Republican Party Principles=Doodley Squat

[Clarence]

Quote by: shield772 The Constitution does not say seperstion of church and state, there can be religion in government, we can have laws that have religious overtures we have several already, congress can't make laws regarding religion, they can not legislate religion thats it, the only thing it says.

I worry that a gov't will try and enforce all of God's rules. That would be scary.

[shield772]

The laws in the OT are defunct, unless you are an OT jew and haven't accepted Jesus, we are covered under the new covenant. We already pretty much legislate the ten commandments.

[RickSp]

Quote by: shield772 The laws in the OT are defunct, unless you are an OT jew and haven't accepted Jesus, we are covered under the new covenant. We already pretty much legislate the ten commandments.

The point is that no one should be forced to "accept Jesus." The parts of the Ten Commandments which require that "thall shall have no other Gods before me", and the bits about "not coveting thy neighbor's slave" have not yet made it into the statutes, though not for the lack of trying by the fundies.

[shield772]

Judge Throws Out DeLay Conspiracy Charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177753,00.html

WASHINGTON — A judge dismissed the conspiracy charges Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the money-laundering charges, dashing his hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

[Clarence]

Quote by: shield772 Judge Throws Out DeLay Conspiracy Charges http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177753,00.html WASHINGTON — A judge dismissed the conspiracy charges Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the money-laundering charges, dashing his hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8EAC8TG1.html

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A judge dismissed a conspiracy charge Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the far more serious allegations of money-laundering, dashing the congressman's hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

just thought I'd throw in the important part.

[shield772]

That was in my post, but money laundering is very very hard to prove.

[Clarence]

Quote by: shield772 That was in my post, but money laundering is very very hard to prove.

As it should be

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: shield772 No they were Democrats. No Conservatives there.

No conservatives in the neo-cons, either

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...3/cr071003.htm

Read it!

Keith

[shield772]

I am not a conservative by any stretch of the word , ROFLMEAO

[Anarchist]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I hate the Republican Party. I think of them as a party full of liars and cheats. I think they are dedicated only to what gets them elected again, so real bedrock principles are secondary to campaign financing and cynical rhetoric with no commitment further than the election.

You might find that this holds true with most any politician, regardless of party affiliation. While the nefarious enterprises of politicians do worry me, what I find most horrifying is that millions of people continue to pay them money and vote for them.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rcne I'm not so sure of your 51% number as the actual number in either of the last two elections, but I'd take that flip of a coin number any day.

OK. I realize that this is going back a way in time, but ...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/res...president.html

Gore 50,996,116 48 %
Bush 50,456,169 48%

A dead heat with Gore actually winning the popular vote by half a million.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/


Bush 51% 62,040,606
Kerry 48% 59,028,109

Definitely no landslides or mandates anywhere.

Keith

[shield772]

In politics winning is winning, never called it a mandate or a landslide, just a win. and the election of the President is not by popular vote but by the Electoral College.

[Osborn F Enready]

Shield said:
In politics winning is winning, never called it a mandate or a landslide, just a win. and the election of the President is not by popular vote but by the Electoral College.

I say:
And that makes the injustice being done ok how?

[shield772]

What injustice would that be?

[PatrickHenry]

Here another standard Republican cheap shot trick: Election fraud:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120705B.shtml

Former GOP official faces one federal count of conspiring against voters' rights in 2002. Concord, N.H. - A former national Republican Party official played a key role in an Election Day 2002 phone jamming plot against New Hampshire Democrats, the prosecution said Tuesday during opening statements. James Tobin, President Bush's onetime New England campaign chairman, is being tried on one federal count of conspiring against voters' rights and several counts involving telephone harassment. He could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted. U.S. Attorney Andrew Levchuk said the state GOP's former executive director, Chuck McGee, had Tobin's blessing for the scheme as well as his help in the plot to disrupt Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks and a nonpartisan ride-to-the-polls line. Tobin, 45, resigned as New England chairman of Bush's 2004 campaign in October 2004 when the phone jamming accusations became public. Tobin also has been political director of the Republican National Committee.

Sleazoid politics as usual for those who have no principles and just need another election"victory."

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: RickSp The oddest thing about the Constitution Party is that their views on religion would require the abolishment of the First Amendment.

You are mistaken in this statement, Rick. A party that acknowledges Christ in no way must restrict First Amendment freedoms. I assume you refer to the establishment of religion clause. A party is an electoral device, and as such is a voluntary association of individuals with a common interest. They seek to restore the Constitution, not break it. Their values are Christian, and wouldn't attract folks like you and Osborn who have no use for God or indeed any type of belief in the existence of the spiritual sphere. Unfortunately the Christians are mesmerized by a Constitution-ignoring Republican Party.

Libertarians should seek common ground with Christian Constitutionalists. Dems and Republicans are much further distant from your values. But then Libertarians have been isolated political purists for so long they likely can't change. Or get elected either...

[PatrickHenry]

Here's another story that illustrates my point regarding the lack of principle by the Republican honchos. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120705F.shtml

In April 2004, Cunningham and Armed Forces Committee chairman Duncan Hunter of California took to the floor to denounce highly decorated Vietnam vet John Kerry for near treason in turning against the war. Kerry had "energized the enemy," Cunningham thundered, adding that he voted as if he were Jane Fonda. What no one knew then was that precisely one week before Cunningham had so loudly defended America, he had defrauded America by failing to disclose two $500,000 payments from the defense contractor on whose pad he served on his income tax returns. In August 2004, as the defamatory attacks on Kerry were escalating, Cunningham affixed his name to a letter denouncing the Democratic nominee that the Bush campaign arranged. He signed it, according to the federal charging papers, on the same day he was cut two more checks for a half-million dollars.

Randy Cunningham illustrates Republican values perfectly...Fraud and personal graft while attempting to distract America by slinging mud at Democrats. Do I like Democrats? No, but the Republican dirt campaign doesn't blind me to the GOP fraud either.

[PatrickHenry]

Then there's this one: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120705J.shtml

Call it Tonto's revenge: The outrageous rip-off of Native American tribes by a top Republican lobbyist is leading inexorably to a reckoning for the allegedly morally superior religious and political right. "I don't think we have had something of this scope, arrogance and sheer venality in our lifetimes," Norman J. Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in Roll Call. "It is building to an explosion, one that could create immense collateral damage within Congress and in coming elections." Selling firewater to the natives-or in this case charging them $82 million for government breaks on slot machine and other gaming licenses - is not exactly what the high-minded prophets of the Republican revolution promised. And to see behind the scenes as Christian right superstar Ralph Reed, bought off by top Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, dupes his grassroots "pro-family" followers into unwittingly supporting casino-rich Indian tribes under the guise of anti-gambling initiatives, is to glimpse moral corruption of biblical proportion.

Ralph Reed is using his Religious Right base to "fight" against gambling while accepting illegal swag from the Indian gambling interests with the other hand.

what is already clear is that the Republicans' reputation for moral superiority is as dead as the Lone Ranger.

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick said:
Libertarians should seek common ground with Christian Constitutionalists. Dems and Republicans are much further distant from your values. But then Libertarians have been isolated political purists for so long they likely can't change. Or get elected either...

I say:
While I fully see, and understand your point Pat, I think that is part of the pride of politics isn't it? Being a purist can't hurt politics, can it? A purist would say openly what they believe, and let's face it, if we had more of that in all parties we might not be having a conspiracy to discuss, eh?

It is entangling alliances that scare me, regardless of what forum they take place. If temporary alliances are made, the time of the termination can be as turbulent as their reasons for merging sometimes, and I only see that option personally as a last resort.

Last resort aren't so far off now though, are they?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think that is part of the pride of politics isn't it? Being a purist can't hurt politics, can it? A purist would say openly what they believe, and let's face it, if we had more of that in all parties we might not be having a conspiracy to discuss, eh? ...entangling alliances... If temporary alliances are made, the time of the termination can be as turbulent as their reasons for merging sometimes, and I only see that option personally as a last resort. Last resort aren't so far off now though, are they?

Franklin: http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

At the signing of the Declaration of Independence

Alliances are important if we seek change. Let's look at the issues where we have common ground and then debate those werein we disagree. The firmest alliance we have is that government MUST BE LIMITED by a Constitution. Democrats and Republicans give this concept no more than lip service.

I would argue that purism taken to the furthest degree will result in a continuing slide into tyranny by an unaccountable government. Alliances and engagement can result in electoral change. Then we can debate the issues of personal freedom vs social benefit.