Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

[foxpaws]

So, since I have been on my fair share of platform writing committees - I found this fascinating... especially for a state platform....

The more interesting things I have highlighted...

From Maine Politics

An overwhelming majority of delegates to the Maine Republican convention tonight voted to scrap the the proposed party platform and replace it with a document created by a group of Tea Party activists.

The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

It also contains favorable mentions of both the Tea Party and Ron Paul. You can read the whole thing here.

Dan Billings, who has served as an attorney for the Maine GOP, called the new platform "wack job pablum" and "nutcase stuff."​

<snip>

You must read it - it is very odd...

The Tea Party inclusion is even odder... why is this in a platform?

The Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the principled revolt that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. In June of that year, Horace Greeley referred to the newly formed Republicans as “…united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty…". This year it is incumbent upon those Republicans who strive to protect and defend our Constitution, to reclaim that heritage.​

Plus, they removed the word 'Liberal.' Horace founded the Liberal Republican Party... As Kstills mentioned in another thread - has liberal become that much of a 'dirty' word that we must re-write history around it?

 

[Kstills]

Preamble:

In the course of a nation’s history, it is natural that political philosophies will evolve which run contrary to the original principles evident at the time of that nation’s founding. A nation founded in tyranny will by its nature spawn sentiment in direct opposition to that tyranny. Conversely, a nation which is dedicated to protecting the rights of its people, and seeks to bind the excesses of power which naturally accrue to governments, is subject to the evolution of factions which strive to throw off those shackles of restraint and gather power and influence over the people. Freedom is not a pre-existing condition into which everyone is delivered. Freedom and personal liberty are conditions of existence which are hard fought for and once won, must be maintained. Each generation must be taught anew the importance of eternal vigilance against those who would disregard the limits imposed on government, and usurp powers not granted to them by the people.
Today this state and the nation are in crisis precisely because we as a people have failed to maintain that vigilance. We have failed to pass down from one generation to another the critical knowledge and lessons that history provides. We have let rot from within, the foundation upon which freedom and prosperity must be built for it to survive.

This election cycle is unique in the history of both this state and our nation. We are presented with a situation in which WE THE PEOPLE, must re-educate ourselves and our neighbors, and put the knowledge of liberty to work in the elections this November. Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental to the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties, and undermine the education of Constitutional principles vital to the survival of the republic.

The Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the principled revolt that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. In June of that year, Horace Greeley referred to the newly formed Republicans as “…united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty…". This year it is incumbent upon those Republicans who strive to protect and defend our Constitution, to reclaim that heritage.

It is within this context that We, the citizens of Maine united by free association as Republicans, dedicated to seeing the principles which brought forth the birth and ascendance of this State and these United States once again made dominant and pledge our unwavering allegiance, not to a political party, but to the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Republican Party is the vehicle through which we seek to better unify and promote those in pursuit of these goals.

That doesn't sound so bad, does it?

 

[Kstills]

Page 2 of 4
The principles upon which the Republican Party was founded, to which we as Citizens seek return, and to which we demand our elected representatives abide, are summarized as follows:
1. The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.
2. State sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the States by the constitution.
3. National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty.
4. It is the responsibility and duty, of “We the People”, to educate both ourselves and others; to demand honest elections free of corruption, and to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and loyalty to the constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
In pursuit of these principles we endorse and shall promote the following initiatives.
I. To Form a More perfect Union
a. All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.
b. Direct the State of Maine to join with other states in asserting our 10th amendment sovereignty rights which protect us from unconstitutional federal government intrusions.
c. Insist on strict adherence to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
d. Pass a “Read the Bill” act, to insure clarity, and eliminate the corruption associated with side issues, earmarks, pork or riders.
e. Oppose “Localism and Diversity”, the Fairness Doctrine or whatever else such attempted restrictions are labeled. Any restriction on speech is by definition NOT free speech.
f. Reject the Employee free -choice Elimination- act, as an unconscionable affront to the right to a secret vote.
g. Restore integrity to the electoral process:
i. Prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN, no matter what it or its affiliate organizations rename themselves; New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice etc.; Conduct thorough investigation of their activities and voter fraud and prosecute violations.
ii. Eliminate motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms; institute secure voter registration and identification systems.
iii. Reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.
h. Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically:
i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.

I can see that some of these items might be controversial to those on the left, however I'm not yet seeing anything "wack job pablum'....

 

[Kstills]

Page 3 of 4
ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty.
iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
i. Restore the process of assimilation of immigrants to preserve the benefits of an advanced educated and prosperous society. Rescind Maine’s sanctuary State status. No amnesty, no benefits, no citizenship -ever- for anyone in the country illegally. Arrest and detain, for a specified period of time, anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.
j. Pass a Congressional reform act which includes the following provisions:
i. Term Limits: 12 years only, in any capacity.
1. Two Six year Senate terms
2. Six Two year House terms
3. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
ii. No Pension
iii. Congress participates in Social Security under the same rules as the general public.
iv. Congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
v. Congress participates in the same health care plan as the general public. No preferential plans or treatment.
vi. Congress is subject to and must abide by all the laws they impose on the general public.
II. To Establish Justice:
a. Restore “Constitutional law” as the basis for the Judiciary.
b. Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.
III. To Insure Domestic tranquility:
a. Promote family values.
i. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.
iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.
IV. To Provide for the Common Defense:
a. Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
b. Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.
V. To Promote the General Welfare:
a. Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.
b. Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated!
c. Pass and implement Fed bill #1207 (Introduced by Ron Paul), to Audit the Federal Reserve, as the first step in Ending the Fed.
d. Return to transparent and honest reporting of economic statistics free of gimmicks and distortions.

Some controversial points here.

A war on Radical Islam is probably a bad choice of words, ones I could do without.

I can see that most folks wouldn't understand the difference between Autrian Economics and Australopithicus Economics, but this represents a fundamental change in the way our policy makers would be able to operate.

Ending the Fed is a must.

 

[foxpaws]

That is the preamble- here is the Dems... they often sound pretty good - because they are so generic.

Since Jefferson and Jackson, the Democratic Party has led the struggle to increase democracy in our government. Democracy is the belief that the best repository of wisdom lies in the hands of an informed and educated electorate and that this electorate has a right to control the political agenda and debate those issues that are of importance to them.

In keeping with this philosophy, Maine Democrats believe in serving the people in Maine by promoting strong sustainable communities, fairness and opportunity for all, and investment in Maine’s future. Economic opportunity and security, universal access to quality education and healthcare, good government, fair taxes, safety and national security, human rights, environmental protection, and international cooperation are the policies and principles for which we have long fought and will continue to fight.

We adopt this platform as an expression of what Democrats in Maine support and as a guideline for elected officials in their political work.​

I have issues with the Republican preamble, just as you might have with the Dems...

However, I think the problems lie within the 'meat' of the platforms.

Now platforms are often just fuzzy things - rarely remembered, rarely reviewed.

But the fact that a major party would include the mention of another party... i.e. the Tea Party within its platform is very odd... Is this a takeover, or is this kowtowing for votes?

And, the whole freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion is even more bizarre.

 

[foxpaws]

Some controversial points here.

A war on Radical Islam is probably a bad choice of words, ones I could do without.

I can see that most folks wouldn't understand the difference between Autrian Economics and Australopithicus Economics, but this represents a fundamental change in the way our policy makers would be able to operate.

Ending the Fed is a must.

Do you place in a platform words embracing a specific type of economic system? One that, unless you are an economist you probably don't fully understand? Is that elitist?

Also, term limits, they infringe on my rights. If I like how a person is representing me in congress, what gives anyone the right to not allow me to vote that person in for 8 terms? It is odd to place such an obviously unconstitutional point within a work that claims to be 'all for the constitution'.

The platform looks like it was written from FoxNews points...

 

[Kstills]

That is the preamble- here is the Dems... they often sound pretty good - because they are so generic.

Since Jefferson and Jackson, the Democratic Party has led the struggle to increase democracy in our government. Democracy is the belief that the best repository of wisdom lies in the hands of an informed and educated electorate and that this electorate has a right to control the political agenda and debate those issues that are of importance to them.

In keeping with this philosophy, Maine Democrats believe in serving the people in Maine by promoting strong sustainable communities, fairness and opportunity for all, and investment in Maine’s future. Economic opportunity and security, universal access to quality education and healthcare, good government, fair taxes, safety and national security, human rights, environmental protection, and international cooperation are the policies and principles for which we have long fought and will continue to fight.

We adopt this platform as an expression of what Democrats in Maine support and as a guideline for elected officials in their political work.​

I have issues with the Republican preamble, just as you might have with the Dems...

However, I think the problems lie within the 'meat' of the platforms.

Now platforms are often just fuzzy things - rarely remembered, rarely reviewed.

But the fact that a major party would include the mention of another party... i.e. the Tea Party within its platform is very odd... Is this a takeover, or is this kowtowing for votes?

And, the whole freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion is even more bizarre.

Of course it seems 'bizarre' to you.

But it does not seem bizarre to me.

 

[Kstills]

Do you place in a platform words embracing a specific type of economic system? One that, unless you are an economist you probably don't fully understand? Is that elitist?

No.

It seperates two competing ideas about how a state should function, economically, embracing one and rejecting the other. Because economic theory is poorly understood does not mean it is unimportant.

Also, term limits, they infringe on my rights. If I like how a person is representing me in congress, what gives anyone the right to not allow me to vote that person in for 8 terms? It is odd to place such an obviously unconstitutional point within a work that claims to be 'all for the constitution'.

They are calling for a constitutional amendment to change....the constitution.

The platform looks like it was written from FoxNews points...

Oh nos!

Teh Fox newsy talking points...run run runaway......:N

 

[foxpaws]

No.

It seperates two competing ideas about how a state should function, economically, embracing one and rejecting the other. Because economic theory is poorly understood does not mean it is unimportant.

Isn't naming a specific economic school of thought elitist? And do you think the people who wrote this platform understand it, or do you think it is just one of those 'buzz words'? It is wording like this that make this platform look like a list of talking points ripped from the headlines, but not fully understood.

They are calling for a constitutional amendment to change....the constitution.

They are calling for an 'act' not 'amendment'. That is where the unconstitutionality of it lies. I am needed to change the constitution, but congress can't on its own, and unless the constitution is changed - term limits are unconstitutional. Once again - it looks like people wrote this who don't really understand what they are writing about - just grabbing onto catch words.

And you don't think 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion' in a state platform is bizarre? Why not?

 

[foxpaws]

and another good one...

We believe in the sanctity of life.

Once again - were they trying to be 'coy' and sort of state they were anti abortion - but instead, it just looks like they are against the death penalty...

Weird platform -

And with all the fiscally conservative stuff - to also insert all the socially conservative stuff too? Libertarians will run.

And what about state stuff - this is a state platform, it reads like a federal platform...

 

[Kstills]

Isn't naming a specific economic school of thought elitist? And do you think the people who wrote this platform understand it, or do you think it is just one of those 'buzz words'? It is wording like this that make this platform look like a list of talking points ripped from the headlines, but not fully understood.

To whom?

To folks unfamiliar with the term, or with economics in general?

Read the preamble again, they are clear on goals.

They are calling for an 'act' not 'amendment'. That is where the unconstitutionality of it lies. I am needed to change the constitution, but congress can't on its own, and unless the constitution is changed - term limits are unconstitutional. Once again - it looks like people wrote this who don't really understand what they are writing about - just grabbing onto catch words.

You are correct. I skimmed that bit.

So they should probably change that to a Constitutional Amendment. That would solve that problem.

And you don't think 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion' in a state platform is bizarre? Why not?

No.

Because freedom of religion and the part of the Constitution prohibiting Congress from writing laws respecting one religion over another has gone way overboard.

In the eyes of some folks.

 

[Kstills]

and another good one...

We believe in the sanctity of life.

Once again - were they trying to be 'coy' and sort of state they were anti abortion - but instead, it just looks like they are against the death penalty...

Weird platform -

And with all the fiscally conservative stuff - to also insert all the socially conservative stuff too? Libertarians will run.

And what about state stuff - this is a state platform, it reads like a federal platform...

Maybe. But I doubt it.

You're not going to find any convincing fiscal conservatism on the left, regardless. Libertarians will hold their noses in the next election.

BTW, the majority of Tea Party folks could care less about the social conservative agenda. Those parts of the Maine platform read alot like most Republican platforms have over the last few years.

 

[foxpaws]

To whom?

To folks unfamiliar with the term, or with economics in general?

Read the preamble again, they are clear on goals.

Yep - on goals - but von Mises? I think someone just likes the sound of Austrian School - and really doesn't have a clue - but 'read' that it was a 'right' thing to do.

Maybe breaking the mold on platforms is a good thing - it certainly has gotten the Maine GOP a lot of attention. But, will it bite them literally 'in the end'. I think that as a candidate I wouldn't want to answer the questions that this platform brings up.

You are correct. I skimmed that bit.

So they should probably change that to a Constitutional Amendment. That would solve that problem.

It would solve the little problem, but does it solve the big problem. It sounds like they don't have a clue on what they are talking about. Sound bites and rally points - but, not to get this basic bit of constitutionality correct? Heck, I ain't no lawyer, but I caught that. They didn't even have a first year law student look at this thing? The whole education section is way out of bounds regarding the constitution as well...

And if they are all about rights - that one strips out bunches of them - my right to vote for whomever I want...

Once again sound bite - but no real comprehension of what is really behind the concept.

No.

Because freedom of religion and the part of the Constitution prohibiting Congress from writing laws respecting one religion over another has gone way overboard.

And talking about constitutionality problems... opening up the 1st?

Don't you err on the side of the 'small'. Isn't that part of what the constitution protects - those who can't protect themselves. Doesn't it allow for the few to have their rights protected in the same exact manner as the many?

And if it is part of the constitution - even if it has gone 'way overboard' - it is still part of the constitution.

 

[cammerfe]

Obvious 'Liberal' Hack Job

...declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal)

Where is the suggestion of illegality? That statement is the height of dunderheadedness, but goes along with the determination to find things to scorn

...has liberal become that much of a 'dirty' word...

Yes. Liberal had an entirely different meaning at that time. It's now been bastardized by its adoption by the Progressive/Communist end of the political spectrum.

KS

 

[foxpaws]

Where is the suggestion of illegality? That statement is the height of dunderheadedness, but goes along with the determination to find things to scorn

Find things to scorn? I am not quite sure what you mean KS...

Yes. Liberal had an entirely different meaning at that time. It's now been bastardized by its adoption by the Progressive/Communist end of the political spectrum.

Yes it has changed, but do you change the name of what Greeley started - the Liberal Republican Party... just to create a pleasing facade?

 

[shagdrum]

Of course it seems 'bizarre' to you.

But it does not seem bizarre to me.

The idea that "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" is constituent with the founding documents and the framer's intent.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes it has changed, but do you change the name of what Greeley started - the Liberal Republican Party... just to create a pleasing facade?

How is this anything more the a red herring?

The Liberal Republican Party of the United States was a political party that was organized in Cincinnati in May 1872, to oppose the reelection of President Ulysses S. Grant and his Radical Republican supporters. The party's candidate in that year's presidential election was Horace Greeley, longtime publisher of the New York Tribune. Following his nomination by the Liberal Republicans, Greeley was also nominated by the Democratic Party. Greeley was seen as an oddball reformer with no government experience and a long record of vehement attacks against the very Democrats he now called on for support. He was defeated in a landslide.

The Liberal Republican Party vanished immediately after the election. However, historians suggest that, by loosening the allegiance of liberal elements to the Republican Party, the Liberal Republicans made it possible for many of these leaders to move to the Democratic Party. The others returned to the GOP.​

Again, how is that anything more then a red herring?

Do you know nothing but deception?

 

[shagdrum]

Do you place in a platform words embracing a specific type of economic system? One that, unless you are an economist you probably don't fully understand? Is that elitist?

Even economists don't "fully understand" economic systems. It is a soft science.

Doesn't mean you can't identify how those systems generally work, differ from each other, and maximize individual liberty (as opposed to collectivism/socialism).

Also, term limits, they infringe on my rights.

What "rights"are those, specifically?

Simply asserting a "right" does not make it a right, no matter how long winded or repetitive your assertion is...

 

[foxpaws]

The idea that "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" is constituent with the founding documents and the framer's intent.

So, Kstills... this one was before poo slinging was de rigueur.

so from long ago, and far away...

Well, before I attack the rest of your points.. a little point on the debate...

You may not use David Limbaugh - I haven't used one atheist site, or misquoted any founding father or framer (however you are quick to use radical, fundamentalist religious sites, as well as have misquoted the founding fathers), I have been very exacting in my quotes taking them from the Presidential Library of the President quoted, or from the College or Institution that archives the original material. At this point, to use a professed Christian activist as source is not acceptable, especially since I have proven him wrong already on this subject.

And I have only used founding fathers and framers, avoiding using Paine or Allen or other men from that time frame who vehemently opposed any use of religion idiocracy in government. From Paine: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity." The Age of Reason. I could have used these to show what the atmosphere really was at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, but I felt them to be inflamatory, and I felt more comfortable using the actual creators of the documents quotes. If you want me to go after you with these quotes, from accepted critics and respected men that lived at the the time of the writing of the constitution, I have lots, and if nothing else by approximation to the actual time frame we are discussing they should be allowed before some current day radical Christian pundit.

Heck, I have even not used one of my favorites - because it is treaty form, and authorship is attributed to John Barlow and was 'merely' signed by John Adams "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility..." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

Nor have I taken this one out of context "Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell." Lots of people who use Adams like to just use the "This would be the best..." line - which is misleading.

Well, I won't rub it in too much that Scalia was on the 'losing' side in the case of Lee v. Weisman... however, I have also stated that I accept that Christianity is part of our American Heritage. Prayer opens many public events, and government events. Many Presidents have used their belief in God to bring the country together. I sat at the DNC and at every session it opened with prayer. I am not trying to say that we eliminate God from our heritage, or from our government, what I am trying to prevent is the Government actively promoting religion.

Yes, the states you mentioned had supported churches, but, after the bill of rights was ratified, they fell into line with the federal government. There was no dissension on this issue, not one of these states removed themselves from the United States because of this issue (even rascally and Puritan Mass. came around in 1833). It was accepted that the states or the government shouldn't promote religion. This was 'accepted' practice from that point forward until the 1930s (i.e. when the case of Cantwell v Connecticut was first heard in Connecticut court in 1938). That is why the 'silence' between the ratification and the 1930s - because the law was being obeyed.

So, based on the evidence you have provided up to this point (Scalia's dissent) the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the framers had a problem promoting Christianity, I have given proof, by stating the very documents we are discussing, as well as traceable, accurate quotes, from the founders themselves (not a modern day judge), that they had a big problem with this, as well as most of their contemporaries.

Now, maybe I can dream up some good answers to the rest of your points...

OK, heck dreams do work…

Well, last night, between the dream about Scalia, the Rockettes and yellow chicken gravy and the one this morning about 7 foot tall rabbits in green space suits wanting to take me back to their home planet of Lepus Luna (I gotta quit having corn nuts and martinis as a bedtime snack) it came to me – what perhaps is causing this sort of drift here. I know the founding fathers didn’t want to promote Christianity, but, maybe what we are getting confused about is God. They had no problem promoting God. Nondenominational, all knowing, guiding spirit, watches over us, God.

There is a big difference. I probably assumed that we were both talking apples and rereading your arguments it looks like we were talking apples and communion wafers.

The Christian sects at that time (Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc) were in an upheaval, The framers were sick and tired of their bickering with the states and with each other. In fact – Jefferson’s letter that the wall of separation quote comes from is in response to a letter the Danbury Baptists sent Jefferson referring to the trouble that they were having with the state of Connecticut. Taxes were being routed to the Congregationalist Church, however the Baptists were receiving none. Obviously the state was favoring one denomination over another.

Jefferson spent a lot of time drafting that letter – the original draft survives, and is the object of an interesting study at the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html note, government site) the draft was far more explicit in Jefferson’s intent in the ‘separation of church and state). He toned it down…

So, just to make sure that you and I are debating the same point – we are talking about the religion of Christianity not being promoted, which the founding fathers went out of their way time and time again to say that the government is not in the business of promoting religion, it may use religious groups (like it used missionaries for a short time when interacting with the Indians, that soon fell by the wayside, when the missionaries were overstepping their bounds and in effect making slaves of the Indians), and use nondenominational prayer, and other references to 'God' but it will not promote any religion/church.

So, God, isn’t part of the “wall of separation” because that wall refers to the wall between Church and State, not God and State.

Or, maybe it is just the salt and alcohol talking...​

 

[foxpaws]

How is this anything more the a red herring?

The Liberal Republican Party of the United States was a political party that was organized in Cincinnati in May 1872, to oppose the reelection of President Ulysses S. Grant and his Radical Republican supporters. The party's candidate in that year's presidential election was Horace Greeley, longtime publisher of the New York Tribune. Following his nomination by the Liberal Republicans, Greeley was also nominated by the Democratic Party. Greeley was seen as an oddball reformer with no government experience and a long record of vehement attacks against the very Democrats he now called on for support. He was defeated in a landslide.

The Liberal Republican Party vanished immediately after the election. However, historians suggest that, by loosening the allegiance of liberal elements to the Republican Party, the Liberal Republicans made it possible for many of these leaders to move to the Democratic Party. The others returned to the GOP.​

Again, how is that anything more then a red herring?

Do you know nothing but deception?

So, shag I was bringing up an interesting point - tying it back to a point that Kstills had made yesterday regarding how 'liberal' has become a dirty word.

I thought that it was interesting that it obviously has become such a dirty word that, in this case, the people who drafted this document chose to change the name of the party to make sure the word 'liberal' didn't sully their sacred words...

 

[Kstills]

Yep - on goals - but von Mises? I think someone just likes the sound of Austrian School - and really doesn't have a clue - but 'read' that it was a 'right' thing to do.

Maybe breaking the mold on platforms is a good thing - it certainly has gotten the Maine GOP a lot of attention. But, will it bite them literally 'in the end'. I think that as a candidate I wouldn't want to answer the questions that this platform brings up.

Looky there! You know who von Mises is!

See, it's about educating folks, like the preamble says. You can't simply accept that the current model of economics is acceptable because you're being told it is, you have to do the work yourself to find out the pro's and con's.

Getting at your second point, I doubt the Tea Party folks are after the same kind of candidate you are referring to.

It would solve the little problem, but does it solve the big problem. It sounds like they don't have a clue on what they are talking about. Sound bites and rally points - but, not to get this basic bit of constitutionality correct? Heck, I ain't no lawyer, but I caught that. They didn't even have a first year law student look at this thing? The whole education section is way out of bounds regarding the constitution as well...

And if they are all about rights - that one strips out bunches of them - my right to vote for whomever I want...

Once again sound bite - but no real comprehension of what is really behind the concept.

Err, no, it solves all the problems. The 22nd Amendment limits the length of service by the POTUS to two terms. You're familiar with how amendments are passed, so your voice would be heard. Your rights would be respected, and I think everyone can comprehend a vote that the majority of the country casts would be ligitimate and binding, whichever way it went.

And talking about constitutionality problems... opening up the 1st?

Don't you err on the side of the 'small'. Isn't that part of what the constitution protects - those who can't protect themselves. Doesn't it allow for the few to have their rights protected in the same exact manner as the many?

And if it is part of the constitution - even if it has gone 'way overboard' - it is still part of the constitution.

This goes towards interpretation, always a sticky wicket when it comes to constitutional issues.

And I know you know that, now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing....

 

[shagdrum]

Attacking the messenger already Fox?

Who is slinging poo here?

Interesting that you only cite your own post; conveniently avoiding the whole context of the debate. Never mind that you are inherently misrepresenting Jefferson in that post as well as attempting to force unreasonable rules on the debate to favor your point of view ("You may not use David Limbaugh").

No integrity on this forum from day one, eh?

You stay classy.

For anyone trying to make sense of this, she is citing post #62 from this thread; specifically, page three of that thread. One would be wise to read the posts preceding post #62 as well as those after it to get a better idea of the context of the debate.

 

[shagdrum]

So, shag I was bringing up an interesting point - tying it back to a point that Kstills had made yesterday regarding how 'liberal' has become a dirty word.

I thought that it was interesting that it obviously has become such a dirty word that, in this case, the people who drafted this document chose to change the name of the party to make sure the word 'liberal' didn't sully their sacred words...

Liberalism didn't become a dirty word until the 20th century. My signature gives an indication as to why. You know that. Citing something from the 19th century is rather irrelevant; a red herring.

 

[foxpaws]

Even economists don't "fully understand" economic systems. It is a soft science.

Doesn't mean you can't identify how those systems generally work, differ from each other, and maximize individual liberty (as opposed to collectivism/socialism).

So, you think it is OK for the United States of America to adopt an economic school of thought as what, law?

What "rights"are those, specifically?

Simply asserting a "right" does not make it a right, no matter how long winded or repetitive your assertion is...

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. V. Thornton (short enough Shag?)

 

[foxpaws]

Liberalism didn't become a dirty word until the 20th century. My signature gives an indication as to why. You know that. Citing something from the 19th century is rather irrelevant; a red herring.

It doesn't matter - it is just an interesting point... that could we be changing what things are called to be 'politically correct' to the right - removing the word 'liberal' from things.

I was going conversational here shag...

I notice that lately the 'right' has been inching towards embracing Kennedy- it has been done a couple of times here.... so when they do, do you think they will have to reword this quote...

“If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the People — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a Liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960