Posted on 01/10/2008 5:29:29 AM PST by connell
When Washington spoke of "parties," he was speaking from an 18th century British perspective. The British parties of the time were more what we would call "factions." With few real ideological differences, they were more struggles between groups of the British aristocracy for control of the goodies of government. No wonder Washington opposed them.
Parties in our modern sense developed in the US very naturally once real ideological disagreements arose between the followers of Hamilton and those of Jefferson.
If those who support expanding the role of government groupt together to push their policies, those who oppose this expansion must do the same if they are not to be overwhelmed. Parties are an inevitable part of our system now, which doesn't mean they don't have unpleasant side effects.
“However, I do not believe the president has authority to abolish agencies established by law on his sole authority.”
I’d love to see this one fought out in the courts!
“So will a kook theory if we withdraw within our own borders, and pretend its 1880.”
Borders?
How quaint.
;)
From what you’ve seen!
Elaborate please....you are saying that there are freepers preaching big government. Please show me that thread! Maybe I need to find a new blog!
Sorry, I don’t buy the NAU kook stuff either.
I think that was before there was a four word limit per FReeper. People used to copy and paste those on all the ZOT threads.
“...there really is little difference.”
How much difference can you expect? The candidates are fighting over WHICH connected lawfirms, WHICH corporations, WHICH interest groups, WHICH States, WHICH demographic profiles, WHICH political supporters and contributors will be granted access to the levers of Federal power and to the incredible largess of the Federal treasury. They’re not really fighting over the basic size of that government and largess.
Putting aside the question of what he could actually accomplish if he were to become President (which, of course, will not happen), Ron Paul’s ideas are very dangerous to some very powerful and very rich people.
I think our parties today more closely resemble the 18th century British ‘factions’ of which you speak.
Sure, they emphasize their differences, in order to draw support. But look at what they actually do.
The President should disolve the Reichstag..err the Congress. Lets all go down to the beer hall and have a meeting.
Don't know much about the Libertarian Party, but their legalization of drugs is a turn-off for me, so am not interested.
But Ron Paul is running as a Republican this time, and yet the bashers often cite his run on the L. ticket as proof that the man is not a Republican.
Sometimes people change.
I once registered as a democrat myself, but that was B.C. (before Carter).
Eisenhower switched from democrat to republican just before his candidacy.
Ronald Reagan was a democrat once.
I see some FReepers admit to being former democrats, but for some reason only Ron Paul is forever tainted with his former membership in another party.
"Parties are an inevitable part of our system now, which doesn't mean they don't have unpleasant side effects."
One of those more "unpleasant side effects" is that BOTH major parties have been co-opted by the SAME GROUP of insiders, who are now working both parties toward the SAME GOALS:
Namely, the destruction of our national soverignty, and the submersion of our country into a one-world socialist government.
While the demoncrats will gennerally applaud that scenario, most Republicans seem to simply accept it as either "inevitable" or "must be o.k. if our Republican leaders are doing it", which serves to illustrate an overwhelming lack of understanding by the general populace.
That about sums it up. Any party that considers Rudy Giuliani--a thrice married adulterer who supports abortion and gay rights and turned New York City into a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens--"respectable" and Ron Paul beyond the pale has something wrong with it.
“The President should disolve the Reichstag..err the Congress. Lets all go down to the beer hall and have a meeting.”
Hyperbole.
If the IRS is part of the Executive branch, then the President has the right to fire it’s employees.
Counterpoint to your comment, Congress should fire the President for abdicating his responsibility to defend the Constitution through his open-borders policies, and his pushing of unconstitutional treaties like LOST.
Of course, they’re bought and paid for cowards ,too.
“I have tried several times, both in posts and in comment threads, to make the important distinction between the principled people who support libertarian positions and the fringe people and ideas swarming like flies around Ron Paul’s stinking midden.”
Hey Christopher Cook. I know you’re reading the thread.
Can you tell us your FR handle so we can see for ourselves the posts you’re describing?
It’s only fair - you made the claim in your article.
Come out, come out!
Oh, yes you do.
You ARE buying it, whenther you acknowlege it or not.
Your tax dollars at work.
(chuckle)
Oh, and let's not forget the overwhelming disinvitation to the evangelical Christians.
Blantantly vilified in the Republican Party.
Not wanted in the Party, except to vote to help elect the next amoral socialist globablist Republican candidate to POTUS.
>>>>>>Blantantly vilified in the Republican Party.
>>>>>>>Not wanted in the Party, except to vote to help elect the next amoral socialist globablist Republican candidate to POTUS.
Bingo.
Well,you definitely have captured that reality or truth in a nutshell. Thanks. Would that more people would understand.
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.