If all of the political parties had an equal chance at the election process and you could choose a party that best fit you, which political party would you choose?

Here's a link to the many parties out there

Politics1 - Guide to American Political Parties (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm)

US Mariquana party? OK, maybe this isn't the best list to review. I'll bet they will run Michael Phelps as their candidate.

OOPS, I mispelled Constitution. I'm sure some of you will notice. Oh, well.

Probably Libertarian. I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative and they're my best fit.

I would go constitution.
Minus certain personal rights restrictions that were evident, I would like to see this country go back to a 1950s style of doing business.
buy American was not a slogan back then, it was a way of life. The American people produced for Americans, and bought from Americans, the money stayed in this country. very prosperous times if you were not one of the excluded.

Probably Libertarian. I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative and they're my best fit. Thank you for posting about flirting with a third party. I'm so glad it has become a hot topic in the forums.

I would go constitution.

The CP is too religious in their Constitutional interpretation, so they go in the discard pile for me. I agree with most of their platform, but when it starts out with

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

I'm outta here.

Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitution-party.net/party_platform.php)

Looks like this would be my third party:

Issues (http://www.veteransparty.us/issues2.htm)

"Issues concerning a religious or moral nature should not be a political football being tossed around while throwing dispersions at others. Therefore, once again we say that this issue be discussed at your place of worship and in your home and should not be a part of the political arena."

-and -

"We must re-train those currently on welfare to understand that their job is "not" to stand in lines to get additional Welfare. ALL welfare will be changed to Workfare."

-and-

"Give foreign aid to only those strategic countries (in order to avoid imminent threat of international instability) and our allied nations. For economic development purposes we should rely on American businesses, which are interested in doing business with the respective counties. It is not our responsibility as taxpayers to bail the world out of their economic trouble. Americans have always given generously to ease the hardships of those in other countries. Americans can continue to do so through charitable donations anywhere in the world."

The CP is too religious in their Constitutional interpretation, so they go in the discard pile for me. I agree with most of their platform, but when it starts out with


I'm outta here.

Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitution-party.net/party_platform.php)
That pretty much does not cause great excitement in me either way.
I look at the other issues
abortion
drugs
crime
etc...

the abortion and drugs are the main issues I have with the libertarians.

looking back at this countries history and seeing how things changed over the years leading up to where we are now, I see the major issue being morals.
we no longer have any.
To replace the morals of this country would go a long way to bringing us back to a productive society that is able to sustain its own interests. There is no Constitutional requirement that we provide welfare, or foriegn aid. so why do we?
people dug out of the depression by working, not by sitting on their butts waiting for the gubmint check to come in and provide them a carefree life.

the abortion and drugs are the main issues I have with the libertarians.

I have no problem with abortion - to me it's simply population control and riff raff reduction. <-- I'll take #### for that and have to explain once again my position on this. :lol:

The only problem I have with drug use is how it will affect me personally. If other people want to fry their brains, they can have at it. But when their problem becomes my problem, NOW I care. If they want to legalize pot and other minor drugs, I'm okay with that. But I don't want a bunch of freakin' junkies around me and I don't want to pay for their treatment or groceries or anything because they can't hold a job.

everything that has ever been done in this country always takes one more step, its never enough.
as a country we have already become comfortable with abortion.
the next step could bring us in line with China.
If during the ultrasound its not what you want? kill it.
you have too many children? kill some
need to dispose of a babies body? throw it in the gutter, animal control or some individual will come along and pick up the remains.

not exactly the society that I care to be associated with.

the abortion and drugs are the main issues I have with the libertarians.

looking back at this countries history and seeing how things changed over the years leading up to where we are now, I see the major issue being morals.

But what do drugs have to do with morals? Morals have to do with how one treats other living things, not how they treat themselves. Perhaps some people's lack of morality becomes more evident when they are altered by drug's effects - but the choice to use drugs or not doesn't have anything to do with morals. Either you have them to a certain degree or you don't, and choosing to use drugs isn't indicative one way of the other.

The choice to use drugs usually stems from some other failings, not from a lack of morals.

Abortion is a different issue, and the connection between that issue and morals is self-evident.

I have no problem with abortion - to me it's simply population control and riff raff reduction. <-- I'll take #### for that and have to explain once again my position on this. :lol:

The only problem I have with drug use is how it will affect me personally. If other people want to fry their brains, they can have at it. But when their problem becomes my problem, NOW I care. If they want to legalize pot and other minor drugs, I'm okay with that. But I don't want a bunch of freakin' junkies around me and I don't want to pay for their treatment or groceries or anything because they can't hold a job.

If the Libertarians ever had enough impact where they could legalize drugs, then ideally they'd have enough impact where you wouldn't have to pay for their crap, right? :shrug:

Drugs is something that probably won't be changed and abortion is something else that probably won't be changed. I don't really understand why those two issues would impact anyone's political party.

But what do drugs have to do with morals? Morals have to do with how one treats other living things, not how they treat themselves. Perhaps some people's lack of morality becomes more evident when they are altered by drug's effects - but the choice to use drugs or not doesn't have anything to do with morals. Either you have them to a certain degree or you don't, and choosing to use drugs isn't indicative one way of the other.

The choice to use drugs usually stems from some other failings, not from a lack of morals.

Abortion is a different issue, and the connection between that issue and morals is self-evident.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Someone with good morals will also care about how they treat themselves. There's more to morals than how you treat other people. That would be called respect or lack thereof. Anyway, wouldn't consider anyone who used drugs to have good morals. Sorry!

Actually, here's one definition of morals I just googled.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.

This should help you understand why I disagree with you on this one Tilt.

If the Libertarians ever had enough impact where they could legalize drugs, then ideally they'd have enough impact where you wouldn't have to pay for their crap, right? :shrug:

Drugs is something that probably won't be changed and abortion is something else that probably won't be changed. I don't really understand why those two issues would impact anyone's political party.
drugs will be changed eventually at the current rate, and abortion is already taking a big change with the obama in office. we are once again spending our money to support abortion around the world.

would you identify with a party that was exactly in line with your thinking completely, except for the fact that they wanted to make it legal to string up blacks from trees for tresspassing? I mean, we know that would never come about, but would the fact that they held that thought be enough for you to look elsewhere?

I'll have to disagree with you here. Someone with good morals will also care about how they treat themselves. There's more to morals than how you treat other people. That would be called respect or lack thereof. Anyway, wouldn't consider anyone who used drugs to have good morals. Sorry!

Actually, here's one definition of morals I just googled.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.

This should help you understand why I disagree with you on this one Tilt.
I might argue that point to a certain degree.
I know a few people that could just not be any better, caring, compassionate, always willing to help. But, they do fire up the glass pipe from time to time.
just not around me.
its possible to be a good person and use drugs to some extent, just like its possible to be a good person and suck down the occassional 6 pack of Bud Ice while sitting home in my,, I mean, your wife beater T-shirt.

I think I once again typed something that ended up looking different that I intended. Drugs and morals in many cases do not take away from each other. in other cases, they do.

drugs will be changed eventually at the current rate, and abortion is already taking a big change with the obama in office. we are once again spending our money to support abortion around the world.

would you identify with a party that was exactly in line with your thinking completely, except for the fact that they wanted to make it legal to string up blacks from trees for tresspassing? I mean, we know that would never come about, but would the fact that they held that thought be enough for you to look elsewhere?

that party would stay in line with my ideology :shrug:

:roflmao:

kinda my discussion that I had regarding religion...if you have one that's nearly perfect except for 1-2 things, and then the rest don't match very well but have "more acceptable" disagreements, you just need to figure out if it's ok for you or not. To each their own.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Someone with good morals will also care about how they treat themselves. There's more to morals than how you treat other people. That would be called respect or lack thereof. Anyway, wouldn't consider anyone who used drugs to have good morals. Sorry!

Actually, here's one definition of morals I just googled.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.

This should help you understand why I disagree with you on this one Tilt.

I can certainly understand that perspective. The notion of morals is perceived in many different ways, by many different entities, and what exactly it refers to depends on who is using the term. The interpretation of meaning can also vary depending on the context in which it is discussed (e.g. religious, scientific, legal). Usually, the disagreements over morals have less to do with a disagreement about which things are good and which are bad - and more to do with what we mean by the word morals.

To be clear though, I think the choice to use drugs (i.e. to alter the natural way your consciousness interacts with the world) is almost always a result of some underlying insecurity or failing. If someone chooses to consider those failings moral in nature, that's fine with me. Personally I've never used any illegal drugs because I've never perceived that their effects were beneficial.

Character and Moral Conduct

John Adams, 2nd President and signer of the Declaration of Independence warned:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

He also counseled:
"The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge - I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers." Our very Constitution is threatened when we permit immoral conduct by our leaders.

Public respect and esteem toward public officials has fallen to a shameful level. The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders. Our party leaders and public officials must display exemplary qualities of honesty, integrity, reliability, moral uprightness, fidelity, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, self-restraint, courage, kindness, and compassion. If they cannot be trusted in private life, neither can they be trusted in public life.

It is imperative the members and nominated candidates representing the Constitution Party and its state affiliates recognize the importance of demonstrating good character in their own lives.

:popcorn:

Inspired me to switch to Constitutionist and proud of it.

OOPS, I mispelled Constitution. I'm sure some of you will notice. Oh, well.

You misspelled "misspelled" and "Independent", too! :howdy:

BTW, voted "Libertarian", as I have for 20 years or more now.

If the Libertarians ever had enough impact where they could legalize drugs, then ideally they'd have enough impact where you wouldn't have to pay for their crap, right? :shrug:

Drugs is something that probably won't be changed and abortion is something else that probably won't be changed. I don't really understand why those two issues would impact anyone's political party.



IIRC .... drugs were not an issue until someone discovered I as away to put down blacks and further harass them (because whites did not care if blacks did drugs, until some one posted scare tactics about doped up blacks raping white women) .... so that has been a racial issue, plus in the beginning the states could not come up with a concise law regarding drugs ..... so the Goberment made it a tax issue to get around the states .....


:popcorn:

so ti all in an interesting show on the History Channel one night ....

I might argue that point to a certain degree.
I know a few people that could just not be any better, caring, compassionate, always willing to help. But, they do fire up the glass pipe from time to time.
just not around me.
its possible to be a good person and use drugs to some extent, just like its possible to be a good person and suck down the occassional 6 pack of Bud Ice while sitting home in my,, I mean, your wife beater T-shirt.

I think I once again typed something that ended up looking different that I intended. Drugs and morals in many cases do not take away from each other. in other cases, they do.



I got a neighbor smokes a bowl most every night as a way to relax ..... he goes to work everyday and makes a good living as an electrician .... I do not partake it his activities ..... but i have not bothered to turn him in either ....

:coffee:

Afraid of a little Jesus .............

Gun Control

The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

The Judiciary

We call attention to the following provisions of the Constitution:
Article 3, Section 1:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Note that the tenure of Federal Judges is not for life, but merely "during good behaviour".

Also, Article 2, Section 4:
"all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
"All civil officers" clearly includes Judges.

And the Constitution says regarding jurisdiction:
(Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2) "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction … with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Note that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

And regarding the duty of Judges:
(Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3) "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".
Which Constitution must they swear to support?

The United States Constitution does not provide for lifetime appointment of federal judges, but only for a term of office during good behavior. We support Congressional enforcement of the Constitutional rule of good behavior and to restrain judicial activism by properly removing offending judges through the process of impeachment provided for in Article I, § 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Congress must exert the power it possesses to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases which Congress deems to be outside federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.

We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

We deny the validity of judicial rulings that use foreign court rulings to overturn U.S. precedent.

:snacks:

Congressional Reform

"The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". - US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 3

With the advent of the 17th amendment, a vital check on Congress was removed. Since then, Congress has usurped power relatively unchecked, where today, very few members of Congress make it through a single session, without violating their oath of office to the Constitution.

The Congress of these United States has become an overpaid, overstaffed, self-serving institution. It confiscates taxpayer funds to finance exorbitant and unconstitutionally determined salaries, pensions, and perks. Most members of Congress have become more accountable to the Washington establishment than to the people in their home districts. Both houses of Congress are all too often unresponsive and irresponsible, arrogantly placing themselves above the very laws they enact, and beyond the control of the citizens they have sworn to represent and serve.

We seek to abolish Congressional pensions.

It is time for the American people to renew effective supervision of their public servants, to restore right standards and to take back the government. Congress must once again be accountable to the people and obedient to the Constitution, repealing all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary.

The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators. This provided the states direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people.

The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from state governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

If we are to see a return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.

We support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill.

We support legislation to require that the Congressional Record contain an accurate record of proceedings. Members of Congress are not to be permitted to rewrite the speeches delivered during the course of debates, or other remarks offered from the floors of their respective houses; nor may any additional materials be inserted in the Record, except those referred to in the speaker's presentation and for which space is reserved.

:elaine:


yeah as it is now, they can say one thing in the floor, and have it edited later to say something else

Money and Banking

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 grants only to Congress the power "To coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof", with no provision for such power to be delegated to any other group.

Congress began immediately to fulfill this obligation with the Mint Act of 1792, establishing a US Mint for producing Gold and Silver based coin, prescribing the value and content of each coin, and affixing the penalty of death to those who debase such currency.

Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".

Thus, the Constitution forbade the States from accepting or using anything other than a Gold and Silver based currency.

Money functions as both a medium of exchange and a symbol of a nation's morality.

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.

The federal government has departed from the principle of "coin" money as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the Mint Act of 1792 and has granted unconstitutional control of the nation's monetary and banking system to the private Federal Reserve System.

The Constitution Party recommends a substantive reform of the system of Federal taxation. In order for such reform to be effective, it is necessary that these United States:

* Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution;
* Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and reform the current Federal Reserve banks to become clearing houses only; and
* Prohibit fractional reserve banking.

It is our intention that no system of "debt money" shall be imposed on the people of these United States. We support a debt free, interest free money system.


:popcorn:

Libertarian. More so for the economic freedoms and less government footprint than on the other social issues that I see as minor.

Maybe I caught him on an incoherent day but Ron Paul talked me out of the Libertarian Party.

If all of the political parties had an equal chance at the election process and you could choose a party that best fit you, which political party would you choose?

Here's a link to the many parties out there

Politics1 - Guide to American Political Parties (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm)

US Mariquana party? OK, maybe this isn't the best list to review. I'll bet they will run Michael Phelps as their candidate.

OOPS, I mispelled Constitution. I'm sure some of you will notice. Oh, well.

I would go with the Libertarian Party, which is no different then my current affiliation and the way I currently vote.

I realize some dislike Libertarians' stand on drug legalization, but even if it got to that point it would not happen overnight. Furthermore, since Libertarians do not believe in any kind of gov't subsidies, drug legalization would not result in government-subsidized addiction programs.

As for abortion, the Libertarian Party has no official stand on the issue. However, since it states on its web site that the issue is best left up to the individual, some justifiably interpret that as a pro-choice stand.

I was formerly a Republican up until about 2004 when I realized that Republicans were just as much part of the problem as the Democrats. My wife, formerly a Democrat, voted Libertarian in 2008 and recently changed her voter registration to Libertarian. The party is making progress.

I like this party, very much;

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Current_ideology)

The problem with it, and with any other party, is the degree of fealty of the leaders of the party to the parties ideas.

The GOP has failed itself, and the nation as far as I am concerned, by betraying itself on;

National defense; we used to be against nation building as a fools errand

Separation and balance of powers; we used to think a potus was just an equal third, not a king.

Economics; Need I say more?

Environmental policy; We used to oppose nut jobs

Social policy; We used to be against amending the constitution to LIMIT individual rights.


If Republicans stuck to what they say they believe in, they, and we, would be in better shape.