Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verbiage: Political ramblings.

Chacham (981) writes | more than 9 years ago

User Journal 11

So, how do Democrats fight Republicans? Ad hominem. Don't like Bush ? Then Call Bush stupid. They didn't like Reagan, so they said he was senile. They didn't like Dole, so they said he was out of touch. They don't like Bush, so they say he is stupid. Dukakis didn't exactly help the situation either.

To be fair, Doel said that Bob Dole would say anything bad about Bob Dole's oponent. But when Bob Dole saw that Bob Dole was losing, Bob Dole came in thrashing.

----------------

So, how do Democrats fight Republicans? Ad hominem. Don't like Bush ? Then Call Bush stupid. They didn't like Reagan, so they said he was senile. They didn't like Dole, so they said he was out of touch. They don't like Bush, so they say he is stupid. Dukakis didn't exactly help the situation either.

To be fair, Doel said that Bob Dole would say anything bad about Bob Dole's oponent. But when Bob Dole saw that Bob Dole was losing, Bob Dole came in thrashing.

----------------

I remember asking a Dole supporter why he didn't have a Dole bumper sticker. He basically answered, "I don't want to be the idiot with the Dole sticker after Dole loses."

---------------

Liberitarians are Socialists in disguise. The Tax Payer's party (Nationally, the Constituion Party) is more what the Liberitarian's should be. Except tall the Xian stuff. Best part

We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.

Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

I like their attitude (so far, form the little i have read), but some stuff is a bit wacky.

cancel ×

11 comments

The Constitution Party (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10684737)

Over all, I really like their platform, but they are very isolationist.
I think in the long term this would weaken the US on many grounds,
defensively and economically.

In MI there are a few UST folks I would vote for, but often they seem to
fall in line with the republican party (probably republicans who bombed
primaries). As such, I think there is only one UST backed candidate
that I'll be voting for tommorrow.

For the most part I'll be voting libertarian tommorrow. Bush/Cheney is
about the only republican line I'll actually be filling in. There are a
number of other positions that are only republican, but I will just
leave those blank I think since they are pretty local offices.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10686737)

I just went to Peroutka's web site. YIKES! This guy is a disaster!
As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.
He's more leftist than John Kerry. "Illegal" war? So the CP does believe that America is subject to international law, and worse, is willing to let it hamper our defense.

I had been thinking about voting for the Constitution Party too. The thing that always kept me away is their isolationism. It seems that they have already unlearned the lessons of World War 2 and 9/11.

Then I found this op-ed in Al-Jazeera [aljazeerah.info] , written by Mark Dankof who has run as a CP candidate in a Senate race and is supporting Peroutka [peroutka2004.com] . My worst fears have been confirmed. The CP is an anti-Jew party.

Here [markdankof.com] I found where Dankof puts forth a conspiracy theory claiming that JFK was assassinated by Israel's Mossad (CIA equivalent). Now, the tin foil hat leftists are always accusing the Mossad of every evil in the world, so this is just more of the same. Who is Dankof's source for this kook allegation? The "whistleblower" Mordechai Vanunu, a vile traitor of Israel who threatened to give Israel's nuclear secrets to its enemies.

The CP is like the Pat Buchanan strain of conservatism that complains about neocons and Jews. It's no mystery why Al Jazeera likes the CP. A CP President would put an end to the war on terror. A CP victory would allow the Islamists to take over the world.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

FroMan (111520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10687636)

As I said. Their isolationism is a bit much for me.

I could not vote for their presidential offerings this year (Peroutka),
as how we continue to respond to terrorism is a far more important issue
this year. Bush doesn't get stellar marks in this catagory, but he is
head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.

I can see the CP being more effective in a peace time election cycle.

As far as being anti-Israel, I don't know about that. I think that
mainly stems from isolationistic tendencies. Basically, I see the fault
of the CP being similar in many ways to the failings of Israel (OT
sense), or earlier late 19th and early 20th century US. Instead of
being a light on the hill, shining in the world, they cover their lamp.
Instead of being proactive in the world they huddle close together,
ignoring the ills in the world.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689455)

I had thought about voting for the CP in state and local offices, since isolationist views would not come into play, and voting Republican nationally. But the more I learn about the CP, the more disturbing the picture becomes. Some people supporting Peroutka parrot the left's lies. They can be as opportunistic and hatemongering as the Democrats. Stormfront, a white nationalist group, is supporting Peroutka. What really disturbs me is that many anti-Jewish "Christians" are rallying around Peroutka. His cutting off support for Israel and general callousness toward the struggling Jewish state is a major selling point with Aryan supremacists and old-time anti-Semites.

When I look at the CP, I feel split down the middle. I love so much about what they stand for. They make a lot of good points about how Bush is not the ideal Christian candidate. But I could counter with points showing that neither is Peroutka. The bottom line is there is too much stuff in the party and associated with the party that makes me uncomfortable. You discern the kind of tree by its fruit, and I'm seeing some bad fruit.

Retraction: When Peroutka says that the war in Iraq is "illegal," he means that it is against the Constitution, not against international law. Sorry for the misstatement. It wasn't explained in the blurb I first saw.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696317)

Sheesh, you speak well enough, i have nothing left to say. :)

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696526)

Thanks for the compliment. I hope you aren't being sarcastic. :)

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696722)

No.

Sometimes you take the thought out of my mouth. :)

You also do more research.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696300)

I had thought about voting for them. Thanx for pointing this out.

Re:The Constitution Party (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696282)

>but they are very isolationist.

Yep. Bothers me too. I seem to like their reasonings, but there are some compromises that must be made when dealing with reality. (Did i just say that?)

Libertarian = Socialists? (1)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10695637)

That's a new one. Please tell me you were being sarcastic...

Re:Libertarian = Socialists? (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#10696266)

Socialist means give me everything (like a teenager). When they realized that won't happen they say, "at least lave me alone." So, while not the same, i believe they come from the same vein, that is, a self-centered view.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...