Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[tpaine]

Look it up yourself. -- I don't do the 'cites' thingy.

[restornu]

I guess I was one of the fortunate to realized when we were bless to have Reagan he was a God send!

I was disappointed in father Bush but I would never vote for Clinton!

[restornu]

What is the "cites' thingy."?

[nopardons]

I doubt that any of us " OLD TIMERS " , here, voted for Clinton. I, for one, didn't and joined FR as an antidote to screaqming at the radio, T.V., and various newspapers; though being a FREEPER didn't put a halt to my screaming at the afore mentioned. You've totally missed the essence of my post. LOL

[Semper]

Without a constitutional amendment, the government simply does not have the authorization to interfere in campaigning or elections. I support absolutely no limits and no forced disclosure. It's none of the government's business how I support my candidates.

Do you really think the authors of the Constitution intended that non-local entities could contribute all the money they wanted to elect your congressional and state representatives? Also, when the Constitution was written, there were no unions, no corporations, no political parties and no PACs.

Constitutional amendment or whatever, something needs to be done. Our political system is corrupted by money. For any political party to gain and retain power, it requires huge amounts of campaign money and the way that works now is destroying our country.

[Texasforever]

A Representative Republic, as this country is supposed to be...

Chad you have me intrigued. You appear to be asserting that the country is no longer a representative republic On what basis do you make that assertion?

[Salvation]

BTTT! Way to go, JimRob!

[Jim Robinson]

I'd vote in favor of free speech and no on that amendment. I'd vote yes on an amendment to repeal the 17th and eliminate the senatorial popular elections altogether and have the senators appointed by their state legislatures as the founders intended. Then all elections would basically be local.

[restornu]

I was a member long ago under another name "Pressforward Saints!"

I remember when the color was black and red or was it yellow?

[tpaine]

In effect, the belief that we ~must~ control mans "virtue" is one if the prime reasons that even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order.
History shows that mandating virtue through prohibitionary laws foster contempt for social order.

A-G wants to see your primary sources for this observation, and I think that would be most helpful and useful. But at the end of the day, tpaine, I suspect there is simply something wrong with your theory, and the problem is not with evidence.

No 'evidence' is necessary to a student of the history of booze & drug prohibitions.. The contempt for order is all about us.

For the very simple reason that virtue may not be compelled (or bribed) in principle.

Exactly my point, - mandating/compeling, & attempts to coerce[bribe] virtue through prohibitionary laws foster contempt for social order.

The contempt that your observation arouses in me, however, is not directed towards the "social order."

Strange, -- You just agreed with my observation, betty.

Probably the social order is still firing on most, if not all, cylinders. My personal animus tends to get directed towards the people who think they run the social order. I'm sure you catch the distinction.

Given your own confusion just above, I'd hesitate to say.. - In particular because the inference of your animus to my observation seems directed my way. Do you think I imagine running "the social order" betty? -- That's a bizarre thought..

[nopardons]

You're going back to VERY early days and the color was black. :-)

[Texasforever]

I'd vote yes on an amendment to repeal the 17th

While we're at it let's repeal the 14th and 16th amendment.

[restornu]

When the left fill the position of judges with those who create law from the bench instead of up holding the law.

Than we are no longer acting as a Republic!

[tpaine]

Instead of arguing the principles of an issue, you argue about the cites & quotes you can dig up that buttress your position.

[Texasforever]

Than we are no longer acting as a Republic!

That is exactly why I want the 14th amendment repealed. The 14th gave the judiciary more power than anything to date. EVERY liberal decision since the Warren Court has been decided on the 14th. The 10th amendment was gutted by the 14th.

[restornu]

I was not a member than just a lurker! and the next time it was white and blue but not like this it was strange it semed like every one was repeating what the other said.

I was new to reading that kind of format so it was puzzling to me. When I did join each thread was all in one line and the thread ran on endlessly unless someone made a new thread to continue now we break every 50.

It really has developted into nice orderly site!

[tpaine]

Texasforever wrote:
--- let's repeal the 14th

---

Some day your 2nd amendent rights will be buttressed by the reasoning behind the 14th..

Oh, I forgot, -- you've admitted you really could care less about the 2nd.

[Semper]

I'd vote yes on an amendment to repeal the 17th and eliminate the senatorial popular elections altogether and have the senators appointed by their state legislatures as the founders intended. Then all elections would basically be local.

I would vote for that amendment also. However, that would not by itself make all elections local. In my district, our state representative was elected by campaign contributions from outside our district and outside our state (mormon money from Utah). That is not "local". It is also done to a much greater extent in the elections of Congressional Representatives and Senators.

[Texasforever]

Some day your 2nd amendent rights will be buttressed by the reasoning behind the 14th..

Like when?

[restornu]

Sorry I still confused I guess you folks understand your terms!