doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Republican debate

At least 8 of the questions were from Democratic activists planted to embarass the Republican candidates. One of them, the gay retired general, is on Clinton's campaign committee and had actually been on CNN before. No question that CNN should have known of them.
The previous CNN moderated Democratic debate had at least 6 Democratic activists as their supposedly unbiased panel of questioners.
In my opinion these so-called debates are debasing and corrupting the presidential selection process.

I could not have stated this as eloquently as Barry Goldwater,so here is his remedy.

"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'”

Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960: Victor Publishing Company, Shepherdsville, Ky., p. 17.

There appears to be only one candidate that consistently adheres to the previous statement.

Ron Paul

Ohio---

Thanks for the above quote... I needed that today. Such truth and eloquence in our executive branch is sorely needed today, all the more because it has been so utterly absent from the current epoch's (the last 30 years) lawmakers and liberty thieves.

I often read the Articles Of Confederation... that is what was signed in 1777; those were the values that the founding fathers embraced and that is what the founding fathers wanted for this nation. And so often I recommend it as reading to the so-called patriots who often don't even know that the Articles of Confederation were what the founding fathers ratified and agreed upon readily, while the current Constitution was hotly contested, signed some 11 years LATER, and only through deal making. It was a brokered Constitution---many would only sign on the condition of other side deals, thus many of the founding fathers reluctantly signed on. On the other hand---The Articles Of Confederation was the original Constitution and any real American should not only read them but carefully read them before they yell about knowing what the founding fathers had in mind. It is there.

Again, from an outsider, I don't see the relevance of what was written by one group of men (all men) and another, 11 years later. They are words without meaning unless supported by the will of our people as part of our bones. We've come a long way, and I can't imagine trading then for what we have in North America now.

The U.S. is more than fine words and the dead letter of the law. Its creativity---i.e. Lincoln 100 years later---and an ethos borne of generations of immigrants embedded in its educational, research, industrial capacity and its courts are what made the United States the envy of the world.

There are the verities, things we hold to be true, but Constitutions and Charters of Rights and Freedoms are living things, what nations profess to believe. Lincoln's magnificent Address reminded America of what the Founding Fathers brokered (there was no more unanimity among interests then than there is now).

My thoughts don't address what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It's just that, as much as I admired Mr. Goldwater for some things and not others, I did not see him at the barricades during the civil rights struggle nearly 100 years after Lincoln's Address to "enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic."

Mr. Goldwater, son of a Jewish father of Polish descent and a Protestant Episcopalian mother, supported Joe McCarthy. Many of his ideas were later adopted by the Republican "New Right." He was a man of decency and character. Outraged at JFK's assassination (he admired him), he cancelled all his public appearances.

Words don't have meaning in an ethos where anything goes.

Lincoln has been held up as the "standard bearer of righteousness" for too long. A brief look at his career will reveal several short comings. Remember, Lincoln was a corporate lawyer that had no hesatation lining his own pockets long before this current generation of lobbyist. He silenced anyone who opposed his will ie; Congressman Vanlandingham from Ohio was actually arrested because of his position on the Northern Aggression and the way the war was initiated. He was then deported from the country but was able to make his way back into the country. Lincoln, also had no problem sequelching freedom of the press since he shutdown any newspapers that disagreed with him.
Nearly ever war since Lincoln's War has led to few freedoms and privileges. Now we have an undeclared war on whom or what, that according to what our leaders say may have to be waged forever on terrorists both without and within our country. Just as a side note Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of a massive "military industrial complex" I believe we have been there for quite some time. Over $500 billion and counting.
Remember the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to protect the will of the people from an aggressive governmental Leviathan not the other way around. If anyone would like a good read try:

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War: Thomas Dilorenzo

Why don't you just do it to the other side and be done with it. Quit "bawling" maaaan! Maaaan, two negs equal positive basic math stuff.

ohiojack, I hope I was making a similar point with decent Mr. Goldwater, whose indignation contributed to Johnson's victory in 64, and Johnson did more than JFK in social reform, and before that Mr. Eisenhower, who railed against Mr. Goldwater for voting against the new Civil Rights Bill, was the first modern president who had caused any bill on civil rights to pass an American Congress. All of our great leaders, warts and all, have sailed close to the wind. I know that those of us who denigrate our leaders and institutions do not remain long as citizens of great nations but I'd crawl over a mile of broken glass to see their likes today.

Mr. DiLorenzo, an economics professor and not historian, is popular among neo-Confederate cognoscenti running down Mr. Lincoln as an evil man. "It was not to end slavery that Lincoln initiated an invasion of the South," he wrote in your source book. "A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession."

I'm not getting into that. Kind regards, King

King Brown, I am in total agreement that those from the past are more principled than most of the current batch. The question should be did those actions warts and all improve or detract this Republic. I gather from your comments about Dr. DiLorenzo that unless your are matriculated in that particular speciality you are deficient to critique another work. If that comparison is valid then Ken Burns should be careful creating historical flicks. I am sure he is completely neutral. Oh, is he a certified history major?

Best wishes

People who do not like Goldwater have not studied much of his lifetime works. He was not a loose cannon, he was a very intense conservative with view that were ahead of their time. His views were the real rock which Regan built upon late. No none wanted to hear in 1964 that we were headed in the wrong direction in Viet Nam. Just as a general earlier tried with all his pull to have us back Mao instead of the National Chinese, he was ahead of his time. Had we played China against Russia from 1950, like Nixon did later much of the cold war would have been much different.

The modern, poll watching, custom speech readers are no leaders. They just want the power that goes with the job and will do or say anything to get it. I would rather have Herbert Hoover than anyone who is running on both parties. He happened to have been stuck holding the door when the market crashed, blamed for 10 years of unsound economic policy and the lasting effects of WWI.

Modern politicians tend to look like glittered, slimy news readers with that I am smarter than you attitude. It is too often the choice of the lesser of two evils or just not being able to vote for either very deficient candidate.

I sure don't want to miss seeing those Demo'rats debate.

When's it happen ?