Free Republic

Thanks Jim!

Merry Christmas!

I’ll take that as I win.

In light of your lame posts about the reading comprehension of others, I find this delightfully ironic.

By the way, I did not accuse Trisam of “gang rape” except in the metaphorical form.

How about "circle jerk"? Was that also a metaphor?

Which brings us back to the truth. You can’t touch 586. A thinking person wouldn’t have needed it, as I was assued through numerous PM’s, but I typed it as slowly as I could.

As I already noted, any claims you had to civil discourse evaporated with post 599.

And quit hiding behind the skirt.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It is very Hamas of you to do so.

It's always just a matter of time before a troll compares social conservatives to the the Taliban or Hamas.

And keep them in context. Anyone can pull out a few words to mislead, but I need some in context scoring here.

Let me spell this out in the simplest possible terms:

1. YOU accused trisham of participating in "gang rape."
2. YOU LOSE.

So, no one care to update the score after 586?

Actually, trisham responded. You subsequently accused her of participating in gang rape.

What do you think the score is?

Then I apologize to you, but my crude analogy was actually applicable and appropriate to the others.

So, you're sorry for making the gang rape comment to trisham, but you're sticking by it?

P-M was right, you should definitely post someplace where nobody will respond because you seem incapable of civil discourse.

Now, back to your gang rape.

That you would direct that at anyone, let alone a female FReeper who has been a dear FRiend to many of us for decades is disgusting.

Excellent post, I couldn't agree more.

This event is to horrific for words, an adult who could do this to young children is truly evil.

My God bless and comfort these families. This is a nightmare that nobody can prepare for.

Contact their customer service (IIRC you give them you phone number and they call you, that way you're not on hold), the one time I've had a problem with an Amazon order they were great.

Will CEW be able to deflect this sudden offensive and land a hard counter punch?

I'm confident that he's perusing his thesaurus in search of insulting adjectives. He does seem to be far more comfortable with that than with actually answering questions.

You have taken obtuse to an entirely new level.

So, opposing the homosexual agenda is "obtuse"?

Recognizing that homosexuals WILL relocate to other states is "obtuse"?

I’m sure you’ll have this solved by lunch tomorrow, and that is a relief.

And what precisely is your solution? Do you just believe we should leave it to the states, hope for the best and assume that SCOTUS will go along with it?

True, I haven't even seen any retreads lately.

I’ve seen very few posters who have labored so persistently to ensure that their beliefs are incapable of being discerned.

And those few have pretty much all been trolls.

Actually, the assumption that every question can be sufficiently answered Yes or No is an infantile shallow opinion. Some can of course, but a lot of issues are simply not that way. So your entire premise is flawed. Actually both of your foundational premises above are flawed.

Got it, you are taking the "one must examine all of the nuances" route so favored by pseudo-intellectuals.

As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.

I'll take that as a YES.

As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed.

Have you got an actual SOURCE that you are prepared to cite? Or is this just speculation?

People move all the time, to suggest that homosexual don't is absurd. This is far from hypothetical.

My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.

So, in your hypothetical universe, you believe SCOTUS will uphold amendments to state constitutions that discourage homosexuals from relocating?

If you continue to allow him to “score” when he does so on the basis of his poor reading comprehension regarding what I say, and allow him to then construct straw positions that I do not have,...

While your taste for long-winded (albeit grammatically correct) sentences obviously resonates from some adolescent inferiority complex, you seem reluctant to state what you actually believe. So, why don't we make it simple and see how you respond to a couple of YES or NO questions? (I learned a long time ago that the surest sign of a troll on FR was their unwillingness to answer such questions.)

1. Should it be up to the individual states to decide if same-sex marriage is legal or not? YES or NO

2. If a state does allow same-sex marriage, must other states and the federal government recognize it under the equal protection clause? YES or NO

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Abortion is a fiscal issue in that the reduced population creates a labor shortage that acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants.

And it is a major factor in the strain on Social Security and Medicare.

In defense of poor old Barry Goldwater, he was before the heating up of the social issues wars.

You are right, the problems weren't as obvious in 1964 but the warning signs were there.

Nevertheless, Goldwater denounced social issues AFTER things heated up.

If we're going to drop everything "that doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing", then we will have to also drop balanced budget, smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility, and spending limits along with pro-life, pro-natural family, pro-traditional families, etc.

What the libertarians are always hesitant to say is that they WANT to drop social issues like abortion and opposition to the homosexual agenda from the platform.

They despise the fact that these are discussed, yet seem to ignore the fact that conservatism only flourishes when they ARE discussed.

There is a faction of the GOP that idolizes Barry Goldwater and wants to return to conservatism as defined by Goldwater (e.g. fiscal conservatism and strong national defense); however, what they don't realize is that Goldwater's conservatism was an utter FAILURE (as a presidential candidate, he was the GOP's McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all rolled into one). It took Ronald Reagan to realize that conservatism was a three-legged stool and only worked when fiscal, defense AND social matters were all given attention.

I have never advocated gay marriage in any way shape or form.

Saying that it should be up to the states to decide if something is legal or not is closely akin to advocating it.

There are people here that still believe the GOP actually holds these values as important. Unfortunately the actions of the GOP clearly do not demonstrate that.

The fact is that the GOP has been overrun by RINOs and libertarians.

We are in a position where the federal government is gone for conservatives. So we can keep trying to fight there and 100% for sure lose and end up with no options or we can pick a smarter path to wage the battle.

Again, this sounds just like the Whig talking points of the early 19th Century. They too wanted to make conservative issues a "states right" deal, look where it got them.

It was xzins who took this down the rabbit hole not me. I only responded.

You are all over this thread advocating that the states be allowed to decide how they define marriage and you have yet to address any of the federal consequences of it.

xzins...stated homosexuality was illegal for many years and since homosexuals have diseases related to their life-style then it becomes a matter of federal government to protect the rest of us from their diseases.

Certain homosexual ACTIVITIES (like sodomy) were illegal for thousands of years. And it is a FACT that their are diseases associated with homosexuality. And certainly protecting the public from epidemics is a valid government role.

The only tool the federal government has to protect people from something is by making it illegal.

Utter nonsense.

I think it is twisted to think the federal government should protect us from a disease caused by a life-style choice.

So, you think it is just fine for sodomites to donate blood? Or is it "twisted" to think we should be protected from this if possible?

And the only thing I stated in the beginning was why is the federal government involved in marriage anyway?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for equal protection to apply if the government is not involved. Moreover, there are millions of Americans who work for the government or are retired (this includes veterans) plus tens of millions on Social Security and marital status is a vital part of the benefits.

That one question turned into the hate-filled rhetoric against gay people.

Can you cite one of these "hate-filled" posts? Or are you simply talking about objecting to the homosexual agenda?

Also after Weimar is when the people in Germany were begging for the government to come top down on the issues. It always happens that way.

No, the people wanted inflation to end and unemployment to come down. The only people talking about "issues" were the Nazis and even they kept their rhetoric fairly tame until they took power.

I am curious though about your continued responses on this thread. Jim has suggested that you tone it down, I cannot help but wonder if you are a member of some anti-FReeper site that will not accept you as a "full member" without an actual zot.

We have to fight these battles locally and not nationally.

America tried that with slavery, few policies in the history of the world have ever failed on a larger scale. It nearly destroyed our Republic and we are still dealing with the consequences of it.

We have UNALIENABLE rights, that means that no government should have the power to take them away. This is where the libertarian approach fails because they want to empower the individual states to strip our rights from us.

The reference to 1930’s Germany was two-fold.

1) The people were begging the government to come down and support their ideas as laws.

No, leftist came to power in government and made their own twisted ideas into laws. This is exactly what the left is currently trying to do with the homosexual agenda.

2) The Nazi’s specifically labeled gays, jews, etc as diseases and that is the responsibility of the government to defend against those diseases.

Actually, they labeled them as subhumans (truth be told, the belief that homosexuality was a mental illness was pretty much universal until the 1970s) and then targeted them. Today, the left is labeling Christians as "homophobes" and targeting us.

The only difference between Hitler's fascism and Obama's fascism is the groups they hate.

Selecting a group we don’t agree with and making them criminals? You could make the case against ISLAM because they state they want to kill us.

Who is suggesting that homosexuality be a crime?

Categorizing any human as a disease is sickening.

Sure, but what is wrong with pointing out that humans do have diseases?

This is about MARRIAGE and the fact is that homosexuals have exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage as everyone else and they always have.

Romney lost the election for the same reason Dole and McCain lost. They were not conservatives and conservatives stayed home in droves. If you want to win elections, run CONSERVATIVES!! Screw that RINO crap!!

And for that matter the ONLY REASON that either Bush won the three elections they won is because they were running against buffoons.

Until we remove abortion, gay rights, etc off the table at a national level we will NEVER win another national election.

This is EXACTLY what the Whigs were saying about slavery in the 1840s and 1850s. Lincoln and a few others embraced CONSERVATIVE principles of personhood and the sanctity of marriage and the GOP flourished.

People like you would love for conservatism to collapse and be replaced by libertarian anarchy.

Here is what happens with your proposal:
1. A baby gets to live in Alabama, but dies in New York. Do you think THIS is constitutional (keep in mind that the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution no matter how much libertarians detest it).

2. Two sodomites are allowed to "marry" each other in California, what happens when they decide to move to Oklahoma?

Libertarians want to give the individual states nearly unlimited power to destroy our society, all while denying the federal government's constitutional mandate to protect our Republic.

The FACT is that governments have been issuing marriage licenses for eight centuries and they MUST continue to do so if for no other reason than the fact that divorce is a legal issue.

It is also a FACT that there are federal aspects to marriage whether people like it or not because people move from state to state.

Another FACT is the homosexuals have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else and they always have. There is NO LAW that prohibits homosexuals from being married. Moreover, it has ALWAYS been an option for homosexuals to enter into legal partnerships with each other.

Libertarians are the ultimate statists, they worship the utterly false idea of "states rights" and are all to happy to place these "states rights" over our rights. Under the libertarian mantra a state should have the "right" to allow incestuous marriage on any level, polygamy, infanticide and any other form of depravity it wants. The conservative movement needs to sever its relationship with libertarians and it needs to happen immediately.

Outstanding post!

Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.

That's utter nonsense.

The Catholic Church began requiring banns of marriage in the early 13th century, it was done in many areas even before this. Banns were explicitly kept as a requirement by Protestants during the reformation.

So, I would hardly call eight hundred years "relatively modern" as it predates nearly all other forms of English Common Law on which American laws were based.

Moreover, prior to VERY RECENTLY, NOBODY would have ever thought to define marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Even cultures that practiced polygamy never defined marriage as between two members of the same gender.

The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

It is certainly encouraging, there are a lot of priests who need to be sanctioned or defrocked. It's also high time that the Church publicly excommunicate Catholic politicians who promote abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

I don’t advocate abortion on Free Republic. If you read my posts you’ll see that I just disagree with the politics of pro-life vs. pro-abortion.

Sure, you've just taken the "personally opposed, but..." approach.

I.E Angry males making demands upon women isn’t going to be a winning political stance with the voting public. They’re not even going to listen to you, and getting people to listen is 75% of the battle for a pro-life nation.

If the MURDER OF 54 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS isn't reason enough to be angry, then what is?

NOBODY is talking about "making demands upon women," we are talking about protecting innocent life. The fact that you cannot distinguish the difference is disturbing.

So instead of ‘pushing’, lets do some ‘pulling’ and convince people that they are pro-life. Ronald Reagan was pro-life, The Bushes where pro-life, yet none of them attacked the abortion issues head on.

President Reagan was pro-life, but other than scant lip service there isn't any reason to believe that the Bushes are.

As far as not attacking the issue, you seem to forget President Reagan's Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, the Mexico City Policy and banning federal funding for abortion.

But the mere fact that they expressed pro-life opinions helped others come to the conclusion that they are pro-life themselves.

When someone is being murdered, it is more important to stop the murder than to convince the apathetic that murder is wrong.

I bet you would have told Lincoln that he would have gotten elected if only he stopped sticking up for the black people.

That's exactly the way these Rockefeller Republicans think.

There is no 'but ...' It's 'butt out' of other peoples business.

That's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.

54 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS HAVE BEEN MURDERED and you want us to "butt out" because it's none of our business.

You think you're insulting me or something? I'm not a Democrat and I don't care if you think I am. Like I said, go join the neolithic Monolith party and get no where with your one issue candidates.

This "one issue" as you dismissively describe it had been the catalyst for most of America's problems the past four decades.

The economic woes and immigration problems all exist because of the American Holocaust. There aren't enough Americans to work and spend money because they've been murdered.

It's not about you.

No, it's about the 3500+ innocent Americans who will be murdered today, just as they've been murdered every day since January, 1973.

I’m pro life. If a women ever asked me personally what I think she should do, I’m pro life.

If a Journalist ever asked my a hypothetical, I would say as a male, it’s none of my business.

So, you're "personally opposed, but..."?

You sound just like every pro-abortion Democrat politician.

And judging by most of the responses to the OP, you should be voting for the Neolithic Monolith party and not the GOP.

So, you think that pro-life principles are not important?

You and the other GOP concern trolls sound exactly like the Whig concern trolls did on slavery in the first half of the 19th century.

An innocent American murdered in an abortuary EVERY 24 SECONDS, more than 54 MILLION lives have been lost in the last 40 years. If Americans aren't willing to stand up against this slaughter, then we deserve whatever wrath God imposes upon us. There is an ongoing Holocaust that is destroying America and I'll be damned if I will raise a finger to support any group that isn't willing to put a stop to the slaughter.

Ultimately, it’s not a matter of how you say it. You either want to allow abortions, or not. Truth be told there are a whole lot of people that would have voted Republican if it wasn’t for abortion. Millions. It would have made the difference for Romney. I know a lot of people say that abortion is central to the leftist agenda. But there are a lot of women who think that they want to have the abortion option, so they vote Democrat. For pro-life Dems, I think it’s a side issue. They’ll not vote Repub because of their pro-life view because their main issue is redistributive socialism & minority empowerment. We need to put everything we have into fighting what they are in the process of doing to this country, as far as ultimately true socialism (govt owned business as in communism) and full redistribution of wealth (via wealth taxes [a percent a net worth due each year]). We will never get to the point where we can outlaw abortion. But are we going to let that issue sink us anyway?

Hey troll, take your pro-abortion concern trolling somewhere else.

You sound just like the Whigs who wanted to ignore slavery.

The problem in the past election was that conservatives have never actually believed Romney when he said he was pro-life, EVERYTHING Romney says is for the sake of convenience. Abortion SHOULD be an issue, but it certainly wasn't in this election.

An innocent American in murdered in an abortuary EVERY 24 SECONDS and I refuse to support any party that wants to pretend that's not an issue.

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Even non-Catholics will get a lot out of reading this.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Ping

Pro-Life Ping

Indeed, many Obamacarians look to emulate the UK method of centralized control cost containment/care provision regimes. We will come to rue the day if we allow Obamacare to remain on the books.

This is EXACTLY what Obamacare will look like.

Any candidate who says "Roe v. Wade settled the issue has lost me as a voter.

Exactly!

The idea that abortion is "settled" is as offensive to me as I'm sure the issue of slavery was to abolitionists after the Dred Scott Decision.

There can be no compromise or equivocation on matters of good vs. evil. America grew and prospered for nearly two centuries without murdering babies and we've been on a downward slope ever since the American Holocaust began almost forty years ago.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Pro-Life Ping

“Between the most pro-abortion president in American history, the 900-plus executive orders from [Obama], and the administration’s wrongful prosecution of those who oppose abortion via Eric Holder, the word ‘fascism’ comes to mind,” she said.

Fascism is EXACTLY what it is.

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Don’t bother with the “Well, if YOU....” critiques. Too much personal and close family experience for that.

I couldn't agree more.

It never ceases to amaze me how the pro-death crowd operates under the delusion that pro-lifers have never seen loved ones suffer.