Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
I wouldn’t vote for ‘em until they represented CONSTITIONAL values; these ‘conservative’ values always seem to get pushed to the side to ‘reach across the aisle’
Yes, that and any number of minor concessions would have done it. Just a signal that he'd throw a bone. That's how you build coalitions.
Its not only Ron Paul, Romneys’ people tossed no one a bone.
Nothing to the Newt people, nothing to the Santorum people, nothing to the Bachmann or Cain people, nothing to the Perry supporters, etc.
All Romney had to do get the paul people on board was repudiate the NDAA, say he was for full audit of the Fed, F Bernake, and maybe say RP would get a position in his Admn.
For a few million votes that is all he would have to have done.
Think about it.
The constitution isn't all that popular with either major party these days which I guess is your point.
... but: nope. Far more important, evidently, to stick it in just a little bit further, so far as those icky, icky socons and evangelicals were concerned.
You'd think someone Mittens' age would have learned, long before now: Decisions. Have. Consequences.
Maybe if the liber-tear-ians weren't such goofballs they'd get more respect. If every one of the GOP cnadidates had cornballs like Ron Paul's, the debates would be 3 minutes long, punctuated by 87 minutes of hootin' and hollerin'.
You don’t get it. The GOP has fewer and fewer people to drawn from.
If you kick out everyone who may agree with you only 60% of the time - the GOP will never win a national election again.
GOP ran a liberal, and got what anyone with a brain could see was coming.
/johnny
Bingo, esp. not by reading 1/2 the replies on this thread.
Entitlement mentality (votes), GOOD ‘big government’ (it’s THEIR guys this time) and a slew of all the other tired anti-L cliches.
They’d rather follow the (R) brand instead of actually looking (and approving) of the L-platform
Right. ‘Cuz the current ‘debates’ give such great insight on a politicians thoughts. 90 sec. where 85 is evading the question.
ALL parties should be allowed to debate, long and hotly. let the real thoughts/ideals show themselves and the the People decide, not the party nor the media.
I maintain the debates should consist of every candidate who is on enough state ballots to get a total of 270 electoral votes.
But the Big Two will never agree to such a thing because they don't like it to be known there are alternatives to the Demuplicans or Republicrats.
I once heard Michael Savage say that Liberatarians are nothing more than confused liberals.
I can never tell if these threads are to bash people who vote for Libertarian Party candidates, or just anyone with the temerity to think they’re better qualified than the author to run their own lives.
“2. Tell me with whom I can/cannot enter a legally binding contract”
Same place as Habeus Corpus, btw. English Common Law definition of Marriage is Marriage between one man and one woman. Reynolds is the case you want.
You believe otherwise, you are not a conservative, and we don’t need you. Next.
“The War on Drugs must end. There is no Constitutional authority to fight it and it has done more damage than good for our Republic. While I want welfare ended as well, in the interim welfare recipients should be drug tested and denied those benefits if they pop positive.”
That makes no sense whatsoever. If drugs are legalized, you are going to be paying for them under welfare. Next.
“Gay marriage. Why is government licensing marriage to being with? Yes, we’ve gone over the “to ensure breeding pairs/stability” arguments. In the end, it boils down to a Religious thing. Because some folks wanted a religious ceremony codified in law by the State, you opened us up to perversion of those religious practices by the Gays. Give the entire issue back to the various Faiths and leave it there. No more government “forcing” gay marriage down any religions throats.”
English Common law definition of Marriage as one man and one woman. Go read Reynolds. Next.
“My main issues are the size/scope of government, enforcement of the Bill of Rights via Art6 Para2 and the 14th, States “rights” via the 10th, and restoring our economy to its free-er market roots.”
Pro-drug, pro-gay and pro-abortion. Next.
If you don't believe the Constitution limits the federal government to what is listed in Art 1, Sect. 8 you aren't a conservative. I don't need big government liberals of any party.
/johnny
I believe in the English Common law, which includes such things as trial by jury and Habeaus Corpus as an essential component of American jurisprudence, long predating the constitution. English Common Law first, constitution second. The constitution originates from the Common Law, not the other way.
My goodness, that whole Revolution kerfluffle was entirely unnecessary, the fools. /s
Like I said, go read Reynolds. Great decision.
I’ll rely upon the Founders, thank you. Go read George Mason.
The Constitution overturned the Common Law. To the extent that it exists in our national legal system at all,it will be found in the Bill Of Rights and very early Amendments intended to incorporate it.
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.