2006: the year of the Constitution Party?

Sierra Times ^ | 5/27/2006 | Tom Kovach

[null and void]

There are no political parties which support me or my fellow soldiers in the field.

Sad, isn't it?

[null and void]

Fixed your typo:

If the Dems take over in 2006, they'll waste the next two years attempting to impeaching Bush, and getting nothing else done.

Might be worth the price of admission...

[tomzz]

Like I say, until we have the runoff elections, I'm voting against demokkkrats. That means I vote for whoever I feel has the best mathematical shot at preventing a demokkkrat from holding the public office in question. That's usually a republican, but it doesn't really matter.

[tomzz]

Believe me when I say that you will not be a happy camper two years after that happens.

[null and void]

I saw a bumper sticker recently:

Satan 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?

Awwwwww, your first Hillary!™ sticker...

[AD from SpringBay]

And if it walks like a rat and talks like a rat, it's STILL a rat....
even if there's an 'R' after its name.

Bump what you said.

[Toby06]

True conservatives vote based on their values, not for parties.

[null and void]

It doesn't matter if a RAT takes over. There's not enough difference between the political parties over issues that matter.

*sigh* True.

Time to try something different. Unless you are satisfied with the direction the main parties are going, and only want to influence the speed down that path.

[rbg81]

Maybe, but I'm totally disillusioned with both the President and the GOP. They are two faced--one face champions Homeland Security (which I'm fine with); the other face lets our Southern Border remain out of control. One face quotes the law; the other face won't enforce the law (for both illegals and leakers of national security information). The Immigration Bill that passed the Senate is a travesty and a slap in the face to the American people. It give illegals a total pass on the law and probably more right/protections than Americans. Any Senator that voted for it (R or D) should be politically dead. It pains me no end that our President supports it.

If it takes a GOP purge or third party to stop this foolishness so be it. We need to stop this, even if Conservatives have to wander in the desert for a few years.

[tpaine]

Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders.

And, if one were to delve deeper, one would find there are other Libertarian principals that conservatives find unacceptable.

_________________________


Such as support for --- radical isolationism, unrestricted trade, and unrestricted control of the environment by government.

The Libertarian party is not founded on (US) Constitutional authority. It is a radical left wing variation of Marxism.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Which opposite do they support: 'open borders', or 'radical isolationism'?

How do you have 'radical isolationism' and 'unrestricted trade' at the same time?

And why would opponents of big government want "unrestricted control of the environment by government"?


Obviously, none of the above are actually libertarian principles, -- principles that are indeed based on the Constitution.

The Libertarian Party does not speak for US libertarians, on that we can agree.

[null and void]

Some of us don't want a to give 100% of our vote to a false choice between two parties that only offer us 25% and 20% respectively, of what we want, and force 80% of what we loathe on us.

[null and void]

Well put.

[rcofdayton]

We already have a Democrat takeover, Collins, Chaffee, Voinavich, DeWine, Spector, McCain, etc.

[jpsb]

2008 not 2006, we must support the R's (and D's) in both the House and Senate that are trying to stop Bush and his pal Ted Kennedy.

[rcofdayton]

We already have a Democrat takeover, Collins, Chaffee, Voinavich, DeWine, Spector, McCain, etc.

[tpaine]

Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders.

Ferdie
And, if one were to delve deeper, one would find there are other Libertarian principals that conservatives find unacceptable.

_________________________


Amos
Such as support for --- radical isolationism, unrestricted trade, and unrestricted control of the environment by government.

The Libertarian party is not founded on (US) Constitutional authority. It is a radical left wing variation of Marxism.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Which opposite do they support: 'open borders', or 'radical isolationism'?

How do you have 'radical isolationism' and 'unrestricted trade' at the same time?

And why would opponents of big government want "unrestricted control of the environment by government"?


Obviously, none of the above are actually libertarian principles, -- principles that are indeed based on the Constitution.

The Libertarian Party does not speak for US libertarians, on that we can agree.

[null and void]

Believe me when I say that you will not be a happy camper two years after that happens.

*shrug* I'm not all that happy now, either. At least the gridlock and media circus will prevent them from devoting 100% of their time to figuring out new and improved ways to screw us.

And who knows? If Congress becomes overtly hostile to Dubya, maybe he'll figure out how to veto a bad bill???

Nahhhhhh...

[tpaine]

THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1638794/posts

[jpsb]

I support the WOT and the troops, but I fear we might be fighting history here. Nationism is on the move in Islam, Russia and China. I see emerging in Islam an Islamic super state and I don't think there is much we can do to stop it. Might be wiser to spend our time defeating Islam here at home (declar Islam a cult and out law it in the usa) and preparing for a real war with the nation of Islam once it arises.

Doing the above might just wake up what's left Europe and Russia. We have two oceans between us and Islam. Europe and Russia don't. When Islam goes to war it will be against them not us. Then maybe they (EU, Russia) will change thier tune about the evil imperalist usa.

Should the usa say screw it and withdraw from the heart of the nation of Islam, the fight will quickly move to Europe, let's see how Europe likes having to carry the load for once.

[coladirienzi]

"No one gets 100% of what they want...%

The social conservatives don't expect 100%. However they are getting a little tired of getting 0%. Twenty six years of getting nothing but requests for money in election years is getting old.

The Eastern Establishment/Wall Street/RINO/Country Club wing of the party doesn't get 100% of their agenda either, but they sure get a lot bigger percentage of what they want than the social conservatives.

By the way. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. So why do we still lose a lot of 5 to 4 cases?