudden electoral success and that Baldwin was *not* comparing his political ideology to that of Lincoln. In other words, I added in a more thorough explanation. The two original quotes themselves were simply superfluous, so I did not include them both; my explanation covered that information and did not need the actual quotes themselves. I did not simply haphazardly hack information out of the article you accuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.197.188 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit one sided

I came to this page to learn more about Chuck Baldwin. The overwhelming vibe I got from the whole article was very negative. It seems like most of this was written by just one person. I just want to encourage others to add some input to add some diversity. 70.114.137.228 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin himself isn't a fan of "diversity". Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next comment was written after I took the previous IP up on that suggestion: JJB 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and the list of personal heroes section seems completely unnecessary. 66.97.104.47 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, I thought the list of worst presidents was unnecessary, but if it was to be left in at all, it was better to include the whole balance of that article. Shall we cut both? :D JJB 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin as a conspiracy theorist

User: Khurshid85 removed the "Conspiracy Theorist" classification, saying "Baldwin is not a conspiracy theorist".

Oh really? How about this article (which he wrote, and which is entitled "There Is a Conspiracy")?

[4]

I looked into Khurshid85's edit history and found that the only other articles he/she had edited were an article on a deceased Nazi (claiming that the article was biased against the guy), and the Race and Intelligence talk page, to which he/she added a comment to the effect of "the Journal of Black Studies is not a respectable publication in the field of psychology."

Regardless, the evidence is clear that Baldwin is a conspiracy theorist, so I re-added that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

In addition to my comment about the heroes/antiheroes article, I also intend to cut out all the "citations needed" clauses that I flagged, in about a week if nothing turns up. JJB 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New World Order

A disambig is needed, which NWO is he opposed to? Шизомби (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He supports racial profiling, and other pro-Baldwin POV omissions

There used to be a reference to his support of racial profiling in here, which referenced one of Baldwin's own columns defending the practice. However, it got taken out, perhaps by a pro-Baldwin POV-pusher who doesn't want to dilute all of the pro-Baldwin stuff in the "Individual Liberties" section? The fact is, Baldwin is not a civil libertarian and this article needs to be balanced to reflect that.

Never mind the fact that the article implies that Baldwin's criticisms of Martin Luther King Jr. are true, when in fact they are lies (Martin Luther King did not screw around with 3 women on the night of his murder). That myth originated with a Stormfront-operated anti-King website, yet this page implies that it is true. And the stuff about him rejecting the tenets of Christianity is a pack of lies, too; more racist old wives' tales about King, the likes of which still all too common in Baldwin's beloved South.

Indeed, I have only ever seen the "King cheating" claim repeated on four other websites besides Baldwin, and they are the blatantly racist sites Amren, the Stormfront-operated site you mention, David Duke's official website, and that of The Political Cesspool. They could be copying him, but I find it more likely that he is copying (at least one of) them. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, even if those rumors are true (which I still highly doubt, due to their questionable origins), and MLK did have an affair, then so what? King David had multiple affairs, and yet he is still viewed as a Biblical hero. Maybe Baldwin needs to quit thumping his Bible and start reading it again. Particularly the part about King David. And the part where Moses' sister Miriam was struck down with leprosy for being racist against Moses' Cushite (that is, Ethiopian, that is, Black) wife. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article practically makes him seem like a multiculturalist, even though he has criticised multiculturalism and is very much a "European Americans United" type of person (that's a white nationalist group that endorsed his campaign).

Not to mention his misogyny and his belief that equality for women can be blamed for all the societal problems we are experiencing now, as if things were any better back in the "good" old days. That used to be in the article but it was then taken out.

I think there needs to be more balance, right now this is article practically a hagiography of Baldwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.11 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that you are not to push your own anti-Baldwin point of view. If Baldwin has said something you find offensive, feel free to add it to the article if you can cite a reliable source. If not, it will be removed. And the same goes for pro-Baldwin additions as well. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the stuff about him rejecting the tenets of Christianity is a pack of lies, too; more racist old wives' tales about King, the likes of which still all too common in Baldwin's beloved South.

Baloney! [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.70.83 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Dr. King. For one thing this is not an article on King but on Baldwin. Balwin is not an expert on King and the article can not repeat every opinion he expresses. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Confederate

Would Neo-Confederate be an accurate description of Baldwin's political views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.158 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservative is the most accurate description.--E tac (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans are gay material

I removed this along with Giulani cross dressing material. LOL, I don't know how I have this watch listed, but I though this was about one of the acting brothers until after I edited it :) Anyways, carry on :) --Tom (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)ps, can we remove the personal heroes list? That is a bit much, maybe 2 or 3 but no idea which you pick :) --Tom (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information was relevant, because it helps explain Baldwin's view on homosexuality. Indeed, Baldwin's conspiracy theories about gays controlling the GOP (as well as a whole lot of other stuff) almost sound like the same type of thing you'd hear from Fred Phelps. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bible College a diploma mill

CBC is a classic example of a diploma mill, and this deserves to be mentioned in the article. It has no faculty other than the president, Cecil Johnson, and all work is done through the mail. The school is accredited by an organization called American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions Inc. (AAATI), however this turns out to be an organization founded by none other than Cecil Johnson, apparently for the sole purpose of accrediting his own school! One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of a diploma mill. smontag71 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair to mention it. But so what? A person does not need a college degree to be a political activist, or even a Baptist minister. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that one doesn't need a college degree in order to be a political activist or minister, but that's beside the point: the point of this article is to tell us who Chuck Baldwin is, not to establish that he is qualified to be an activist or minister. If his educational credentials are worth mentioning in this article, then their dubious nature is also worth mentioning. smontag71 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that here. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C4PV has now removed the diploma mill expression twice, on the ground that it is derogatory. I admit that it is derogatory, but that isn't a reason to remove it. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to tell the truth about their subjects, even if those truths derogate from the subject. Where is the rule that an article should only mention favorable facts about a person (e.g., their educational accomplishments)? I would challenge C4PV to provide a better justification for removing this expression before simply removing it again. Of course if he would prefer to remove Baldwin's educational accomplishments altogether, that would be fine with me. But if his degrees are going to be mentioned, it is important to point out that some of them came from a notorious diploma mill. Smontag71 00:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"C4PB" is an acronym for "Chuck Baldwin 4 President", and appears to be a username used by (what remains of) the Baldwin campaign. As such, this particular user falls under WP: COI. 173.24.223.159 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Perhaps C4PB is Baldwin himself. Smontag71 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal heroes

I think the list of his personal heroes is a little too much. I don't think I have ever seen something like this in a WP bio. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took it off after seeing a couple of other opinions above supporting removal and no one saying keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC list

There really should be some mention of the fact that the SPLC has place Baldwin at the top of their "right wing extremists" list: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabowery (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, Advertisement tags

This reads far too much like a brochure produced by supporters of a political candidate. And as almost an aside, what does it have a candidate infobox although the election was two years ago? Seriously, it needs more balance. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is horrible. His "degrees" redirect to diploma mills, but no mention of the diploma mills. This was clearly written as an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASsasasas90 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ASsassas90, are you being sarcastic or serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.177.130 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctity of Life Act

I've looked at this, and it appears that Roscelese's description is correct according to our article, so why is it being disputed? Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's a terminology issue. I've no real problem with "fertilization" vs. "conception," nor with "human life" as long as "legal personhood" is also present. I don't get the removal of the jurisdictional issue though; it's a super-important component of a few of Paul's proposed bills, including this one, and I'm not sure why we'd leave it out. Roscelese (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point of legislation, couching it with the phrase "prevent federal courts from hearing cases on abortion-related legislation." sounds, to me, an attempt to discredit the position. (also, this is covered later on the the article, some would should eliminate the redundancy, whether it stays in the lead or the body I will leave to the descression of the editor) - Schrandit (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twaddle. That's what the legislation does and it's a major part of Ron Paul's abortion-related political activity. It's obviously not discrediting unless you don't like the law, and clearly Baldwin and Paul and other supporters like the law. If you don't like the law, by all means don't support the law, but to insist that it should be suppressed because, in your personal opinion, it makes the law sound bad, is the height of ridiculousness. Roscelese (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Baldwin&oldid=401076649"