Posted on 10/14/2005 6:17:04 AM PDT by areafiftyone
What do you mean, "Doing a John Kerry"? I'm thinking this guy should run for President.
I don't he's tooo flip floppy!
ping for later
Once the people of America get tired of all the double-standards in our society and the accompanying hypocrisy, things will change -- until then, it will just get worse.
I guess you are right.
Flip floppy on what? Specifics.
For one, Sen. George Allen, R-Va., who said he likes this bill and will vote for it, has been reduced to back-peddling from a pledge he made five years ago to pro-family groups while running for office that he would not support these kinds of proposals.
For whatever reason, I misunderstood it the first time. I guess I just skimmed it too fast. Sorry about that. This is not a subject to get flip-floppy on. I am firmly against the bill, and I am against anyone who even wavers on it.
But... But... Dems say there is no such thing as that.
Did you ever think the political spectrum is skewed so that both parties HAVE TO stay in the muddy middle? A true spectrum would be total govt on the left, monarchy, dictatorship, communism or nazism. On the right would be anarchy. Of course the extremes could be flipped to either side, but the point is the way we are taught, causes a fight over nothing.
Draw your own political spectrum and see what I mean. Under this new scale, better more "conservative" govt, would be as close to anarchy as possible, without losing control, and leaving citizens room to be sovereign. Under the old scale, "conservative" govt means whatever people in power want to call it. Kinda like a living breathing philosophy.
The way people talk now about someone moving right, makes it seem as if they are cracking down and using govt power to enforce biblical views or morals. Moving to the left means taking monies away in a shell game of moving citizens assets from one group to another. Either way, govt accrues more power. As long as we ascribe to this scale, govt wins and sovereign citizens lose their freedom. This is why though "conservatives" gain power, the only thing they see to do, is change the face of the power taking away our freedom.
This is a long comment I know, and few will read it, but essentially explains the discomfort some feel with this President, and the Republican party. Waddaya think? How about any FReepers? Comments?
Thanks for the alert about this, btw.
No I'm NOT Kidding.
A couple weeks back the senate version of this bill was posted, or I found it through a THOMAS search (can't remember and didn't bookmark) and low and behold in Section II (IIRC) the Commerce Clause was cited as Congress' legal authority to write the law. According to Congress everything eventually pertains to commerce in some manner (and SCOTUS has been mostly agreeable to this obtuse line of logic).
And in the Hate Crime Bill it said in effect a hate crime involves commerce as the person committing the crime would be wearing clothes bought or manufactured in another state or if 'he' used a Baseball Bat as a weapon the bat was .. you got it, from another state and therefore commerce was involved.
So as to Harriet Miers and Roe - I give a hoot. I want to what she thinks of Congress' power to use the Commerce Clause.
That's okay I don't meant to bash Allen its just I don't want a guy who's is not sure about things and goes whichever way the wind blows just to make people happy for president. Stick to your guns even if you piss some people off along the way. If they don't like it - tough but they will respect you more if you stick to it than if you flip flop.
That's a myth. Think about it.
First, we the people can define our basic social structures -- family -- without enforcing biblical views. Try reality-based views.
Second, just becuase a value stems from the Bible doesn't mean that we are enforcing biblical views. Thou shalt not murder comes from the Bible. Do we enforce biblical views with murder laws? We the people can pull our opinions from any source we want. But no one is saying we should force people to believe the Bible is true, to worship God, or anything like that. But neither should we act like people of faith are bad, or that it is the government's job to shut them up.Further, there is a whole lot of government involved in having the judicial branch demand that we legalize gay marriage, gay sodomy or whatever. Freedom for one means oppression for the other. Sometimes you just can't have "all of the above." Where there is disagreement, you take a vote. You just protect the right of all to continue to make their case. They can vote, speak, write, print...everything they need to persuade people.
All the right is about these days is protecting long held ground from liberal takeover. We've lost way too much ground already, but we are for the most part a defensive team. It's liberals who are offensive (in both senses).
WOW! Emulating John f'n Kerry is NO way to get yourself on the GOP ticket (...or maybe it is?!?).
The Hate Crimes Laws are nothing more than the implementation of the Values set forth in the European Socialist Manefesto. They undermine our Gurantee of Freedom of Speech by the Constitution. The Hate Crimes were put into law to do just that. We have the right to Hate just as we have the right to Love. The Constitution of the United States is slowly but surely being replaced with the Socialist Version of the European Constitution, read it for yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318061/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318038/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318034/posts
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254190/posts
I realize that the initial impetus for "hate crimes" legislation came from the old guard, NAACP-type civil rights community, and that the "issue" caught fire because of Rodney King and similar incidents. Nevertheless, the hidden agenda behind the "hate crimes" racket, that which is keeping it alive and well, is the need for homosexuals and lesbians to impose themselves on potential victims without having their teeth knocked down their throats. The old Japanese militarist regime created "thought police" to try to determine who was harboring unacceptable attitudes and opinions. I always thought that our Constitution would protect us from such tyranny, but I am forced to conclude that I was wrong.
If this is true that George Allen voted for this , then, it's a great disappointment.
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.