Restorationists vs Conservatives and Libertarians

Three of four polled family members agree with you.

I figure that place has to be "spook central" and wonder if withdrawal might hinder our intellegence guys as much as pulling some of out satellites out of orbit?

I gotta trust GW on this one: I'm way outta the loop.

It sounds like the "questions" that you ask are clearly rhetorical.. there is obviosly a difference of oppinion on principle and therefore your invitation to answer your "questions" would only result in running around in circles, until we agree on the principle at issue there can really be no answers to your "questions" that would satisfy you..

FReegards,

David

Do you mind local newspapers? That was one thing that made the time pass, was reading about local news from somewhere, that and the Sunday Funnies. I collected a few days worth from a few papers, bt I already sent a care package to a Marine Lt in Afghanistan, I wanted to send these to you, ok?

Semper Fi, Soldier! When in doubt, empty the Magazine!

USMC 1977-1981

I am not opposed to "intelligence gathering" covert operations.. there is clearly a difference between covert memebership in an "oposition group" and OVERT membership in an organization that has its ultimate goal hijacking the sovereignty of These United States

David

I will gladly accept your offer, and render a crisp SALUTE!!

David

I still use the conservative label myself, but I am in agreement with the Restorationist positions outlined here. I am definitely an advocate for returning to the Constitution.

How far back ? To when the Constitution was written ? The FFs thought that the general poplace was too uneducated / stupid, to actually choose a PRESIDENT ,by the actual vote, and they weren't wrong in their assumptions' i.e. two terms of Clinton. But that hasn't really worked out the way they had planned. The saw the House and Senate, as THE most controling branch of goverment, with Senators being chosen by each state's politicians, and NOT the people. Again, this is no longer the case.

Believe me, I am ALL for a return to common sense, old fashioned morality, and would GLADLY give up my vote, if ALL women could no longer vote ! That will NEVER happen. :-(

So, I ask just HOW and to which era, do Restorationists want to return ? Culture needs must change FIRST; elsewise, there is NO way, except at the point of a gun, to change our government. Roe V. Wade is a Constitutionally ( whether we like it or not ) legal law. That the Justices played games with the Constitution, is NOT in dispute !

When even the FFs, and those of them, who then actually WERE president , didn't agree on the various roles of the branches of government, then my query, as to WHERE the rollback is to go, really IS pertinent. Many here, unlike in the general populace, hate Lincoln, and condem him for the way they claim he shreded the Constitution. So , do Restorationists want to return to a time, PRIOR to Lincoln's presidency ... wipe out EVERYTHING that has transpired / been passed into law since then ? If not then, then to when ? Also, just HOW is one to get back there , LEGALLY ? That is all I am asking.

The world is a VERY different place, than it has been in times past. Being strick Restorationists, will NOT be a viable solution, geopolitically now, if isolationism is a goal. Even Monroe stuck his nose into Western Hemispshere politics. So, is the stated purpose, to go back PRIOR to Monroe ?

This is WHY I am confused. The goals are all warm & fuzzy, sound good ; however , NO apparent thought has been given to any specifics , nor to how to attain the stated goal.

My questions were FAR from rhetorical ! I asked for SPECIFICS !

Stated goals, musins about what one wishes would happen, calling one's self , yet ANOTHER political sounding name, is utterly useless , when deffinitions are NOT supplied.

I can call myself a " HAMILTONIAN " , and what does that name tell you ? Not much. I am, actually, a Hamiltonian.The N.Y. Post did an editorial on this, a few weeks ago, and that was when I discovered that I am a Hamiltonian. LOL

Look, a calm discussion, is impossible, if people espousing something, can't or refuse to explain their stance, and counter with little, but invectives, personal insults, and hyperbole.

I am a CONSERVATIVE, I have read the Constitution and the BoR, I DO understand both, and I DO know history ! To have people say otherwise, and claim all manner of incorrect things about me, because THEY are unable to clearly form a cogent thread about their imagined positions, is an insult to the ENTIRE forum, and NOT just to me. Nobody can discuss something , where ONLY te author knows what he is thinking / talking about, and leaves it all open ended, so that others can interpret it any way they want to !

How far back ? To when the Constitution was written ? The FFs thought that the general poplace was too uneducated / stupid, to actually choose a PRESIDENT ,by the actual vote, and they weren't wrong in their assumptions' i.e. two terms of Clinton. But that hasn't really worked out the way they had planned. The saw the House and Senate, as THE most controling branch of goverment, with Senators being chosen by each state's politicians, and NOT the people. Again, this is no longer the case.

I happen to agree with the Electoral College system, that you aparently opose.. in fact I personally would be in favor of a "state electoral college" for state elections.. each county being proportionally assigned x number of electoral votes.. If you look at the COUNTY BY COUNTY map you will see that there are FAR MORE conservative county governments than there are liberal.

Believe me, I am ALL for a return to common sense, old fashioned morality, and would GLADLY give up my vote, if ALL women could no longer vote ! That will NEVER happen. :-(

I believe it was a mistake to exclude women from voting.. In most cases if MEN took their God Given leadership roles in the HOME, their wives and daughters would MULTIPLY their VOTES not opose them

So, I ask just HOW and to which era, do Restorationists want to return ? Culture needs must change FIRST; elsewise, there is NO way, except at the point of a gun, to change our government. Roe V. Wade is a Constitutionally ( whether we like it or not ) legal law. That the Justices played games with the Constitution, is NOT in dispute !

I agree Roe v Wade IS LAW, and I support it so long as it REMAINS LAW.. at the same time I will NOT STOP FIGHTING to have it OVERTURNED..

When even the FFs, and those of them, who then actually WERE president , didn't agree on the various roles of the branches of government, then my query, as to WHERE the rollback is to go, really IS pertinent. Many here, unlike in the general populace, hate Lincoln, and condem him for the way they claim he shreded the Constitution. So , do Restorationists want to return to a time, PRIOR to Lincoln's presidency ... wipe out EVERYTHING that has transpired / been passed into law since then ? If not then, then to when ? Also, just HOW is one to get back there , LEGALLY ? That is all I am asking.

Again, many of your questions are rhetorical, however if WE the PEOPLE reclaim our moral perspective, based on God's Principles the REST will FALL into place

The world is a VERY different place, than it has been in times past. Being strick Restorationists, will NOT be a viable solution, geopolitically now, if isolationism is a goal. Even Monroe stuck his nose into Western Hemispshere politics. So, is the stated purpose, to go back PRIOR to Monroe ?

Again, many of your questions are rhetorical, however if WE the PEOPLE reclaim our moral perspective, based on God's Principles the REST will FALL into place

This is WHY I am confused. The goals are all warm & fuzzy, sound good ; however , NO apparent thought has been given to any specifics , nor to how to attain the stated goal.

I am sure I am not the first nor the last to point out these simple differences in our "World View".. But I trust my answers are responsive to your "questions"

Please accept my personal invitation to THIS THREAD......

I will have to disagree,, Breaking off into 3rd parties does nothing to help the problem, merely complicates it.. however STRONGER RIGHT WINGS in the GOP will in fact fix the problem...

David

Your use of "!" clearly is argumentative.. I have taken the time to respond to your questions and welcome further discussion.. please refrain from arguing..

Might I ask your party affiliation?

David

at this point in this thread I have not even loaded my weapon yet.. :)

Someone wisely said.. Walk softly and carry an Armored Tank Division...

I trust the Lord will tell me when to LOCK AND LOAD..

FReegards,

And Merry Christmas

Your point RE: the 17th is well taken... I think I am on the verge of being convinced.. I will let you know..

Keep in touch...

David

The 17th Amendment ended indirect election of Senators and made the US Senate basically an elite House of Representatives. It destroyed one of the cornerstones of republican government, putting election of Senators on a par with election of Congressmen.

The Senate was never intended to be the same representative body the House of Representatives was. Passage of the 17th Amendment changed all that, and changed the flavor of the Upper House. Do a little historical research. It's an interesting story. It's also interesting to note that both the 16th and 17th were ratified at nearly the same point in our nation's history, one could argue for the same ulterior motives.

Your words bear repeating...and repeating, and repeating...until everyone gets it.

The end of the income tax would cut the heart out of the Washington money game...the largest protection racket ever devised by man. I call it the ONLY true campaign finance reform.

It would restore our liberty by reintroducing the privacy of our business and our books...the Founders would have had a fit at the incredible idea that the American people would allow the government to know even a fraction of what the Infernal Revenue Code allows today.

It would completely reverse our horrendous trade deficits, since under the current scheme, our own manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage in our own market. They labor under the burdensome load of the taxes themselves, plus the hundreds of billions of dollars of compliance costs, while simultaneously, foreign producers are not. A solution like a National Retail Sales Tax, like the one proposed as the FairTax (HR2525) would produce exactly the opposite effect, and produce a boom like this country has never seen. Capital would flow to America like a river...

47 of the States already have the mechanism in place to collect such a tax...and the federal government would then need one clerk in the Treasury Department to process a monthly check from each of the states...that's right...replace the 100,000+ bureaucrats in the IRS with one clerk! (OK...you would need a handful of treasury agents to ensure that each State was complying with the law.)

The other benfits are too numerous to enumerate in the few minutes I have at this moment...

As for the repeal of the Seventeenth...the Congressman at the time of the ratification of the Constitution represented about as many citizens as a current State Senator. The need for our U.S. Senate to be elected by the State legislatures is even more manifest now than it was then, I believe.

Hopefully, I will get some more time this evening to expand on these concepts.

Regards....EV

I have always been in favor of ABOLISHING the IRS, and implementing a NATIONAL SALES TAX.. that would fluctuate based on the "need".. thus giving the Federal Government ONLY the amount of money it needs to do its rightful function.. And I guess you can say I am a new 17th Ammendment OPONNENT...

FReegards,

David