Look at what 2004 has given us:

Bush and a Democrat who won't even come close.


That works well with a third party candidate, and because Nader ditched the Greens, don't look for any liberal surprises this time.

I think it's finally the time of the Libertarian Party to either put up or shut up.

I'm definitely voting against Bush and the Democratic nominee and voting for the Libertarian.

We simply cannot keep supporting the people we disagree with.

http://www.garynolan.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Praetor:
JC-are you talking about the Falangist Party or the Falconist Party? If the Falangist Party, whihc one, the AFP or CFPA?

---

The Falangist Party, AFP to be specific.

JC-are you talking about the Falangist Party or the Falconist Party? If the Falangist Party, whihc one, the AFP or CFPA?

Pathetic. If they're going to be an ultra-religious Fascist fringe group, they should at least be consistent in their platform.

What the ****...

quote:

---

But any radical homosexual that disrupts a Religious service because they don't agree with what is being said or practiced by that church should be sentenced to a special labor camp for 20 years or in some cases executed.

---

quote:

---

We do not believe in violence as a means to settle any issue or express an opinion.

---

Well that's not contradictory in any way...

quote:

---

We believe all non Satanic religions have a right to practice their Religion in peace but we will fight against any non - Christian religion that seeks to evangelize in the Western Hemisphere.

---

quote:

---

Our Falangist Party is composed only of Christians, we allow only Christians to join. But like racism, religious bigotry will not be tolerated. Though we believe in strong conservative religious values, we don't believe in imposing those values on anyone else and we stand for the seperation of Church and State.

---

Nope, no contradiction there... certainly not from the fine people of the Falangist Party.

So they're contradictory religious fundamentalists who are bat**** insane... that can't end well.

The Falconist Party not a Fascist Party. We specifically stated that in our FAQs section of our website as well as the reasons why were not Fascists.

When we rebuild our website, were going to delete the plank giving the President the ability to disband Congress and call for new elections.

But if you really want to see some unabashedly genuine Fascist (not Nazi) Parties, check out these sites:

www.falange.org
www.falange.us
www.americanfascist.com

quote:

---

Admittedly, he has many characteristics of a Fascist. But unless there is a clear rejection of democracy/republics, a individual can't be considered Fascist for holding those values

---

Granted he has some difference on certain policy issues, I'm still holding to what most in the "main-stream" political arena would call a fair categorization. I sincerely doubt the "main-stream" right is going to give up the ability to label the left as "Marxists," or "Communists" on national T.V. and in their books; so therefore under today's practiced categorization standards my claim of his general political, both socially and economically, ideology would fall under fascism. But since you seem to hold different categorization standards, one that I would deem more accurate and fair, I will change my statement and say his party is Fascist like or has Fascist tendencies.

quote:

---

Also, Mussolini's economic system wasn't "extreme liberalism." It was always sold as a "Third Way" economic system

---

The extreme might have been a little hasty, but still his system was liberal, more liberal then most standard conservatives and it definitely wasn't on the center. Mussolini did talk about giving a little individual freedom but none that was "useless and possibly harmful." That seems pretty liberal, economically, to me.

Admittedly, he has many characteristics of a Fascist. But unless there is a clear rejection of democracy/republics, a individual can't be considered Fascist for holding those values. Could that mean that this so-called Falconist Party could drift into Fascism? Sure, but it isn't neo-Fascist right now.

Also, Mussolini's economic system wasn't "extreme liberalism." It was always sold as a "Third Way" economic system*: A combination of corporate power and state protectionism, as opposed to outright socialism/leftism or free-market capitalism.

Ironically, my views on the economy and nationalism are more moderate, but since I believe that we should have state of emergency declared now (temporarily anyway, I'm not that crazy) that alone pretty much makes me Authoritarian/Fascistic.

*A phrase Clinton (in his 1998 state of the Union adress) and other politicians used for their own purposes, despite it's earlier use by Fascists.

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on January 30, 2004 at 12:51 AM.]

quote:

---

No, I wouldn't say he's Fascist

---

I would, if you look at Mussolini�s setup economically it was extremely liberal, while as he had extremely conservative social values and preached extreme nationalism. I'm talking purely on an X Y political axis he would fall almost identically on the place that Fascism would.

No, I wouldn't say he's Fascist for that particular line. Fascism would imply that the Democratic process would be rigged, greatly limited, or else non-existent. That the president would have the power to call for new elections isn't Fascist, just extreme. As for the combination of social conservatism and economic liberalism: There was a point where that was pretty common in the Democratic Party. Now, it would be Fascist if he were to say all of that, and then say that he would support the elimination of the Democratic/Republican System and the control of the press by the state.

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on January 30, 2004 at 12:35 AM.]

quote:

---

The Falconist Party is liberal on fiscal and economic issues. But is conservative on the social, moral and military issues.

---

So in other words you�re a Fascist. What pretty much summed it up for me was what it said on your political site, "The President shall have line-item veto power as well as the power to disband Congress and call for new elections."

Are you kidding me? Death of the West is a crack-pot book. It's nothing but alarmist statistics, blantant denial of historical facts, and thinly-disguised isolationist, vaguely racist/xneophobic rant. Pat Bucanan is just a fringe candidate, in fact all of the people you mentioned are fringe candidates. That's ultimately the reason why third parties don't get elected, unless one of the existing parties dies off. Which at this point is most likely going to be the Democrats, since they seem incapable of getting any southern states or people other than their new "liberal base" to vote for them.

I wouldn't rule third parties out yet. In fact, the Presidential election with the highest turnout had to be in 1992 when Ross Perot ran and he brought alot of people to the polls who haven't voted before as well as drawing voters from both Bush Sr. and Clinton.

In fact, I can point out several oppurtunities third parties had to build. But shortsighted and misguided leaders didn't capitalize on the situation.

1n 1992, if Perot didn't drop out, he could have polled 25-30% come election day and denied either candidate the 270 electoral votes to become President, the election would have went to the Congress. And had Perot launched the reform party then, Perot could have got 10-20% of the vote in 1996.

If Ventura didn't make a joke of the Governorship of Minnesota and took on a second job announcing for the XFL, the Reform Party probably would be faring better.

What killed the Reform Party was Pat Buchanan's candidacy. Had PB wrote "Death of the West" instead of "A Republic, Not an Empire" (In Empire, PB advocated we should have stayed out of WW2). Not only would he have fared better as a Presidential candidate, but kept the RFP alive. Sometimes, I think PB joined the RFP to destroy the RFP and unite the right behind Bush.

Donald Trump could still have salvaged the third party movement by hiring political strategists and activists to organize chapters of the Independence Party in every state. But he didn't make the investment.

If Schwarzeneger ran as an independent instead of a Republican, then he could have bolstered third parties to new heights. But he is loyal to the GOP inspite of his liberal attitudes toward abortion, etc. But California still gave hope to third parties. If it happened in California, it can happen anywhere in the USA.

I heard a rumor back in 2000 that Ted Turner was going to run for President on a third party ticket. I wouldn't vote for him. Bt you have to admit, that would have been a gloriously interesting campaign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Praetor:
JusticeConservative:

Thanks for the offer, but wour party is currently in negotiations with a internet production company and website hosting service to rebuild our website and come up with a new logo.

We thought about joining the GOP or joining the Democrats to organize the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party. However, I believe the American people are tired of the two major parties. If people had more choices, voter turnout would be 80%.

Also, I don't think the GOP would take kindly to our economic proposals anymore than the Democratic Party would take kindly to our positions on social and moral issues.

I think in the next 2-3 decades the two major parties will split and realign and will look like this.

The Moderate Democrats and Republicans will join with independents to form the Independence Party.

The Conservative Democrats and Republicans, as well as the religious right parties will form a new Constitution Party

The Liberal Democrats will join with the Greens, members of the New Party, and maybe even Socialists to form a new Green Party.

Libertarians from both of the two major parties will join with the Libertarian Party to make it even stronger.

Then there are those who are socially and morally conservative yet liberal on the fiscal and economic issues. There is no party or ideology that represents them and there is where the Falconist Party comes in (http://www.falconistparty.org).
With the emergence of a multi-party landscape, it may be possible for the Natural Law Party to gain strength.

---

I don't see a multi-party system arising at all. The reality is, America has been content with having two-parties controlling the country for centuries, and just wants to see reformers or some competent leaders to arise in the two parties. Most are just apathetic ad/or ignorant, and thus don't go to elections unless convinced otherwise. What we're really more likely to see in this country is a "friendly", PR savvy dictatorship arising at some point. That's inevitable with an increasingly desperate, apathetic (often cattle-like) population and such an amazingly powerful propaganda machine from both parties in this country. I also expect to see a world war caused by China and the EU solidifying into a real rival for the US (with Paris, Berlin and Brussels intimidating the US). Wait a second, desperate population, social decay, country getting humiliated, a disastrous (a very likely) World War, possibility of a dictatorship arising… Sound familiar?

JusticeConservative:

Thanks for the offer, but wour party is currently in negotiations with a internet production company and website hosting service to rebuild our website and come up with a new logo.

We thought about joining the GOP or joining the Democrats to organize the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party. However, I believe the American people are tired of the two major parties. If people had more choices, voter turnout would be 80%.

Also, I don't think the GOP would take kindly to our economic proposals anymore than the Democratic Party would take kindly to our positions on social and moral issues.

I think in the next 2-3 decades the two major parties will split and realign and will look like this.

The Moderate Democrats and Republicans will join with independents to form the Independence Party.

The Conservative Democrats and Republicans, as well as the religious right parties will form a new Constitution Party

The Liberal Democrats will join with the Greens, members of the New Party, and maybe even Socialists to form a new Green Party.

Libertarians from both of the two major parties will join with the Libertarian Party to make it even stronger.

Then there are those who are socially and morally conservative yet liberal on the fiscal and economic issues. There is no party or ideology that represents them and there is where the Falconist Party comes in (www.falconistparty.org).
With the emergence of a multi-party landscape, it may be possible for the Natural Law Party to gain strength.

Praetor: Wow, much of your ideas and party logo are virtually identical to my own (I’m an good artist though, and I could help you redesign the logo to be more professional). However, third parties are generally less effective than inter-party collations (example: Gephardt's Blue Dog group; Libertarian Republicans, the Populist Democrats circa 1900-1945). I think you'd be better off developing an organization; integrating it into the Republican Party (the socially conservative values are more consist with that party) and then eventually shifting that party to you're neo-populist ideology. That's what I'm going to attempt to do at least when I enter politics.

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on January 27, 2004 at 09:55 PM.]

I don't like the Demopublican party either. But I'm not a Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist or NLP either. I'm a member of the Falconist Party.

The Falconist Party is liberal on fiscal and economic issues. But is conservative on the social, moral and military issues.

I do not see any 3rd parties that I would vote for.

Libertarians would do fine, except I do not agree with their views on drug laws (legalizing them), abortion and Near isolationism/anarchy.

No, Libertarianism is a bunch of very good ideas mixed in with a bunch of over shadowingly worse ideas.

Though I do not completely agree with the Republicans either, there what I am going to have to settle for.

I have to disagree, Joey. For me, getting Bush out of office is a higher priority than voting exactly with my principles and making a statement. If Bush had been a better leader, I would agree that the Democrats' chances would be slim this year, but some of Bush's policies have begun to upset his core group of supporters-- this could seriously improve the Democrats' chances of winning in November. I'm not saying it won't be a long, hard haul, but I do still think it's possible. Democrats still have a much greater chance of winning than a libertarian.

I do think that if Bush wins re-election and keeps the big government train a-rolling for the next four years, the libertarian party might begin to amass conservative refugees from the now-liberal Republican party. I just don't think it's going to happen this year.

We have to face it: Our system is not generally kind to third parties.

I am so glad that there are even people out there who know what libertarian is!!!!! All I hear about on tv is democrat vs. republican, and it is the most annoying thing!!