Posted on 04/02/2012 10:39:52 AM PDT by xzins
The Constitution Party of Wyoming announced Wednesday that it has submitted enough petition signatures to become the state’s fifth recognized political party.
It’s the most political parties Wyoming has had in more than a decade. Analysts say the number reflects voter discontent, but it is unlikely to make a significant impact on Wyoming elections, at least in the near future.
Founded in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the Constitution Party is one of the top three minor parties in the United States. The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.
(Excerpt) Read more at trib.com ...
[ What do you mean by isolationism? ]
In response to terrorism we should take a “Direct Numerical Magnitude Response”.
Say some terrorists from “Pockystan” kill 500 people in our country. Ok, then we go over there like the fist of an angry God and kill 5,000 of the terrorists +/- 10% and then leave immediately. And leave with the warning that this time the Multiplier is 10X, each subsequent attack the Multiplier will be raised a Magnitude more, so 100x, 1000x, etc....
It should be a plain spoken Policy that every country will understand.
“Your country directly attacks our civilians or allows terrorist organisations to operate from your country that attack our civilians, and we will keep adding up how many dirtbags in your country we will take out each time and increase the Magnitude per each incident. We will take out all ther terrorists first and if we run out of them, any male that is considered an adult in your culture will then be fair game until your country runs out of adult men.”
If any country is stuipid enough to allow terroists to come over and attack us eventually they will run out adult men long before we run out of civilians. Not only that byt they will run out of adult ment to defend their country leading their own country as “fair game” to any neighboring country.
It sounds downright macavellian, but this policy is the only way to deal with countries that are still socially living 1,000years ago.
There is leadership that fails in some venues and succeeds in others.
Romney was a dismal failure as a governor, so bad he crawled undetected away from a re-election effort. He signed gay marriage legislation, he created RomneyCAre, he provided for $50 abortions, he raised fees (hidden tax) an enormous amount. When the nation was booming, his state slid to about 2nd last.
As a Corporatist at Bain Capital he made money decisions that made his partners money.
As a college football running back, Archie Griffin was one of the best ever. As a pro, he was a flop.
Total agreement on ending expending our treasure and blood as world policeman and nation builder. Balanced trade with the world, military intervention for none. Let others fight their endless battles. Enough with this 'everything on the table' involvement.
Protect America with an unexcelled military. Nation build here, nation build now.
I was a sucker when I voted for McCain.
That was the last time.
The problem with that “treaty” is no Panamanian government sanctioned representative signed it - the land was not for sale and so the U.S. never ‘bought’ it.
We had the rights to manage and control the canal, not own it outright as part of the United States.
Switch the places of each nation: would the United States sign away part of its nation to a foreign entity? I sure as Hell hope not! And I cannot imagine any citizen agreeing to that kind of deal.
“The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.”
I believe that the very Progressive attitude and actions taken by those pushing the treaties on Panama a century ago would have astonished and alarmed our Founders. Christian men that they were, treating another nation in a manner the U.S. would not have tolerated, well, it is not something they would have done.
I like the Constitution Party’s platform and if they change that one plank towards Panama I will join with them whole-heartedly.
If I have my history correct, there was no such thing as Panama. The land belonged to Columbia, the US blocked Columbian troops from protecting it, and then dealt with the “leaders” of that time.
Considering our means of acquiring just about the entire southwest, we can’t really get up in arms about our means of expanding our power in Panama. It was a natural outgrowth of our view of the Monroe Doctrine.
I don't like Romney much either. Although I have to say it doesn't bother me a whit that he was a "corporatist" and made money for people. I think that's still allowed in America.
My overall point is that words on paper are pretty, but it's hard to find people who can live up to them and not just talk nice.
One more thing, as a member of the CP you could attend their convention and work to change that plank or to drop that portion of it altogether.
And mine was similar: as a corporatist, romney made money, but as a governor he was a dismal failure
Since he had to run a successful first campaign to be elected, he said all the right things, but then couldn't follow through.
Romney is a talker and not a doer when in a government role.
But why does that make your constitution more promising?
Yeah, me too.
I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for a wet mop if the wet mop was running against Obama. But the wet mop is still a better candidate than Romney.
I vowed that the most liberal person I would vote for anymore was George W. Bush. I don't want to see the GOP move any further to the left than W. Rick Santorum is about equal to W, and Gingrich is a bit more conservative than W. Either is ok with me.
I decided that Romney is wrong for the future of the GOP, and thus for future of the country, but he couldn't possibly be worse than Obama is for the present.
I live in a deep blue state, where my conservative vote won't have much play. If Romney is the GOP nominee, I might just give the Constitution Party / Falcon Party a vote so that they get a better tally in the popular vote.
I assume you mean the Constitution Party.
I don't find the republican party promising at all. It is controlled by a liberal establishment that seems very much in control.
The promise of a new party is just that. It offers an opportunity to build something different and better. It is a long-term view.
If it is apparent that Barry will wipe the map with Mittster anyway, then there is some real long-term utility in punishing the Karl Roves of the world by making Romney come in third.
Yeah, we agree closely. That is basically my attitude.
We deal with terrorists and pirates in the same manner: punish those who give santuary to the terrorists/pirates. We punish those nations until it hurts so much they want to kill the terrorists/pirates themselves. With no place to operated from or to hide, piracy and terrorism will decline.
This worked quite well in the early 19th century when we dealt with Muslim piracy and brigands in the Mediterranean, and it will continue to work in the 21st century.
I also have an issue with the role the military has been tasked with during the past fifty years. We have morphed from a military used to protect U.S. national interests to a global police force protectiing the international mercantiile community everywhere in the world in the mistaken belief with will maintain world peace.
I hope you will tolerate my soapbox about this, because it is a major part of this forthcoming election, and very important.
What is a “Globalist”?
In the context used here, American power players and Wall Street interests who have dominated international commerce and established monetary structures in a Global network that requires military strength projected worldwide as protection from Third World aggression. It is commonly referred to as protecting US interests overseas but has grown far beyond that in reality as huge international conglomerates have developed and moved American jobs overseas. It has in the past been neither conservative nor liberal in orientation and both Democrats and Republicans have been involved over the decades.
Basically, it is all about money and thus power.
Gobalists like those on Wall Street, first and foremost, see themselves as world citizens, responsible for maintaining peace and security world-wide through commerce. And of course, getting rich is important, too, as it keeps the military ‘machine’ primed and ready to maintain the all important security overseas.
That military is paid for by tax revenue and staffed by the sons and daughters of people who no longer have jobs, as those have all, well mostly all, been moved offshore by the above mentioned “world citizens”.
For those who do not know what I’m talking about, here’s a quick primer: this election in 2012 is all about money, power, and who will eventually wield both here at home and internationally.
Gov.Mitt Romney is the candidate for the elitist Republicans who are, in essense, supporters of Globalism. Wall Street’s business model is international in scope and must have security overseas in order for commerce to thrive.
Obama is a champion of Glabal Social Justice, just communism by another name.
The only thing that matters to Globalists is power and the money that can be made for themselves. They don’t give a damn about the rights of individuals. The common man or woman on the street is just a “unit” to be taxed or obliterated, it matters not to them.
The last thing they want is for conservatives with Bibles and guns asserting their God-given rights and demanding that Washington, D.C., changes how it does business.
Voting in this national election is basically choosing between the Fascism of Romney v. the Communism of Obama.
Just for future reference, a "corporatist" is someone who believes that government has the right to dictate to corporations what they should and shouldn't produce. It is closer to socialism than capitalism.
Nazi Germany used a "corporatist" philosophy. And many have argued that Obama is a "corporatist" (for example green energy dictates, the Chevy Volt, American petroleum, etc)
It should bother you quite a bit that anyone is a "corporatist".
Mitt Romney (despite his liberal views) does not rise to the level of a "Corporatist". He is a venture capitalist - he bought up weak companies that would otherwise go bankrupt, for bargain prices - some he saved, others couldn't be saved.
Romney isn’t a ‘corporatist’. He is a Globalist, which is basically Fascist.
First, I'm extremely unhappy with the direction the Republican Party seems to be going,
Second, I'm a conservative Christian and I have strong sympathy for the core convictions of many of the Constitution Party's leaders, and
Third, I'm quite aware of the precedent of the Whig Party and I don't want to totally rule out the possibility of a third party destroying one of the two existing parties of American politics.
However, for those who are prepared to jump ship and vote not only against Romney but also against the whole Republican ticket, read this post and then take a second and third look at what you're doing: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2865260/posts?page=162#162
Counting the cost before starting a project is a biblical imperative.
As I said in the post referenced above: “Here's the main problem with applying that precedent to the Constitution Party: single-member winner-take-all voting districts... The problem in the United States is that in most state and local elections (West Virginia's multimember districts being an important exception) the only thing that counts is having enough votes to get to 50 percent of the voters, or in some cases not even an absolute majority is needed and all a candidate needs is to get the largest number of votes... If we as conservatives are going to talk third-party, recognize that we need to count the cost. That cost is very steep, and while some argue it could be a good idea long-term, for the short- and medium-term, it could easily get President Obama re-elected, turn the House of Representatives back over to the control of the Democratic Party, and cost numerous Republican senators their seats.”
Yes, I agree.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
All of which have gotten off completely scot-free under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Instead, we throw away thousands of brave lives and trillions of dollars playing whack-a-mole with the small fry.
Count me out of that "strategy"!
Only if you offer up a better candidate.
It's just a piece of paper with nice words until that happens.
I was just using the terminology used by the poster. The implication was that private citizens making money was a bad thing.
Your point on the true definition is well taken.
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.