Posted on 05/14/2003 2:32:06 PM PDT by Godebert
I will also point out to you that even the Founders themselves disagreed on what the founding documents meant, and what the scope of the new government should be. Many of the arguments we have today were present before 1800 - the specific issues differed, but the arguments themselves were quite similar. (Since you've read many of the historical documents, you know this already.)
As for your comment, "There is no government in history that has taken away citizens rights in bad times only to restore them in better times", I must beg to differ. OUR government has done so. As an example, you need look no further than the Sedition Act referenced by Scenic Sounds earlier on this thread, but there are other cases.
The question, however, is how to deal with the current situation - is a third party a viable option, or does it, as a practical matter, move the country to the left, since it tends to split the conservative vote and result in the election of liberals?
I tend to believe the latter, and I also believe that some of the third party candidates are running not to get elected, but to line their own pockets or increase their speaking fees. I would like to see some of the "fringe" parties work at building a base at local, and then state levels - I think that might be more effective both at "educating the masses" and building a base than running at national levels is at this point in time.
Now we have "come together", big time. Thanks for conversing with me in a civil manner. Others on this thread are quite vemonous.
...even the Founders themselves disagreed on what the founding documents meant...
Quite true. I tend to harbor the idea that I agree with the smarter ones. ;-D
Thank you for your own civility to me. One thing you've got to remember: after the Clinton years, the idea of what voting for a third party candidate could result in is horrifying to a lot of people on this board - even if they might agree with many or most of the third party candidate's ideas.
I tend to harbor the idea that I agree with the smarter ones. ;-D
Now, come on! They were ALL brilliant, or they wouldn't have been the Founding Fathers! But I'll bite - which would you consider "the smarter ones"?
You and I both know they're targeting non-Muslims and Westerners. There is a holy war going on, but no one will admit to it.
Oh, I know exactly what it can do. That is why it makes a fine weapon. The people at the core of the Pub Party seem to think they can bargain with the Bill of Rights. They ignore those who are calling for rational lawmaking, only to publish even more laws that snub the rights of citizens. Each entry in the Bill of Rights has been severely blistered by bad legislation. All I am looking for is a Party that openly says, "We are ging to try to fix this!. The Pubs are causing most of the damage as of late. The only Parties that openly discuss these issues are not apt to win an election, so I just have to hammer away at this one. I will use my vote as a weapon, even to give control back to the Dems. We'll repeat the Dem/Pub cycle by swinging the vote until the thick heads at the core of the Party catch on to the importance of "those other" folks.
which would you consider "the smarter ones"?
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison ... Oh it really is a big list. The ones I favor jumped up and down about the Bill of Rights and the need to be jealous of the Individual's power, and vigilant toward professional politicians. Time and again they brooded on the possible results of the masses not maintaining their understanding of the Founding principles. Look what we have even of this "conservative" forum: People of today think the Constitution grants rights to the people rather than prohibiting government encroachment.
I tend to wonder about the bunch that wanted to make George Washington king. Those didn't seem to grasp the significance of the tyranny they worked so hard to detach.
The problem is, you only have 3 congresscritters: 2 senators and one representative. Hopefully, yours are representing you and your neighbors. If they aren't, there's nothing I can do about that, because I can't vote for or against them.
Presumably, the rest of the congresscritters are also doing what the people in their districts want them to do; otherwise they won't be in D.C. for very long -- but there are people in other districts (think Red Zones) who expect things we don't necessarily agree with from their congresscritters. Here is where Southflank is particularly correct - we have to be able to change hearts and minds of citizens before we can expect a big difference in Congress. We saw a change in the last election - no, not a big enough change yet, but it's a hopeful sign, and one that we need to be able to continue. 940 Amelia
Above, you acknowledge that voting for congressmen doesn't change hearts & minds on the national RKBA issue.. -- Yet below you suggest we do more of the same, thereby - "educating the masses"..
"I would like to see some of the "fringe" parties work at building a base at local, and then state levels - I think that might be more effective both at "educating the masses" and building a base than running at national levels is at this point in time. -- Amelia"
The best way to 'educate hearts & minds' on a national issue, is a nationwide vote against those who appease on such an issue.
The AWB is a direct infringement on our RKBA's.
Conservatives should no longer accept a candidate for President who would support such unconstitutional 'law'.
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.