Alan Keyes and Ron Paul vie for Constitution Party nomination

Cap

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
3,193
Posted here http://www.conservativeevents.com/view.asp?0=nationalmassmedia&1=246

Presidential Nominating Convention
Event day: 4/22/2008
Event end day: 4/27/2008
City: Kansas City, MO
Organization: Constitution Party
Location: KANSAS CITY MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN, 200 West 12th Street
Cost: $0.00
Message was posted at: 3/22/2008 3:03:39 AM

Alan Keyes and Ron Paul (who is still a Republican) vie for the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party

Anyone else seen this? Is it for real?
 
What is constitutional about Alan Keyes?

I'll say this at least for Keyes: he presents his ideas with intelligence and sincerity (as opposed to McCain, Bush, Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, etc etc etc)...it annoyed me he was CUT OUT of the debates completely; whether or not he is constitutional...I think he is not, he's very dangerous in that area.
 
CP = theocrats.

Yes they are constitional, but they believe the state should be unfluenced by the church
 
I'll say this at least for Keyes: he presents his ideas with intelligence and sincerity (as opposed to McCain, Bush, Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, etc etc etc)...it annoyed me he was CUT OUT of the debates completely; whether or not he is constitutional...I think he is not, he's very dangerous in that area.

So.... What's constitutional about Alan Keyes?

I don't believe he's received over 1000 votes nationwide as of yet...
 
No, I said he's not constitutional...I said he's dangerous to the Constitution; but that he argues his ideas intellectually.
 
Well, he did write his PhD dissertation on constitutional theory. I heard him an in interview about last month and he seems to know more than most candidates about a constitutional republican government. I'd never vote for him, however, because of his fundiness, his extreme social conservative policies, and the fact that he supports the "war on terror."
 
Last edited:
CP = theocrats.

Yes they are constitional, but they believe the state should be unfluenced by the church

You do get a sense of that from reading the Constitution Party's official website.

I don't think the CP would have the power to make some of the changes it wants to make without amending the Constitution (which would be legal, but unlikely).
 
Keyes is a joke. He has lost every race he ever ran in by huge margins. I believe the GOP also used him as their token black candidate against Obama, and flew him into Illinois just to run, even when he was never a real resident. The Constitution Party would be nuts to nominate a failed neo-con.
 
The Constitution Party is supposedly pro-liberty, but manages to also be anti-pornography. Somehow, they reconcile this difference.
 
folks, you have obama almost totally streaking to the white house and you
wonder why alan keyes is having conniption fits over the idea of the guy who
smucked him in this here senate race now oh so close to power? only 2 people
stand between barack obama and that there bible come january! {mccain + ms. hillary!}
 
Last edited:
The only thing really detestable about Keyes was his willingness to be an ambassador to the filthy United Nations.
 
Straight from the horse's mouth... "The issue is how are we going to fight it most effectively, how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us?"

That comment troubles me. I've never liked keyes....he hides his views through unnecisarily complex speech and jargon...he just comes off like a stuck up butthole plus alot of his views are wrong.
 
We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

This is the only thing I found questionable about the Constitution Party platform. If they just remove "federal governments," there's nothing I would disagree with. Perhaps they are just asking that the Supreme Court would stay out of local obscenity laws, or they may be saying the Federal government should step in. It's a little ambiguous.
 
Back
Top