Posted on 12/12/2005 8:53:27 AM PST by HopefulPatriot
Well, it's more fun when there's a capable opponent. So, the answer is, I've had better.
You'd fall for anything wrapped in enough hyperbole, it seems. How nice for you.
Once again you attempt to deflect the obvious. Are you a coward?
You're just so you adorable.... :-)
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. - Samuel Adams
Just where in this tapestry do you see yourself? Or are you even a part of it? What is it worth to you personally to defend our Constitution? I gather from your lack of response to an earlier question you have no descendants worthy of leaving an intact republic to. Selfish and self centered are not traits of patriots. What does that make you?
What a sweetie!
What might have been a good idea at one time (like unions) it's nothing more now than a beneath corrupt parliamentary body that serves only itself and it's own interests. It interferes with any agenda a unified President and House of Representative's might otherwise forward.
It's just another bureaucracy in an already bloated government.
And it has only given us partisan hacks like Hillary Clinton, Dick "Turban" Durbin, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
I have more trust in and respect for the UN.
Anyway, my opponent has thrown in the towel it seems without so much as a bon voyage. The least you could do is acknowledge defeat.
"...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samual Adams
I say again, coward.
How precious!
I really can't stick around much longer, so would you mind just coming by and dropping a smooch bump on me now and then?
Look at how friggen small that scroll-bar thingy gets. Read through this list, it's comical in some places...well, it's only funny once you've given up and surrendered to Leviathan. Sorry, pal, my pledge: it goes to the omnipotent porkmakers lawmakers.
Yes, but FGS likes baiting you into flame wars. You're the perfect target. :) HA!
VERY NICE work bump and PINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
And for the record, in public, I asked you to take me off all of your ping list, because you pinged me to this demented thread.
Yes, but that's because I like you so much, and in public, you are removed from all my ping lists. But that's because I don't like you anymore. :)
Precisely, my friend.
"Trust me . . . I'm not like the others."
Talking behind my back; tsk,tsk. I gotta share something with you n00b, if it weren't for low class, you wouldn't have any. FWIW, I suppose your flamethrower running out of gas was coincidental. Your arguments are baseless and built on shifting sand and you know it, so you resort to the only thing you've got left to work with; your Dim roots. Well, here's a news flash for you, sayin' it don't make it so. You should know that, but you persist in trying it nonetheless.
If you have the tiniest scintilla of evidence against these guys and their plan you should present it here don't you think? Throwing up a bunch of dust hasn't worked; I mean, after all, your flamethrower has given up the ghost so you should maybe try a more reasoned approach. If you can. Which I doubt. Which only leads me to one conclusion. You're too chicken to admit you're afraid to take the pledge.
I'll have to check in on you later n00b, so run along and play; the adults have work to do..
One parting shot before I've got to go. What is it exactly these guys are asking you to do? Do you even know? Are you willing to do anything to defend our Constitution? ANYTHING? At this point they're asking you to commit to defending the Constitution; nothing more. You got a a problem with that??? Or have you and n00b been attending the same seance and the fog hasn't cleared yet?
Sign some silly pledge because we should trust them.
Are you willing to do anything to defend our Constitution? ANYTHING?
How about lose my life---is that good enough for you? I'm a US Naval Academy graduate and former Naval officer.
At this point they're asking you to commit to defending the Constitution; nothing more. You got a a problem with that??? Or have you and n00b been attending the same seance and the fog hasn't cleared yet?
Spare us all the petty drama.
This is not the only deterrent that discourages people of the caliber of Ronald Reagan and the Founders from seeking public office. Most people do not like, and are self-conscious if not embarrassed about asking for money. Multiple term politicians have not only been conditioned, but also trained in techniques of when, and how to ask, as well as how to ask in way designed to increase the amount of the contribution as well as set the stage for the next round of fund-raising. Fund-raising has become a business and in some cases, a profession. It seems logical to me that the better the character of the candidate, the more they would dislike campaign fund-raising. Another thing, people who contribute money for anything, commonly expect to get something in return. Conditioned to promise anything, do politicians ever say "NO"? Polling data indicates that the public does not trust politicians.
As bad as this picture of campaign fund-raising is, the reality facing candidates that have never been elected is even worse. Incumbents use their power over the public purse to buy votes from their constituents. Pork is the tip of the iceberg compared to socialistic programs. Most pork is simply payback for campaign contributions. It is socialism that buys the votes. Is it really a mystery why the incumbent is a twenty to one favorite over the challenger? Once the election is over, fund-raising begins immediately for the next election. For the politician, fund-raising never ends. For a would-be statesman, he is faced with the prospect that most of his time in office will be spent raising money for reelection. People of character are motivated to seek public office to enact a specific agenda. Time spent either thinking about fund-raising or engaging in fund-raising is time that cannot be devoted to enacting the agenda. If your time in office is going to be spent raising money for your own campaign, instead of accomplishing your legislative agenda, and you are going to be demonized for your efforts, why bother?
How many times have you heard conservatives complain that there aren't any statesmen any more? Was Ronald Reagan unique? Why are conservatives completely surprised when republicans like Nixon, Newt, or even Delay disappoint them or fail to live up to conservative expectations? If the system favors the election of fund-raisers, is it reasonable to expect that it is the most successful fund-raisers that are going to be elected and you are going to get everything that goes with them regardless of their party affiliation? "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I've come to realize there is a very close resemblance to the first," Ronald Reagan.
It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite. As you will see, this is perhaps the pivotal part of our plan for electing statesmen exactly like Ronald Reagan and the Founders who will restore the Constitution.
A pledge to defend our Constitution is silly? Regardless of who asks, should the answer not be the same?
How about lose my life---is that good enough for you?
So the sticking points are your fortune and/or you sacred honor(if available)? I don't get it.
I'm a US Naval Academy graduate and former Naval officer.
Then you've taken a pledge similar to this one at least once before:
Officer Oath: I,_________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So, when were you let off the hook?
Just as an aside, F'n was also a naval officer.
FGS
It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite.
Yeah, seems like term limits aren't necessarily the answer, AND would be a mixed blessing in any case. The unintended consequences could be interesting too. Husband/wife tag teams, etc. "Front" men for the "real" candidate would probably be the order of the day. So, I'll wait to see what the plan is and in the meantime, will hope and pray for a workable solution.
FGS
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.