GOLDWATER AND THE CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS.

[Lock Piatt]

Barry Goldwater believed that the Constitution meant what it said and did not need to be revised reviewed or changed. He supported low taxes and a strong defence. He also railed about the thought police in our bedrooms and schools where to quote him "They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."

He fought wasteful spending because it was our money not the governments. Progressive taxes were wrong and not allowed in the Constitution. All taxes and levies must be as to population or equally divided equally amongst the citizens based on a head count. There are many ways the Forefathers tried to protect the citizens from wealth removal from citizens for government purposes.

These unfair actions started the Goldwater conservative movement that carried the country through the Reagan Presidency. Goldwater was the father of the party not Reagan.

[Lock Piatt]

asp,

you got that right - Goldwater would have told them, so what it is none of your damn business so get out of my bedroom.

asp said:

Terrence Abrams said:

Gingrich is my version of the next Goldwater, same heart, more brains for technology and innovation.

Newt is a great leader and motivator. He, Limbaugh and Pat Robertson are equally responsible for the Republicans retaking congress in 1994.
That being said, I cannot recommend nor support a Newt candidacy for president. He knuckled under to the democrats and resigned over thing democrats would have laughed off. We do not need a candidate that will cut and run when confronted by treasonous democrats.

[Lock Piatt]

Larry,

I agree that it is scary to think of those two running amok with the UN making policy decisions for America. We need a Gold water to tell them enough damn cowtowing either fish or cut bait. We must find that Senator or Congressman with enough guts to call them out every day like Goldwater and Proxmeyer did in their time.

Larry Puckett said:

Lex and all... I think it's interesting that Bill C is pursuing U.N. objectives for globalization efforts in his Clinton Globalization Initiative. It has become a powerful gathering of leaders of nations and other influential people throughout the world.. and we all know that the U.N. concepts are not favorable to the U.S. -- and now Hillary C. is going to hold the head negotiator in foreign relations position for the U.S. for at least 4 years. If those two were to concert their efforts as a team while dancing around the world, they could be very influential in the directions of future events.

Lex_Luthor said:

I wonder what is REALLY going on between those 2. Blogo wants to earn some cash on the side with the Messiah's stool, and Bill has a good thing going with "money for nothing" as the old song by "Dire Straits" promotes:



Intro get a 20% profit share? Speeches get a 50% share? Tee-Shirts 60%? And Chelsea gets groomed for her Mom's chair. Sounds realistic to me!

[Lock Piatt]

Lex,

I started this thread and you are welcome just as is ever human on earth - let us put up ideas and thoughts and then fight the hard battles to find truth. Hall monitors are overstepping their bounds when they limit free speech on the web. If they have the desire to limit debate then they are the enemy and I shall give them no quarters.

If it is on network TV what is the problem. I find nothing here that even get close to the gross distortions and out right lies in the NYT, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC> So site manager if you have problems with posts on this thread then email me a [e-mail] and we will discuss same as adults.
Lex_Luthor said:

Anybodels having problem uploading pictures on this thread??? I am and look at my writing? It' only happening her!????

This is really weird!! I just typed a letra n OE 7 and its eject, but hi s SCREED!!

OK, what's the problem here??!! I am writing on OutLook and cut/paste to put it up. Uploading a picture I had to go through the back door to get it on the thread!!!

ARE there some Monitors screwing with me again? If so, be a professional and e-mail me at [e-mail] !!

This is BS!!!!

[Terrence Abrams]

I think that is a formatting techno-glitch Lex, no one is messing with you. The moderator and administrator man here is really a nice and fair guy. He'll let you know in advance if there is any problem with content.

This is not the PP site, promise you.

[Lock Piatt]

Terrence thank you for the input,

If we are going to be limited to content of the debate - I will be gone like the leaf in the wind.


Terrence Abrams said:

I think that is a formatting techno-glitch Lex, no one is messing with you. The moderator and administrator man here is really a nice and fair guy. He'll let you know in advance if there is any problem with content.

This is not the PP site, promise you.

[Larry Puckette]

Lock;

I didn't hit 'reply' to save space - on the thought of the scary clintons/UN team.. it's a scary foresight no doubt. and to add a little of today's news to that thought - NYTimes today says that "Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis. " -- it's only foresight, but I'm thinking it's not a good time to expand the authorities of that role.

There does need to be somebody like a Goldwater keeping this in check. There seems to be a conflict of interest issue lying in here somewhere. -- On another topic you've raised and peaked my interest. I've done some researching about the commerce clause. I think I get it, but would like to be sure instead.

In what I've read, it looks like when applying the clause to domestic issues it's all one way or the other. Either the clause allows the federal government all authorities over the states, or none. There is no compromise that can be specifically defined? -- That sounds kinda radical to me really so it's probably not accurate. Would like very much to hear your thoughts on it. The legalese of government documents or speaking styles of our founders sometimes leaves me thinking I don't see the deeper meanings.

Is that within the context of Goldwater conservativism?

[Suzanne]

I don't know how to put the videos in the forum..

Jimmie...Barry Goldwater "Concience of a Conservative" Excellent book.

Newt G. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I liked him until I found out about that. He's a New World Order guy...so is McCain.

[Marlene H. Klim]

Lex_Luthor said:

Obamas new irForce 1 See my tet is tll crw up!!Irote ext t WbMasserThisis NOtecho glich!

Terrence Abrams said:

Funny stuff, but Lex raises the accurate point that we may never know for certain, what huge payoff alongside the Secretary of State's position does Hillary get? You know damn well she did not settle for just that.

Lex,

This problem you are experiencing seems a major hurdle. It only happens on this site? I've not seen anyone else with it.

Hope it clears quickly.

[Lock Piatt]

Larry this is exactly what Barry G. raised hell about in the Senate -- infringement on state rights through the use of unintended interpretations of the Constitution. If you read the Constitution - all rights and powers NOT SPECIFICALLY EMUMERATED are reserved for the States. The Congress has used the Commerce Clause to get around this problem. The Federal level has said that anything that crosses a State line (Interstate Commerce) or with the new broader belief if the product, service or goods could effect the prices in another state that does not have or produce that item is still qualified for Federal regulation.

In other words if Doctor X in Texas has a cure for cancer and no other state has the product and FDA or other Federal bodies are no involved in the approval of the product use; it could be regulated by Congress because it could change the cost of same type cancer in other States.

This is what Goldwater and Proxmeyer (D) use to rail about on a daily basis there is no replacement - THEY ALL WANT THE POWER AND WILL VIOLATE ANY RIGHTS STATES OR CITIZENS HAVE TO KEEP IT.

Larry Puckett said:

Lock;

I didn't hit 'reply' to save space - on the thought of the scary clinton's/UN team.. it's a scary foresight no doubt. and to add a little of today's news to that thought - NYTimes today says that "Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis. " -- it's only foresight, but I'm thinking it's not a good time to expand the authorities of that role.

There does need to be somebody like a Goldwater keeping this in check. There seems to be a conflict of interest issue lying in here somewhere. -- On another topic you've raised and peaked my interest. I've done some researching about the commerce clause. I think I get it, but would like to be sure instead.

In what I've read, it looks like when applying the clause to domestic issues it's all one way or the other. Either the clause allows the federal government all authorities over the states, or none. There is no compromise that can be specifically defined? -- That sounds kinda radical to me really so it's probably not accurate. Would like very much to hear your thoughts on it. The legalese of government documents or speaking styles of our founders sometimes leaves me thinking I don't see the deeper meanings.

Is that within the context of Goldwater conservatism?

[MJCIV]

I just started to read Conscience of a Conservative today; so far it's good stuff...but I'm struck by something: who is articulating basic conservative principles and beliefs out there? Let's face facts: the GOP is at the bottom of the heap right now. So how do we teach people the simple, basic, elemental things about conservatism? And what are they? I'll take a shot at five of them (just for discussion's sake):

1. Limited government a.k.a the Constitution
2. Strong defense
3. Traditional family values
4. Freedom (freedom of worship, of gun ownership, of commerce, of association...you get the point).
5. Patriotism

Sounds simple, right? Imagine you are a high school kid, or a young guy working his job, or a college student. Who is telling you these four basic princples? Where are you hearing about them? Learning about them? Put aside complicated arguments about flat taxes and legislating from the bench and the International Criminal Court. Where/who is promoting the fundamentals of conservatism...and connecting those fundamentals to the Republican Pary?

It's time to go back to basics, and to make sure that those basics are getting out there, getting heard. To the best of my knowledge, they are not.

In catastrophe, there is opportunity. As Thomas Paine said, "We have it within our power to begin the world again." In a sense, the GOP is in a good place because it can get rid of a lot of the bad baggage and get back on message. There is a real opportunity to present an alternative now; not just to Obama and the Dems., but to some of the excesses and deviations the Republican Party has been involved with over the past ten or twelve years.

So I ask, in seriousness, my friends: where can we sign up for Conservatism 101? We need a basic course, and we need to get a whole lot of Americans enrolled.

[MJCIV]

Your five points are good they have a flaw however. #2 > youth want peace. when you say strong defense to them, they say why? we are kicking every ones ass anyways. My Teens can tell you all about the military industrial complex and globalist corporate agenda. I had nothing to do with this either, they learned of it through friends.
The Result.......#5 > They get called unpatriotic by the GOP for not supporting war.

Right, so they know about the military industrial complex, the globalist corporate agenda...the internment of the Japanese, the Trail of Tears, Enron, slavery, the Wall Street Meltdown (1928, last fall), the evils of capitalism, and the wonders of Obama. Great.

Do they know what happens to nations without strong militaries? Do they know why people volunteer to join the military? Or the difference between a citizen-soldier and a conscript? Do you see what I'm saying, Paul? The conservative 'story' (for lack of a better term) isn't getting out there. The liberal one is.

[Lock Piatt]

Hey lex relax the world is not adverse to real honest debate - they will fix it or we will leave.

Lex_Luthor said:

Only happens here. But it appears to be working now and I've adjusted nothing. For the moment, I'll problem solved being optomistic................

Paul said:

looks like he has a mess up encryption program or java scripting is over loading his PC

Marlene H. Klim said:

Lex_Luthor said:

Obamas new irForce 1 See my tet is tll crw up!!Irote ext t WbMasserThisis NOtecho glich!

Terrence Abrams said:

Funny stuff, but Lex raises the accurate point that we may never know for certain, what huge payoff alongside the Secretary of State's position does Hillary get? You know damn well she did not settle for just that.

Lex,

This problem you are experiencing seems a major hurdle. It only happens on this site? I've not seen anyone else with it.

Hope it clears quickly.