Posted on 09/02/2006 9:01:49 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Yes it is - if it weren't then what impact would it have? The implication of your beloved image is that even if you win a internet argument you're still a loser in life and don't even know it.
Again, no one here is contending that this is a "formal debate" or that the this is a world changing discussion.
This is the second time in one day that I've wished that FR had an ignore feature. I also wish you had more things to fill up your day so you wouldn't pollute interesting discussion threads with nonsense.
Not so. Many Islamics who have multiple marriages visit this nation. They are not prosecuted for polygamy.
While there may be a conflict between the two statutes, the court found apriori that bigamy was a criminal offense, and addressed the issues on that basis. It said nothing about the legitimacy of polygamous marriages.
While i have no personal opinions on polygamy or gay marriage, or incestuous marriage if all parties are consenting adults, the provisions of English common law, which dictate in Meister deal with heterosexual monogamous marriage. It is still not a matter of statuatory law, rather, as Meister points out, common law.
Incidentally Sir Francis, i do have substantial theological objections to incest, polygamy and so-called gay marriage. i simply believe that the state should have no business regulating marriage, unless the couple (or more!) decide to make the matter the business of the state. While i once supported gay marraige, i have since backed off that position because it 'puts the cart before the horse', in a manner of speaking.
The question of what if any role the state should have in marriage needs be settled before one can affirm or reject any "marriage".
It would appear the Meister addressed many of those concerns.
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion....
I have no theological argument... my personal view is strictly a secular matter of mammalian reproductive biology... homosexuals cannot reproduce and their idea of monogamy is a total phantasmagorical fetish...
We do have the right and responsibility to regulate people's actions, not their beliefs... this is why we do not have human sacrifice (unless you consider abortion as a ritual murder like I do).
Theyare not citizens and their marriages are not recognized...
If by "Conservative justices" you mean guys like Alito, then you're right. I don't. If you want to talk about Janice Rogers Brown, then maybe we can agree, but I don't see Bush placing her any higher than she already is.
Immigration reform
I am very much in favor of immigration reform. Just not the same kind you are in favor of.
fighting Terrorists
This is the first time that fighting terrorists has come up between us. I am in favor of it, but that doesn't mean that I support everything that is being done in the name of fighting terrorism.
For that I'll aks you why the hell you read FreeRepublic then.
Granted, this board has become a lot more authoritarian with the Bush administration in charge, but there are still quite a few libertarians and libertarianish conservatives around.
The Economy Improves with: Lower Taxes Lower Spending Lower Interest Rates Peace The Economy Worsens with: Higher Taxes Higher Spending Higher Interest Rates Wartime Uncertainty
On three of these four things, the Bush administration has gone the direction opposite the one you claim is conducive to a good economy.
As for Social Security, if the Republicans win this upcoming election, you WILL see this item back.
Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
I didn't expect you to be concerned about our religion and language
As I told you already, "we" don't have *a* religion. "We" have many religions. Too many to count. As for language, there is no problem there. Contrary to the nutjobbery coming out of the aforementioned publications, Mexican immigrants are assimilating about as well as previous waves of immigrants (all of whom had the same accusations thrown at them).
the ACLU is a holy icon for you liberaltarians.
Hardly. They do good work on a few issues and have serious problems on others. I could take them or leave them.
you are not a Conservative
Well, no kidding. I believe I've been pretty up front about this. I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.
I need to make a correction to my last post to you. Unless I am mistaken, interest rates are actually lower than when Bush was first elected (although that is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and not the administration). As for the lower taxes, they are nice, but they won't mean much if the government doesn't do something to decrease spending and reduce the debt. No one in charge seems interested in doing this.
Ironic, isn't it? Lieberman is everything they claim to hate, but he is the one Democrat they like, and it's for one reason only - he supports the war in Iraq.
With 5000 signature to choose from, I think you can pretty much guarantee that he would have been able to find at least one that could be disqualified. Ironically this happened as the Illinois GOP was being investigated for using state workers on state time to challenge the signatures for Libertarian candidates.
Do you think he decided not to challenge simply because he wanted to be nice?
To be nice? No. He claims the reason is that the voters should be able to vote for the candidate of their choice. If you want a more cynical reason, you could point to the negative publicity for the LP that would have resulted if Bush had actually been disqualified for the ballot in a major state.
I didn't say he was a "libertarian democrat" (although that is how he labels himself). I said he was a libertarianish democrat. If you want to know what he means by that, you can read his description here. Obviously Kos' idea of "libertarian" is not that great, but it's better than our current rulers in the GOP.
To be honest though, some important issues like the 2nd Amendment and the issue of life or death (abortion), there is no middle ground.
Not being a regular reader of DailyKos, I don't know where he stands on abortion, but as for the Second Amendment, as I already said, he supports it. He says so in the link provided above.
A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.In fact, most Libertarians on this board have spent every waking moment on Lieberman threads castigating the guy, and he's everything you claim Libertarians to be.
Huh? Lieberman is gone come November, and I say "Good riddance".
That creature does not exist, and if it ever did, it only exists in your fantasies.
Terry Michael's personal weblog is titled "Thoughts from a libertarian Democrat".
Actually it's you that has such a problem.
Although those who speak publicly for LEAP are people from the law enforcement and criminal justice communities, a large number of our supporting members do not have such experience. You don't have to have law enforcement experience to join us.
Membership in LEAP is open to anyone...
In four years we went from five founding police officers to a membership of over 5,000.
You are the one who keeps trying to pass off an extremist libertine organization as representative of all law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors.
What do you think the FOP, which has 321,000 members, and is actually limited to sworn law enforcement, has to say?
Don't even try to pass off an extremist organization as representative of Law Enforcement. I know far more about this than you ever will.
The word you're searching for is Autonomous, and such statements are an example of self-evident, absurd nonsense posing as 'wisdom'. In point of fact, every man is autonomous.
We do have the right and responsibility to regulate people's actions, not their beliefs... this is why we do not have human sacrifice (unless you consider abortion as a ritual murder like I do).
With the noted exception of those who have not achieved their majourity, No such right exists, has never existed, and will never exist. No person has the "right" to regulate any other person. Governments are the only legitimate agency of force in existence. Governments have no rights at all. Governments have powers, a subtle but important distinction.
People have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not interefere with anybody else's rights. Government exists to mediate and arbitate situations where peoples' rights are violated, with force if necessary.
The individual is responsible to regulate his or her own actions. No agency of force or any other person has that responsibility. The individual is autonomous, and as such can choose to comply with regulation, or to ignore it, bearing what consequences that may come.
Any 'regulation' that does not cause harm, or violate the rights of another person is illegitimate.
Utter crap. Libertarians have a respect for individual Rights not found in EITHER of the Big Two Parties.
A bozo button is needed, badly.. -- we now have a situation wherein some bozos are insisting that they have a right to post their opinions without opposition.
If you, or anyone, proves their opinions irrational, they cry 'personal foul', and insist that their 'tormentor' stop posting to or about them, -- thus, in effect, shutting up all but 'polite opposition'.
Nature is the only legitimate agency of force - - it does not require human permission.
"A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void." (Thomas Hobbes)
"The right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished." (Thomas Hobbes)
__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--
In point of fact, every man is autonomous.
Man is subject to nature and never independent of it.
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.
__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--__--
The individual is autonomous, and as such can choose to comply with regulation, or to ignore it, bearing what consequences that may come.
We, the People, do have the right to regulate human practices, not belief (or speech).
Practice is something that occurs more than once.
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.