Posted on 05/22/2007 9:29:44 AM PDT by SittinYonder
Doesn't matter. If you don't like it, amend it.
That’s why I used Buckley’s definition, as a way of establishing a kind of commonly agreed upon starting point and then taking it from there. ‘Loyalty to the Constitution’ is fine, but the wording is open to a great deal of potentially conflicting interpretation. You know what you mean, and I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, but someone else could have an entirely different idea about what constitutes loyalty to the Constitution and still be equally correct, logically speaking. Simplicity is comforting and helps when getting one’s head around complex abstractions, but does little to further an argument or clarify meaning.
that is why I wrote #139, should have pinged you.
“If Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter does not get the GOP nomination”
Vote for Fred.
What happened with Umberto Eco?
I was referring to Eco’s ‘Travels in Hyperreality’ where he demonstrated that America is the Last Beach of Western Civilization.
I’m glad to see someone else looking at the Iowa Straw poll.
My feel on it is this; the top five in that poll stay in the race, the rest drop out for the good of the party. What do you think? I would add that in the next two states, the person coming in last place in each, drops out successively for the same reason.
THAT will be the Bush legacy.
CALL! CALL! CALL! CALL! AND KEEP CALLING TILL THE LINES FRY!
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them.
With this one sentence, Basil proves himself to be a mo-ron.”
Actually Clemenza, you are wrong. This is really a well know fact of history. The Democrats generally represented rural, agricultural and Southern interests in the 19th Century. They supported decentralization and generally smaller government. The Republicans were the party of nationalism and federalism (from the old Whig and Federalist line) and were generally the Yankee party. As the party of abolition they were the left wing of their day. They supported government subsidies of railroads and high tariffs.
Things become less clear around the turn of the century (1900)depending on how you define terms. The GOP was the Party of sound money (conservative) but the Dems were the party of immigration restriction (conservative) for example. The Dems did not start to fully morph into the liberal party until FDR and the Depression. Even then, Southern Democrats were more conservative on social issues until after the rise of Barry Goldwater and Civil Rights. Until the GOP became the Party of the South.
So Basil’s statement is not only correct, it is not even controversial. Try reading some history books.
I think each candidate makes that decision themselves. The straw poll is a long way to the caucus, and I don't know that anybody would or should drop out based solely upon the poll.
Now, they might find that coming in last in the straw poll kills fundraising and it's not their decision to make anymore.
Personally, I'd like to see all the candidates stay in until the Convention and let the delegates sort it out.
I hate this situation where we've frontloaded the primaries.
I do think the straw poll will help people decide which way to direct their donations, though.
ZULU, Thompson and Gingrich are both neocons. Thompson is a fellow at AEI. Gingrich hasn’t met a Middle Eastern country he doesn’t want to invade.
RF,
The Constitution means what the Founders thought it meant, not what the modern reader thinks. So look to the Founders. If we do that, there is very little that can be honestly disagreed upon.
“He lost me at neocon.”
What is your problem with the word neocon?
“It will be if we cant get over white guilt and the idea that multiculturalism is a strength.”
Multiculturalism is the “kryptonite” of a Republic. It can only take so much disparity of culture before different cultures are at odds with each other and a civil war ensues. The winner generally then changes or ignores the law of the Republic to prevent future civil strife. The winner gets so involved in civil matters that the Republic ceases to exist as one because of the vast powers seized by the winner.
Segments of the population then get dependent on this federal intervention. Either dependent on stipends, jobs, contracts, etc, it’s still dependency. They vote accordingly. Government grows, liberty fades.
Your’s is an excellent post:
There seems to be a lot of misinformation being posted by some regarding:
Isolationism: Actually, Libertarians are not isolationist. Most L-tarians support open borders and liberal free trade...hardly isolationist.
Free Trade: This is a classical liberal idea....taken to the extreme by GOPer free-traders. Actually, what Tancredo proposes, bi-lateral trade....is more beneficial to the US. It is suicidal to have a near trillion dollar trade deficit with Communist China (regardless what some Business-Socialist economists claim). Destroying American business for the sake of trade is nuts.
Iraq: No problem with being there, but when Bush started going Liberal-Globalist (worrying more about the feelings of Islamics instead of US forces) that is when things started sliding down. Bushs lack of commitment to win is the problem with Iraq....not the being there. My version of cut and run would be to cut the enemy up and run them down. Lets stop pussy-footing around.
Ping to post
I think too many of my southern friends "project" the Dems in their region onto the national party. You forget the populist wing and the urban, "ethnic" wing in the northeast and upper midwest. The GOP generally gave up on social progressivism (outside of a few folks in New England and the "populist" northern Germans in the midwest), from McKinley onward.
I think that both parties historically have organized around "issues" (slavery, free soil, free coinage of silver, labor unions, etc.) rather than ideology. This was particularly true until the post-WWII era. That is why you have guys like William Borah who went to Moscow to independently recognize the Soviet Union, yet opposed the New Deal, or Tom Watson, who was pro-Soviet, supported nationalization of the banks, yet was also a supporter of white supremacy in the south.
“The piece makes some good points, but the isolationist foreign policy is a recipe for disaster. We cant disengage. Its too late. Were stuck to the tar baby. If we leave the Middle East, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by Wahabbist terrorists and Shia fanatics.
Were going to end up having to bludgeon down a significant portion of the Islamic world, Im afraid, before we can think about reducing our commitments in the Middle East. That, and find ways to wean ourselves from their oil.”
Agreed. We can minimize our exposure in the ME but NOT until we are energy independant and at this rate it will take another 20 years at least. It will be the private sector that comes up with competiting products for big oil. It’s happening but it takes time, money, commitments and lobbyists. As for the immigration invasion, the American public must do something about this by voting in our voting our people who care about America first as a collective instead of special interest groups/voting blocs. These idiots in Washington are going to pass this awful bill but the timing is really August when it put in front of Congress. Forget all this email and telephone calls to the Senate and White House. Go and see your Congressman NOW because ultimately, that is who can kill this deal, the Senate and White House are all on board already...
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.