The far-far right ain't so-so bad.

America truly never ran by its written design and probably won't ever!

But it's still the freest nation on Earth.

I dislike when some traditionalists get into the mode of complaining where they think they lack rights.... America is probably the most free country in this world!

Try living a few days in North Korea.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
It is too bad both democrats and republicans are both bogus, and our only choices.

I might have mentioned this once or twice since I have been on this board, but you have more than two choices.

The Libertarians are the party that TRULY stand for the things the Republicans CLAIM they stand for. Can anyone look at the Republicans and HONESTLY say they stand for the things on Vals list?

We only got about 400,000 votes this time but if all the Republicans that were tired of being LIED to by there party would vote Libertarian even if we didnt get elected you would see a HUGE change in the Republican Party. It would start DOING some of the things it claims it stands for.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But a constitutional amendment that narrowly defines one view of morality is a very bad thing.

There are a couple of problems with this particular issue. A constitutional ammendment protecting "traditional" marriage is not legislating morality at all, it is protecting what a small and new (to the American political scene) minority is trying to pervert. Again, it is not making the act of homosexuality illegal, it is merely protecting the idea and roll of a marriage. Even if it were a legislation piece that made a particular act illegal, as long as that act is immoral by the nation's standards (Not the standards of another nation that is based on another set of doctrines or beliefs), then it is proper. Law is exactly that, legislation of morality. It is statutes (Commercial in nature, created for the Straw Man, who is tied to the federal government and owes for the federal debt created by the non-republic (Notice, not Republican, but republic) and is himself not a sovereign man on the land. Much difference there. Which leads me to one more point:

The "moral" breakdown of this nation was not populace-driven. I know many of you think your ideas are your own, but they aren't. Not in this case. This breakdown has been choreographed for decades. Everything from the takeover of the public schools to further left-wing doctrine while the children are away from the parents for 8 hours a day during their formative years to the continuous assault on family values by cable and networks, continously ratcheting up the level of depravity.
The credit cards, which were once only for the wealthy, the ones who can afford to "put it on plastic", are now in the hands of college kids and lower to middle-class alike, putting a huge chunk of the nation in debt. Who owns your debt? Basically, the same ones who own this country and most other countries in the Western World.
The two parties that run the government of this country are closer together than most realize; Skeptic has very clearly pointed this out. I want you conservatives to really watch how much of the conservative agenda is pushed during Bush's 8 years. There's a lesson to you Libs in that, and as a matter of fact, if you look back at the Clinton years, how much of the liberal agenda was actually seen through? Well, that's the same amount the Cons are going to see.

Politics is a sport for us, just like Football. Who are the ones who are really making themoney in football; you? Nope. The owners. Who makes the money in politics? You? No, not even you who expect the government to give you something. It is the owners. Some of the owners live here in this country, many live abroad, some names you don't know, some you'd recognize, but in the end, while we are in an environment where the constitution is only given lip service because it really doesn't pertain, much of the country's sovereignty has already been signed over to the U.N. and they keep us so busy arguing about problems they created for us in the first place, it really doesn't matter.

What does Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton and George Bush '41 have in common? They all belong to the same clubs. And I ain't talking about no kid's crap like the Skull and Bones bullcrap.

Well now Thomas... this is where you really don't seem to be the staunch constitutionalist you claim to be. "Protecting traditional marriage" and other religiously-inspired morality issues really isn't something the interim federalist troublemakers should be mucking about with. There are a long list of far more important things our republic leaders should be focused on. Let the states decide how they'd like to define marriage, stem-cell research, and other issues inspired by religious-thinking. It used to be traditional to own slaves, now it's not. Not all traditions are intended for the ages. I also disagree with your view of how morality "broke down". Many of these issues defined by the religious right have always been with humanity, but were repressed by various forms of religion-inspired leadership over the centuries around the world. With knowledge comes enlightenment, with enlightenment comes tolerance, and with tolerance comes a new morality; staying out of restricting individual choice (where it does not harm others). To me, among the highest forms of immoral behavior is the desire to impose one set of beliefs on another. I think the "decline" you observe has been pushed and exaggerated by the "behind the scenes" leaders of the right, in order to give their base something to hate. Getting back to the issue of this thread... yes, the dems and reps are closer to "something" that is far far removed from the original ideals and standards of their respective pure platforms. On the balance, there is much to admire of the limited-federal purity of the true republican stance, as well as the desire for social tolerance of the democrat stance. The assassination of Lincoln marked the beginning of the evolution of both parties away from their origins, and the Nixon administration accelerated the process to the odd us-v-them mentality of two horribly disfigured party platforms. The real crime is how the populace, has been segmented into two "me too" groups who know little more about actual politics than the perverted spoon-fed pseudo-platforms they receive as mental pabulum from the personalities presenting themselves as political commentators.

'm not too political, and the whole morality issue confuses the hell out of me. Prostitution is illegal because it's "immoral" Gay marriage is being made illegal because it's "immoral", but strip clubs, adult book and movie shops...pornography "is" legal. Why? What's the difference? At least you do know that in prostitution, it is two consenting adults, when you watch pornography, which many people do that profess prostitution is wrong and yet, you really do not know what is behind the images, drug addiction, abduction, even if you are watching consenting porn, by supporting it, you are supporting the rest of it. it's all very hypocritical. Morality, as run by the church has no business in our politics. Just my ramblings on the subject. Thanks for the info on a "true" conservative.....there doesn't seem to be too many of them around...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Some of the owners live here in this country, many live abroad, some names you don't know, some you'd recognize, but in the end, while we are in an environment where the constitution is only given lip service because it really doesn't pertain, much of the country's sovereignty has already been signed over to the U.N. and they keep us so busy arguing about problems they created for us in the first place, it really doesn't matter.

What does Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton and George Bush '41 have in common? They all belong to the same clubs. And I ain't talking about no kid's crap like the Skull and Bones bullcrap.

Well, that is something that sends shivers down my spine when I stop to think about it.
That being the case, does it really make much difference which "president" they select every four years?
Is there an end to this downward spiral?

I love Pat Buchanan, but I would never vote for the man for President. Voices like Buchanan's help to keep us grounded and constrained against changes which come too fast for society to adapt to, but Pat Buchanan's isolationist position and his ideal of absoute individual responsibilty flies into the face of the harsh realities of existence.

The relationship of the individual to the society is a reciprocal and reflexive one and that should never be forgotten. However, it should be understood that without the individual's contribution, the construct we call society could not exist. Therefore the aid provided by society to the individual should be conditioned by reciproctiy to the extent that it is possible.

The ultimate destiny of our planet is unity and global government. It is inevitable. Those like Buchanan, for whom such an idea is anathema, are the ones who will prevent the mechanisms of such coming to fruition too soon. We must evolve beyond the human tendencies that produce the Maos, Saddams and the Hitlers, before this arrangement can become reality.

Remember--Evolution, not Revoltution. Everything will come in its own time.


[edit on 04/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

I disagree about Pat. I think that the notion that people can't be trusted with their own choices is getting a bit destructive don't you think?

Can reasonable people not make those choices? This is the idea America should be for, but is shying away.

Our government does not really resemble the Constitution at all, yet the Republicans (small federal government?) say nothing to really address the problem.

When the voices of reason and the executers of policy become separate groups, then we have a serious problem in the Republican Party.

Thomas Crowne brought up a good topic, the Uniform Commerical Code, if you haven't heard of this, you may want to look it up. The United States as we know it is a corporation created under British common law....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-11-2004 by Jamuhn]

Don't tread on me, you ask a couple of questions that I cannot answer; at least not in a way you'd like me to. The best answer I could give is a very pessimistic one, and Skeptic has just illustrated why.

Notice how smart he appears to be, even though his knuckles might drag the concret from time to time. He is very educated in a technological way, not to mention the ol' college daze way, but he still misses some very crucial constitutional and hisorical points, yet he tries to tell me I am the one who is slipping on the constitutional points. While I have clearly outlined what I say and why I say it, and he knows I've done this many times on this board, he ignores historical truth and continues to assert what he believes is the way it "should be". That indicates how strong their reeducation and social reengineering has been.

Do I think there is going to be an actually recovery from this tailspin? No. Do I think "they" have won, and all that we are waiting for is the final blow of the whistle? Yes. How much longer will the charade continue? Beats me. Now, don't disturb me while I watch cable TV and wait for my 401(k) to grow!

The far-far right consists of those who espouse traditional Republicanism, but then force it through a Christian Fundamentalist filter. I've said it numerous times - the only party affiliation I ever had was republican, and to this day I still admire Arlene Specter, Richard Shelby, Ron Paul and Pete King - even though they all whored themselves to the party line for someone they know to be woefully incompetent ( except Paul).
Any elected official who would stick to being a traditional republican and not be a sheep, intent on power &control by any means necessary as today's GOP is, would have my respect & possibly my vote.
I'v quoted Pat Buchanan numerous times in my posts; the only problems I have with him are:

1) He gets visibly aroused speaking about the Nazi War Machine's brilliance

2) He swears that he has a sister named "Bay", when he really just has a cross dressing Fetish

BT, one day I'm going to send you some history books so that you'll learn more than the BS you picked up at college and at your Bash The Christian clubs!!
Heck, I might wait and send you the first copy of the book I've thought of writing. It'll be free for you. I knew you'd like that; most libs do!!!

(Come on, don't get mad; I haven't spopken to you in a while so I had to take a jab at you! So, how's Momernim?)

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Don't tread on me, you ask a couple of questions that I cannot answer; at least not in a way you'd like me to. The best answer I could give is a very pessimistic one, and Skeptic has just illustrated why.

*snip*
Do I think there is going to be an actually recovery from this tailspin? No. Do I think "they" have won, and all that we are waiting for is the final blow of the whistle? Yes. How much longer will the charade continue? Beats me.

TC, you answered my questions. I agree with what you said in the paragaraph directly above. Around my house, we half-jokingly say that the country began it's downward trip on 11-22-1963. While I don't know the exact time we began descending rather than ascending in America, that date works for me.
It was just interesting to hear others share my views. Especially since you seem to not be a conspiracy theorist. I believe you are far more well-read than I about politics. Heck, I'm such a newbie, I sometimes hesitate to opine on real political dialogs.
Thanks.

How's Momernim?

Key is the detailing of "far-far right" ......everybody else who is religious, hard working & patriotic is synonymous with both the Dem & Repub rank & file.

Good to hear from you! How'd the stuff at the shop work out? Did the union stand strong?