Posted on 01/16/2008 1:15:09 PM PST by locke22
EUREKA Ca: 01/167/08 Old Glory Media - Mary Starrett, Communications Director of the Constitution Party, announced today, in conjunction with her radio interview with Old Glory Radio 16 Jan 08, that the Constitution Party has drafted a resolution encouraging current Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul to run as the Constitution Party candidate for President in the 2008 Election.
(Excerpt) Read more at oldgloryradio.podbean.com ...
It's kind of scary how quickly and easily some FReepers start adopting Leftist smear tactics.
You must be new here. ;^)
Lately anyone who is against nation-building, perpetual war, the Patriot Act, etc. are considered leftists. There's even an ongoing attempt to get people who don't join the "Pro-War/Powerful FedGov" bandwagon banned from this site.
That’s like the Keebler Elves endorsing the Pillsbury Doe Boy. Gives Paul no more political clout than he had yesterday.
Serious question:
How many congressional seats did the Republican party win before Lincoln won the White House as a Republican?
None of your quotes address the CP position that the nation is founded specificaly on the Gospels of Jesus Christ, none address the supposed biblical foundations of jurisprudence, presumably the Gospels, not the Old Testament. Neither concept appears in the Constitution, nor do your quotes address the rather bizarre concept that non-Christians are granted asylum in America.
You mean like The Great Society? Divorce is rampant as is illegitimate births of which taxpayers pick up much of the cost. The collapse of the family in general since then perhaps? The founders were very clear on their religious beliefs. They supported the Bible and it's principles. The one exception was Thomas Jefferson later in his life who basically did a edit of the Bible deleting much of the New Testament. The book "The Light and The Glory" gives a real good insight to the founders beliefs and intent as it was based on their personal notes and private letters as well as their public quotes etc.
True. Although I disagree somewhat with Paul on Iraq (I think that once we invaded, we obtained a moral responsibility to do the best we can to stabilize the country), it is indeed bizarre that non-interventionism is now seen by many as a leftist cause. I suppose that is really as a result of Vietnam, which leftist radicals opposed for ideological reasons (they wanted the commies to win). Prior to that, non-interventionism was always seen as a rightist cause.
Exactly correct!
I agree with your Post #9. The looney, anti-war, lefties would run to him en masse.
And yet he's consistently done as good or better than Thompson and Giuliani.
Bill Clinton was speaking about two hundred yards down the road from me last night when I was doing this interview segment. Morons waving signs, in line for hours. I guess they forgot about selling tech to the Chinese..... I kept thinking to myself that we are in trouble. I sort of support Paul in that he speaks his mind and is trustworthy to do what he says, but I try not to fall in love with any politician...they will only break your heart. I admit I was pretty taken with the concept of the CP, I just hope enough pressure can be placed on the Repubican party to remember what the base wants. The anger by a good 10-20% of the base is just seething. I don’t see them voting just to keep Clinton out this time. You can find this same division on all the Conservative posting boards right now. We all want the same thing, but frustration is starting to take hold and how to go about getting it. 80%...tow the line ...20% off with their heads. If this continues, and I don’t know who is at fault, us the base or the Rep politicians, we will have a liberal socialist in the white house this time next year. How did things go so wrong so fast....
I see this as part of the fruit of always trying to compromise with the Left instead of trying to defeat them. The GOP has now moved so far Left that its traditional stands are considered too radical by a lot of its members.
Ron Paul would cause World War III with his incredible naive statements. Did you hear him at the last debate? Good lord.
No, I did not watch.
“Nominate Ron Paul”
I keep saying this. If the Republicans want to win, that’s all they have to do. They (we) won’t though, another liberal globalist will be nominated and other than the D or R beside the name, they will be identical to the Democrat nomination, who ever that may be. Well, not exactly identical, one will be female or black :)
>It’s kind of scary how quickly and easily some FReepers start adopting Leftist smear tactics
It is alarming, isn’t it?
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. - Thank you. - Bill
Both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party are “non-intervention” when it comes to foreign policy issues, and this continues to be a problem with both of these political parties.
what is this crap?
the constitution party?
ronald paul?
These folks arent serious, they remind me of the black helicopter types who rail against the Builderbergs etc.
I don’t belong to either one of the parties. But as expressed already on this thread...the LP is more open borders, but the CP is anything but. Look at Romney, Huck, Rudy and god help us “come on in” McCain and you are sitting pretty crooked on your high horse. I would ask you who is more open border....the current Rep party or the CP.
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.