Free Republic

There's already a party based on what you seek. It's candidate received a whopping 0.1% in the general election.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

P.S. Say hello to Chuckles for me.

"A party based on what I seek"? If I understand you, you are referring to a party dedicated to Constitutional and conservative principles? Years ago, I thought the Republican Party was such a party, or at least one more dedicated to Constitutional and conservative principles than the Democratic Party. Eight years of Bush/Cheney and six years of their doormat Republican Congress made me realize that the Republican Party is never going to stand for anything but its own power and patronage.

A week ago, tens of millions of voters slammed the door on the GOP's bid for continued power, and I couldn't care less if that party never regains its footing.

Last week's catastrophe is going to be the first in a long line for the GOP, until that wretched bunch of hacks and rent-seekers expires. Chuckle about that until you choke.

Oh thats a great tactic, name calling. It worked so well in the election.

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly." - Proverbs 26:11

It seems that the self-designated Republican party "base" (and indeed how base they are) wants to repeat the debacle of this past Tuesday by renominating an unvetted airhead, only next time at the top of the ticket. Apparently their neo-con puppetmasters are willing to lead the party over a cliff again rather than release their chokehold.

The Republican Party is moribund, but conservatism doesn't have to die with it. Those of us who truly care about the Constitution, national sovereignty, the welfare of the citizenry, and traditional American values like small government (as opposed to those who pay them mere lip service) need a new party embracing those ideals, because we'll never find any of them again in the GOP.

So you think people in Islamic countries are human? NOT!

I must commend you for your candor, if nothing else.

Nice try Map Kernow....your dingy attempt in misconstruing speak would make you a formidable liberal MSM editor.

I'll try again then: were you, or were you not, calling for the genocide of the Iranian people? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. And by the way, I don't consider humanitarianism at all incompatible with true conservatism - in fact, I consider it a prerequisite.

hopefully when Iran is put to rest for the sake of humanity

? Talking about wiping out an entire nation? If so, I wouldn't speak of "humanity" if I were you.

Why doesn't Bykofsky volunteer to die, or have someone he loves die, in his "other 9/11"? Because he views human beings---especially his fellow citizens---as expendable props to accomplish his polemical ends, just like the "Islamo-fascists" he pretends to deplore. Nothing else explains the vile sentiment of this article.

Lead by example, Bykofsky, you unfeeling wretch. Go die the glorious, memorable, exemplary death you meant for others.

My question for TIME: “Why do you hate America?”

The boys are acting dumb. They should know that the ignorant public can’t distinguish between a crook with a gun and a law-abiding citizen with a gun, and so they do what all idiots do when they don’t know what to do, they call the police.

How many crooks go around with their weapons unconcealed? Not a whole lot I'm sure. And by the way, unless you've been convicted of a crime, you do have a constitutional right to bear arms. In theory, anyway.

Here in Indiana, allowing someone to see that you are carrying can be considered “brandishing” a weapon, and can get you in trouble.

That's what I mean by "menacing." But I fail to see how not wearing a coat or jacket over your holster means you're "brandishing" the weapon.

Yet a right abused can also become useless.

Oh? Who have these kids shot? Who have they menaced? (I'm not talking about panty-waists feeling "threatened" by the sight of firearms either---I mean an actual armed threat.)

If you can't come up with instances of such abuse by these kids, I'd like you to tell us what you consider to be the "abuse" here.

at least really stupid Americans like George Bush

I think you mean "really bipartisan Americans like George Bush," Ann.

That is, stupid and evil.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ---Isaiah 5:20

The cover-up succeeded so well that Moscow's responsibility for the Six-Day War has disappeared from histories of the conflict. Thus, a specialist on the war like Michael Oren, has coolly received the Ginor-Remez thesis, saying he has not found "any documentary evidence to support" it.

"Evidence"? Pfft! Why spoil a good conspiracy theory with nattering about evidence???

But our Fearless Leader has already spoken: those who don't want this disaster "don't want to do what's right for America."

If this is right for America, wouldn't you hate to see what's wrong for America?

President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”

In other news, defying the counsel of advisors concerned over the electoral future of the Republican Party---let alone the future of America---, President Bush again shot himself in the foot today on the immigration issue. "I'm a lame duck," the President explained, "and I aim to be the lamest duck in history." The President then chortled to a dwindling audience of supporters, "Get it? 'Aim.' I just made a funny...!"

I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters.

Absolutely right. Unless Ron Paul is in the primary, I actually will not vote in the Republican primary at all, although I've been a registered Republican for 25 years. If the Republican Party can only see fit to run and nominate opportunists like Romney, @$$holes like McCain, and fascists like Giuliani, I'm not voting Republican at all any more---not in the primaries or general elections.

After a hard line was taken on immigration by House Republicans, we lost the House, largely due to independent voters, moderates, and Hispanics not voting for Republican candidates.

I am tired of hearing this argument from open borders "Republicans." If the only way to make sure Hispanics vote Republican (as they never have heretofore) is to bend and break our immigration laws for them, how come blacks don't vote Republican? Didn't a Republican Administration free the slaves? If giving a voting bloc freedom to obey the law is no guarantee of political support, how can giving another voting bloc freedom to ignore the law guarantee support? How can a breach of faith with America's citizens be the basis for a relationship of trust and support with non-citizens?

If the Republican Party continues to betray its principles as it has been doing under this son of a Bush, then it is an institution that has outlived its usefulness.

Much ado over nothing. The Logan Act has never been used to prosecute anyone in over 200 years, notwithstanding the number of times it's been invoked to threaten people like Ramsey Clark et al. in the last 40 years or so. It's also probably unconstitutionally vague. The WSJ editorialists should save their hot air for some issue on which they'll be more credible.

Old Chinese saying: "Qi hu nan xia." When you ride the tiger, it's hard to get off.