Posted on 08/04/2014 5:37:03 PM PDT by chuckles
Or you are a fool who can’t understand the argument.
You are grossly misinformed as to what the law actually says
“
Criminal forfeiture is an action brought as a part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant. It is an in personam (against the person) action and requires that the government indict (charge) the property used or derived from the crime along with the defendant. If the jury finds the property forfeitable, the court issues an order of forfeiture.”
The fact that it is misused in the current day says that someone has allowed a law to be overreached and that further court action and congressional action is necessary.
It is the nature of unintended consequences that one set of people living in a time far different than the current one did not mean for the law to be used the way it currently is....e.g. the EPA, the Dept of Education, etc etc etc
It is NOT Reagan’s fault that there are slim buckets misusing a law
I think the problem lies with the Ayn Rand followers. Once they flocked to the “libertarian” label, instead of called themselves what they really are (objectivists), a lot of people forgot what the term originally stood for.
Kind of the same way the Marxists tainted the word “liberal”.
That's idiotic; here's why:
If the federal government has the authority to define marriage then it has the authority to change that definition. Surrendering that authority to them is a losing proposition.
As for abortion, the reason that it's illegal is precisely because the authority has been surrendered; or do you think that abortion was legal in the majority of States before Roe v. Wade?
  Red Illegal. (30) |
Apparently you just skimmed over my original post. Go reread it please.
In particular PAY ATTENTION to the part where I say Reagan can be forgiven for it because he did called for it in all earnest.
Did you even really read the post? Because reply #1 you didn’t seem to know what you’re talking about and reply #2 you’re all a sudden an expert and assume I know nothing about it. I know plenty.
Those two characteristics cannot co-exist in the same body.
Yeah I was kind of wondering about that myself.
IMO Fast & Furious, it's definitionally State Sponsored Terrorism, aids [physically arming and providing legal protections] the cartels which can be considered enemies of the Several States.
Evidently you just don’t know how to respond to the facts, the feds have areas of control that involve federal laws and policies also, such as in the military, employment and immigration.
The reason I wrote this in the first place was to say I've been here before. The party is splitting right now and we will get Hillary unless we come together. I was there when the "Silent Majority" was born. If someone says they are for Pat Robertson, the squeals and squawks would be horrendous, but do you want to but up with a Christian, or live with Hilary pulling the levers? The Second Amendment folks are as reliable as anyone on the planet. Do you want to "make a deal" with some NE liberal so we can all get along? The libertarians are so pure they can't stand a Christian saying he doesn't want to watch 2 men kissing on TV. Libertarians have been searching for Mr Perfect for 50 years and are still waiting. In the mean time half of them vote Dem so they can burn flags, kill babies, and smoke dope( as long as it doesn't affect someone else, of course).
No I'm not happy with the Republican Party. That's why I'm a conservative, not a Republican. We must work from the inside to build the party and not just toss good voters under a bus. I do agree with Sarah Palin, however. If the party doesn't come together soon, The Tea Party should be hatched. We handed the House to Republicans, and gains in the Senate, and then got NO committee chairs as the Tea Party. That was bad enough, but now we have Rove and others that treat the Tea Party like Democrats. I'm not optimistic. How many establishment Repubs would vote Tea Party to save the country? Makes me shiver. Libertarians must choose either economics or social issues. If you speak to the average college libertarian, they are voting for legal dope over almost all other issues. They pay no taxes and many have no job. They vote for gay marriage, dope and abortion over any economic reason. Sometimes the vote Dem just because us old farts vote Rep. It would e interesting to have an accurate poll on Rand Paul on FR. I bet he wouldn't get 15%, but they will hang there to the bitter end.
At the federal level, marriage issues and abortion also have to be decided on, for instance in the military, federal employment and immigration and foreign policy.
Never support a social liberal, non God fearing candidate at ANY level of office, because not only will he be pushing left wing social politics, but he might someday reach the Congress, or Senate, or Presidency and be making federal policy.
It is this fact that makes me oppose you big government “conservatives”.
We could announce our support for reducing the federal government size and cost by 95% but if we want controls on immigration, drugs, abortion and gay marriage we are “big government” socialists.
Meanwhile real socialists who give way on drugs receive the whole-hearted support from libertarians. You can see the Democrat-libertarian coalition being shown off in Colorado, Washington State and others.
“Brave New World” is the model.
It seemed to me that you were representing that he was adopting a libertarian approach, and, by the way, things are going to hell, therefore, libertarianism is flawed. But he’s doing almost nothing that libertarians would do, so that argument isn’t a good one.
The law does not, and cannot, save; it only condemns.
(Gal 3:19-29)
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring[i] would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ[j] might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,[k] heirs according to the promise.
If you are trying to make people righteous via the law then you are doomed to failure; what you need is the power of God unto salvation
, Jesus Christ — it is only He who will change hearts.
By asserting that these problems are federal in nature you are asserting that the servant [fedgov] is greate than the master [the states/people].
We are talking about the federal level; right? (At least I was.)
If you had to choose one or the other, would you choose legal dope or a 2% tax cut?
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.