What would your third party be?

[Calabrio]

If you were to support a third party, and for the sake of the conversation, let's not involve ourselves with the practicality or the perceived electability of this hypothetical party, what would it stand for and represent. What would the platform be.

I ask, because I really don't think there all that much difference in what most of us would ask of a national party than it would seem based upon the way the conventional debates have been framed.

Small government.
More individual liberty and personal responsibility.
More simplified tax code, be it a flat tax or fair tax.
Strict adherence to the constitution.

What principles, and then what policies, would you want represented?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Beyond the great points you would expect, I would say the platform would include nationalization of the country.
No more foreign policy except to have none.
No foreign imports of any kind, and that would include people.
All business owned by american companies would be restricted to operation within our borders only.
No exporting of anything bythe united states.
A solid defense system to protect our citizens.
In short, an America strickly for Americans.
Bob.

 

[cammerfe]

Bob, you never disappoint!

KS

 

[foxpaws]

Boy - I think we should go with Bob

America strickly for Americans

Time for all of us to move... Unless you happen to be a Native American.

 

[cammerfe]

Borderline Illiteracy

I am reminded of a clothing emporium in NW Detroit called 'Strickly Sportswear'. I've had it in mind for several years to stop in and ask for 'Mr. Strickly', who must be the proprietor.

KS

 

[fossten]

Boy - I think we should go with Bob


Time for all of us to move... Unless you happen to be a Native American.

I am a native American.

My vision for America:

Throw out the Constitution and re-adopt the Articles of Confederation.

Rewrite the Bill of Rights to include the other two hundred and two that were proposed by the states. Revise the 2nd Amendment so that there is no ambiguity for the leftards to twist around.

Add severe penalties for BOR violations.

Fully enforce the Bill of Rights.

 

[foxpaws]

I am a native American.

Good....

My vision for America:

Throw out the Constitution and re-adopt the Articles of Confederation.

Rewrite the Bill of Rights to include the other two hundred and two that were proposed by the states. Revise the 2nd Amendment so that there is no ambiguity for the leftards to twist around.

Add severe penalties for BOR violations.

Fully enforce the Bill of Rights.

Odd that you like the bill of rights. Don't you see it being a problem that the source of our rights is stated within a document that is ratified by the people - rather than having rights be 'self-evident' - or 'natural' rights? Also many people see the Bill of Rights (even if written to not be ambiguous) as a way for Government to gain more power. If it isn't mentioned - completely - it isn't protected. And when it is mentioned the Government claims more power for each 'right' that it has to enforce. 202 Articles in the Bill of Rights would be a lot of enforcement. Another argument was that rights were best protected at a state level.

Oh, do you have a link to those Foss...

 

[fossten]

Good....



Odd that you like the bill of rights. Don't you see it being a problem that the source of our rights is stated within a document that is ratified by the people - rather than having rights be 'self-evident' - or 'natural' rights? Also many people see the Bill of Rights (even if written to not be ambiguous) as a way for Government to gain more power. If it isn't mentioned - completely - it isn't protected. And when it is mentioned the Government claims more power for each 'right' that it has to enforce.

Oh, do you have a link to those Foss...

Do you have an original thought to contribute to the thread, fox/Bob? Or are you only interested in nitpicking everybody else? So far your ratio of contributory posts in this thread are zero out of two. (See definition of troll)

Oh, I assume you are challenging the veracity of my claim about the amendments. I'll tell you what - I'll supply a source for you on the amendments offered by the states, but in return for the busywork I want a guarantee that you will leave and never come back to the forum. If you refuse, then I can assume you trust my claim.

Deal?

Come on, fox/Bob...put your money where your mouth is...burn baby burn...

 

[foxpaws]

Do you have an original thought to contribute to the thread, fox? Or are you only interested in nitpicking everybody else? So far your ratio of contributory posts in this thread are zero out of two. (See definition of troll)

Oh, I assume you are challenging the veracity of my claim about the amendments. I'll tell you what - I'll supply a source for you on the amendments offered by the states, but in return for the busywork I want a guarantee that you will leave and never come back to the forum. If you refuse, then I can assume you trust my claim. Deal?

I posted a very viable concern with Bob's idea of a perfect America - America strickly (sic) for Americans has big problems.

And also - 202 articles in a bill of rights would probably have other problems involved with it. Why shouldn't I question it Foss - or maybe you didn't think that a larger bill of rights could entail a bigger government - not smaller at the Fed level.

I was interested in seeing them - I knew that originally the congress came up with 12, but only 10 were ratified - I would like to see the 190 that didn't even make the cut.

Why would I make a deal like you are proposing? Oh, that is right - you need to make sure this 'forum' is safe and secure for people just like you.... No outside thought - best to have a thought police force ready and willing to fight the good fight and get rid of those whose thoughts aren't 'right'.

 

[fossten]

I posted a very viable concern with Bob's idea of a perfect America - America strickly (sic) for Americans has big problems.

And also - 202 articles in a bill of rights would probably have other problems involved with it. Why shouldn't I question it Foss - or maybe you didn't think that a larger bill of rights could entail a bigger government - not smaller at the Fed level.

I was interested in seeing them - I knew that originally the congress came up with 12, but only 10 were ratified - I would like to see the 190 that didn't even make the cut.

Why would I make a deal like you are proposing? Oh, that is right - you need to make sure this 'forum' is safe and secure for people just like you.... No outside thought - best to have a thought police force ready and willing to fight the good fight and get rid of those whose thoughts aren't 'right'.

Climb down off your cross, B. Smilt...we need the wood. You still haven't responded to the OP. You're just flipping from troll to victim.

I will assume then that you trust my claim. Thanks, B.

If you want to see them...I'm assuming you know how to read books, right?

 

[foxpaws]

Climb down off your cross, B. Smilt...we need the wood.

I will assume then that you trust my claim. Thanks, B.

If you want to see them...I'm assuming you know how to read books, right?

I wanted to see the proposed rights from the states - what is wrong with that.... Curiosity foss, perhaps something you don't possess - If you have all the answers, then why deal with the questions anymore at all.

Who is Smilt - I have now tried to Google it a couple of times - is this sort of like a John Galt thing - with a book tie in - "know how to read books"? I don't remember the character from the book you suggested that I read - but is it in "Unintended Consequences"?

 

[fossten]

I wanted to see the proposed rights from the states - what is wrong with that.... Curiosity foss, perhaps something you don't possess - If you have all the answers, then why deal with the questions anymore at all.

Who is Smilt - I have now tried to Google it a couple of times - is this sort of like a John Galt thing - with a book tie in - "know how to read books"? I don't remember the character from the book you suggested that I read - but is it in "Unintended Consequences"?

And as usual, foxpaws/Bob Smilt has hijacked another thread...

Tell me, why haven't you followed through with your questions about me to the truthreallymatters website? I'm so looking forward to seeing your next obsessive investigatory email.

 

[Calabrio]

Well, this turned out to be interesting in an entirely different way that I hoped for.

Can't this exercise be done WITHOUT scraping the constitution for an inferior document that failed? No system of government designed to protect liberty will last unless it's vigilantly defended. We haven't done that in this country for well over a century. The fault isn't the constitution, the fault lies with all of us.

Or without engaging in ridiculous isolationist concepts that, even in a best case scenario, would only reduce our standards of living? In reality, would trigger trade and currency wars that would devastate our economy in a matter of days.

So, can we make this less revolutionary, and more general principle/policy related and see if there's general consensus?

IE-
A third party would support:

Constitutional limited government.
Balanced budgets.
Oversight or elimination of the Fed.
Reduced military expenditures overseas, reduced permanent military while expanding national guards.
Simplified tax code that ceases to penalize success and limits the power of D.C. to punish and sell influence through the code. Be it a flat tax or a "fair tax."
Cut all non-constitutional services from the federal government and shift the responsibility back to the states.

 

[fossten]

Well, this turned out to be interesting in an entirely different way that I hoped for.

Can't this exercise be done WITHOUT scraping the constitution for an inferior document that failed? No system of government designed to protect liberty will last unless it's vigilantly defended. We haven't done that in this country for well over a century. The fault isn't the constitution, the fault lies with all of us.

Or without engaging in ridiculous isolationist concepts that, even in a best case scenario, would only reduce our standards of living? In reality, would trigger trade and currency wars that would devastate our economy in a matter of days.

So, can we make this less revolutionary, and more general principle/policy related and see if there's general consensus?

IE-
A third party would support:

Constitutional limited government.
Balanced budgets.
Oversight or elimination of the Fed.
Reduced military expenditures overseas, reduced permanent military while expanding national guards.
Simplified tax code that ceases to penalize success and limits the power of D.C. to punish and sell influence through the code. Be it a flat tax or a "fair tax."
Cut all non-constitutional services from the federal government and shift the responsibility back to the states.

I support those principles in general as even though it's not perfect you can still maintain a prosperous nation if governed that way.

I will bet you any amount of money that foxpaws/B.Smilt will not support these ideas, but she will avoid commenting with her own ideas so that she can keep trying to perpetuate the false persona that she believes in freedom. Remember, the government exists to take care of us because we're too stupid/jncompetent to take care of ourselves.

 

[cammerfe]

Nomenclature

I was under the impression that the only REAL Amerigons have the last name of Vespucci.

KS

 

[Calabrio]

I support those principles in general as even though it's not perfect you can still maintain a prosperous nation if governed that way.

When you examine the Articles of Confederation, you have to both recognize the ideals behind them, but also why they were destined to have failed. That if left in place, the experiment in liberty that was being undertaken would have likely have failed. It was falling apart after just a few years, given more time, foreign interest would have intervened more aggressively.

I think it's a mistake to idealized the Articles while viewing the Constitution with the benefit of hindsight and through the perverted lens that academics have placed over it.

I will bet you any amount of money that foxpaws/B.Smilt will not support these ideas, but she will avoid commenting with her own ideas so that she can keep trying to perpetuate the false persona that she believes in freedom. Remember, the government exists to take care of us because we're too stupid/jncompetent to take care of ourselves.

I guess that's something for foxpaws to comment on, not me.


But, within a political context, what general policies/principles do you think this 3rd party, unshackled by the labels and dogma of the other two parties, should represent.

 

[fossten]

How about a 100 year moratorium on new laws (excluding budget-only items) or until at least 100,000 old laws have been repealed.

 

[foxpaws]

IE-
A third party would support:

Constitutional limited government.
Balanced budgets.
Oversight or elimination of the Fed.
Reduced military expenditures overseas, reduced permanent military while expanding national guards.
Simplified tax code that ceases to penalize success and limits the power of D.C. to punish and sell influence through the code. Be it a flat tax or a "fair tax."
Cut all non-constitutional services from the federal government and shift the responsibility back to the states.

So Cal - Pluses - Balanced Budget, Eliminate the Fed, Simplify Tax Code, Shifting some things back to the states...

Plus - almost eliminate the Dept of Education (just make it a bare - bones oversight), term limits for all federal offices (as unconstitutional as that may be - life-long congressmen/senators are killing this country), reduce the time of each congressional 'session', don't make it a full-time job, but leave in the full-time salary so the reps come home, and see what is happening 'on the ground'. Change the time of campaigns to 4 months - 2 months for primaries - 2 months for general.

A question about the Military - seems like an odd idea from you. You seemed to be an imperialist. Changed? Why increase the guard? I agree with the reduction of the military - but it doesn't seem like 'you'.

 

[foxpaws]

When you examine the Articles of Confederation, you have to both recognize the ideals behind them, but also why they were destined to have failed. That if left in place, the experiment in liberty that was being undertaken would have likely have failed. It was falling apart after just a few years, given more time, foreign interest would have intervened more aggressively.

I think it's a mistake to idealized the Articles while viewing the Constitution with the benefit of hindsight and through the perverted lens that academics have placed over it.

I wonder what parts of Ex Post Facto laws and Bills of Attainder are Foss's favorites? Both allowed in the Articles of Confederation...

I agree Cal - it failed because it was extremely flawed. Heck, the inability to wage war alone would have doomed the United States.

 

[shagdrum]

Require that whatever the FEDERAL government does for ONE citizen, it must do for ALL citizen (with certain rare exceptions, of course). This means that you tax one citizen's income at 90%, you tax ALL citizen's income at 90%.

Increase the disincentives for politicians who violate their oath and disregard the Constitution (the majority of the entire 111th Congress would fall under this category).

Two words; Repeal Amendment.

Create a "wall of separation" between the FEDERAL government and the economy (except for VERY specific, enumerated areas).

I would NOT propose any sort of isolationist foreign policy.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, you going to tell us what your platform would be or simply nitpick other's ideas?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I copied this sentence from Cal's post above.

"Or without engaging in ridiculous isolationist concepts that, even in a best case scenario, would only reduce our standards of living? In reality, would trigger trade and currency wars that would devastate our economy in a matter of days."

It would be nice if you enlighten us as to exactly what would happen, and how, with nationalization.
Actually it is the only thing that will save this once great country.
Anything short of taking back our country will leave us as a pawn to the rest of the world.
I say nationalize, and put America back on top once again, too never be put in our current position again.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

I wonder what parts of Ex Post Facto laws and Bills of Attainder are Foss's favorites? Both allowed in the Articles of Confederation...

I agree Cal - it failed because it was extremely flawed. Heck, the inability to wage war alone would have doomed the United States.

Your phony little attempts at driving a wedge are pathetic and transparent. So now you want to wage war, eh B. Smilt? Kinda imperialistic of you. It's also contradictory to your original position of weakening the US Military. Can't decide what you are now?

You're coming across as the peanut gallery. Why don't you put out your own platform so we can nitpick it to death...or are you afraid of a little criticism?

Oh wait...you already have your platform in place...in the socialist Obama.

Oh, you never answered my question - have you concluded your obsessive investigation into my personal life yet, fox?

 

[shagdrum]

Bob, maybe I missed it, but what exactly do you mean by "nationalize"?

 

[Calabrio]

A question about the Military - seems like an odd idea from you. You seemed to be an imperialist. Changed? Why increase the guard? I agree with the reduction of the military - but it doesn't seem like 'you'.

I've never been an imperialist. If anything, I may have embraced some idealistic principles of foreign policy in recent years, though it always maintained a foundation in realpolitik. With that, the government and political class have demonstrated the lack the political or social will to actually aggressively carry out these foreign operations. And I think this current administration has an entirely different set of motives than the first.

Why increase the guard? Because that's the compromise that both strengthens the states and makes them more self-sufficient while still maintaining the military force that is necessary going into this century. If I were to go further, I'd probably also embrace outsource more military support positions and expanding special operations and intelligence.

As for the foreign presence, especially as our country is going bankrupt, it's no longer reasonable for the U.S. to so generously subsidize foreign economies by providing them our defense. And mind you, I realize what I'm saying right now is overly simplistic. I know that our presence in places like Korea and Europe have economic and strategic benefits, but for the sake of brevity I'm stating it as such.

I still think from a geo-political stand point that it's critical maintain a strong Navy and Air Force. But ALL levels and systems of government need to be reexamined and reapplied, within the confines of the constitution, including the military.

And the federal tax liabilities need to be reduced and those "social welfare" responsibilities taken on by the fed need to be turned over to the states. There, the populations can decide if they want to support them through their state taxes or not. But a guy in Texas shouldn't have his money taken to D.C. and then sent to someone in California in the form of "welfare."