Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/19/2008 8:31:07 PM EST


crazy ?

or just people that believe in following the Constitution of the United States .



School me
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:32:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2008 8:33:44 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By TheTracker:


crazy ?

or just people that believe in following the Constitution of the United States .



School me


Crazy...

They are a bunch of populists with a religeous-conservative 'sideline'....

No more Constitutional than the Paulistinians... But much more Buchannanite in ideology..

Anti-free-trade, 'The US was better in the early 1900s', etc...

Combined with the most political & extreme elements of the religious right (And I say this *as* a member of the 'religious right')...
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:34:13 PM EST
Dave_A is spot on.
They sound like good guys, until you read their material.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:38:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Dave_A is spot on.
They sound like good guys, until you read their material.



I never have...only hear about them during election time.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:40:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Dave_A is spot on.
They sound like good guys, until you read their material.


+1
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:41:37 PM EST
They have a real hard on for porn, and not in the good way.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:41:53 PM EST
Except that locally they consistantly have the best cadidates we have. I quit voting republican in local elections, mostly vote Constitution and *gasp* Liberitarian. I figure that by giving votes to the more conservative candidates, I can influance the candidates to be more conservative to get my votes. In truth, I just never pick a winner.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:45:07 PM EST
They like to lure you in with talk of liberty and the constitution, then they slap you with theocratic bullshit.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 8:52:20 PM EST
The Constitution Party tends to oppose things like amnesty for illegal aliens and sending billions of dollars of aid to places like Africa. That's why the neo-cons dislike it so much.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:08:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
The Constitution Party tends to oppose things like amnesty for illegal aliens and sending billions of dollars of aid to places like Africa. That's why the neo-cons dislike it so much.


Yep. And that's why they're good guys. The most down to earth people you could meet.

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.

It's said that you can tell a lot about people by seeing who their enemies are. Just take a look at the people who show up hating on them and it quickly becomes obvious that the Constitution Party is Good People.

The supporters of the Constitution Party stand for everything this country was INTENDED to be, and for the greatness that WAS the USA before socialist neocon internationalists started pissing it all away.

Just watch this thread a while. The neocons will continue to come in here frothing at the mouth and ranting like it's going out of style. They just can't stand the truth. Confronting neocons with the truth is like putting holy water on the undead.

But hey, although the neocons have no brain, they love to talk.

They're talking and they can't shut up. (just look at their post counts in many cases)

As usual, there's no point in arguing with diehard neocons, since they are either incapable of comprehending or unwilling to acknowledge the truth. Just see their BS for what it is and ignore them, as they are unworthy of effort. Instead, spend your time learning about the truth and educating open minded fence sitters.

That's my .02. - Yall have a nice day.


PS: Some good reading here: www.AmericanRevival.org/
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:21:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By timb3:

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
The Constitution Party tends to oppose things like amnesty for illegal aliens and sending billions of dollars of aid to places like Africa. That's why the neo-cons dislike it so much.


Yep. And that's why they're good guys. The most down to earth people you could meet.

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.

It's said that you can tell a lot about people by seeing who their enemies are. Just take a look at the people who show up hating on them and it quickly becomes obvious that the Constitution Party is Good People.

The supporters of the Constitution Party stand for everything this country was INTENDED to be, and for the greatness that WAS the USA before socialist neocon internationalists started pissing it all away.

Just watch this thread a while. The neocons will continue to come in here frothing at the mouth and ranting like it's going out of style. They just can't stand the truth. Confronting neocons with the truth is like putting holy water on the undead.

But hey, although the neocons have no brain, they love to talk.

They're talking and they can't shut up. (just look at their post counts in many cases)

As usual, there's no point in arguing with diehard neocons, since they are either incapable of comprehending or unwilling to acknowledge the truth. Just see their BS for what it is and ignore them, as they are unworthy of effort. Instead, spend your time learning about the truth and educating open minded fence sitters.

That's my .02. - Yall have a nice day.


PS: Some good reading here: www.AmericanRevival.org/


No, they, like Buchanan, are a bunch of neo-Jacksonian fuck-sticks who have no idea what America was supposed to be, very little comprehension of the Constitution, and abuse/distort Christiantity to fit their world view...

Ironically, their 'Example President' was the fucking founder of the Democratic Party, and an abject buffoon...
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:24:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
The Constitution Party tends to oppose things like amnesty for illegal aliens and sending billions of dollars of aid to places like Africa. That's why the neo-cons dislike it so much.


People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...

The Jacksonian morons cannot...

As for 'amnesty for illegal aliens', who gives a flying fuck - it's not happening anyway, the issue is deadlocked...

The reason that the CP is bad is because (A) they are NOT 'Constitutionalists' in any way shape or form, yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution in a dispicable effort to get votes, and (B) their populist policies have NO chance of sucess (And would do much harm), yet they stick to said 'feel good' crap and are incapable of understanding why it would fail...

They, along with the Paulites, are the 'HHO fuel adovcates' of American Politics...
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:37:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...


I have no problem with providing aid to our allies during times of war. Anything else is socialist redistribution of wealth, which the neo-cons should oppose based on their other economic views.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The reason that the CP is bad is because (A) they are NOT 'Constitutionalists' in any way shape or form, yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution in a dispicable effort to get votes, and (B) their populist policies have NO chance of sucess (And would do much harm), yet they stick to said 'feel good' crap and are incapable of understanding why it would fail...


I don't agree with everything the CP advocates, but I'd prefer them to the neo-cons any day.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 10:41:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2008 10:42:05 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...


I have no problem with providing aid to our allies during times of war. Anything else is socialist redistribution of wealth, which the neo-cons should oppose based on their other economic views.

And generally this holds true... Very few of us are 'happy' about AIDS in Africa funding, for example...

Boosting Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc.. Is another story - 100% all-for, as we get a good strategic ROI



Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The reason that the CP is bad is because (A) they are NOT 'Constitutionalists' in any way shape or form, yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution in a dispicable effort to get votes, and (B) their populist policies have NO chance of sucess (And would do much harm), yet they stick to said 'feel good' crap and are incapable of understanding why it would fail...


I don't agree with everything the CP advocates, but I'd prefer them to the neo-cons any day.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion... I'll stick with what historically happened when their 'Ideal Standard' of a President was in office...

It was a fucking disaster

You can judge 'My Kind' by T. Roosevelt or Reagan, if you wish... Much better results, of course....
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:03:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
You can judge 'My Kind' by T. Roosevelt or Reagan, if you wish... Much better results, of course....


As governor of California, Reagan supported the Mulford Act. As president, he gave us amnesty for illegals and a huge national debt. After his presidency he supported the Brady Bill.

The neo-cons current hero, George W. Bush, wanted an assault weapons ban and amnesty for illegals. By the way...how has government spending been on W's watch?
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:03:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2008 11:49:53 PM EST by CLIP67]
Bush, an alleged conservative (HAHAHAHAHA), will soon be handing out 48 BILLION of your tax dollars to fund the AIDS "fight" in Africa (like it will really go for that).

If that is what we can expect out of a republican president, then it's high time to look elsewhere...


http://allafrica.com/stories/200807180011.html

Paragraph #2 of the article is particularly nice as well...
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:07:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
You can judge 'My Kind' by T. Roosevelt or Reagan, if you wish... Much better results, of course....


As governor of California, Reagan supported the Mulford Act. As president, he gave us amnesty for illegals and a huge national debt. After his presidency he supported the Brady Bill.

His 'huge national debt' built us the military Clinton and HW Bush squandered....

And beat the USSR...


The neo-cons current hero, George W. Bush, wanted an assault weapons ban and amnesty for illegals. We have been over the Assault Weapon Ban too many times to count... And as you know, I could care less about the amnesty bill... Never had a chance in hell... By the way...how has government spending been on W's watch? Just fine, thank you... We have a war to win...

Medicare Part-D (The only major 'bad news' spending) was the price of not having 'President Gore'...

Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:19:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
]His 'huge national debt' built us the military Clinton and HW Bush squandered....

And beat the USSR...


The USSR would have eventually collapsed on its own. And your opinion of Reagan's granting amnesty to illegals and his love of gun control?


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
We have been over the Assault Weapon Ban too many times to count... And as you know, I could care less about the amnesty bill... Never had a chance in hell...


What makes Bush's support for the assault weapon ban BS? Did he or did he not say he would sign the bill if presented with it?

As for amnesty...he wanted it. Badly. But the fact that he didn't get it means that it shouldn't be considered when judging his values?


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Just fine, thank you... We have a war to win...

Medicare Part-D (The only major 'bad news' spending) was the price of not having 'President Gore'...


So the billions he sent to Africa wasn't "bad news spending"? How about all that increased funding for education?
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:22:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By timb3:
The supporters of the Constitution Party stand for everything this country was INTENDED to be, and for the greatness that WAS the USA before socialist neocon internationalists started pissing it all away.


I've found that the part in red is repeated in some form or another by nearly every supporter of every party at some point in time.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:26:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By 3-Phase:
I've found that the part in red is repeated in some form or another by nearly every supporter of every party at some point in time.


Agreed. Though in some cases it's clearly more true than in others.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:41:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
]His 'huge national debt' built us the military Clinton and HW Bush squandered....

And beat the USSR...


The USSR would have eventually collapsed on its own. And your opinion of Reagan's granting amnesty to illegals and his love of gun control?

Love of gun control? Last I checked, while President he pretty much ignored the issue... His one 'gun bill' did alot to reign in the ATF & got rid of having to sign for each box of ammo, among other things'...

As for immigration... We are still here... Amnesty or no amnesty, the status quo is pretty much the same as it has been since we first acquired a border with Mexico (border pretty damn-well open, people cross, etc)... I don't support law-breaking, and I've gone to pretty good lengths to explain my immigration position in other threads...

But it's just not an issue I get 'bothered' by, especially given all the other things that RR did...

P.S. The USSR would *not* have collapsed when it did, if not for Reagan... In fact, it might well have stayed with us through the 90s at least, if Carter had had his way...



Originally Posted By Dave_A:
We have been over the Assault Weapon Ban too many times to count... And as you know, I could care less about the amnesty bill... Never had a chance in hell...


What makes Bush's support for the assault weapon ban BS? Did he or did he not say he would sign the bill if presented with it?

What makes it , as discussed plenty of times on this board, is that it was an obvious political maneuver... His record on guns as governor of TX, and his support for PLCA count... That statement does noit, simply because he said it knowing he would never get the chance to follow through...


As for amnesty...he wanted it. Badly. But the fact that he didn't get it means that it shouldn't be considered when judging his values?

The fact that it is impossible, means that it doesn't matter... He may have wanted to personally go to the moon badly... Who cares?


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Just fine, thank you... We have a war to win...

Medicare Part-D (The only major 'bad news' spending) was the price of not having 'President Gore'...


So the billions he sent to Africa wasn't "bad news spending"? Not desirable How about all that increased funding for education? Accountability costs money... Had the bill not been gutted, it would have also contained a nationwide voucher-system (public funding follows the kid, vis-a-vis going to public schools only) as well... But even in it's final form, it's a good thing - if a state/local school wants federal money, making them prove they can actually TEACH KIDS before we throw money at them is a good idea...

I am very pro standardized-testing... If kids can't pass a standardized test, they aren't getting into college, or the military
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:45:35 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
height=8
Originally Posted By TheTracker:
hat


School me


Crazy...

They are a bunch of populists with a religeous-conservative 'sideline'....

No more Constitutional than the Paulistinians... But much more Buchannanite in ideology..

Anti-free-trade, 'The US was better in the early 1900s', etc...

Combined with the most political & extreme elements of the religious right (And I say this *as* a member of the 'religious right')...


The biggest load of shit ever.

Aaron Russo (idk if he started the party) ran for governor of Nevada a while back and got a decent amount of votes, but did not win.

I would say it is a group of people who give a damn about this country and are a group that is sick of politicians our for their own agendas.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 2:54:35 AM EST

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.


EXACTLY!!!!!!
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 2:59:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By TUMOR:

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.


EXACTLY!!!!!!


Change "Christian" to "democratic" and you sound just like a DUer!
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:01:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By timb3:

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
The Constitution Party tends to oppose things like amnesty for illegal aliens and sending billions of dollars of aid to places like Africa. That's why the neo-cons dislike it so much.


Yep. And that's why they're good guys. The most down to earth people you could meet.

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.

It's said that you can tell a lot about people by seeing who their enemies are. Just take a look at the people who show up hating on them and it quickly becomes obvious that the Constitution Party is Good People.

The supporters of the Constitution Party stand for everything this country was INTENDED to be, and for the greatness that WAS the USA before socialist neocon internationalists started pissing it all away.

Just watch this thread a while. The neocons will continue to come in here frothing at the mouth and ranting like it's going out of style. They just can't stand the truth. Confronting neocons with the truth is like putting holy water on the undead.

But hey, although the neocons have no brain, they love to talk.

They're talking and they can't shut up. (just look at their post counts in many cases)

As usual, there's no point in arguing with diehard neocons, since they are either incapable of comprehending or unwilling to acknowledge the truth. Just see their BS for what it is and ignore them, as they are unworthy of effort. Instead, spend your time learning about the truth and educating open minded fence sitters.

That's my .02. - Yall have a nice day.


PS: Some good reading here: www.AmericanRevival.org/


Oh boy - you stepped on Dave_A's toes now.....

Excellent post BTW
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:20:03 AM EST
Eh, I was excited when I first heard of them, but once you look at what they want, not for me and they would not be good for the country IMO. Almost the only thing they are right on is kicking out the illegals, other than that not much.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:25:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By TUMOR:

The crazy folks are the neocon fuckheads who hate those who care about the constitution and the christian roots of this nation.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

Change "Christian" to "democratic" and you sound just like a DUer!


Hmmm..........from Australia huh?.........."Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone".....
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:44:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
[

People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...

The Jacksonian morons cannot...

As for 'amnesty for illegal aliens', who gives a flying fuck - it's not happening anyway, the issue is deadlocked...

quote]

If you're a member of the "religious right", meaning Christian, please watch your language as it gives the rest of us bad names.

Washington, Jefferson and others warned against alliances. Does that mean they weren't patriots?
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:54:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 3:54:34 AM EST by J_Smith]

Originally Posted By brianf31:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
[

People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...

The Jacksonian morons cannot...

As for 'amnesty for illegal aliens', who gives a flying fuck - it's not happening anyway, the issue is deadlocked...

quote]

If you're a member of the "religious right", meaning Christian, please watch your language as it gives the rest of us bad names.

Washington, Jefferson and others warned against alliances. Does that mean they weren't patriots?


CINO, Christian in Name Only. Some believe their behavior doesn't have to be demonstrative of their faith. Do I still sin? Yes. I try not to roll in the mud like a pig though.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 4:12:18 AM EST

Almost the only thing they are right on is kicking out the illegals, other than that not much.



Gun Control

The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Gun%20Control
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 5:56:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 6:04:18 AM EST by Det0nate]

Originally Posted By timb3:
It's said that you can tell a lot about people by seeing who their enemies are. Just take a look at the people who show up hating on them and it quickly becomes obvious that the Constitution Party is Good People.

+1. When dave starts rating that something is too far "right", You have a darn fine clue that the target of his rage is correct.


Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
People who are able to see the wider world for what it is can differentiate between 'AIDS in Africa' funding (a political sop to certain interest groups) and military/economic aid to strengthen vital allies...


I have no problem with providing aid to our allies during times of war. Anything else is socialist redistribution of wealth, which the neo-cons should oppose based on their other economic views.

Yes they should oppose the wealth redistribution, but they do not because socialism IS the heart of their economic view.

neo-cons are big government socialists at heart. Just look at the out of control spending and growth (far surpassing klinton's) these 8 years.

The "Compassionate Konservative" movement is simply wealth redistribution, feeding off the myth that conservatives want everyones grandma eating catfood and babies left starving in the street. It was bad when the dim's were preaching it, it is Unfor-farking-givable when a "conservative" echoes it.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:59:35 AM EST
They're like Libertarians without the whole "Freedom of religion" thing.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 11:11:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 11:21:53 AM EST by DriveNASCAR]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Love of gun control? Last I checked, while President he pretty much ignored the issue... His one 'gun bill' did alot to reign in the ATF & got rid of having to sign for each box of ammo, among other things'...


So a couple of good things from one gun bill outweigh the disastrous effects of the other two he supported?


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
As for immigration... We are still here... Amnesty or no amnesty, the status quo is pretty much the same as it has been since we first acquired a border with Mexico (border pretty damn-well open, people cross, etc)... I don't support law-breaking, and I've gone to pretty good lengths to explain my immigration position in other threads...


We're still here...for now. You blasted Andrew Jackson for basically being the guy who founded the Democrat Party (which, obviously, was a very different party 150 years ago)...yet you give Reagan a free pass for adding millions of voters to the Democrat ranks.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
What makes it , as discussed plenty of times on this board, is that it was an obvious political maneuver... His record on guns as governor of TX, and his support for PLCA count... That statement does noit, simply because he said it knowing he would never get the chance to follow through...


So he either supports gun control or is simply too much of a pussy to publically oppose it? Thank the gods for neo-con leadership!

Bush has screwed us before, so I have no reason to trust him on this one.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The fact that it is impossible, means that it doesn't matter... He may have wanted to personally go to the moon badly... Who cares?


I'm not naive enough to think that amnesty is impossible. Much of what is going on with our government today would have been considered impossible by past generations.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Not desirable

Accountability costs money... Had the bill not been gutted, it would have also contained a nationwide voucher-system (public funding follows the kid, vis-a-vis going to public schools only) as well... But even in it's final form, it's a good thing - if a state/local school wants federal money, making them prove they can actually TEACH KIDS before we throw money at them is a good idea...

I am very pro standardized-testing... If kids can't pass a standardized test, they aren't getting into college, or the military


If you truly believed the capitalist nonsense you spouted in order to justify outsourcing, you would be demanding the privatization of the education system rather than attempting to justify massive socialist spending.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 11:13:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Det0nate:
Yes they should oppose the wealth redistribution, but they do not because socialism IS the heart of their economic view.

neo-cons are big government socialists at heart. Just look at the out of control spending and growth (far surpassing klinton's) these 8 years.

The "Compassionate Konservative" movement is simply wealth redistribution, feeding off the myth that conservatives want everyones grandma eating catfood and babies left starving in the street. It was bad when the dim's were preaching it, it is Unfor-farking-givable when a "conservative" echoes it.


+1

Neo-cons have demonstrated that they have no problem with government involvement in economic affairs when it suits the their agenda.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 11:20:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By brianf31:
Washington, Jefferson and others warned against alliances. Does that mean they weren't patriots?


It means they weren't neo-cons, which is a good sign they WERE patriots.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:46:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
They're like Libertarians without the whole "Freedom of religion" thing.


Actually they're more like paleo-conservatives (like Pat Buchanan, for example).
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 9:10:06 PM EST
DriveNASCAR, you're a good man. The RAH quote is great. From my dealings with the Constitution Party I have found that they are similar to the Libertarian Party, but support a ban on abortion and would continue the War On Drugs. Good folks at heart, but they can't seem to look at the Bible and the Constitution as separate documents. Thier God, Familiy, Republic stand is far better than the garbage Neocons continue to support. This is coming from a dirty heathen.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 9:27:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 9:28:16 PM EST by DriveNASCAR]

Originally Posted By Lazarae:
DriveNASCAR, you're a good man. The RAH quote is great. From my dealings with the Constitution Party I have found that they are similar to the Libertarian Party, but support a ban on abortion and would continue the War On Drugs. Good folks at heart, but they can't seem to look at the Bible and the Constitution as separate documents. Thier God, Familiy, Republic stand is far better than the garbage Neocons continue to support. This is coming from a dirty heathen.


Thanks. I too would prefer the Constitution Party to our current "conservative" movement. Not because I totally agree with the CP or totally disagree with the GOP, but because I believe the Republicans have strayed too far from what they're supposed to believe to ever move back. We've reached the point that even many Republicans are suspicious of people who promote running our government within the proper Constitutional boundaries or even with the true interests of Americans in mind.
Top Top