The Constitution Party of the United States of America.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : The Constitution Party of the United States of America.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author Message
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8220
Credit: 21,850,462
RAC: 11,016
United Kingdom
Message 1235035 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 13:04:42 UTC

Party of peace sounds expensive. It either means back off in every negoiation with foreign powers, thereby giving everything away, or building up military strength and keeping it that way so no-one will attempt to challenge you, and accuse you of bullying.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 11,479,685
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1235059 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 14:22:47 UTC - in response to Message 1235016.

Indeed it is, and from your perspective you might see nearly everything as socialism - once your vantage point is far enough to the right, the world seems very left wing.

You want something closer to socialism -- try Sweden

For most of the Europeans I correspond with, the US is about 7 or 8 with the Democrats at 6 and the Teapublicans at 9+. The Constitution Party (such as it is) would be pretty much off the scale.




Well, that's your opinion.

My opinion is the US as a whole seems to be about 3.5 and dropping fast.


bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1928
Credit: 14,361,202
RAC: 3,099
United States
Message 1235200 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 0:07:50 UTC - in response to Message 1235032.

The Bill of Rights.

LOL, about the rest. I understand that you are new to our Country. Perhaps you came here after the war in Nam? Both Prez the one killed and the one who took his place were Dems engaged us deeper into the war. The Party of Dems claimed the party of peace, on campus schools across the Country, perople burned draft cards. Started riots, 1968...

Don't worry Im about to take a bite out of the Repubs too.....


Does this mean you consider the Bill of Rights a part of the Original Constitution? You see you have not yet answered the pretty straightforward question, when you say "Original Constitution" what do you consider a part of that document? If you consider some amendments a part of the original, which ones are they?

I was not in the US in the 1960s, I arrived in 1999, and have lived here ever since. I was aware that it was under JFK and LBJ that the Vietnam "police action" started, that it was under FDR that the US entered WWII, under Truman the US entered the Korean "police action", and under Woodrow Wilson that the US entered WWI. These were all Democratic Party candidates for President. I am also aware that it was under George H.W. Bush that the US entered the first Guld "conflict", and under George W Bush that the US entered into the "War on Terrorism" including armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were both Republican Party candidates for President.

I am not sure how either party can claim to be the "Party of Peace" in a general sense, though either may have had advocates for peace at different times, and claimed to have been the "Party for Peace" with respect to a specific conflict.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,653,448
RAC: 8,141
United States
Message 1235249 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 2:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1235210.
Last modified: 23 May 2012, 2:14:39 UTC

Yes I do believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Original Constitution. The 11, we can do no better then God in making law.

I also believe that we could have stopped right there with 11 and still had freedom for everyone called--person, born as well as unborn, regardless of race, sex or Creed. God makes no such distinction, we all have a soul.

ID, I believe you believe what you state, a more interesting question is what life experiences caused you to think that way?
____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,653,448
RAC: 8,141
United States
Message 1235267 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 3:13:40 UTC - in response to Message 1235256.

ID, OK, but I still would find it interesting and maybe instructional to understand how you got to be where you are.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1928
Credit: 14,361,202
RAC: 3,099
United States
Message 1271138 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 15:45:17 UTC - in response to Message 1270988.

So, it would seem to some that our founders/framers where for slavery. They were not. Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].


The southern states were ill at ease with the layout of congress without having the 3/5 compromise. The white non slave population in the south was vastly out numbered by the white populations of the north. The southern plantation states knew it was a matter of time before they were legislatively and representatively useless. This also gave tax benefits from the Federal gov't that the south would have lost out on from the population standpoint.
They threatened to break the union if they didn't get their way.

heres a quote from Wikipedia
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War



LOL, no this isn't true and you should REALLY STOP getting you history from Wackapedia. It can be changed by anyone even you without peer review.

During the time the Constitution was drafted and accepted, there was MORE white slaves then black.


Perhaps you can demolish the source of wikipedia's entry as easily?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,515
RAC: 121
Korea, North
Message 1271155 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 16:32:28 UTC - in response to Message 1271138.

and lets not forget those 3/5 persons were not allowed to vote. Only be counted as "human" for the electoral college. Basically, you had a rich white minority dominated voting block from the south that enforced policies for a nation. pretty much what Spit and lyin Ryan want today
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1928
Credit: 14,361,202
RAC: 3,099
United States
Message 1271198 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 17:53:54 UTC - in response to Message 1271168.

No peer review at Wackiepidiea....

Not a font of correct information.....

Did you change it for this thread?


If you'd followed the link provided in my previous post you'd have seen that it was to a book. The book is the source for the Wikipedia article. I take it that as you repeated your complaint about Wikipedia, rather than attempt to undermine the verifiable source material, you are unable to demolish the argument in the source. That you resort to the 5 D's does not go unnoticed.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Constitution Party of the United States of America.

Copyright © 2014 University of California