Posted on 08/04/2014 5:37:03 PM PDT by chuckles
LOL, of course you are, you oppose the pro-life movement and conservative politics to end abortion.
Nothing can persuade you in joining us in ending abortion at the federal level in their areas of jurisdiction and in federal policies, the same with gay marriage. The reality is that we can’t even get you to stop fighting us on it.
No, I’m not nut’s. I’m trying to figure out what sort of “libertarian” you are. Are you economic or social, or both? All I’ve seen so far is a complaining libertarian, that no one seems intelligent enough to understand where you are coming from. Even though we can’t understand your superior arguments, we appreciate your participation with the underlings. We all understand federalism and state vs, federal, I’m just trying to find out if you want gay marriage or a tax cut or both. My point is you can’t have both. If we get social chaos, the budget woes won’t matter. It’s like a Christian Democrat,....there’s no such animal.
You ignored my post, I haven’t said anything about courts, I was talking about the massive influence of the laws and policies that libertarians and liberals pass that only apply to the federal government.
Libertarians know that gay marriage at the federal level guarantees that they will get their gay marriage at the state level in time.
We were not going have a situation where Marines and Sailors and FBI men and millions of federal employees and immigrants were going to have to deal with being “family”, or “not family” during their careers of transfers and duty stations for very long, and libertarians know that.
Really?
I said nothing of the sort; moreover, I do believe the States have the authority to make anti-abortion laws despite what you've been brainwashed into believing.
Nothing can persuade you in joining us in ending abortion at the federal level
Because Constitutionally there's no place for it.
If we don't respect the Constitution when it's inconvenient for us we don't respect the Constitution. Period.
in their areas of jurisdiction and in federal policies
Their jurisdiction: DC and territories.
the same with gay marriage. The reality is that we can’t even get you to stop fighting us on it.
That's because surrendering the power to define marriage to the federal government means that you have surrendered, to the government, the power to define marriage.
If that is the case, then the definition can be changed by said government — even by Constitutional amendment; the Constitution could afterwards be amended to admit homosexual marriage after it has become accepted as being the legitimate authority.
Why can you not understand this?
The anti-war movement really began as a radical Left movement demonstrating against the liberal Democrat administration of Lyndon Johnson.
SDS, SNCC, and other such radical groups started it all. They were despised by blue collar, labor union Democrats. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 would be the last nominee who really represented the values of the those blue collar Democrats, although he was challenged by both Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy who were appealing to the antiwar crowd.
By in 1968 the antiwar faction within the Democrat party was working to take control of the Democratic Party. McGovern's group had something to do with reworking the nominating procedure and it worked to his advantage in 1972. McGovern's lack of popularity to the average Democrat became apparent when he managed to win exactly one state in the election.
But then came Watergate and the 1974 Democratic takeover of Congress by a heavily leftist group of candidates. That was the bunch who cut off all ammunition and gasoline to South Vietnam, assuring their defeat by the Communist north one year later.
I read your first post and it made no sense even with your vague confused reference to asset forfeiture...which was designed to make sure drug money couldn’t just be passed. Around and held on to after a criminal conviction.
My comments stand
This is just weird, do you read my posts at all?
No state can pass law telling the federal government what it’s abortion and gay marriage laws and rules are in regards to the military, federal employment and immigration and such.
That's fine, but freedom is not limited to people that share your ideas about what God wants. That's not freedom.
Yes, I do.
No state can pass law telling the federal government what it’s abortion and gay marriage laws and rules are in regards to the military, federal employment and immigration and such.
And why should those be federal issues?
Shouldn't those people be subject to the states wherein they are Citizens? [Baring immigration, which I agree that Congress has the authority to regulate.]
IOW, why do you insist that the federal government should have even more power than it does now?
I wish it to have less — most of what it has now is usurped anyway.
That's what I thought you said. Supporting Syrian rebels is not libertarian and is not economic. Supporting the uprisings in Egypt and Ukraine is not libertarian and is not economic. Running guns to known Mexican drug cartels is not libertarian and is not economic. Giving a pass to Jon Corzine for stealing client money at MF Global is not libertarian is not not economic. Using the IRS to audit conservative groups is not libertarian and is not economic. I could go on, but if I haven't gotten anywhere yet I'm not likely to with many more examples, either. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with your statement that "He is libertarian on almost his entire approach,....except economics." He is nothing of the sort.
That's just wacky.
Sure you can. You just don't demand that the government force everyone else to act like a moral conservative Christian.
LOL, see, you are a dedicated fighter for abortion and gay marriage.
The feds have their own areas of control, for instance in marriage and the military, the Congresses were passing law in regards to that in 1780, 1794, and 1798, 1802 and ever since, regardless of your evasive fantasies to avoid admitting that you are fighting us on gay marriage for the feds, just as you fight us on abortion and the feds, the feds have their own medical facilities, that is why the military could get abortions during the Vietnam war era, and they also have to decide law and policy for immigrants and in the state department and in foreign policy.
After the left has homosexualized the military and legalized gay marriage for themselves, and adopted it and abortion in federal areas of immigration and the state department and foreign policy,,,,now jump up to oppose conservative efforts to roll back those laws, with this goofy argument that reversing the recent federal laws is unappealing to you because now we need to leave federal law to the liberals and stay our of it.
I don’t care about your little fantasy world, it does bother me that we conservatives are the ones you oppose here.
It’s our pro-life and pro-marriage politics that you fight and mock, you want to make your gains at the federal level under Obama unchallenged, we want to reverse them.
Nothing about it was vague or confused. But that’s your story, stick to it if it gets you through the day.
Oh and your wrong. Asset forfeiture was to impede drug money from being used for expensive legal defense (I.E bribes and such). Note how forfeiture occurs before the conviction and becomes a second and altogether different set of court proceedings where one can be found innocent of crime, yet the forfeiture stands.
That is what happens today which is the misuse of the law. I previously posted the description in the law that requires conviction.
Sod off, troll.
The feds have their own areas of control, for instance in marriage and the military, the Congresses were passing law in regards to that in 1780, 1794, and 1798, 1802 and ever since,
Because what early congress does is obviously Constitutional… now, where's my copy of the Alien and Sedition Acts?
regardless of your evasive fantasies to avoid admitting that you are fighting us on gay marriage for the feds
I am not for gay marriage for the feds; sod off, troll.
just as you fight us on abortion and the feds, the feds have their own medical facilities, that is why the military could get abortions during the Vietnam war era, and they also have to decide law and policy for immigrants and in the state department and in foreign policy
I am against abortion; I am, however, not willing to injure the Constitution's restraints on the federal government in order to achieve it.
Sod off, troll.
I don’t care about your little fantasy world, it does bother me that we conservatives are the ones you oppose here.
No, what you don't care about is constitutional limits; sod off, troll.
It’s our pro-life and pro-marriage politics that you fight and mock,
I've not mocked anyone on this matter; please show me where I have.
Oh, and before I forget, sod off troll.
you want to make your gains at the federal level under Obama unchallenged, we want to reverse them.
Because not recognizing the federal level as appropriate authority is the same as endorsing the use of authority at the federal level?
You're not rational; sod off, crazy troll.
It's a plain violation of the 5th and (6th or 7th) Amendments:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
If you don’t support gay marriage for the military, then support us ending it, the same goes for abortion. Instead you keep evading the gay marriage in the military issue claiming that the Congress didn’t know what they were doing in 1780, 1794, 1798 and in all the years since in regards to marriage and the military as you do your fantasy bit, to give you an excuse to fight conservatism from behind a fig leaf.
Do you realize that a DU member could sign up here and argue with us pro-life, pro-marriage conservatives all day, year after year, using the same technique that you do, fight our politics, our party, our candidates, our legislative proposals, everything, just by using your methods.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
Let me refer you to my previous statement:I am against abortion; I am, however, not willing to injure the Constitution's restraints on the federal government in order to achieve it.
The same goes with homosexual marriage.
And, yes, ceding the power to define marriage to the federal government does injure the Constitution; specifically, the tenth amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.