Posted on 08/30/2007 7:51:17 AM PDT by rface
There's some more. It has to start somewhere. Where would you suggest we start? How about another healthcare plan from Washington? Perhaps 'privatizing' 2% of our contribution to Social Security? Boy that's some real winners there. All it amounts to is talk to make poor saps their 'conservatives' are serious about returning to limited government
No, I was pointing out a spelling error I made.
Let’s cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. Even Fmr. Senator Thompson.
The word is not really spelled incorrect it’s just an incorrect word used in the wrong way. BTW this will be my last post on the subject so you don’t have to tell me not to post to you.
Why bother? It's the introduction to a secessionist document that holds no legal stance. And we all know how 'good' Republicans feel about secession. We're stuck in it till the bitter end by God.
Your group unfortunately may get its way. Final destruction of the powers of the states. Screw limited government. We don't need that, we need to tell people how to live!! And when it does happen, there will be repercussions. Ones you won't expect in your gleeful celebration of having 537 idiots decide every little thing for us, but there will be consequences. Of course you'll whine about that, but in your push to give the State all decision making processes you won't be able to do anything about it. Keep paving that road with good intentions...
I don't give a rat's patoot for these anachronistic crippling notions of "federalism." The Brits have no written constitution at all. Our founders broke daring new ground by establishing a written constitution to shackle government. A cursory reading of the federal budget should suffice to demonstrate that we are not really remotely close to living under the shackles they established. People who pretend otherwise are embarrassments and not conservatives.
James Madison did not designate you as his modern spokesman. The founders were not gods. They were remarkable but not infallible men. There is an entire and shameful history of how the constitution was adopted but that won't be overturned now. In some ways, the constitution was a step in the right direction in that it facilitated the establishment of a standing military so that presidents did not have to beg the governors and states by saying "Mother, May I???" to get troops, much as that may disturb Dr. Demento. In other ways, the establishment of central authority to tax and monkey with the value of money may not have been such great ideas.
There are libertarian fools who imagine that the founders somehow foresaw Roe vs. Wade and intended it. They attribute to the founders a degree of imbecilic self-worship that is entirely unjustified. They suggest that the founders intended to enact a regime of spoiled children "keeping their options open." If that had been the intent our nation would no longer exist.
The knee-jerk libertoonian response to everything is to bleat that they have the right to do what they please. Killing innocent babies is not an exercise in personal rights by the killers. If the states cannot get the job done of stopping the American Holocaust, then the feds will have to do the job. If you don't agree, them find another political movement because you are no conservative. IIRC, you are from North Carolina. Jesse Helms had no problem with the imposition of federal law against abortion.
You, like your libertoonian confreres, elevate form over substance. You don't care what government does or doesn't do so long as 1) it does not impinge on your "rights" almighty, and 2) it is mostly done at a state or local level procedurally. Normally 2) is known as the principle of subsidiarity and it is NORMALLY a fine principle. It is not a suicide pact making of the federal government a helpless midget in the face of the slaughter of 50+ million utterly innocent babies.
Unsurprised, I note that you chose not to argue with the fact that the 14th Amendment conferred jurisdiction on the central government to protect innocent human life from state government depredations and, in the Equal Protection Clause thereof, specifically requires Equal Protection of state and local law for each "person" under any given state's jurisdiction. The only necessary bridge is to define those conceived but not yet born as persons. That time will come.
That about how 90% of the founders did things as well. They trusted us to do the same, and if we are best by crazies it is our own damn fault. The past 40 years have proved that, but trying to snap back overnight to some idyllic constitutional wonderland that has never existed anyways won’t fix squat, mainly due to the fact that it can’t happen, if it could it would have in 1789 and stayed that way.
Absolutism is reserved for fairy tales and superheros, pragmatism is what we use in the real world.
“We don’t need some empty suit!!! (Fred Thompson)”
Opinion.
“We don’t need a Baby Killer! (Rudy Giuliani)”
Agree
“We don’t need some cult religious kook! (you-know-who!)”
Attacking someone based soley on their religion demeans you more than him.
“We need a Tall, Strong, Handsome, Muscle Bound Texan to Kick Hillary’s Ass!”
We’ve now hqad two Presidents from Texas in the last 40-odd years. Both have been unrivaled disasters.
One choice is not really a choice, it is like Stalin or Gulag, Chavez or else, Saddam or shaddup.
Unsurprised, I note that you chose not to argue with the fact that the 14th Amendment conferred jurisdiction on the central government to protect innocent human life from state government depredations and, in the Equal Protection Clause thereof, specifically requires Equal Protection of state and local law for each "person" under any given state's jurisdiction.
Besides there being nothing before the 20th century to justify your position here's some homework reading for you eh? The 14th Amendment was not meant to destroy the states, yet liberals, 'conservatives', and Progressives have done just that with it. All under different auspices, all for different reasons, but usually accompanied by silly catchphrases such as 'for the children', 'protecting the family', etc.
Somehow, though, I don't see North Carolina or South Carolina or Virginia or Tennessee or Georgia or Alabama or Mississippi or Texas or Arkansas or Florida Louisiana attempting secession to preserve either the right to murder the unborn or the right of lavenders and other perverts to play make-believe "marriage" with attendant tax benefits.
If you want to preserve lifestyle "choices" like babykilling and pervert "marriage," you will have to vote Demonrat to be really effective. Voting Libertoonian or Constitution Party just splits the social revolutionary vote and is not a practical strategy from that POV.
If you genuinely are concerned that social conservatives may "win," then you might want to see to it that strict antiabhortion laws are enacted now state by state. You might be surprised at how much steam that would remove from social conservatism. Then again, such a sensible prescription would violate kneejerk libertoonianism.
How did that request for an endorsement from Jim Robinson go?
***************
Other than being socially conservative, I'm not sure to what "group" you think I belong. Pro-life? Yes, I am pro-life. Other than that, specifically what were you railing against?
paul is a buchanite isolationist and hence naive.
LOL!
These PAUListinians are trying to belt bomb the GOP. They are liberals trying to mess with the base. Ain’t gonna happen. RP is nuttier than a fruitcake. Any votes these idiots would cast for RP would come straight from votes for Kusinich.
BlackElk, you were kind to consider my feelings, but I don’t expect that to be your only consideration.
I love the comparison of Cheney and Vlad. :)
Thanks. They’re a pair of raving cuties, aren’t they?
They sure are. :)
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.