Mission accomplished +5



On May 4, 11:12 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That leaves me, the green party folks, Libertarians, etc...as the
> problem then, not the people who continue to run horribly flawed
> candidates? How do we get them to run better people by going along
> with them?
>  Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Just to quote a bit from an e-mail I received this morning:
Please read this special message from former U.S. Congressman Bob
Barr.
- TCV Daily Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Fellow Conservative,

I'm writing you today with the most important news I could ever share
with you.

After years of frustration watching the Republican Party rack up a $10
Trillion national debt while doing nothing to cut spending it is
obvious that the Republican Party is simply no longer serious about
representing the conservative-libertarian economic philosophy of my
former boss, President Ronald Reagan.

I am deeply disappointed to see President Bush put forward a $3.1
Trillion budget, while vetoing hardly any spending bills during nearly
eight years in office.

For those of us who had hoped for a true conservative to win the GOP
nomination, I'm afraid that hasn't happened either; as Senator John
McCain has locked up that Party's nomination.

As a consequence, many dedicated conservatives and advocates of
limited, constitutional government have lost all remaining hope in
restoring true conservatism to the Republican Party.

That's why after many weeks of careful consideration, intense thought
and prayer, I have formed an official exploratory committee for
President of the United States under the banner of the Libertarian
Party.

<<end quote>>

The folks running the TCV are right wing nutjobs, but influential. I'd
suggest signing up for the newsletters since the Weekly World News has
folded as a print newspaper, though still online.

They get behind Barr, and I'm sure they will, this swings my
prediction of a close McCain win to a close win by either Obama, or
Hillary. They don't like any of the people in the race, and will vote
to send a message to the Republican party by voting for Barr.
Bill C
 
On May 8, 5:14 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> > That leaves me, the green party folks, Libertarians, etc...as the
> > problem then, not the people who continue to run horribly flawed
> > candidates? How do we get them to run better people by going along
> > with them?


That isn't the way voting for third party candidates works.

> Barr:
> After years of frustration watching the Republican Party rack up a $10
> Trillion national debt while doing nothing to cut spending it is
> obvious that the Republican Party is simply no longer serious about
> representing the conservative-libertarian economic philosophy of my
> former boss, President Ronald Reagan.


I was not aware that Prezident Reagan did not run up budget deficits.

"Sacred cows run in herds." -- David Stockman, Reagan OMB Director

> I am deeply disappointed to see President Bush put forward a $3.1
> Trillion budget, while vetoing hardly any spending bills during nearly
> eight years in office.


And this is precisely why I cannot for the life of me understand why
leftists do not absolutely adore Prezident Bush. He got them a war
with deficit spending and increased the size of guvmint. What is not
for a leftist to luv?

>  They get behind Barr, and I'm sure they will, this swings my
> prediction of a close McCain win to a close win by either Obama, or
> Hillary. They don't like any of the people in the race, and will vote
> to send a message to the Republican party by voting for Barr.


You should consider that it is sending a message to either republicans
or democrats that you don't like their statist ways. Who knows, maybe
one day a democrat (or republican) will wake up. Who cares what party
they are in?

I mean sure, the natural odds are against the democrat, but the boy
scout is always prepared.

_The Party of Vacuous Rhetoric_ -- Rockwell
http://mises.org/story/2309
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> In my book, Halliburton is just fine and **** Cheney is a statesman
> of extraordinary ability. Too bad there aren't more like him.


As a courtesy, I think I should reply to this post and mention Robert Chung, so he
has a tag on your post (for future generations, again) and doesn't hurt his troll
index.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On May 8, 3:45 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 8, 5:14 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am deeply disappointed to see President Bush put forward a $3.1
> > Trillion budget, while vetoing hardly any spending bills during nearly
> > eight years in office.

>
> And this is precisely why I cannot for the life of me understand why
> leftists do not absolutely adore Prezident Bush.  He got them a war
> with deficit spending and increased the size of guvmint.  What is not
> for a leftist to luv?


As part of our plans for global domination and
One World Government, we like our warmongers
to win.

Ben
 
On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I cannot for the life of me understand why
>leftists do not absolutely adore Prezident Bush. He got them a war
>with deficit spending and increased the size of guvmint. What is not
>for a leftist to luv?


Because you don't understand what progressive politics are about.
 
On May 9, 6:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I cannot for the life of me understand why
> >leftists do not absolutely adore Prezident Bush.  He got them a war
> >with deficit spending and increased the size of guvmint.  What is not
> >for a leftist to luv?

>
> Because you don't understand what progressive politics are about.


Here's a James Madison quote that's becoming popular here on stickers:

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise
of fighting a foreign enemy.

I don't think this one will be though:

"[A]ll power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from,
the people.
That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the
benefit of the people;
which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of
acquiring property,
and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

or this one:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

This applies to both Bush, and the folks who want a "loose, or living"
interpretation of the Constitution. Along with revising the religious
reality out of the founding of our Country.
Bill C
 
On May 9, 3:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I cannot for the life of me understand why
> >leftists do not absolutely adore Prezident Bush.  He got them a war
> >with deficit spending and increased the size of guvmint.  What is not
> >for a leftist to luv?

>
> Because you don't understand what progressive politics are about.


Dumbass,

I understand perfectly well what progressive politics are about;
better than you, in fact. It was tongue-in-cheek.
 
On May 9, 12:05 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:38 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 7:25 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:


> > > Along with revising the religious
> > > reality out of the founding of our Country.

>
> > Dumbass,
> > Read The First.  The feds weren't allowed to do squat one way _or_
> > another when it came to religion.  It said nothing about what States
> > could or could not do.  The Constitution and BoR were limitations on
> > the fed guv, not the States.

>
> The First Amendment would be meaningless if it didn't apply to states
> since almost all of us live in states.


Read some history. They (BoR) didn't apply as limitations on the
states.

> "Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named
> rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress,...


Yep.

> ... the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly.


No ****, Sherlock.

> Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the
> Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the
> limitations of the First Amendment.


No ****, Sherlock. Miraculously, the 20th courts discovered things
about the constitution, BoR, and the 14th that people at the time of
the writing (and near writing) just didn't know. Who da thunk? It is
truly an amazing part of US history. This is why FDR's court packing
threats contribute to making him one of the top three horrible
prezidents of all time. If you hate Bush, you must hate FDR. I mean,
if you care at all about being consistant, that is.

Read some history. If you can come back from that, and still say that
the Incorporation Doctrine is not anti-constitutional, then you might
qualify for posting on hnn that Bush is bad. (Which I ironically
happen to agree with.)

Never mind that it is also a fair (further) question as to whether the
14th was properly ratified in the first place.

http://www.amazon.com/GOVERNMENT-JUDICIARY-RAOUL-BERGER/dp/0865971439/

> ...That means that the restrictions of the First
> Amendment also apply to the states, including the
> local governments within each of those states."


Gosh Skippy, thanks for the news.

Starbucks. Be there.
 
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Starbucks. Be there.


I hope you're not practising your pee-in-place technique at the Starbucks.
 
On May 9, 12:38 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dumbass,
> Read The First.  The feds weren't allowed to do squat one way _or_
> another when it came to religion.  It said nothing about what States
> could or could not do.  The Constitution and BoR were limitations on
> the fed guv, not the States.


You haven't seen the folks arguing that religion had no place at all,
in the government of the time, or historically? Seems to me that when
you read through just abpout everything the founding folks wrote, even
about government, it's loaded with religion. it was a central part of
day to day life. They were trying to prevent the church from taking
over the government since that was a familiar concept. I haven't read
much of anything from anyone other than Jefferson that wanted religion
totally eliminated from all facets of public society. Seems to me that
they wrote that in along with all the other stuff about keeping any
person, or group from grabbing power, not promoting atheism by law as
is currently being pushed for by our progressive friends.
I'd really like to read anything out there on them intending to
sanitize the Country from religion. The historical reality is that
religion was a huge part of daily life for just about everyone at that
time.
Bill C
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

> The mistake that you two make is to assume that the great technological advances
> that happen in the US are what constitutes "Medical Care" and that they are available
> to everyone. They aren't.


Also, a good percentage of all "technological" advances are really old
advances wrapped in new marketing.
 
On May 9, 1:37 pm, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > Starbucks.  Be there.

>
> I hope you're not practising your pee-in-place technique at the Starbucks.


Coffee is a diuretic.

**** OR GET OFF THE POT!!!!!!!!
 
On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This is why FDR's court packing
>threats contribute to making him one of the top three horrible
>prezidents of all time. If you hate Bush, you must hate FDR. I mean,
>if you care at all about being consistant, that is.


And Abe Lincoln as well.
 
On May 9, 2:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 12:38 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dumbass,
> > Read The First.  The feds weren't allowed to do squat one way _or_
> > another when it came to religion.  It said nothing about what States
> > could or could not do.  The Constitution and BoR were limitations on
> > the fed guv, not the States.

>
>  You haven't seen the folks arguing that religion had no place at all,
> in the government of the time, or historically? ....


Read what I wrote. Read The First. Read The Tenth.
 
On May 9, 8:18 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 2:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 12:38 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > Dumbass,
> > > Read The First.  The feds weren't allowed to do squat one way _or_
> > > another when it came to religion.  It said nothing about what States
> > > could or could not do.  The Constitution and BoR were limitations on
> > > the fed guv, not the States.

>
> >  You haven't seen the folks arguing that religion had no place at all,
> > in the government of the time, or historically? ....

>
> Read what I wrote.  Read The First.  Read The Tenth.


I have and agree with you, that's specifically why I used the quote I
did. Like another aspect of the first, they have a new interpretation.
We had another incident here last week, at Smith College, of a speaker
being intimidated, threatened, the equipment being torn up, and him
not being allowed to speak, all in the name free speech, of course
that only apllied to the protesters, not the speaker, the people who
invited him, or the people who came to hear him. Noone is being
disciplined that I've seen and, of course, there are no charges being
filed.
This is what being "progressive" is all about here.
Bill C