8mm
Posted on 05/11/2008 3:07:06 PM PDT by TBP
Thanks EV. After you’ve tightened the thing up, I’d like to read it again. I’ll try to check back over there and see if I have anything to add. I support what you’re doing in spirit. I am no longer persuided by Alan Keyes, but your platform is looking fairly good from what I saw.
I agree with you additional comments. I do think we are die hard Conservatives, and I’m willing to go Republican IF THE PARTY WILL ONLY PULL IT’S HEAD OUT.
Short term, I have no use for it. Dead letter describes it well in my opinion.
Thank you CindyDawg. I’ll keep that in mind, and ping you if I come across something.
I would normally agree with you, but because of the reciprocity clause, because all states must honor the contracts made in any one state, I have yet to be convinced that the federalist position is the correct one in this particular matter. It is unworkable.
You should keep looking. The party's position as I understand it is that whatever one may think about the merits of our going there, we're there ad we cannot turn the country over to the terrorists and their Iranian sponsors. We must win the war and we must see the job through to completion. (W're on the cusp of victory right now anyway, IMO.)
The have linked Ron Paul's comments on ‘No More Hegemony’.
Please show us that link, as I have been there numerous times and have it punched up now in anotehr window and I cannot find that link. I very much doubt that they would be linking to Ron Paul.
“If we’re not selling our point of view around the world, someone else will sell theirs.”
(AMEN)
What about them?
Do you really think that John McCain, who told supporters that he would NOT appoint anyone like Alito, who led the Gang of 14, who once told the San Francsco chronicle that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, who voted to confirm Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, David Souter, and Steven Breyer, will really appoint strict constructionist, originalist judges?
Justices who are strict constructionists are likely to overturn his chief legislative achievement, McCain-Feingold, if given the chance. He'll never allow that to happen.
McCain's record shows us clearly that there is NO reason to think he'll be of any help to us on that issue. None whatsoever.
But hey, he's a Republican, so he MUST be on our side, right?
He already has, time after time.
This link may offer some enlightenment about McCain's commitment to Life:
From the website itself:
"We believe in a supremely strong, prepared, and well-equipped civilian-controlled United States military, and a bold, visionary and intelligent program of principled constructive engagement with the rest of the world. For us, "peace through strength" is not a mere slogan. It is the means of survival for our country in a very dangerous and often hostile world. Our friendship should be a sought-after possession of all men and women of good will everywhere in the world. Our enmity should be something that all rightfully fear.
"As Ronald Reagan opposed and defeated the designs and desire of the Soviet Union to dominate the world and place it under the tyranny of their Evil Empire, we oppose the Islamic extremists. This opposition is not based in opposition to their religion, but in a complete rejection of their political ideology and actions. Since the first principle of America is the protection of innocent human life, an ongoing state of war exists between us and any who would use acts of terrorism targeted at innocent civilians to forward their political aims."
Does that answer your question? Of course, some folks will still try to spin this, but spin is all that it is.
EV and a couple of others acn address this more thoroughly thanI can, but this whole "he favors reparations" charge is just spin and smear from the political machines of both parties that want to keep Keyes and his people marginalized. It's been grossly mireported for political reasons.
“An ongoing state of war exists” is about as explicit as it gets.
Yes, it is. I jut hope folks like Doughty One see that.
BUMP TTT
You are exactly right. Too bad others don’t see this situation.
However, there is evidence that Perot DIDN'T make a difference in 1992. Look at the following website and see a picture that no one talks about: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
“Yawnnnnn little more than an effort to split the conservative vote. A POX on your house.”
I love these posts that imply that the GOP is somehow entitled to the conservative vote. Kind of like a welfare entitlement.
Sorry. Political parties have to EARN votes. If the GOP is concerned about earning the votes of conservatives, it can do that by running better candidates. I suggest starting with the top of ticket.
Monday morning bttt
This is great! Thanks for including the "little people" in the process, which is what government of, by, and for the people is all about.
It’s the “big people” who have gotten us to where we are.
Only the “little people,” rising up en masse, can save this free republic.
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.