11

A new political party.

Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 2 months ago to Politics
76 comments | Share | Flag

I just found this and thought it looked interesting. This is what a party should stand for.

All Comments

  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 2 months ago
    an excellent start...

    suggestion...change "freedom of religion" to "freedom FROM religion"..

    suggestion...declare for a republic and not a democracy...the vote is earned by those who produce....taking assistance from the state (i.e., taxpayers, results in the immediate loss of the franchise to vote)

    question...where do you fall on unborn life???...does the state own a woman's body???
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    May be able to pick up some of the pieces after they implode. Trump is tearing them apart and Hillary should be indicted. Strange times...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 2 months ago
    is it too late to take over the Rs with this party? -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 2 months ago
    Interesting Rich...I'd rather a non political, non party...Just go by the constitution...protect our rights, our borders and our way of life.

    I've always liked Mark Hamilton's Prime Law©
    It's premise actually underlays the constitution only very direct...simple stupid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidT 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, but many people still get their news, such as it is, from the broadcast media or their web sites. It is changing, but perhaps not quickly enough.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nice but you are putting the cart a long way ahead of the horse.

    Cease Enabling
    Take Power
    Make changes

    in that order. until the frist step is accomplished the rest is just theory with out a chance. i see too many sell outs who don't give a dam about anything except there narrowly focused immediate needs.

    For one year I've said this ...the next president will get 95% of the vote. either by direct ballot or by winner take all or by the weaklings selling out. the country again.
    Note: A vote for a right wing of the left wing insider is still a vote for the socialist party A vote for the left wing of the left the same. A vote obtained by trickery such as winner take all is still a vote for left wing fascism. a lesser of is a vote by some big time weaklings attempting to justify their support of left wing fascist socialism.

    i'd rather go to step two and encourage the military to honor their oath of office. Odds are far better.

    You got one outside chance. Anyone that doesn't take it is from two camps.

    a. left wing activists such as Buchanan othere such worms and snakes trying to play pretend conservative....

    b. left wing of the left openly anti-constitution pro national or international sociaists.

    I dont give a damn about socialist defintions. The only one that couonts is

    Left = Government over citizens
    Center - the constitution
    Right citizens over government

    it works for me in all situations.

    What possibility?

    Only one left standing. I don't care for him but he is the only none left wing fascist socialist left stranding. Cruz. I'd rather vote for a Constitutionalist but the splinter groups of the right are more bout their narrow definition than accomplishing anything... thus they qualify as enablers
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure Sanders promising young people that if they vote for him they'll get free college, free healthcare, higher wages, any existing student loans paid off for them, and stick it to the (business) man along the way should provide for anyone being surprised when they support him. Yet the irony of Sanders targeting Wall Street is lost on his supporters. Wall Street is essentially "democratic socialism" by example.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by editormichael 8 years, 2 months ago
    Why further splinter people who supposedly are wanting a free society? We already have the Libertarian Party.
    Starting a new party is very difficult and especially so for a party supporting freedom.
    There must be media coverage, and any people or party supporting freedom will be either ignored or laughed by the media, or both.
    Well, the Libertarian Party has been around for more than 40 years. It has infrastructure and some experience.
    And supposedly the people who come to this site are in favor of freedom, free markets and free minds, so why not do the smart thing and get involved with the party that already exists?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No welfare and high intelligence and abilities will tend to keep the low wage earners out of the resulting rich, expensive areas. Natural selection.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry about that. Try again and also contact your state party. Hopefully they will be more responsive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well then, perhaps it's time for you to volunteer your services and donate some $$ so the LP could do more and become more "practical." Switching your allegiance to an infinitely smaller and less impactful party that will not get on the ballot seems non-optimal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know where you live, but most "public" schools get the vast bulk of their funding from state and county governments. The money comes from state income taxes, property taxes and, sometimes, from sales taxes. The school boards you speak of have no taxing power. They may raise money through bonds, but, of course, that money must be paid back with interest. Guess where those payments come from. The "decisions" you speak of (who to hire, who to fire, what books to acquire, where to build a school, the basic curriculum, and how much to spend on all this, are virtually always made by state and local governments. If you think "public" education is a mess (and it is) you need not look all the way to Washington. Government, at every level, is an inefficient and inequitable provider of services.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unless someone builds a wall between the states to keep low wage earners out. Who would ever think to do that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 2 months ago
    Looks VERY interesting to me! I think there's nothing in the writeups that I could/would not be able to support 'wholeheartedly', as I put it... unlike the platforms of the "Two Major Political Parties today."

    I do have two nits to pick... First is the symbol at the top of the pages... the helix is cute, but doesn't convey any inherent 'good symbolism' I could recognize... as well as looking a lot like a "screw" which would be fodder for antagonists.

    Second, there's no "feedback" or 'contact us' link, so when I got to this line,...
    "We understand that American health care, by physicians around the globe, is acknowledged as the world's finest. As but one example, vastly more English, French, and German men die of prostate cancer than do American men. But American medical care has become prodigiously expensive." , there was no place for me to suggest rewriting that so it would look/sound a LOT better...

    Basically, I like it and will be sharing the link with my email lists.
    Thanks!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't have any inside info. on the man. But, I think I can say without a doubt that he doesn't hate America as Obama does. I think he believes he can fix everything so long as we allow him to become a benevolent dictator. But of course, we know that a powerful rich man wants not more money, but more power. So, your characterizing of him is very likely correct.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo