[Rembrandt_fan]

It isn't for me to say who or what may or may not be posted here, and that isn't my point or purpose. You post a thinly veiled piece of antisemitic tripe attributed to one of those obscure third-party mouthpieces, and do so for reasons open to the widest possible interpretation: to show alternatives to the Republican Party. How about you personally? Where do you stand? Do you think these people represent a viable alternative? Do you agree with their stance concerning the 'Jewish Lobby'? Straight answers would be nice.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

SJackson wrote:

If you feel the Constitution Party and their candidates are bigots and have no place being mentioned on FR, I'm the wrong one to complain to. I'd suggest you bring their bigotry up when they're mentioned as an option, rather than when it's exposed.

Rembrandt_fan then wrote:

yada yada yada ending with Do you agree with their stance concerning the 'Jewish Lobby'? Straight answers would be nice.

Seems PRETTY. FRICKEN. OBVIOUS. what to me what SJackson is saying. The article is idiocy written by an idiot who is a member of a political party that is idiotic.

You are trying to debate a poster who completely agrees with you, and made it clear enough that even a child would understand. What do you do in your spare time, interrogate your houseplants?

[papertyger]

Dude... you can't have lurked too hard as you're trying to pick a fight with one of Freeperdom's pre-eminent Zionists!

Suggest you re-read with that in mind.

[SJackson]

I think the article is hysterical. There's nothing wrong with seeing what a large chunk of the world reads about America. And unless there are two Mark Dankof's of similar mindset, the man's a former Senate candidate. For those looking for alternatives to the Republican Party, it's worth seeing what's out there…If you feel the Constitution Party and their candidates are bigots and have no place being mentioned on FR, I'm the wrong one to complain to. I'd suggest you bring their bigotry up when they're mentioned as an option, rather than when it's exposed.

While it’s clear to me what I posted, and to posters who know me, I can see how you misunderstood. Personally, I think it makes sense to read what these people are saying on occasion. The Constitution Party is clearly a fringe party, and like many fringe parties embrace those with repulsive views. Of course this isn’t the face they present to the world, but we’re talking about a Senate candidate, not a county chairman somewhere who wasn’t properly vetted. You’ll find supporters of the Constitution Party on FR, you’ll see the CP mentioned on threads (and entire threads) where posters bemoan the direction of Republicans speculating on the alternatives. When it comes to the CP, this is the face of the alternative. On occasions where the CP is brought up as the option for “true conservatives”, I’ll link back to this thread. I do regret not putting [Constitution Party Senate Candidate] in [] in the title, they deserve the publicity.