Skip to comments.
Michael Peroutka Announces Presidential Campaign (December 15)
Radio Liberty and Others ^
| 1/1/2004
| Adam Valle
Posted on 01/01/2004 9:48:48 PM PST by The_Eaglet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
To: nopardons
A ping before the swarm. :)
2
posted on
01/01/2004 9:50:26 PM PST
by
onyx
(Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
To: The_Eaglet
Strange...the fail to mention his opposition to our defending ourselves in Iraq.
To: The_Eaglet
No mention of Iraq. Of 9-11. Of Afghanistan. Of our life and death struggle with the Islamonazis. Pathetic.
We are a nation at war. This is a time for serious people. We don't have the time to waste on third-party vanity candidates. Wait several years until the grown-ups solve the big problems, then idiots like this guy can get back in the sandbox to play.
4
posted on
01/01/2004 9:57:35 PM PST
by
inkling
To: The_Eaglet
On December 15, 2003, Michael Peroutka announced his candidacy for the Constitution Party presidential nomination. (Guffaw!) On the day after Saddam's capture?
Why don't he just announce his candidacy when the New Years ball drop from Times Square?
5
posted on
01/01/2004 9:59:42 PM PST
by
ServesURight
(FReecerely Yours,)
To: inkling
I had to go to the party website to find out he's opposed to our defending ourselves in Iraq...but of course he supports our troops.
To: ServesURight
"On the day after Saddam's capture?"
I bet it ticked him off when Saddam's capture kicked his announcement off the top of the news.
To: CWOJackson
I'm sure President Bush is shaking in his boots, after all he may lose a half-dozen votes to malcontents calling themselves "conservatives" who generate pent-up anger and frustration because Bush isn't conservative enough.
The only way these people will be satisfied is if one of the Founders can be somehow magically brought back to life and run for President again.
To: CWOJackson; nopardons; onyx
On the day after Saddam's capture?" I bet it ticked him off when Saddam's capture kicked his announcement off the top of the news.
He probably thinks W had Saddam on ice, waiting to ruin his announcement. Constitution Party, right..
9
posted on
01/01/2004 10:06:34 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: onyx
Oh great, the political party,which has even less supporters than the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY has members is touting it's newest " leader " ? LOL
To: BlkConserv
LOL! Somehow I doubt even one of the original founders would live up to their expectations.
To: The_Eaglet
Some of his ideas are very admirable. I agree we'd be better off adhering more to the Constitution.
But not now. We've many other things much more important. Like preventing The Hildabeaste's assault on the White House.
12
posted on
01/01/2004 10:10:44 PM PST
by
upchuck
(This tag line will self-destruct in five seconds. 5.... 4.... 3.... 2.... 1.... DISOLVE!)
To: CWOJackson
I haven't seen where he rejects defense. In fact, this statement from Politics1 indicates that Peroutka supports our troups,
" He opposed the US action in Iraq on constitutional grounds: `It's not that Congress doesn't have the authority to declare war. It's just that it hasn't done so.' However, he emphasizes that he strongly supported the US troops in Iraq while opposing 'the unconstitutional procedures under which they were committed to fight.'"
13
posted on
01/01/2004 10:11:26 PM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
To: The_Eaglet
Thanks for posting. Read through it and can't find much I disagree with. We have the Constitution Party here in NC, however I do belong to the
Southern Party officially now. May be a candidate I would back in the Presidential election
14
posted on
01/01/2004 10:11:30 PM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: The_Eaglet
Sheesh - you have to include every state in the topic list?
15
posted on
01/01/2004 10:12:35 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(A corrupt society has many laws.)
To: The_Eaglet
experience as an attorney This is enough to NOT get a vote from me.
16
posted on
01/01/2004 10:12:52 PM PST
by
CONSERVE
To: The_Eaglet
LOL! Congress did authorize the President to act, and he did. But I'm glad to hear he supports the troops...so do the dems who are also opposed to defending ourselves.
To: gatorbait
The whole point is that these flakes are just KOOKS, who attract other unstable KOOKS, who need massive injections of common sense and reality.
To: CWOJackson
Both the Constitution and Libertarian parties were/are against the war in Iraq and protecting America from radical Muslims.
I'm concerned about Bush's failure to outline an aggressive, conservative domestic policy and I do hope he does so in his upcoming SOTU address. But voting 3rd party in this critical election year is clearly not an option.
To: Chris Tucker
Totally agreed...however I'm sure that the DNC does appreciate any support it can get.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson