Idéologie has taken over

The Washington Monthly ^ | October 2006 | Jeffrey Hart

[safeasthebanks]

I meant ANY federal employee. I just used the postal employee as an example (and should have noted that, maybe).

More importantly, it seems you admit that FEDERAL laws against murder ARE NECESSARY, due to some territories not being part of any single state. But where in the constitution does it say that the Fed can make anti-murder laws?

Also, I'm still looking for an answer - Federal law against third trimester partial birth abortions, constitutional or not? Also, yo

[Small-L]

So which is it? Fool or Fraud?

I've been accused of both, and so have you. The truth is that I care about our country and I'm going to keep fighting in any way I can (call it foolish if you want) to restore our party to the principles that we campaigned on for years.

As far as Katrina/Rita response, we did a horrid job and took the blame for it because the Democrats were willing to blame it on us. My understanding of the Constitution doesn't say anything about federal aid or federal response to localized natural disasters. Did the federal government rebuild Chicago after the fire? No the president went on record as saying that the federal government had no role in rebuilding the city. How about the hurricane in Galveston? Same response. So how come it is now the Republicans responsibility to feed and house the refugees? Why is it the federal government's responsibility to buy trailers, water, ice, food, and rebuild New Orleans? Call me cruel and inhuman if you want, but I opened my home to a refugee family, fed them, gave them clothes from my closet, and my car to drive. Did you?

[Small-L]

Your mask is slipping Small Democrat.

As always, small minds resort to name calling when their arguement runs out.

From my post #33: Unlike many here, I don't only publish articles that I agree with. Your point is well made. Actually I agree with Bush's decision not to fund stem cell research, but for an entirely different reason... It's no business of the federal government to be funding medical research of any kind (or education for that matter).

[MNJohnnie]

Well it is odd how you claim to be Small Government type but posted an article damning Bush for not spending money on Stem Cells.

Seems you completely missed the fact that the RX drug plan, contrary to what your pseudo Conservative author here claims, is an incredibly successful piece of legislation that interjects the first bits of Privatization EVER into any Federal Entitlement plan. So your claims are are odds with the fact as well your supposed political agenda.

Seems your stated Small Government agenda is at odds with your posting actions here. Seems you really are a Democrat. Just come out of the closet. We allow all views here. What most of us find so contemptible is this Leftist need to continually LIE about their real agenda.

[Billthedrill]

A couple of simple questions - if a blastocyst isn't human, then what is it? And if it isn't alive, then what is it? And if it is considered outside the legitimate purview of limited government to protect human life, then what remains inside that purview?

[Small-L]

Also, I'm still looking for an answer - Federal law against third trimester partial birth abortions, constitutional or not?

NO, but it is certainly within the constitutions of some (most, all?) of the states.

[Small-L]

Bill, I believe that it outside the purview of the FEDERAL government. See post #33.

[Billthedrill]

I saw that - I wanted clarification. You honestly believe that the protection of human life is outside the purview of the Constitution of the United States? That is a position with which I simply cannot agree.

[Small-L]

What most of us find so contemptible is this Leftist need to continually LIE about their real agenda.

Believe what you will, but rest assured that you and I will be voting alike.

On the subject of the RX drug plan, please show me in the Constitution where it says that the Federal government should be paying for drugs for seniors. The Republican Medicare drug plan is simply a gift to the drug industry and their lobbyists. Virtually every drug company already had a plan paid out of their own pockets to provide necessary drugs to the needy (not just seniors). Now you and I are paying for those drugs for virtually all seniors, not just those in need. Call it successful if you want, but when the actual bill is totalled in ten years, tell me if it was worth it. By then you'll be buying my drugs for me.

[MNJohnnie]

Well your claims are not matched by your actions. Your actions are those of a Democrat Activist. You are activlying campaigning FOR people who want to grow the Federal Government. Why don't you drop the fraud. You are not fooling anyone here.

[Small-L]

You honestly believe that the protection of human life is outside the purview of the Constitution of the United States?

Yes, why otherwise is murder, rape, and other violent crime not a Federal crime? (except as noted on certain installations, and to certain federal employees)

[safeasthebanks]

Amendment 5 of the Constitution:

No person shall be...... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

So you're telling me you think this DOESN'T COVER a child still in the womb? Even one in the late third trimester?More specifically, you're telling me that a woman can get a partial birth abortion 2 weeks before her delivery date, and the US COogress CANNOT pass a law against this (again, see amendment 5 above)?

Also, you still haven't reconciled the problem with your argument that YOU raised. One mailman (or other federal employee) kills another mailman (or other fed employee) inside a post office, or other area not governed by state law. Do you think it is unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw this murder?

[Small-L]

Well your claims are not matched by your actions.

If by actions, you mean how I vote, you must be peaking over the wall of the voting booth?

If you mean by my lifestyle, look at the campaign signs in my front yard.

If you mean by the articles I post, then I suggest that you consider how FR would look if we only posted articles that were favorable to the RP (a mirror of DU). I consider that the FReepers here are thinking people with whom we can engage in rational converstation about the benefits and well as the problems within our party. For myself, if we're not willing to address our failings, then FR is nothing more that a bunch of cheerleaders.

Now I need to get back to work and make some money to pay for the Viagra for some poor misfortunate retired millionaire.

[MNJohnnie]

Ah I see, You want to be angry. So because you want to be angry you simply tune out ALL facts that prove your assumptions about the RX program totally incorrect.

So you are a Democrat, simply scream down all facts that do not validate your emotional based opinions. You hate GW Bush and NOTHING anyone points out to you that refutes you assumption you simply ignore.

[Small-L]

Also, you still haven't reconciled the problem with your argument that YOU raised. One mailman (or other federal employee) kills another mailman (or other fed employee) inside a post office, or other area not governed by state law. Do you think it is unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw this murder?

Mailmen are a special case (because the postal union pushed for the special case), but Post Offices are generally part of the state in which they are located, and if a murder occurs between civilians (not mailmen), it is tried in State court. On the other hand, certain (not all) military installations are not considered part of the state, and that's why the military and federal law has jurisdiction within the military installation. An interesting crime occured near here several years ago where the perpetrator fired a gun at a passing car outside a military post, missed, and the bullet went through the militay post fence and hit a child living on the base. Because the shooter was outside the military installation when he committed the crime, it was tried in the local State court.

Regarding the 5th Ammendment, skipping words tends to change it's meaning (like the Libs do to the 2nd Amendment). The fifth was written to protect the rights of criminal defendents, let's not change it's meaning:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

[Small-L]

You're very good at putting words in other people's mouths, and jumping to conclusions about their intentions. So be it.

Yes, I'm angry. Yes, I was opposed to Bush in the primaries.

Yes, I voted for him twice.

Yes, I appreciated and like the list of accomplishments you posted.

Yes, I think the Medicare Drug Entitlement is unconstitutional (as well as the rest of Medicare and SS), and is the product of a buyoff between the drug company lobbyists and the RNC.

Yes, I'm willing to look at the facts that demonstrate otherwise--please post them. For example, if the drug companies were lobbying against the Medicare Drug bill, I might believe that they weren't the beneficiary, unfortunately, they were 110% behind it.

I'll give you another example. Why was the RP so anxious to pass a bill outlawing Internet gambling? Was it because the Republican base was clamboring for a law? Or was it because the Las Vega/Biloxi/Atlantic City gaming industry was lobbying for it? And oh by the way, I wonder if the gaming industry contributes to the RNC.

[MNJohnnie]

I am sorry but the truth doesn't change because you are ignorant of it. The fact remains your actions are directly at odds with your claims of being a "Small Government" type.

You are actively working to elect people who make NO bones at all about their plans to massively grow the Federal Government.

So either your claims of being a "Small Government" type are fraudulent or you are totally politically ignorant of the consequences of your actions.

Seems your knee jerk rage and hate at Bush have blinded you to the factual reality of what is going on in DC.

I suggest you post a lot less silly tripe and spend a lot more time reading. Pretty obvious you are simply tuning out anything that does not validate your preconceived emotion based opinions.

[safeasthebanks]

Now you're ticking me off a little. I didn't change ANYTHING by skipping words. Amendment 5 of the Constitution specifically prohibits anyone from being LEGALLY killed without a trial. Period. What part of this don't you/can't you understand? Yes, this is MAINLY related to criminal procedings, but nonetheless it is still relevant in this case. No one, NO ONE! may be deprived of their right to life, i.e. killed, in this country unless first convicted of a crime. Clearly, an umborn child upon whom a partial birth abortion has been performed has not been convicted of a crime. You can dance around this as much as you want, but clearly this amendment says what it says.

Also, while your anecdote may be interesting (to you), you're still evading the issue. Clearly in this country there are instances where a person could be murdered and this crime not be covered by state law. According to you, this crime could not be prosecuted, because any federal law against murder is unconstitutional, yes?

[Small-L]

I see, so to be a good Republican in the big tent, we should all sit down, shut up, and say "Yes Massa'" to the people on the stage. Forgive me, but if that's what we mean by the big tent, maybe we shouldn't be reelected next month.

[MNJohnnie]

Here is what this the handful of Always Whining Buchannites Freeper Fringers are actually arguing for once you stripe away all the phoney self serving pseudo Conservative rhetoric.

"Gee After being mostly out of power for 70 years, the Republicans finally got control of 2/3s of the Government in 2003. Now, less then 4 years later EVERYTHING is not perfect. Whaa! Conservatives should take their ball and go home because the political glass is only 70% full. That will punish those bad old Republicans for not doing ONLY what WE want the second WE want it done." This article is just the usaual collection Know Nothing slogans drawn together by the politically ignorant to ratioalize their knee jerk Bush hate. IN life all things require compromise. Real Conservatives want to move the ball down the field. Pseudo Conservatives want only 100% of ONLY their views. That sort of 100%ersim results in total political irrelevance. The Freepers Fringers do ONE thing only with this continual Whining, help Democrats.