Posted on 12/23/2001 7:32:51 PM PST by dcwusmc
I am a RESTORATIONIST and I thank FReeper CHUCKSTER for the use of the term. I came to this position as a libertarian but others have come to it via conservatism and liberalism. At its essence the Restorationist philosophy holds that the United States live as part of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and that we have strayed FAR from our Constitutional roots. We hold that this situation is untenable to our survival as a nation and that we must restore our Constitution as the SUPREME law of the land. We must go back to our roots or we will DIE as a free nation.
This is NOT an issue of the WOD, though I still oppose it on Constitutional grounds. It is NOT an issue on RKBA though I support it unconditionally on Constitutional grounds. It is an issue of National SURVIVAL.
For those of you who are in favor of the WOD, let's agree that we need to get our Constitution restored FIRST, then we can see if the WOD can ever be Constitutional. First things FIRST, in other words. We must stop politicians and bureaucraps of ALL persuasions from using the Constitution as toilet paper. Hence RESTORATIONIST.
Your comments and suggestions are invited.
David
Jesus, never compromised... NOR SHALL I !!
David
I have NOT asked " rhetorical questions. I have asked question, to which I wish to receive an answer. You have TOTALLY refused to even deal. let alone answer my questions, TWICE , in one thread, by claimig that I ask " rhetorical questions. You can't answer them. Instead of weasling around them, just say that you don't know.
If men only followed WHICH GOD , and WHICH version of the Bible ? Are you suggesting that women should ONLY do what men tell them to ? ROTFLMAOPIMP !
Rather, men and women should NOT marry people, with whom they disagree about major positions; politics being one of them.
I am and ALWAYS have been a staunch advocate of the Electoral College. You haven't a clue, about what is in the Constitution, nor about elections, if you want an Electoral College, county by county. You are one of the people, whom the FFs, held in contempt. They were ELITISTS, and all of the repiticious " WE THE PEOPLE " , which you keep typing, is absurd, patently purile, irrational, and means NOTHING at all in this context.
I, a Conservative Republican. What ... you couldn't tell ? Well, I can't tell what exactly " RESTORAAYIONISTS " want , and have been impugne. smeared, and vilified for saying so. At least I answer questions. { - )
On the presumption that you are sincere in what you ask, there are only TWO amendments I would certainly want to see gone, the 16th and 17th, for the obvious reasons.
For, a BROKE government, one that has to BEG for money, is our SERVANT; a rich one that can put its hands in our pockets as and when IT decides to, is our MASTER. And a Senator beholden to the governor and legislature of his STATE will not seek to empower FedGov too much.
WRT Roe V Wade, let that go back to the STATES where such decisions SHOULD be made. You would have a far easier time getting abortion outlawed at the state level, in any case.
FReegards,
David
Not only are you incapable of debate, with your attitude, you won't EVER get anything that you wish; not ever. You push away people who agree with you .. even if that is only " partly ". Intill you can manage to post a cogent thread, where you are willing and able to eluccidate your thoughts, WITHOUT emotions and biases, you are bound to fail.
Oh my, the old " I'LL PRAY FOR YOU " rubric. Thanks, but ONLY if you include asking for your own pardon, as well.:-)
They've been sucking from the teat of the Mother-State for too long. If they are forced to forage for their own food, they might have to go hungry for awhile, and that might hurt. To the sheeple, hunger is a disease that is treatable by Mother's milk, instead of a motivational state of being.
If, as you say, you want to be known as a Restorationist, shall we then assume that you want to eliminate the Ammendments[sic] , or not ? That was one of my questions. Another iportant[sic] query was, if today's Constitutionally LEGAL laws ( Roe V. Wade, for example ) is NOT recognized, because of the liberties, then taken by the Supreme Court, reading " privacey[sic] rights " supposedly taken from the Constitution, into that, just how will you elimiate[sic] THAT ?
and I replied:
On the presumption that you are sincere in what you ask, there are only TWO amendments I would certainly want to see gone, the 16th and 17th, for the obvious reasons.
For, a BROKE government, one that has to BEG for money, is our SERVANT; a rich one that can put its hands in our pockets as and when IT decides to, is our MASTER. And a Senator beholden to the governor and legislature of his STATE will not seek to empower FedGov too much.
WRT Roe V Wade, let that go back to the STATES where such decisions SHOULD be made. You would have a far easier time getting abortion outlawed at the state level, in any case.
So kindly reign it in. I ANSWERED your specific questions, OK? And perhaps a valium or two would calm you down enough to mind your typing! Just a suggestion. ;-)
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.