Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party

vanity ^ | 12/17/03 | Destro

[Destro]

In a discussion on this thread Tom Ridge's Immigration Remarks Draw Fire a post regarding the conservative angst about the recent campaign finance reform that Bush signed into law and that the Supreme Court approved (and the approval was praised by the White House), on the heals of the Medicare entitlement enacted under a Republican controlled government the following was posted:

I'm hearing Rush now. He claims the republicans have ONLY one party to go to. He has put this issue squarely on the problem. We need to vote outside of this corrupt party apparatus.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 12:39:52 PM EST by Digger

I also heard this on Rush and my blood boiled. Rush said conservatives have no place else to go and thus will continue to vote as a block to the Republicans.....and then it hit me. That is exactly what we conservatives lament about Blacks and the Democratic party. Black Democrats who vote straight Democratic and are rewarded by being ignored.

In other words, Conservatives are now the "Blacks" of the Republican Party!!!

I urge the same solution to Republican conservatives that Black conservatives offer to Black Democrats. QUIT! Become independents and let the parties fight for our votes. If we can't take the GOP back we should leave the GOP.

I did not change. My party did. I thank God Ronald Reagan is unable to comprehend what is happening to the party he saved.

[af_vet_1981]

Which legislature was he in ?

[freedumb2003]

Where the Constitution is mute, the people of the State have a right to make laws.

Amendment X, to which I refer liberally (no pun intended) in my post (also my favorite Amendment and the one that grants the real power) deals with this.

But the Death Penalty is given for Federal crimes as well so Amendment X has limited applicability in that context ("to the People" is very difficult to reverse apply to non-State [i.e. Federal] laws). Most anti-death penalty people refer to the Death Penalty as "cruel and unusual punishment," which IS in the Constitution and would therefore supercede due to the Supremacy Clause. My comment is that the Constitution does NOT say anything about the death penalty at all -- which means it is NOT proscribed.

I guess you missed that class.

I would strongly suggest you understand your subject matter before taking your betters to task. Clearly there is a LOT about the Constituion that do not understand. Read and learn, Grasshopper. In a few decades you MIGHT be qualified to participate in this discussion.

Good thing I am in a Rushbo Fuzzball mood.

[freedumb2003]

Maybe my post 382 will help. See the small text as well :)

[looscnnn]

Per the Constitution, Article I, Section 7:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Where does it say in there that the people make the laws?

[af_vet_1981]

Clearly there is a LOT about the Constituion [SIC] that do not understand.

You may be right.

You libs are so erudite.

Where does it grant a fundamental right to abortion, sodomy, incest, and bestiality while banning campaign donations for political speech ?

[af_vet_1981]

Is that mute text ?

[Dunedain]

I agree. How exactly are Republicans conservative anyways?

1) This is the biggest spending government in US history. Even Reagan spent less in one year.

2) This government gave record subsidies to farmers. Not very laisse faire

3) This administration continues to pander to Saudi Arabia who funded and trained the perpetrators of 911

4) The administration continues to support the strong dollar policy of the Clinton years, which is a the Keynsian controls of currency markets

5) This government is more protectionist than Clinton and he was a Dumocrat.

I will give Bush this. That he stands against abortion.

6) What is Colin Powell doing there? He supports affirmative action.

[looscnnn]

You like my 384?

[Landru]

"It must be tough watching the demise of the illusion."

HA!!
Well yea it has, as a matter of fact now that you mention it.

...damned tough.

[looscnnn]

He is involved in Prop 13 and taxpayers' rights. I have no idea which legislature he was in.

[looscnnn]

Not that I condone the acts, but where does it ban the right to abortion, sodomy, incest, and bestiality? I want articles and sections or amendments.

[RabidBartender]

Matthew 7,6. 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.'

Some folks are incapable of learning, while others refuse to do so. Thanks for a clear and concise post.

[af_vet_1981]

Not that I condone the acts, but where does it ban the right to abortion, sodomy, incest, and bestiality? I want articles and sections or amendments.

Precisely my point. It is silent. The power to govern those matters reverts to the people of those States. There is no constitutional right to any of those acts, at least until your erudite professors hijacked our Constitution, some of whom masqueraded as conservatives, and tyrannized us with their judicial activism. We should impeach, remove from office, and ... and maybe deport them to France.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you understand the meaning of the text you quoted ?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Amen

[looscnnn]

Just because it is silent about something, does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Also, those are not my professors or my justices that ruled for the TX sodomy law. Again you make assumptions, ever hear the saying about assuming things. In this case it does not make one out of me.

And of course, you did not answer the question. So lets try this again, only lets say where does the constitution ban saying profain words? Sure the states can ban them, but that would make their law unconstitutional.

[freedumb2003]

[SIC]

Typos happen.

You libs are so erudite.

I am one of the most conservative on this forum. I do find it interesting that you write off arguments you can't refute as being liberal-based. If you know anything about conservatives, it is that we generally work from a knowledge and logic framework and apply intelligence to that mix to arrive at a proper and reasonable conclusion (upon which we certainly do frequently differ). Psuedo-intellectualism and Total-emotionalim, which you are now practicing, is the province of the Left.

Where does it grant a fundamental right to abortion, sodomy, incest, and bestiality while banning campaign donations for political speech ?

It doesn't grant these as fundamental rights. You are arguing with yourself since YOU were the one who then brought up Amendment X after I had done so (and even attempted to insult me in doing so). That's where the People derived their power and the ability to address these issues. These can be addressed through political advocacy -- DON'T expect them to be granted as Fundamental. The Constitution was never intended to work that way (if you are a strict constructionalist).

And for the record, I disagree with the campaign reform law -- SCOTUS screwed the pooch IMHO.

Aren't you getting tired of making a fool of yourself in front of all these nice people?

[looscnnn]

Oh, you haven't answered 384 either. You seem to have a bad habit of doing that.

[freedumb2003]

Thanks.

Interesting tag you have there -- It is killing me that it is so correct!

[Destro]

Then you are deluding yourself. There is indeed a heavy independent voting block that is very much courted by the parties, especially in states where they have open primaries.

In any case when did it become a form of c*ck tease to withold your vote until a candidate makes you an pledge for his support? When did that concept sound "more like a manipulative virgin than political strategy".

Washington said avoid political parties and being indepedent is as orthodox conservative as you can get.

I am still a registered Republican but that's because I have been to busy to go change affiliations.