Posted on 01/23/2006 5:51:10 AM PST by mr_hammer
FOG724: Most people understand the difference between "speaking" about another person versus asking another what his own take is on a position taken by Mr. Hammer?
Let me try an example to explain this to you:
To XXX: "FOG724 IS A LEFTIST TROLL!"
versus
To YYY: "DO YOU AGREE WITH FOG724'S POSITION ON THIS?"
In the first case I should ping FOG724. The second case is irrelevant in re a ping.
Call out the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamoblie and climb in. What a baby you are and what a political naif!
No your point has not been made.
The WTO is OBVIOUSLY superceding the Constitution. Where does the Constitution give an international tribunal authority to tax the American people? Where does it say that people who are not American citizens, are not elected by American citizens and do not operate UNDER the constitution can tax them?
Republican candidates are nominated by the most influential members of the party.
Then candidates are elected.
I don't think so. I think you have the terms reversed.
A candidate is anyone who runs for his or her party's nomination, and the nominee is the candidate who the party's nominating convention chooses to run for the office in the general election. That's why it's called a nominating convention.
Delegates to the nominating convention may or may not be the "most influential members of the party", but in either case they are still either elected by Republican voters in primaries or chosen by a caucus composed of party members.
I think your description is how it is supposed to work, and Designer's is how it actually happens, because of a lack of understanding and participation on the part of the American people.
It has nothing to do with politeness, but rather, common sense. In addition in that particular post he was saying nothing about mr. hammer other than asking another person whether they agreed with his post or not. What you posted was not meant to be polite but to belittle the person you were responding to.
Brilliant? What does it mean to you?
It is beautiful, but I have a mixed understanding of it.
What's the scoop, TS?
OK, I'll accept that explanation. But I still think that no candidate would reach the level of major party nominee if the majority of average Repub voters were strongly opposed to him or her being in that position. I don't remember any nominee of the convention who was rejected by a majority of voters in the primaries.
Demonstrating by example?
Are you? Nice to know. I don't really care. Have a good one - RW.
But... I thought you were going on a donation (money) strike. Did you mean to say that the "boys and girls in D.C. now that they are quickly losing the FISCAL conservative base"?
Doesn't look like that's true, either: GOP posts record-breaking fundraising in 2005
But at least it has been duly noted that One Mr. Hammer is on a fiscal strike against Republicans.
So you say that you are conservative. So you say.
You really believe that. And you've separated out the WOT funds, first, right?
I've been studying the newer names the socialist orgs are giving themselves.. like.. "Constitutional Center for blah blah". It's just sort of a side hobby of mine... in the 90s, a socialist org would send out a press release with a ka-billion organizational ally names usually printed on the left side (har!) of the press release. Turns out, the entire 150 "org name" list consisted of about 30 people wearing multiple hats but "filing" as different orgs.
Our plans focus on ensuring that America remains safe, terrorists are defeated, and democracy flourishes in the world … on expanding opportunities for ownership and investment … on making tax relief permanent and ensuring greater energy independence … on increasing the affordability and accessibility of health care … on promoting works of compassion and strengthening our greatest values … on preparing students for success in life by bringing the benefits of education reform to high schools … and on helping workers adjust to a changing economy by offering flexible training options that meet their individual needs.
Our Party’s 2004 platform addresses the major issues facing America in the first decade of the 21st century:
Winning the War on Terror … because our government’s most solemn duty is to keep its citizens safe....
lol. And you believe he's right? And support his positions, yes?
From Mr. Hammer's "penny-pinching" post:Don’t bring the War on Terror into this, you had all the info in the world to nail the 911 hijackers, but the size of the bureaucracy prevented this government from doing so.
SwankyC: Explain this, above, to me. Gorelick's wall exists or it doesn't. What do you think? Does it exist? Did it exist?
While I can appreciate Mr._Hammer's sentiments, it's just patently limited in comprehension, IMHO.
Well, with such knowledge, why didn't the President nominate you for the high court?
Point being, that if the WTO is obviously superceding the Constitution, then nothing can be done about it because the United States, its judiciary, executive and legislative are completely helpless.
OTOH, if it is not superceding the Constitution, but simply effecting an action that is in violation of the Constitution, then the judiciary will so find. If the USSC finds that, in fact, such agreements do not operate outside of the Constitution, then you may learn something you were unaware of before. So my point is valid. That is that such agreements do not create a set of laws that set aside our Constitution, with no recourse.
Where does the Constitution give an international tribunal authority to tax the American people? Where does it say that people who are not American citizens, are not elected by American citizens and do not operate UNDER the constitution can tax them?
That is the issue that would come within the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Since the Constitution gives the President and Congress the authority to make and ratify agreements, and taxes and fines are not specifically excluded from such authority, I would guess the USSC would not find it unconstitutional. Perhaps we should wait and see.
Such things don't bother me because any international agreement whether it be for trade or defense places certain limitations and requirements on all signing parties. Been going on since 1800. Since the US is not self sufficient, it must participate in trade agreements. But if a person is in a union controlled enterprise, I can understand reluctance for such agreements.
I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. Lungren is not and has never been a moderate. He ran against Gray Davis. Towards end of the campaign, he made a very strong stance against abortion, for example.
I thought the "real conservatives" were all about principle. Are you?
How do you justify this in your mind? I'm curious.
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.