The Constitution Party

The founding fathers set our system of government on Biblical principles, if you do an in depth study of American history (not what they teach in the government schools), you will see that they spent many hours in the Scriptures and in prayer before writing the laws of the land. The Constitution Party is not pushing for a "Theocracy", just a return to the Biblical and Constitutional principles that our nation was founded on.

Our nations second president, John Adams said "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

 

As Ken pointed out, the current CP platform was written in 2000, several years BEFORE the Iraq war. I know of no one in the CP who can predict future events! So yet another of CMG's bitter tirades are proven to be unfair and unfounded.

Of course, don't forget that CMG is supporting George Bush for President. The same George Bush who publicly referred to a reporter as a "major league a--hole". Talk about not showing kindness!

This same George Bush (and virtually the entire Republican hierarchy) SUPPORTS government legal recognition of civil unions for homosexuals, which has been one of the major goals of the sodomite movement for years!

Remember that our Father in Heaven DESTROYED Sodom and Gomorrah, merely because of the perverse practices of the sodomites!

The fact that many Christians now support pro-sodomite President who wishes to give the sodomites unprecedented legal rights, and will eventually hand America's children over to them---plus allow them to milk the taxpayers and employers of America for billions of dollars---surely has the Almighty trembling in righteous rage!

Message from moderator: Personal attacks/accusations are not tolerated on this forum, as stated in the user agreement we all signed.

[ February 29, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

If you haven't yet read this reminder, please do so now before posting further.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/1190.html
Gina

 

Oh me oh my! What a horrible personal attack! Will you ever be able to recover from that savage and devastating personal attack?!

Christ Jesus referred to many in the Bible as "Fools", "Hypocrites" and "Vipers"---and of course he engaged in an act of physical violence by overturning the tables of the moneychangers and driving them out with a whip!

Will you be condemning Christ Jesus next, for his "lack of kindness" and "personal attacks"?!

 

This thread will reopen late tomorrow morning, when everyone has had some time to rest. Please do not start another one on the same topic in the meantime.
Gina

 

Personally I fail to see any significant body of policy statements, or practices, from the CP that a conservative Christian would disagreee with. An objective look at their platform, compared with the platforms of the D's and R's will bear that out.

Earlier in this thread, CMG, you objected that you couldn't tell from the CP paltform where they stand on the Iraq war. I demonstrated to tyou that the R platfrom also does not have this information.

At that point you might have said "gee, I guess you're right about that, maybe I'll take a closer look at the CP". Instead, you ignored the evidence posted and went on to make baseless accusations against your Christian brothers and sisters in the CP.

You can belong to any party you wish, of course. But it would be a much more enjoyable debate (and our nation would be much better off) if people would stick to facts and fairness rather than defending something that is wrong just because of the personalities involved.

 

Well, what I was looking for was what the CP intended to do about Iraq. That is very unclear. The CP members quoted McGinley as saying that the CP brass was against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Then Bush announced that he supported the FMA and cut the legs off the minority parties. When I pointed that out, the CP members started an attack on me personally. I was accused of distorting the CP position so I ended up quoting it to them from their own sources. For taking that position, I received a series of ad hominem attacks from my Christian brothers and sisters--which you have never said that you objected to, PA Jim.

 

I thnk that some CP supporters have mistakenly assumed that the CP is for the amendment. I suspect that you are correct that it is not.

But, IMO you have attempted to portray it as though the CP is in favor of legalizing sodomite marriage, and nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

If I were defending a party that welcomes and supports a group called "Log Cabin Republicans", I think I'd pick a different issue...

Abortion...no, that doesn't work.

Spending...no, can't use that one either.

Education...no, the Dems are envious over that one.

Taxes...well, ride that horse at least until the bills come due.

 

No, I have never implied that the CP was in favor of same-sex marriage. I clearly stated that they felt it was a state's rights issue. This is just another baseless charge.

 

One problem I would like to point out with it, is the cost of voting for Peroutka in the Presidential election. I suppose most of you are anti-Kerry if not pro-Bush, and would vote Bush if Peroutka were not running. I suggest that we not give up our votes for Bush for a man that simply won't win the election, because, well quite frankly outside of this site, I have never heard of him. While I like the CP's platform, I think they should get more name recognition before I vote for them. At least before it gives Kerry a better chance of winning. I also would like to see them start off in more local politics. Get some people elected in some state legislatures, and work their way up. Third parties that jump into the Presidential race too soon, historically do not last. They should start by building a firm foundation on local and state levels.

 

Your reasoning applies only to competitive States. Your reasoning does not apply to States where Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry will win easily.

Your State, South Carolina, must be an easy win for Mr. Bush if he is to win this election. Therefore, if you and 20,000 other South Carolinians vote for Mr. Peroutka you will send a message to the GOP without costing Mr. Bush your State's electoral votes.

Frankly, if President Bush wins South Carolina by only a narrow margin instead of winning easily, that will mean he is doing very poorly nationally and will lose the election, as that would certainly mean he will lose Florida and Ohio.

 

CMG and everyone else,

I hope we can bring this discussion back to discussion of issues rather than an attempt to make prior remarks into an issue.

I would love to have a credible third party in the US. My position with regard to the Constitution Party is that I will always look at its candidate. If I think they are running a credible candidate...regardless of whether I think he will win...and I think that candidate would make the best President then I'll probably vote for him.

I do things like that. I voted for a Conservative who had no chance of beating Bush II in the 2000 Republican primary. He had experience as an Ambassador, and I believed what he said.

This present candidate for the CP doesn't have any sort of significant government experience. Some folks find that to be a positive thing. They are entitled to their view. And to their votes and their free speech. But they aren't going to convince me in this matter no matter how long I listen to them. Because I find holding governmental positions to be a good way to screen out "weirdos" and the mentally ill. (And I'm not saying that Petrouka is either...just that he hasn't been adequately tested by public scrutiny.)

CMG, I agree that same-sex marriage ought to be a state's rights issue...IF we had real judges and not Judicial Legislators in the several States. But we don't. I think the CP might change its mind when and if it is ruled that full faith and credit requires that all states recognize a same-sex marriage which is recognized in one state. Of course, they might just decide that this is an erroneous interpretation of full faith and credit. Erroneous or not, it would be a reasonable interpretation of that clause of the Constitution with regard to something as fundamental as marriage.

What I think has happened here is that remarks which may not have been considered a personal attack by the person uttering the remark were construed...perhaps reasonably...by a second person as a personal attack.

When I think I'm dealing with someone who has difficulty dealing with complex concepts--and mind you I'm not saying I think CMG does--I consider it a challenge to me...to ascertain whether or not I am intelligent enough to express my views in such a way that they may be understood by such a person even if the person doesn't immediately agree with me.

Agreement doesn't come overnight. It took me the better part of a decade and a half to convert most of my family from Democrats to Republicans. And now they don't agree with my voting for Kerry this election cycle.

 

All that work down the drain. I know how it feels.

 

Looks like their conversion was real and your's was bogus!

 

Hardsheller,

Political conversions are not to be judged the same way theological conversions are judged.

I became a Republican because I thought the party stood for the same things I believed in. Reducing the national debt. Cutting entitlements. A strong military that was seldomn used and then only when the need was unmistakable. Conservative judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade while there were still states who would re-outlaw abortion. Fair taxes. An improved economy creating more jobs in the United States. States' rights and not controlling on a federal level any aspect of law which has traditionally been relegated to the states.

I remain with a political party only for so long as they remain with me. And there's nothing bogus about that. Look at Bush II's record. A budget in balance when he took office to a 500 billion dollar debt. A jobless economic "recovery" that doesn't really benefit the average American all that much. Massive tax cuts which correspond with massive deficits. Spending the unearned wealth of future generations. The largest new entitlement program in a couple of decades. Underestimating the cost of this new entitlement program to hoodwink conservative lawmakers into agreeing to pass it. Invasion of Iraq, which posed no imminent danger to the US and was guilty only of violating UN Security Council resolutions at a time when the UN security council did not clearly support invasion. The quagmire that Iraq currently is. The WMD debacle. The global protest against the US invasion and the wedge it created between the US and her traditional allies of France, Germany, and Russia. The happenings in Russia in the last few years and Bush II's praise of Puten as a "democrat" in spite of his totalitarian tendencies. A proposal to have the federal government legislate with regard to state tort law relating to claims against physicians.

I'm not proud to have voted for this particular Republican president. I'll probably vote for the next Republican candidate. I just think this guy has hurt the US more than Al Gore would have during his tenure. And, though I reckon you disagree with me Hardsheller, I think it is time for him to go. And for conservatives to take back the Republican party and never again nominate a Bush for POTUS.

 

Hello,
I am new to the Political posts.
I am new to the idea of The Constitution Party.
What are the differences between this party and the republican party? Can someone list the differences side by side?

MA

 

You can find the Constitution Party's platform online at the following URL:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

You can find the Republican Party's platform online at the following URL:

http://www.rnc.org/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx

 

Can someone list the differences side by side?