Difficult times lie ahead.

[CarolAnn]

"Difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must make the choice between what is right and what is easy."


OK, OK! So it's Albus Dumbledore from The Goblet of Fire - even if you're not a fan of Harry Potter or Hogwarts, you've got to admit, the words are true right here in the real world!

So what are ya going to do about it come November elections?

[MNMOM]

I'll go and vote like I always do, but there doesn't seem to be anyone to be excited about, same old, same old. :-/

[MontanaVet]

Voting is easy for me now. I will always vote for a third party and/or the opposite party in power. I will also do my best to see there are opposite parties in Congress and the Whitehouse.

Let them fight with each other. Each side abuses their authority and do not realize rights come from the Creator. They give us nothing and there should never be a career politician.

And, I will always vote, even if it seems a waste of time. MV out!

[MYellowRose]

I'll be voting early, probably as soon as it starts so I don't have to stand in line so long. Will probably go this coming week down to where they vote in the tunnel that connects the old courthouse with the criminal justice center here as it's the easiest place for me to get to when it comes time to vote. Will wear my little "I voted" sticker proudly!

[Frank]

noting can be done, the whole thing is already decided.

as to MontanaVet's post and by-line:

Name-calling removed by admin

[Tightwad]

noting can be done, the whole thing is already decided.

as to MontanaVet's post and by-line:

another religious nut-case!


There are millions of "religious nut cases" out there and ALL of them
vote! ::) It's the few "normal people that are left that are not
manipulated by the neocon's/Republican/theocracy that are gonna
get the shaft.......because they slept to long and didn't vote. >:(

There is one basic problem when it comes to "religious nut cases"
that make this so hard to turn around. Those "religious nut cases"
are your neighbors who have been convinced by the Republican
theocracy machine that they are voting "the right way" and honestly
don't know they are being abused & used. ::)

[Old_Dog]

Hi; I’m new to the board and this is my first post. Was raised a Democrat and became a Republican. Never voted for a 3rd party in my life, but I believe the time has come. Which way will I vote this time (and I will vote)? I will vote for no incumbent, and vote a straight Libertarian ticket. Throwing my vote away? Maybe, but if enough people do it maybe it will wake somebody up. Maybe.

[Tightwad]

*I will vote for no incumbent, and vote a straight Libertarian ticket. *Throwing my vote away? *Maybe, but if enough people do it maybe it will wake somebody up. *Maybe.

Mate, Please reconsider voting 3rd party. I applaud that you will
vote but the votes MUST count now and no 3rd party will ever
have enough seats or slip by the electoral college to be able to
do any good against the theocracy machine.

Vote as you will just make sure that it counts in our 2 party system.

[1lifetolive]

Mate, Please reconsider voting 3rd party. I applaud that you will
vote but the votes MUST count now.........
Tightwad, Just remember the journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.. For a 3rd party to emerge to power, people must be willing to take the first step.....
When Ross Perot ran the first time, The media/rep/dem/ all were spouting the same propaganda of "Don't waste your vote).......
The results in my county were 17K for Perot, 19K for Bush sr., and 21K for Clinton. I gotta wonder how many people were talked out of voting for Ross...........After the election most, everyone I talked to said they voted for Perot......While the election was going on Jimmy Carter was down in Haitie making sure their election was on the up & up......hmmmmm.

[MNMOM]

Frank, you must be a very unhappy person.

As to voting for a third party it worked here in Minnesota, when we were all fed up with the democrats and republicans we let them know it and voted in an independent party for governor, his name was Jesse Ventura, so everyone saying that voting a third party is a wasted vote, you are so WRONG.

And by the way, welcome back MontanaVet!! ;D

[meancoyote]

ive been voting 3rd party for a while now. i dont think im throwing my vote away. if i vote for somthing i dont agree with then that is a wasted vote.

[scoutinlife]

I've always voted for one party ???!!! But I've have done alot of thinking and really will be changing my voting philosophy now on ;D!!!!! These are uncertain times this country is facing to say the least!!!!

[MontanaVet]

Frank

noting can be done, the whole thing is already decided.

as to MontanaVet's post and by-line:

another relogious nut-case!

I did not come here to debate religion. *The problem is yours. *You might want to try the Spelchek tab at the bottom of the Message window next time.

FYI- Here is the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

Preamble

We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Have a great day. *MV out!

[Thomas]

MNMOM, I was a big fan of your election of Jesse Ventura. He made a trip thru here stumping for Kinky for governor. The terrrible unfortunate thing though was that his appearance (fu manchu, etc.) distracted people from his message-You cannot trust anything your government tells you. You must question everything, and cited recent discovery of the falsification of the Tonkin Gulf incident and a plan hatched to attack American civilians here and blame it on Castro to launch a war there. As a 3rd party, I liked the idea of Kinky, but the anti-republican governor segment is so fragmented with him and granny whoever and the unknown democrat, we will be bound to keep the incumbent and his NAFTA superhighway in. I'm afraid I agree, you throw your vote away on 3rd party, and may actually do real damage.

[libertylover]

Christians are seeing. Don't give up on
them.

Why must we always speak words which
divide us even more.

[MNMOM]

Thomas,
I saw a film clip of him stomping for Kinky, at times he can be quite far out, I think he does it to draw attention. The media really hounded him while he was governor, and he always gave them something to write about. He hated the media, and he loved referring to reporters as "jackals."
He did a pretty good job while he was governor.
When he was running, the polls showed him way behind, so I don't trust the polls. The democrats and republicans even tried to keep him out of the debates, but the independents were able to get him into at least one debate and he let them have it when it was his turn to debate.
I think the republicans and the democrats telling everyone that your vote won't count if you vote for a third party is just one more of their scare tactics.

[libertylover]

Ventura is great. Glad the voters of Minnesota
didn't judge him on his appearance. Way
to go.

[Mark_and_Nicole]

old dog, a vote for liberty and freedom is NEVER a wasted vote!
dont let anyone tell you different
as for our two party system the two major parties are NOT two parties but one and the same.
you vote for one then you voted for the other.
you voted for no change.
and by voting for the 'two' parties you give your seal of approval to their agenda for us.
we vote third party because we do NOT approve of their agenda for us.
it's dirt simple really:you want freedom?
VOTE FOR IT!
hope this helps

Mark

p.s. welcome aboard!

[Tightwad]

Folk's don't mistake my intent when I suggested that
3rd party was not the way to go.......this time.

On a personal level I'd really like to see more than 2 parties
to choose from. That would make it much harder to hijack
a party as the Republicans are now. A 3rd party candidate at
the local level is OK as they don't need to connect that closely.
But ALL national level seats need to be from the 2party system
this time 'round.

As far as the president goes the people DO NOT elect this seat.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES. The electoral college will never
allow a 3rd party in the presidents seat. Never. If the public were
allowed to elect those that sit on the electoral college for their state
it might be different but the names of the college members are never
made known to the public. (Gee, I wonder why that is?)

[CarolAnn]

The more political ads I hear as we get closer to election day, the more I just want to crawl into a fetal position and pull a blanket over my head.

But that's the easy way, huh.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of corruption, and probably lots of opportunity for our votes to be invalidated, thrown out, changed by hackers, etc, and that big money has wrapped it's slimy fingers around every part of the process.

But I'm also sure that it's more important than ever to get out there and not only vote, but to take up watch at the polls, be heard and seen, and do all we can to be vigilant that the process is done properly. Liberty is harder to keep than to obtain.

[grandmajoy]

I will get out and vote. Here though the question of voting third party is mute as there is hardly ever a third party candidate to vote for, some times there isn't even a second party to vote for. I definitely want to get rid of the current governor though.
One thing that needs to be done is to get rid of the electoral collage, than maybe our votes will count in the presidential elections.

joy

[Rick]

The only poll that counts is the one they take on the second Tuesday in November.

My estimation is that the Republicans will lose some seats, but retain the majority in both the Senate and the House.

It will be fun to watch Al Franken implode if that happens.

I vote for the Constitution party candidate any time they are on the ballot.

[Rick]

Hey Joy,

How's it going?

The electoral college helps to even out the vote across demographics. I don't know that much about it, but if the elections were held strictly on a vote by vote basis, the politicians would concentrate their politicking in the big cities. The people in the fly-over states would be ignored, and marginalized, more so than they already are.

Rick

[Tightwad]

I vote for the Constitution party candidate any time they are on the ballot.

I don't know if you're aware of it but the Constitution Party is a party
started by Howard Phillips "to hack the U.S. Constitution into a
more palatable size and bring the Bible to the government"

Howard Phillips is one of 7 men who are the power brokers behind
the capture of the Republican party for the right wing theocrats
of which the current administration owes much.

[CarolAnn]

Although I am a member of neither the Democrat or Republican party, many in my family are (or were) Republicans. They are also very angry about being lied to and manipulated, and feel that the party has been hijacked by corporations with huge money interests, taking it away from the individual interests it used to, at least in theory, represent.

I try not to get involved in those heated dinner table discussions, prefering to go my own way - I try to vote for the person, with the best information I can get. (Which usually isn't all that good, but it's the best I can do.)

I find it hugely funny, though, and ironic that the river in Nebraska that used to be the territory for vast buffalo herds, who, when they migrated through made the water so foul with their excrement that it wasn't drinkable for weeks. The native Americans refered to it as the original "s#it creek" without a paddle. . . . it's name is now the Republican River. No kidding! ;D

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a similar body of water for the Democrats. :P

[Rick]

Tightwad,

Howdy. Which parts of the U.S. Constitution does the Constitution party advocate removing?

Hi Debarosa,

My philosophy is the same. I routinely vote against anything that raises taxes or increases govenrment power. When I evaluate an ammendment or proposition, that is the first filter I apply.

Carol Ann,

The Republican river, now that's funny. Most of the problems the Republicans have, they have created for themselves.

[RangerRick]

Not a problem. Democrats are a complete an total no as they're all liberal socialist pond scumb and represent everytthing evil in America, third parties are a waste of my vote but maybe not yours. I'll be voting for the conservative liers where ever they may be found. Hopefuly Senator Allen from Virginia will run for the top job, if not other choice would be to write in Diomedes.

Rick

[Old_Dog]

I won’t be voting for 3rd party candidates with any real hope that one might actually win, but as a protest that the status quo is unacceptable. A vote for either Democrat or Republican is a vote for the status quo. If enough people do the same, maybe someone will wake up to the fact that people have had enough of the same old same old. Not voting at all is unacceptable.

[lost1]

For the first time in my voting life, I'm going third party. I think I would be wasting my vote any other way.

[Rick]

Every party we have today had to start somewhere.

As I recollect the current Republican party started around the time of A. Lincoln. The current Democratic party was started by Jefferson in opposition to the Federalist party. Funny thing is the Democratic party was initially called the Republican Party, then became the Democratic Republicans, then just the Democrats. This all played out long before the current Republican party was formed in the mid 1800's.

Someday people may be talking about the Constitution and Libertarian party and refering to the Republicans and Democrats in the past sense.

[Tightwad]

Tightwad,
Howdy. *Which parts of the U.S. Constitution does the Constitution party advocate removing?


ALL OF IT. The goal of the 7 men involved is to change America
into a Christan rightwing theocracy that controls the public in exactly
the same manner as the Taliban or other Islamic fundamentalist
did/do now.

These 7 men's intent has so perverted the scope of christian followers
that they view all chrisitians as memebers of their "army" to do
their bidding to complete the theocratic agenda. Most christians
don't even know they are being manipulaed.

Either way you cut it the agenda of the "Consitution Party" is not
in the best interest of the America our founding fathers fought and
died for.

[Rick]

Hi Tightwad,

You might be reading between the lines a little overly much. When you say the Constitution party wants to rule America the same as the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist, that is to imply they want to kill people for not accepting their religion, like in Sharia law. You might be overstating your case a little.

Being as they have never been in power, it's hard to say what they would actually do, but here are their stated policies. Besides the whole Bible thing, what do you find offensive in the platform?

Platform of the Constitution party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

[scottie12]

[quote]Folk's don't mistake my intent when I suggested that
3rd party was not the way to go.......this time.

On a personal level I'd really like to see more than 2 parties
to choose from. That would make it much harder to hijack
a party as the Republicans are now. A 3rd party candidate at
the local level is OK as they don't need to connect that closely.
But ALL national level seats need to be from the 2party system
this time 'round.

As far as the president goes the people DO NOT elect this seat.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES. The electoral college will never
allow a 3rd party in the presidents seat. Never. If the public were
allowed to elect those that sit on the electoral college for their state
it might be different but the names of the college members are never
made known to the public. (Gee, I wonder why that is?)


Tightwad:
Actually, during the last presidential election , In My state (WV) - We did vote for those electors .
I wish I could remember more details as to the process but , I cant right now !
and damn , I can agree with not wanting to devide ourselves against the repubs but , considering that a "green" is usually "what a real democrat should be , I wouldnt want to miss the oppurtunity to vote for him/ her , And the only reason that I can see to not do it , is the possible resulting imbalance in the respective house , that might give leadership roles to the repubs , and we've recently seen the solution to this back when that person ( forget his name ) changed his party affiliation to give majority to the dems (remember that ?) well thats what we would have to demand of our greens if that situation arose ! I say vote for them if they have a chance in hell !

I dont feel like I've given this topic thorough consideration , but thats my 2cents worth anyhow .

[Tightwad]

Hi Tightwad,

You might be reading between the lines a little overly much. *When you say the Constitution party wants to rule America the same as the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist, that is to imply they want to kill people for not accepting their religion, like in Sharia law. *You might be overstating your case a little.

Being as they have never been in power, it's hard to say what they would actually do, but here are their stated policies. *Besides the whole Bible thing, what do you find offensive in the platform?

Platform of the Constitution party. *

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

One doesn't have to read much beyond the first paragraph to
discover that this party doesn't believe in anything resemlbing
seperation of church and state.

That is as far as I need to go.

This party is using the name of the Lord for purposes other than
the Lord ever intended just as so many other zealot's have forever.
One can't hide behind the Bible in this fashion without having a
hidden agenda.

Please understand that I'm not disrespecting you or your political belief
what I've said is based on how I see this "party" or any like it.

America is founded on RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE not RELIGIOUS
INTOLERANCE as this party preaches.

[RangerRick]

Where is seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution? Did someone go and ban my rights to a church affilation if I happen to be a government employee or elected official? Are those dirty democrates and liberal tarians at it again?

Next thing ya know the House democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is gona want to mandate exporting her newest block of constituants, San Fran Chinatown sex slaves to every state in the union. Of course, I didn't read anything about that in the constitution either.

[scottie12]

Hey Rick :

I'm wondering if you will (as a salesperson and spokesman for the constitutution party) enlighten us as to this question .

Which , according to the constitution party , is more authoritative -The bible or the constitution and which overrules the other when there is a conflict between them ?

I'm thinking that if the constitution overrules the bible , then men of old have overruled god and therefore the bible loses credibility , but if then , instead , it is that the bible is supreme law , i would like to ask you a few specific questions regarding how you constitutionalist folks will
interpret or impose certain statements therein !

[Tightwad]

Where is seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution? * *

This law is mentioned here..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

commented on here.........

http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp

It's the law per the First Amendment, mate. ::) ::)

[Rick]

;D ;D ;D

Hey Scottie,

I will, but as salesperson and spokesman for Hugo Chavez, there is no way you can understand it. ;)

The short answer is that God is more authoritative than Government; always has been, always will be. The whole 'King of kings, Lord of lord's' thing. The long answer is a bit more complex though. God invented government. God establishes order in the form of government; even secular governments have their origin in God's design for order. The United States government, codified by the U.S. Constitution, is more inspired by God than any other, but it often strays from God's will. Oh well, government is run by people; people aren't perfect.

You are not the first person that posed such a question; you may recall this story from your Sunday school lessons.

Matthew 22:15-22

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

Jesus is speaking as to the intent. God looks intimately at our motives. People use the law to circumvent justice, but God sees right through all that.

Furthermore Micah 6:8 tells us:

“…what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God.”

In so far as government is in alignment with God’s will, it is good. When it strays, it’s bad. We are talking about God’s will here, not necessarily God’s law. Obviously, a person could narrowly define the Law to say ….”Well, Deuteronomy something:something tells us to stone to death somebody who eats broccoli on the Sabbath." I know you’re chompin’ at the bit to start quoting Old Testament law, but allow me to save us both the pain and suffering of that well trodden path.

Recall John 8:3-11

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

You see here that Jesus does the right thing without breaking the law. The law is there to illustrate that we are lawless and in need of a Savior. Jesus fulfills the Old Testament law when He dies on the cross. Doing so, He establishes a New Testament, or Covenant.

Romans 10: 4 says, “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Meaning our righteousness is no longer dependant on how well we follow the law in our actions, but in how well we follow God’s will in our hearts. I don’t think it is God’s will that we stone our kids if they are disobedient (well, that one might be OK ;D ).

No doubt, if the Constitution party were to miraculously gain some sort of power, they would hose up certain aspects of their government; they’re only human. But, they more closely mirror my ideas of how a government should be run.

YMMV.

[Tightwad]

;D ;D ;D

No doubt, if the Constitution party were to miraculously gain some sort of power, they would hose up certain aspects of their government; they’re only human. *But, they more closely mirror my ideas of how a government should be run. *

Hmmmmmm..........
I'm gonna pick a nit here 'cause it doesn't fit.........

First, the government should never be "their" government nor should
we be required to follow "their" rule. Slip of the tongue that you do
understand "their" agenda??

Second, you seem like an intelligent person who just seems to be
out of place in a fringe group such as this. Am I wrong here?

Many a good honest Christian has been led astray by the golden
tongue of the theocrats. I just hope you are not one.

[Rick]

Good point, Tightwad. It would not be 'their' government. Thanks.

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it is more that the current FedGov has strayed from the Constitution, rather than what the Constitution party advocates in their platform.

I don't really know how you feel about the Bible and all that, but it seems like that is a major sticking point you have with what the Constitution party represents.

I think they are advocating a return to a government as it was under the founding fathers. The founder's were mostly inspired by God, even though they wisely didn't establish a Theocracy. They established a Constitutional Republic, a rule of law that was influenced by their religion.

The whole separation of church and state is largely a man-made phenomenon anyway. The Founding Father's intent was that the Federal government make no rulings for or against religion - mainly to forestall any state mandated religions. I don't think their intent, and writings bear this out, was to obliviate any mention of religion in government. Look at the Supreme Court building, it has all kinds of religious inscriptions. If there was a tradition of separation of church and state, why would they be there? The founding father's were 'allowed' to acknowledge God, and recognized the role Mosaic law played in establishing secular law.

I don't see that the Constitution party is advocating a Theocracy, only that the Government return to it's Constitutionaly mandated limits.

Here is the preamble of the Constitution Party platform. I highlighted a few item that hopefully might put you at ease.

Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

* That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
* That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
* That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
* That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
* That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

[scottie12]

hey Rick :

first of all - no rational ppl want to be ruled by ppl who cant state more clearly what they are all about , and in my opinion , promoting such an illogical , hippocritical , and dangerous thing as a theocracry , of any kind , just creates animosity towards your religion . ( I know that that is the effect that it has on me )

speaking of hippocracy, here is an example from the party website -- quote-'
"The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft. We encourage individuals, families, churches, civic groups and other private organizations, to fulfill their personal responsibility to help those in need."-unquote-

So -here we have the party wanting to run the govt and its practices concerning charity and claiming that the 'govt' does charity wrong'- but it seems to me that the govt does do charity (welfare) wrong , but , it is only necessary that the govt do it all becuz the church has never even tried , and these ppl who never ever tried want to take it over completely , when they already can and dont ! just another mind boggler , to me !

yes - I do like Hugo - hugo puts value on the lives of the poor that the northern christaians have created .
I think he acts more in the spirit of jesus than the northern christians who propose that the only solutions to impoverished hoards is to protect themselves and all the billionaires from them, by , shooting them and fencing them out .

I guess your trying to say here in an ambiguos way that the old testament would not be used to create law-and I would hope not - but if thats true ,
I think thats too important a fact to leave off of the party's mission statement. And shows me that the party cant be trusted to give a true picture of itself .It seems your saying that there will be no laws- only a dictatorial group of ppl somewhere who interprets vagueries of the new testament as to effecting every thing everywhere.
Is that what you are saying ?

[quote]You are not the first person that posed such a question
scott says ,of course not , cuz its the logical question which makes one wonder why its avoided by the party?
and I'm sure I'm not the first to recieve vague replys and thats all anyone will ever get , cuz, thats all you got .

[quote]Recall John 8:3-11 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
You see here that Jesus does the right thing without breaking the law. The law is there to illustrate that we are lawless and in need of a Savior.

well i , of course agree with Jesus again but actually the law was that she should be stoned -wasnt it ? so jesus was an accessory or instigator of the 2nd law breaking , see why its hard to talk to you ?
so you want to try to sell me that this forgivess of an adulteress by jesus , is the mantra they will operate on - while your party's #2 priority(according to the website) is discouraging sexual promiscuity ?(how ya gonna do that = Build a fence betwixt the mens and the womens and the mens and da mens and womens and da womens?


[quote]I know you’re chompin’ at the bit to start quoting Old Testament law, but allow me to save us both the pain and suffering of that well trodden path.
well, we both know that i could (the new testament as well) - But I try to have more sensitivity than that towards christians, but I think you know better as well , dont ya ?

[Rick]

As I see it, the basic premise of the Constitution party is that the FedGov should be limited in it's scope to what is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. All other activities are to be left to the States or the people. That seems to me to be a good thing.

I don't see anywhere that they propose establishing a theocracy. The current system however is heading towards complete control of the people by the FedGov.

Would you agree that the Federal government is overstepping it's bounds as deliniated by the Constitution? If you do agree with that assesment, would it not be a good thing for the Federal government to be reined in?

[scottie12]

quote]Would you agree that the Federal government is overstepping it's bounds as deliniated by the Constitution? If you do agree with that assesment, would it not be a good thing for the Federal government to be reined in?

I agree and agree again - but- I dont want to trade a corporatists oligarchy for a theocracy or a theocratically ruled corporate state. - I want to live in a democratic republic that is as close to a free- civilised -tolerant - enlightened society as possible .

The federal govt is a filthy pig - but look who owns it - Exxon- halliburton - GE- Monsanto - the banks - bill gates - warren buffet - weapons contractors - aipac- right-wing fundamentalists..
The only thing worse than our govt run by these ppl would be a theocratic ruler (of any stripe) owned by these ppl .
I say Get the business elites out of govt and it will all be
much much better !

[jim]

Scott is right about the problems we're facing with the current state of Fed. govt. However, he is also too young to know that Christian charity has historically done great service in this and other countries. Christians feed and employ millions of people world wide, and do a better job cheaper and more effectively than any government.

Welfare isn't about helping the poor, it's about a socialist plank of redistributing wealth. Just because the Govt. is doing the stealing doesn't make it right. Neither does anyone have a right to anyone elses money.

Jesus said "The poor will always be with us." So, poverty will never be eradicated. He also said to paraphrase: "If a man won't work, then he doesn't eat." Another point for no one being allowed to commit legalized theft.

I also don't like the idea of someone getting that good feeling of good works because they used my money to do something. If one likes to give away great sums of money, they should start with their own pocketbook.

jim

[Rick]

The Christian churches are very involved in helping people all across the world. Down on the Gulf coast right now, churches are still on the ground helping people rebuild. Our church is sending another mission team down next week; we've been down probably a dozen times- like churches all over the US have been going down there.

In the local communities, there are all sorts of Christian churches helping out in many different ways. They don't do it for glory, just to help out a brother or sister who is struggling, because that is the example Jesus set.

If the FedGov was out of the welfare business completely, the churches would no doubt pick up their levels of giving to fill the needs, but more appropriately, the States would take on more of the burden. The individual states could administer the aid more efficiently.

If an individual state gets to where it is wasting tax dollars on frivolous pursuits, a person can (more) easily pack up and move; voting with their feet in effect. I believe that was the Founding Father's intent - more power to the individual States and less power in a centralized Federal government. Unfortunatley, it is the nature of government (and man) to try to amass more and more power.

[Tightwad]

Rick, I can see that you are a decent man with deep
concerns and convictions of both your citizenship and
your faith. "WE" need men such as you to be the glue
to hold our society together. However........

I have real issues with this statement about the Constitution
party....
"I don't see that the Constitution party is advocating a Theocracy, only that the Government return to it's Constitutionally mandated limits. "

YOU don't see their agenda because it's hidden from view to
forward the Rightwing hardcore Christian Theocracy.

As I said the fonder of the Constitution party is a member of a 7 man
group of theocrats that have an agenda to create a hardcore theocracy
that dictates all parts of our lives on pain of death.(their words not
mine)

If you don't believe me then research the founder to find his links
to the secret group of 7 men who placed The Bush family in power
to do their bidding. These same 7 men will not relinquish power over
something as trivial as an election wait and see. There will be a Bush
or Cheney in the white house from now on. These men do their
bidding.

[Rick]

Hey Tight,

I did a little searching around, but didn't really find anything specific that indicates the Constitution party is looking to establish a theocracy.

Do you have any particular links I can check out?

The Constitution Party is in opposition to the Republican party. They slam the Repubs all the time on their website.

We may have slightly differing political philosophies. For example, I think the Republican party is drifting too far to the left and centralizing power in the federal government. But, hey, that's the beauty of the American system; we can all be different, but still part of the same whole. ;D

Rick

[BrentL]

this is a great thread. thanks all. I am gonna vote constitionalist this year, but the concerns that scottie and wad spell out somewhat concern me. if they did begin to be a powerful party I would then begin to vote libertarian I think. note this is all at the federal level. I dont think there is any protection from a STATE becoming a theocracy. the power to be a STATE theocracy is RESRVED TO THE STATE. period. also. I think y'all got it way wrong. I think the reason for the so called, non-existant "sep of church and state" was instututed was to protect churches from the state, not to protect states from churches. anyway, i gotta side totaly with rick here. one= will not throw my vote away this year by bowing to the false notion that if i dont vote republican i am only taking away from the conservitive vote (ie, placing socialists in power) here is where you can tuck that crapola away ... if you dont vote 3rd party, you are just continiuing to vote for socialist or facist and are blinded by the world pulled over your eyes (pay no attention to the man behind the curtian!!!) two= until a 3rd party begins to hold the house or senate all the other stuff dont even mean crap. rick is correct in this. the constitution party believes in the constitution. believes in jury nulification. wants to abolish the fed in a reasonable maner. lots to like there. the only "well hold on there sonny" apears to be that they believe in Christ, and believe that Christ inspired our form of government. I can assure you I am WAY less worried about a christian theocracy than I am about the republicrats continuing the path to one world government at the hands of the world banks. the arguements are mostly moot till the fed is desolved, the constituion is upheld as supreme law of the land. the balance of power is restored, and jurys know their rights. till then, let the party without sin throw the first stone.

[Tightwad]

*the constitution party believes in the constitution. believes in jury nullification. wants to abolish the fed in a reasonable manner. lots to like there. *the only "well hold on there sonny" appears to be that they believe in Christ, and believe that Christ inspired our form of government.

One question for you to ponder......
What EXACTLY is the Constitution party going to replace what they
eliminate with? What EXACTLY IS THEIR TOTAL AGENDA?

For a good place to begin to learn about the web that this party
is part of and why a bit of study is needed. Now don't poo-poo
this because the folk's running this and other parties do it FULL
TIME and we only listen to them PART TIME. So lies or omitted
facts are easy to slip by us.

Now I don't care who anyone votes for or against only that they vote
and participate in our government. I don't care what party you
support as the running of our country is business to me and the
best "employee" we can hire for the job the better.

That said, to become better informed I'd suggest this starting point.....

For a real eye full read these two books........
*
"American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips" (an ex-Republican insider)
*
"What every American should know about who's really running the *
world by Melissa Rossi" (an eye full and then some)