The Constitution Party

[Harry Dresden]

The solution to America's problems. If we could bring in the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party, and whatever actual conservatives are left in the Republican Party, we could restore constitutional government in America. I know that scares the hell out of liberals as they find other people having liberty and rights as terrifying, but sorry. There are other countries that will gladly accept people who enjoy oppressive leadership forcing everyone to row in the same direction.

National Constitution Party Home Page | The Constitution Party

Liberals WROTE the Constitution, Dumbass. Go take a PoliSci course.

/thread

"liberals" back then were much different than those today.......and there were many "conservatives" of that time,who were also different than today, who were on the same page as them.....those ones actually thought about the country first.....

One only look a mere 50 years ago at the immortal words of the Golden Boy of the Dumbocrat Party - John F. Kennedy - to see how radicalized the party has become. In his inaugural address he stated "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". And yet all you hear today is liberals asking - rather demanding - what their country can do for them. What their country can provide for them. What their country will supply for them. When is the last time you hear a selfish, greedy, lazy liberal declare that liberals need to sacrifice for the good of the U.S.? Hasn't happened since the Kennedy-era and never will again.

your side aint much better,if they are any better....

Really? The last time I checked, every conservative was begging the government to get the hell out of their life and leave them the frick alone. How do you even remotely interpret that as the same thing as liberals demanding that the government control everything and everyone and provide everything to everyone?

in other words you have no idea what i meant by that do you?.....want me to tell you why?.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

"liberals" back then were much different than those today.......and there were many "conservatives" of that time,who were also different than today, who were on the same page as them.....those ones actually thought about the country first.....

One only look a mere 50 years ago at the immortal words of the Golden Boy of the Dumbocrat Party - John F. Kennedy - to see how radicalized the party has become. In his inaugural address he stated "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". And yet all you hear today is liberals asking - rather demanding - what their country can do for them. What their country can provide for them. What their country will supply for them. When is the last time you hear a selfish, greedy, lazy liberal declare that liberals need to sacrifice for the good of the U.S.? Hasn't happened since the Kennedy-era and never will again.

Go read JFK's 'New Frontier' program and tell me how much of it you agree with,

mr. pretend JFK fan.

Oh I'm not pretending to be a JFK fan at all Carb. I think Kennedy was an embarrassment to the U.S. He cheated on his wife around the clock. He was hooked on meth (look up "Dr. Feelgood"). But Kennedy was not a communist/socialist/marxist like almost everyone on the Democrat Party is today. It's just a clear illustration of how radicalized the party has become.

In its day, JFK's New Frontier plan was more radical than anything Obama proposed, or Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

Maybe more than Bill Clinton, but not even close to what Obama has proposed. Not even in the ballpark. And with Hillary - well - none of us knows since she's never been elected and she lies all the time (so there is no way to say what she will really do).

It is what it is Carb. No sense in trying to pretend that JFK was further left of Obama. You party has become seriously radicalized. Either embrace it/own it or, if you are embarrassed by that reality, leave it and start a new one.

Pay attention. JFK's agenda was a much more leftward shift from the status quo than is anything Obama has ever proposed.

Pay attention. In 1961, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid. There was no Civil Rights Act. There was no Voting Rights Act. There was no War on Poverty.

That was the agenda of JFK; it was carried out by LBJ after JFK's assassination. Nothing Obama has tried to do or proposed doing comes anywhere close to the magnitude of the JFK/LBJ liberal agenda.

More proof? The modern American conservative is STILL bitching about the JFK agenda.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd think the Constitution Party would be the best vote for Cruz voters who want to stay with the conservative thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

 

[P@triot]

One only look a mere 50 years ago at the immortal words of the Golden Boy of the Dumbocrat Party - John F. Kennedy - to see how radicalized the party has become. In his inaugural address he stated "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". And yet all you hear today is liberals asking - rather demanding - what their country can do for them. What their country can provide for them. What their country will supply for them. When is the last time you hear a selfish, greedy, lazy liberal declare that liberals need to sacrifice for the good of the U.S.? Hasn't happened since the Kennedy-era and never will again.

Go read JFK's 'New Frontier' program and tell me how much of it you agree with,

mr. pretend JFK fan.

Oh I'm not pretending to be a JFK fan at all Carb. I think Kennedy was an embarrassment to the U.S. He cheated on his wife around the clock. He was hooked on meth (look up "Dr. Feelgood"). But Kennedy was not a communist/socialist/marxist like almost everyone on the Democrat Party is today. It's just a clear illustration of how radicalized the party has become.

In its day, JFK's New Frontier plan was more radical than anything Obama proposed, or Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

Maybe more than Bill Clinton, but not even close to what Obama has proposed. Not even in the ballpark. And with Hillary - well - none of us knows since she's never been elected and she lies all the time (so there is no way to say what she will really do).

It is what it is Carb. No sense in trying to pretend that JFK was further left of Obama. You party has become seriously radicalized. Either embrace it/own it or, if you are embarrassed by that reality, leave it and start a new one.

Pay attention. JFK's agenda was a much more leftward shift from the status quo than is anything Obama has ever proposed.

Pay attention. In 1961, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid. There was no Civil Rights Act. There was no Voting Rights Act. There was no War on Poverty.

That was the agenda of JFK; it was carried out by LBJ after JFK's assassination. Nothing Obama has tried to do or proposed doing comes anywhere close to the magnitude of the JFK/LBJ liberal agenda.

More proof? The modern American conservative is STILL bitching about the JFK agenda.

The modern sane person will be "bitching" about the Obama agenda (from which we will never recover) for hundreds of years.

Everything you just said about JFK is nonsense. FDR's "Raw Deal" policies were a thousand times more "radical". He implemented Social Security, Welfare, etc. You want JFK to look radical so that your party doesn't look as radicalized now as it actually is.

By the way - conservatives (as usual) were proven 100% right on Medicare and Medicaid. They said it was unsustainable and it is. Even Obama himself and his cronies went around screaming that the government couldn't afford Medicare and Medicaid and hence the reason why Obamacare was needed (and 15 years from now, libtards will tell us we can't afford Obamacare and that government-controlled healthcare is needed - it's a vicious cycle of stupidity with that side of the aisle).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would Libertarians want anything to do with the Constitution Party?

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

That's as absurd as calling the Dumbocrat Party philosophically the Margaret Sanger party. Actually, it's worse than that since Dumbocrats do hate blacks and are fanatical about pushing abortions.

Platform and Resolutions | The Constitution Party

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go read JFK's 'New Frontier' program and tell me how much of it you agree with,

mr. pretend JFK fan.

Oh I'm not pretending to be a JFK fan at all Carb. I think Kennedy was an embarrassment to the U.S. He cheated on his wife around the clock. He was hooked on meth (look up "Dr. Feelgood"). But Kennedy was not a communist/socialist/marxist like almost everyone on the Democrat Party is today. It's just a clear illustration of how radicalized the party has become.

In its day, JFK's New Frontier plan was more radical than anything Obama proposed, or Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

Maybe more than Bill Clinton, but not even close to what Obama has proposed. Not even in the ballpark. And with Hillary - well - none of us knows since she's never been elected and she lies all the time (so there is no way to say what she will really do).

It is what it is Carb. No sense in trying to pretend that JFK was further left of Obama. You party has become seriously radicalized. Either embrace it/own it or, if you are embarrassed by that reality, leave it and start a new one.

Pay attention. JFK's agenda was a much more leftward shift from the status quo than is anything Obama has ever proposed.

Pay attention. In 1961, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid. There was no Civil Rights Act. There was no Voting Rights Act. There was no War on Poverty.

That was the agenda of JFK; it was carried out by LBJ after JFK's assassination. Nothing Obama has tried to do or proposed doing comes anywhere close to the magnitude of the JFK/LBJ liberal agenda.

More proof? The modern American conservative is STILL bitching about the JFK agenda.

The modern sane person will be "bitching" about the Obama agenda (from which we will never recover) for hundreds of years.

Everything you just said about JFK is nonsense. FDR's "Raw Deal" policies were a thousand times more "radical". He implemented Social Security, Welfare, etc. You want JFK to look radical so that your party doesn't look as radicalized now as it actually is.

By the way - conservatives (as usual) were proven 100% right on Medicare and Medicaid. They said it was unsustainable and it is. Even Obama himself and his cronies went around screaming that the government couldn't afford Medicare and Medicaid and hence the reason why Obamacare was needed (and 15 years from now, libtards will tell us we can't afford Obamacare and that government-controlled healthcare is needed - it's a vicious cycle of stupidity with that side of the aisle).

Your puppetmasters have you well programmed. Go read JFK's New Frontier so you'll have a vantage point other than sheer ignorance to argue from.

 

[P@triot]

Why would Libertarians want anything to do with the Constitution Party?

You mean other than the fact that it nearly perfectly aligns with their ideology? Gee....I don't know. It's safe to say you have no idea what the libertarian ideology consists of, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

That's as absurd as calling the Dumbocrat Party philosophically the Margaret Sanger party. Actually, it's worse than that since Dumbocrats do hate blacks and are fanatical about pushing abortions.

Platform and Resolutions | The Constitution Party

Isolationist/protectionist - Pat Buchanan
Anti-abortion NO exceptions - Pat Buchanan?
1 man 1 woman marriage ONLY - Pat Buchanan

 

[P@triot]

Oh I'm not pretending to be a JFK fan at all Carb. I think Kennedy was an embarrassment to the U.S. He cheated on his wife around the clock. He was hooked on meth (look up "Dr. Feelgood"). But Kennedy was not a communist/socialist/marxist like almost everyone on the Democrat Party is today. It's just a clear illustration of how radicalized the party has become.

In its day, JFK's New Frontier plan was more radical than anything Obama proposed, or Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

Maybe more than Bill Clinton, but not even close to what Obama has proposed. Not even in the ballpark. And with Hillary - well - none of us knows since she's never been elected and she lies all the time (so there is no way to say what she will really do).

It is what it is Carb. No sense in trying to pretend that JFK was further left of Obama. You party has become seriously radicalized. Either embrace it/own it or, if you are embarrassed by that reality, leave it and start a new one.

Pay attention. JFK's agenda was a much more leftward shift from the status quo than is anything Obama has ever proposed.

Pay attention. In 1961, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid. There was no Civil Rights Act. There was no Voting Rights Act. There was no War on Poverty.

That was the agenda of JFK; it was carried out by LBJ after JFK's assassination. Nothing Obama has tried to do or proposed doing comes anywhere close to the magnitude of the JFK/LBJ liberal agenda.

More proof? The modern American conservative is STILL bitching about the JFK agenda.

The modern sane person will be "bitching" about the Obama agenda (from which we will never recover) for hundreds of years.

Everything you just said about JFK is nonsense. FDR's "Raw Deal" policies were a thousand times more "radical". He implemented Social Security, Welfare, etc. You want JFK to look radical so that your party doesn't look as radicalized now as it actually is.

By the way - conservatives (as usual) were proven 100% right on Medicare and Medicaid. They said it was unsustainable and it is. Even Obama himself and his cronies went around screaming that the government couldn't afford Medicare and Medicaid and hence the reason why Obamacare was needed (and 15 years from now, libtards will tell us we can't afford Obamacare and that government-controlled healthcare is needed - it's a vicious cycle of stupidity with that side of the aisle).

Your puppetmasters have you well programmed. Go read JFK's New Frontier so you'll have a vantage point other than sheer ignorance to argue from.

I'm not a liberal genius. Only liberals have puppet masters. Conservatives question everything - including (and especially) the people holding office. You're getting pissy because you now realize just how radicalized your party has become. As I said before - either embrace it and own it, or leave the party. What is the big deal?

That's exactly what I did with the disgusting Republican's. I was ashamed of them - so I left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would Libertarians want anything to do with the Constitution Party?

You mean other than the fact that it nearly perfectly aligns with their ideology? Gee....I don't know. It's safe to say you have no idea what the libertarian ideology consists of, eh?

Perfectly? The Libertarian Party has been pro-same sex marriage since 1971.

The Libertarian Party is pro-choice on abortion, not anti-abortion without any exceptions such as rape and incest.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

That's as absurd as calling the Dumbocrat Party philosophically the Margaret Sanger party. Actually, it's worse than that since Dumbocrats do hate blacks and are fanatical about pushing abortions.

Platform and Resolutions | The Constitution Party

Isolationist/protectionist - Pat Buchanan
Anti-abortion NO exceptions - Pat Buchanan?
1 man 1 woman marriage ONLY - Pat Buchanan

Well the definition of marriage being 1 man and 1 woman isn't a Constitutional Party thing and it isn't even a conservative thing. That's simply a rational, sane human thing. You have any idea how many liberals vehemently oppose gay marriage or polygamy? You have some serious catching up to do. I suggest you stop posting so much and start researching. California is a radical left-wing a state as has ever existed and they shot down Prop 8 by an astounding margin. Smashed it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In its day, JFK's New Frontier plan was more radical than anything Obama proposed, or Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

Maybe more than Bill Clinton, but not even close to what Obama has proposed. Not even in the ballpark. And with Hillary - well - none of us knows since she's never been elected and she lies all the time (so there is no way to say what she will really do).

It is what it is Carb. No sense in trying to pretend that JFK was further left of Obama. You party has become seriously radicalized. Either embrace it/own it or, if you are embarrassed by that reality, leave it and start a new one.

Pay attention. JFK's agenda was a much more leftward shift from the status quo than is anything Obama has ever proposed.

Pay attention. In 1961, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid. There was no Civil Rights Act. There was no Voting Rights Act. There was no War on Poverty.

That was the agenda of JFK; it was carried out by LBJ after JFK's assassination. Nothing Obama has tried to do or proposed doing comes anywhere close to the magnitude of the JFK/LBJ liberal agenda.

More proof? The modern American conservative is STILL bitching about the JFK agenda.

The modern sane person will be "bitching" about the Obama agenda (from which we will never recover) for hundreds of years.

Everything you just said about JFK is nonsense. FDR's "Raw Deal" policies were a thousand times more "radical". He implemented Social Security, Welfare, etc. You want JFK to look radical so that your party doesn't look as radicalized now as it actually is.

By the way - conservatives (as usual) were proven 100% right on Medicare and Medicaid. They said it was unsustainable and it is. Even Obama himself and his cronies went around screaming that the government couldn't afford Medicare and Medicaid and hence the reason why Obamacare was needed (and 15 years from now, libtards will tell us we can't afford Obamacare and that government-controlled healthcare is needed - it's a vicious cycle of stupidity with that side of the aisle).

Your puppetmasters have you well programmed. Go read JFK's New Frontier so you'll have a vantage point other than sheer ignorance to argue from.

I'm not a liberal genius. Only liberals have puppet masters. Conservatives question everything - including (and especially) the people holding office. You're getting pissy because you now realize just how radicalized your party has become. As I said before - either embrace it and own it, or leave the party. What is the big deal?

That's exactly what I did with the disgusting Republican's. I was ashamed of them - so I left.

Radicalized? Conservatives with their heads stuck in the 1950's think most of progress is radicalized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

That's as absurd as calling the Dumbocrat Party philosophically the Margaret Sanger party. Actually, it's worse than that since Dumbocrats do hate blacks and are fanatical about pushing abortions.

Platform and Resolutions | The Constitution Party

Isolationist/protectionist - Pat Buchanan
Anti-abortion NO exceptions - Pat Buchanan?
1 man 1 woman marriage ONLY - Pat Buchanan

Well the definition of marriage being 1 man and 1 woman isn't a Constitutional Party thing and it isn't even a conservative thing. That's simply a rational, sane human thing. You have any idea how many liberals vehemently oppose gay marriage or polygamy? You have some serious catching up to do. I suggest you stop posting so much and start researching. California is a radical left-wing a state as has ever existed and they shot down Prop 8 by an astounding margin. Smashed it.

Same sex marriage is now constitutionally protected.

The Constitution Party wants marriage defined by Biblical mandate:

Family | The Constitution Party

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution Party is philosophically the Pat Buchanan party.

That's as absurd as calling the Dumbocrat Party philosophically the Margaret Sanger party. Actually, it's worse than that since Dumbocrats do hate blacks and are fanatical about pushing abortions.

Platform and Resolutions | The Constitution Party

Isolationist/protectionist - Pat Buchanan
Anti-abortion NO exceptions - Pat Buchanan?
1 man 1 woman marriage ONLY - Pat Buchanan

Well the definition of marriage being 1 man and 1 woman isn't a Constitutional Party thing and it isn't even a conservative thing. That's simply a rational, sane human thing. You have any idea how many liberals vehemently oppose gay marriage or polygamy? You have some serious catching up to do. I suggest you stop posting so much and start researching. California is a radical left-wing a state as has ever existed and they shot down Prop 8 by an astounding margin. Smashed it.

Same sex marriage is now constitutionally protected.

The Constitution Party wants marriage defined by Biblical mandate:

Family | The Constitution Party

Bwahaha! That is hilarious. Same sex marriage does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. At all. Never has. For that matter, even normal marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The fact that your liberal masters have convinced you that the U.S. Constitution was recently amended is fall down hilarious and sad.

 

[Pogo]

Well the definition of marriage being 1 man and 1 woman isn't a Constitutional Party thing and it isn't even a conservative thing. That's simply a rational, sane human thing.

And yet --- JFK's sex life is still a "political party" thing.

******* blatant hypocrite.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Everything you just said about JFK is nonsense. FDR's "Raw Deal" policies were a thousand times more "radical". He implemented Social Security, Welfare, etc. You want JFK to look radical so that your party doesn't look as radicalized now as it actually is.

Welfare aka Relief as it was known then, was NOT initiated by the Democrat FDR, but rather by the Republican Herbert Hoover whose administration established the Emergency Relief Administration (ERA) in 1932. Later, it was reorganized as the FERA, Federal ERA and later yet (1935) the WPA during the 1st administration of FDR. So FDR did NOT implement Relief aka Welfare, as you claim, today, and you are in error!

 

[whitehall]

Why invent a political party and why insult the Tea Party people who have been working so hard to improve the Republican party just when it looks like their efforts might pay off? Everyone knows that 3rd party politics is nothing but a dirty trick to siphon votes.

 

[P@triot]

Why invent a political party and why insult the Tea Party people who have been working so hard to improve the Republican party just when it looks like their efforts might pay off? Everyone knows that 3rd party politics is nothing but a dirty trick to siphon votes.

How and why is it an "insult" to the Tea Party? Each real Tea Party candidate (such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) are forced to run as Republican's. How does that make any sense? The are running under the exact party they oppose.

By the way - the Tea Party just experienced their single biggest set back when hard core liberal Donald Trump received the nomination. Their efforts have been paying off since 2008 but this way by far their biggest defeat.