Skip to comments.Left-Wing Ideology Now Rules Supreme In America
Posted on 12/13/2012 8:32:15 AM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
You want to really piss off the homosexuals?
You really want to subjugate yourself to 1% of the population?
“The MSM needs to be destroyed. That is the only way we are getting our country back.”
Yup, not enough bad things can happen to the media and their families!
Let it burn.
Can't disagree with you there. I've been screaming we're over due for a good old fashioned revolution for a number of years now, and no one seems to listen. I've lost count of how many times folks on this very forum have told me to "cool it" when I've advocated openly for a good old fashioned revolution complete with guns, bullets, and 537 dead bodies swinging by their necks on the steps of the US Capitol.
Those same folks have told me "no, you're wrong, we must win via the ballot box!"
Well, once again we lost and the fact is the MOOCHERS outnumber us. Looking at the demographics from the last election it looks like they're going to outnumber us for generations to come unless we do something about it.
What say you all now, time for the revolution or not?!
Yeah, over the past few years I’m learning that what passes for conservative now has very little to do with respecting the limits that the constitution put on the power of the federal government. It would be nice if they just quit pretending they care about the thing.
A bit dramatic, eh? Subjugate? I'm a little more worried about getting a no knock raid on my house by a bunch adrenalin junkies with badges and sub machine guns because some clerk got the address on the warrant wrong than I am about...what? What level of subjugation will I be subjected to by this 1% of the population? Are they going to jail me for wearing white after Labor Day? Am I going to get fined for not having my wardrobe properly accessorized? Civil asset forfeiture if I don't trade my BMW in on a VW Cabriolet? Seriously...what risk do they pose to me and mine? Maybe I'm missing this grave threat.
I would like to see you explaining to early America that the constitution that they had just written guaranteed abortion and homosexual marriage.
Really? Are you claiming that I said the constitution guaranteed any of that? Please feel free to re-read all of my posts on this thread and let me know where I said the constitution guaranteed those things.
Good, if there is no protection offered in the constitution to those absurdities, then we don’t have an argument, we can make sure that they don’t come to exist in America.
We just need to overcome the power of the leftists/libertarians, since they managed to create them both, and used the constitution as their argument.
Don’t confuse the big L Libertarians with the small L libertarians. The latter wants nothing to do with the feds having the power to sanction or prohibit anything not specifically spelled out in the constitution.
According to you there isn’t anything in the constitution to enable abortion or the homosexual agenda anyway, so we can prohibit it.
We just need to overcome the power of the leftists/little l libertarians, since they managed to create them both, and used the constitution as their argument.
By the way, there is no difference between libertarians, big or little, except that the big Ls are brave enough to leave fantasy long enough to try and put libertarianism into practice.
You can on the state level. The 10th amendment is quite clearly worded. Since the constitution does not specifically give the feds to power to ban or sanction those activities, that power is reserved to the states. If Texas and South Carolina want to have their theocratic based laws, that's fine, but they have to leave californica and New Hampshire alone to make their own laws on those items.
I would like to see you explaining to early America that the constitution that they had just written allowed for abortion and homosexual marriage in America.
I wouldn’t have to. They would only have to read it. I’m sure a few of them did. It was written in clear enough language for them or anyone else to understand. You either respect it or you don’t.
Or is it a living, breathing document?
I trust their relationship to the constitution in 1780 and 1792, and 1794 and on and on, more than I trust your interpreting it to promote homosexual marriage and polygamy today.
Again, you’re seeing something there that doesn’t exist. You seem to be under this odd impression that I support the fedgov having the power to sanction marriage, be it muslim, homersexual, polygon or otherwise. I don’t know how much more plainly to explain it to you. But you seem to see something in article 1, section 8 that gives it that power so your imagination is quite vivid.
No sense in trying to explain something to me that I never said and don’t believe.
What is clear is that you support homosexual marriage and polygamy, and want to stop efforts of conservatives here to fight it.
You want it to be decided by each individual what marriage is as silly and childish as that is.
You dedicate a lot of your time here promoting a war against marriage.
You sure ignore the part about the federal government and marriage and widows from the time just before, during and just after, and ever since, the constitution being written.
I guess you want the military widow pensions to apply equally to all definitions of marriage.
Do you want to come out of the closet and tell the group something?
Article 1, section 8. Find it there or admit you are just a cafeteria constitutionalist.
I would, but it would be inappropriate for me to talk about that romp in the sack with your mom last night.
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.