Rune Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Read this guy's reason against the major parties and it's hysterical. http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=110 He says that Bush is pro abortion and that he has socialist policy :lol His claims and comments are so out there and misinformed you can not help to laugh. Furman, I really hope this man does not represent your party but it is on the official site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 It's The VP nom, I found out. The guy's off his rocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 if Bush were pro-life, you think he'd do something, considering it's only legalized thru a judicial fiat, and not legislation. Socialist policy: welfare but he means big govt...which is what socialism is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 if Bush were pro-life, you think he'd do something, considering it's only legalized thru a judicial fiat, and not legislation. Socialist policy: welfare but he means big govt...which is what socialism is 478537[/snapback] The thing is Bush hasn't gotten a chance to appoint any supreme court justices. This man says "Bush would nominate pro abortion justices". I don't know call me crazy but maybe Bush saying he wants pro life justices and saying that Scalia and Thomas are his ideal justices maybe would tip some people off that he could be pro life. This man however is oblivious to any of that. "Both parties are committed to granting legitimacy to homosexuality" - The Democrats in power you can make a case for some of them but come on, Yeah The Republicans are always on the news demanding gay marriage be legal. You would think BTW, if both parties supported gay marriage that the ban on gay marriage would have been a unanimous instead of virtually down the middle but of course "Indeed, both parties seem headed in the same direction.". "Loyalists from both sides will overlook practically any deficiency of character, any breach of trust, or any violation of principle when committed by a standard bearer of their own Party. Therefore, in the end, what is the difference?" - Who's principle, The Principle of your party? I'm not defending wrong acts by elected officials but come on. This is a party that wants to eliminate all enviromental laws along with The Endangered Species act and that's not violating principle? Oh and this guy's blatant lies and assumptions seem like a breach of trust to those who believe in him. Their's a word for these kind of rants and thoughts, Paranoia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 legitimacy of homosexuality can also be civil unions.... Bush is pro-life....yet there is still abortion. Now if it was in the Constitution, he'd have a whole helluva lot to do to fix it...but the fact is, a judicial fiat "legalized it"! The Supreme Court cannot Constitutionally create laws. Bush could do so much more for pro-lifers, but he doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ive really gotta go work out, so ill catch yall later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 what would you like Dubya to do in terms of abortion? its not like he has those judicial powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 I'm wishy washy on if it should be a fed or state issue...I'm leaning more towards it being a federal issue because it protects life (of unborn), which is clearly a God-given right. But I also possibly believe that the states should be allowed to prosecute how they please... Anywho, abortion wasn't even made legal by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade made the PROSECUTION of abortion ILLEGAL. Here, Peroutka explains it better... It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would do my first day in office. Don't let alleged "pro-life" Presidents tell you differently. The President has an obligation under Article IV, ?4 to ensure to each member State that it will be republican in form of government. Any action that is not republican in form will be utterly resisted to the grave if necessary under a Peroutka Presidency. Abortion was made "legal" (more correctly, the prosecution of abortion was made illegal) in these United States by judicial fiat, which is anti-republican in form and in violation of the Separation of Powers and Article I, ?1 of the Constitution vesting all legislative power of the Federal Government in the Congress. In an American form of government, "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison. Most certainly, anti-Constitutional court decisions are not binding. Thus, under my presidency, Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 Here's another quote from their platform They want to "Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution" As they stated above in that platform, they want to go back to a complete coin system for our money. I'd be really looking forward to paying for a car with a giant sack of change and just think of our new wallets, we could have sacks that go around your belt. Oh it will be grand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 yes, the Constitution Party supports a currency based soley on coins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 yes, the Constitution Party supports a currency based soley on coins 478773[/snapback] Tell me what's the difference between... "The Founding Fathers established a system of "coin" money that was designed to prohibit the "improper and wicked" manipulation of the nation's medium of exchange while guaranteeing the power of the citizens' earnings." and. "Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution;" That's right from their party platform, how is The Founding Fathers established a system of "coin" money and "Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution;"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Economics is definitely not my strongest subject, but what I gathered was that they were against an economy based on debt (like ours is now, it seems). Economics pretty much confuses the hell out of me, so I'd have to have someone else explain it.... I do seriously doubt the Constitution Party would support a coined money system, as it would never be considered as a legitimate 3rd party. I also see nowhere in Peroutka's stance on issues where he supports a money system based on using coins only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.