Skip to comments.
The GOP, Party of Cowards
Ever Vigilant ^
| 12/23/2003
| Lee R. Shelton IV
Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-438 next last
To: sheltonmac
I want Newt!
To: Mark17
MARK17 WROTE: "...did you see where the Demon rats are already trying to tar and feather Frist? It sure did not take them long. I knew Lott was not the first they did it to, and surely won't be the last."
The DIFFERENCE, though, is that it WON'T STICK on Frist because he is an HISTORICALLY PROVEN NON-RACIST.
It DID stick with Lott---UNTIL he resigned---because he was an HISTORICALLY PROVEN REPEATED INCOMPETENT, INEFFECTIVE "LEADER."
To: mhking
403
posted on
01/02/2003 4:46:33 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: cynicom
December 11, 2000
A Republic, Not a Democracy
Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm
404
posted on
01/02/2003 4:52:00 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: TLBSHOW; Mark17
MARK17 WROTE: "What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?"
TLBSHOW ANSWERED: "It is people that stabbed Lott in the back!"
Random House Dictionary defines neo- as "a combining form meaning: a. new or recent: neophyte. b. in a new, modified manner: neoclassicism"
A neo-Conservative, then, is a new or recent conservative (which I am NOT) or someone who sees conservatism in a new, modified manner.
I guess since I CANNOT stand UP for an INCOMPETENT, INEFFECTIVE "LEADER," I must see conservatism in a new, modified manner. I've been VERY conservative (socially and fiscally) for 40+ YEARS and I have ALWAYS stood up for what was RIGHT, NOT for what was easy to just "get along."
But I certainly did NOT support Lott since shortly after he became SML the FIRST time. His REPEATED INCOMPETENCE and INEFFECTIVENESS with the latest issue was the straw that broke the camel's back.
To: Behind Liberal Lines
BEHIND ENEMY LINES WROTE: "Remember his agreement to share power with Daschale when the Senate was 50/50? Remember his unwillingness to act in the 2002 lame duck session until Bush took him to the wood shed? Remember his going on BET and saying his supported affirmative action?"
BEHIND ENEMY LINES ADDED: "I'm sorry, but, Thurmond comments aside, Lott is NOT the man that conservatives want as their poster boy."
BINGO!!!!!
To: Luis Gonzalez
So, Mrs. Lackey was actually the secretary of the Dixiecrat Party? Wow!
To: Concerned
Do not confuse TLBSHOW with someone you can have an intellectual debate with. If you disagree with him in the slightest, you are anti-American. Fortunately, although I probably agree with him on many issues, he is not in a position of influence on the right.
To: sheltonmac
"We've wanted him gone for a long time," some have said. "We needed to get rid of him and move on with our agenda." The trouble is, no one in the party seems to know exactly what that agenda is. As an independent voter, let me answer that question. To move the Republican Party to the left, of course.
To: Republic of Texas
410
posted on
01/02/2003 5:31:23 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: Walkin Man
411
posted on
01/02/2003 5:32:54 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: TLBSHOW
Hey "T", you can try and change history all you want, but Thurmond ran as a segregationist. Read his platform.
None so blind as they who will not see.
To: cynicom
What about Wallace?
All straw men arguments aside, this discussion is about Lott.
To: TLBSHOW
"THERE IS NO OUTRAGE EXCEPT FROM COWARDS AND RATS"---TLBSHOW
Hey "T", the only possesed, outraged person in here is you.
Have you grown a tail?
Nope, so I guess that means...
To: cynicom
LOL!!!
Got nothing left in you, do you?
To: xm177e2
That's the trouble. Other than RULING the world, in particular, the ME, what IS your agenda. For AMERICANS, that is.
I've been a Republican all my life, and we have never been a Party that throws their weight around the world, except to be anti-communist/USSR!
We thank you neo-cons for helping us with that MAJOR problem, but this neocon agenda for the ME is NOT our style.
We Americans don't LOOK for war. Now that GW is captured by the neocons into fighting Sharon's war, I think he should go on tv and tell the American people the truth...and that the next country on Sharon's list is Iran.
Sooner or later the sheople will figure that out, and if they do that by themslves, GW and OUR Party will be in big trouble for many years.
Those are OUR loved ones who are going into harm's way!
416
posted on
01/02/2003 7:50:07 PM PST
by
meema
To: Luis Gonzalez
maybe cynicom went off line to eat! LOL
417
posted on
01/02/2003 8:36:04 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: B. A. Conservative
Did Strom cost the Republicans that election? No, but he could have cost Truman the election. Punishing Truman by denying him the White House would have sent a message about integration to both major parties.
No Republican could have carried Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina in 1948. Memories of the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Depression and the New Deal ran deep.
But that a Democratic President who had been quite unpopular won without those Deep South states was truly unexpected. Truman held the Upper South. The West and most of the Middle West came through for him as well, as did Texas and California. Dewey carried the Plains States and such New Deal big labor states as Michigan, New York (his two home states), and Pennsylvania, as well as other Eastern states.
1948 was very different from later elections, when Republicans dominated the South and West, and Democrats had their strength in the Northeast. Maybe Carter in 1976 was the closest parallel.
418
posted on
01/02/2003 8:37:31 PM PST
by
x
To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis...Good evening.
You can put both hands down now. We understand your plight.
419
posted on
01/02/2003 8:42:44 PM PST
by
cynicom
To: sheltonmac; Luis Gonzalez
LUIS GONZALEZ WROTE: "He was ousted for his incompetency as Senate Majority Leader."
SHELTONMAC RESPONDED: "...By the way, if he isn't fit to be Majority Leader, what makes him fit to be in the Senate at all?"
ANSWER:
The VOTERS of MISSISSIPPI who CHOOSE HIM to REPRESENT THEM!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420, 421-438 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson