Posted on 01/25/2007 8:32:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
OK, Google the quote and you see zillions of hits, none that provide any context.
I agree it was an artless statement but here is a link with more context at least:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=9779
Well....go to his page and you'll get a glimpse into his personality. Apparently I wasn't far off the mark with the spleen muncher and chick slicer comment. Kind of a death and gore fest there.
Ron Paul, most likely.
Wow...That gets to be a tought one to answer. Who would Buchananites support?
Buchananites would have to be anti-amnesty, neoisolationist, anti-abortion, low tax, pro-gun. Is there a candidate who fills that bill besides Buchanan?
There is, but it's not that interesting to anyone but me. It's also completely irrelevant. It was just an attempt by a dishonest poster to further derail the thread instead of actually debating.
Typical.
Ron Paul...Is he that famous black transvestite?....no....that's RuPaul. Oh, I know he's that pocket fisherman guy. No, that's Ron Popeil.
Any more questions?
ROFLOL! Thanks for pointing that out to him once again!
ROFL....RuPaul.....
How about Tancredo?
Is Tancredo neo-isolationist? I don't know much about him...
Ain't that the truth!
You know the problem here is this. That despite everyone claiming to be conservatives and constitutionalists, they forget what that means.
I was thinking about this more last night and really. All the 'social' issues this board squawks about are all states rights issues. What's right for Mass may not be right for texas. I suppose i'm a dying breed that i understand that Texas likes guns and NY doesn't and thats just perfectly fine because that's how the country is constructed. Its when we got away from that and started making federal laws to govern state issues that we created problems.
Well here we are. We have a guy that would make a Fantatsic president and all i'm hearing is about states rights issues (with the absolution exclusion of Gun Control because that is the second amendment)
So Maybe that's what needs to be argued. The country would run far better of we would make laws for our own back yard and stop lobbying and electing people that will userp that right. Btw, incase no ones noticed, we have a pretty liberal republican in the whitehouse presently
We as a party need to stop cutting off our nose to spite our face. Period.
Gingrich. For now.
I'm still here (I gave McCain 200 bucks, and took a LOT of heat), but I had an ensuing Epiphany . Facts are remorseless things.
We forgive you.
READ FIRST...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
My Constitutional rights do not end at the New York city limit...
And your point is what?
No they don't however, NY has a differnt gun policy and licenesing requirement than texas. If the citizens of NY have an issue with the constitutiality of the laws in their state they can bring action. The point is each state has its own gun laws.
If we would go back to Constititution, we'd all be alot better off. That includes Education, Social Security. and drug plans, health care...and so it goes. None fall into a common defense or commerce.
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.