Posted on 09/30/2013 9:24:47 AM PDT by shego
What does that have to do with homosexual equality in the military or immigration policy, or federal employment, a libertarian ideal?
Wow -- You're an idiot, I was parsing another poster's comments to you, that was abundantly clear in the post I gave:
Actually I can see carlo3b's statements as more of a grudging acceptance that overturning abortion will have to be done in an incremental fashion rather than all-at-onceNote that is not an agreement with the sentiment, merely acknowledging the argument and the likely reasoning behind it.
Your posts make no sense.
How do voters “ignore” homosexual related issues and laws and policies?
You just want to ignore them here at FR.
A voter either votes against or for the homosexual issues and the politicians opposing them, or supporting them.
Ignoring means to submit to the libertarian/liberal political position of acceptance.
As poster admits to being pro-abortion, and you defend it, want to “parse” it, justify it, encourage it.
You are what you fight for, and you oppose what you fight against, your side on this thread is clear as day.
Conservatism is your enemy, you even go so far as to promote the libertarian party.
So why do you support the homosexual agenda?
The libertarians called for homosexual equality in the military for both serving and marriage, and got it.
You think that America was wrong and only condemning in it's first 233 years of laws regarding that issue?
He didn't admit to being pro-abortion in that post; he admitted that he would be satisfied with some limit on the term (IIRC 12 weeks, i.e. anything after the first trimester illegal).
I am not justifying or encouraging it*, just pointing out that what he said isn't what you think he said.
You are what you fight for, and you oppose what you fight against, your side on this thread is clear as day.
I fight against injustice, a very good example is the War on Drugs: consider the asset forfeiture 'laws' which operate under the assumption of guilt until proven innocent, completely at odds with traditional American jurisprudence. That alone is reason enough for me to wish it abolished. But, as always, there's more: the framework the War on Drugs is based upon is utterly outside Constitutional bounds of the federal government. (It can fairly easily be shown that the War on Drugs is, Constitutionally speaking, Treason [as defined by the Constitution].**) The War on Drugs also encourages violations of the Fourth amendment, especially growing the "exigent circumstances" excuse for acting [in a search or seizure] without a warrant. These aforementioned issues are completely separate from social issues, like the militarization of police, which the War on Drugs also encourages. — and you're against abolishing the War on Drugs, why?
Conservatism is your enemy, you even go so far as to promote the libertarian party.
Really, I haven't seen you posit one counter to any of the issues with the War on Drugs raised, much less a reasonable counterargument.
And, no, it's not because I'm a pot-head, as you might try to dismiss, I hate the smell and so it holds less than no appeal to me... but I like logic and believe the law should be consistent, and the War on Drugs is built on inconsistency and non-reason and the color of authority.
* I am against abortion altogether. I was born premature and, at the time, my father was told I had a 50/50 chance of survival. I cannot condone willfully reducing a child's chance of survival to 0, I believe that would be murder.
** Waging war on the several States is Treason by the Constitution; by the same Constitution the power to regulate interstate commerce is the same as that to regulate foreign commerce, but to impose the regulations/restrictions to foreign countries as the federal government does to the states would be an act of war, and to enforce those regulations would engender waging that war… therefore, the enforcement of the War on Drugs (which would be waging war, if pursued in foreign countries) must be the waging of war on the States.
ANSEL12.. GO BACK TO DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND WERE YOU BELONG..
TROLL ALERT
It wasn't an issue because, at that time, the heart of the people were [for the most part] God-ward…
But in any case, the evil of society should only serve to give contrast to those who are in Jesus's church, after all a candle at noon-time hardly stands out, but at midnight that same candle's light is quite noteworthy.
Thus I can rejoice in that God's people will be of more note in a pagan society, because they are different and thus prove God works in the hearts of men.
Thus can I also rejoice when an nation, by and large, embraces Jesus: for then many are saved, and thus the greatness of God's mercy is revealed.
Might better read Progressive Views in the Republican Party.....not Libertarian... which is just another name for “soft” Progressives.
_________________
I disagree. Libertarians have freedom from repression on their mind. I don’t see that at the forefront of the conservatives or Republican agendas.
That is a pro-abortion position, just as you apparently support the homosexual agenda since you obviously support the libertarian position in regards to it.
I guess we agree that is why homosexual equality in the military or immigration policy, or federal employment, is a libertarian ideal, right?
In an absolutist sense, yes.
But what he's looking at is a way, ultimately, to reduce abortions altogether. A federal law flatly illegalizing abortion likely wouldn't work, the Supreme Court would see it as a challenge to their power and strike it down; they would likely do this [or try to] even with a Constitutional amendment. (There is the provision that Congress can limit cases the Supreme Court hears so long as they are not Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party
, but barring the hearing of abortion-cases before enacting illegalization would likely be very stupid.)
Personally, I'm not sure what the best legal way to address the issue is*; so long as we have such a powerful government (to include the beauarchy) with vested interest in keeping it legal we will find most anything we do will be undermined if not utterly ineffectual. (* I kind of like the idea of a Constitutional amendment, but that poses a host of problems: besides the above mentioned chafing of the USSC, there's nothing keeping the USSC from reinterpreting or ignoring it altogether [like hey did with the ACA].)
But there are other methods to address the issue than within the legal arena: we can have a definite impact in reducing abortions by showing people God's love and letting God work in their heart. — I know that answer seems unsatisfying to you, but consider this: there are, ultimately, two groups of people in the world; there are those for whose actions you are responsible, and there are those for whose actions you are not responsible; the first group, ultimately, consists of you and the other of everyone else.
just as you apparently support the homosexual agenda
I don't support the homosexual agenda, I just think that it would be far better to concentrate on the heart than on bludgeoning them with law.
You have done nothing to convince me otherwise; in fact, your rush to condemn anyone who isn't in perfect agreement with you has really provided a good counterexample in my mind to how Jesus addressed the problem himself: he didn't condemn the woman at the well, he didn't have to because her conscience already did, but he instead called her [from where she was] to God[,] Himself.
since you obviously support the libertarian position in regards to it.
Because you see everything through that filter: anyone who doesn't perfectly agree with you is a libertarian — you've shown as much on this thread alone.
It's not my fault if you consider people in wheelchairs "cars" because they are wheeled conveyances with four wheels.
I assume this means embracing sodomy, abortion and drug use?
“Homosexualizing the military” you stole my favorite phrase.
I dunno, we might already be there; Ansel's a one-man army, taking on everyone who isn't in perfect agreement with his views… and his conversation/debate-style is pretty gay.
Only mild insult intended.
Yes, I know. I'm a horrible person for finding the play on words funny.
MSG BU, why do you think that OneWingedShark is so timid and guarded and evasive about his political positions especially in regards to the military and homosexuality?
“Homosexualizing the military” is a Jim Robinson description.
IDK when Jim started using it, but I was using it in 1988 when it first came up during the Dukakis campaign.
And to answer your question I don’t second guess other folks motivations. Personally though, I’ve never equated heroin use or sodomizing somebody as personal freedoms. Call me crazy, I just don’t think it is what the founders had in mind when they wrote ‘pursuit of happiness’.
*shrug* - Could it be your refusal to engage in actual conversation? Could it be that you don't care about what I think, only that it agrees with your own opinion? Could it be that, as you've shown countless times, you are only interested in finding fault?
I'm sorry if I make you have to work for your fun.
“Homosexualizing the military” is a Jim Robinson description.
And form him, or MSG BU, I could take it as being conversation, an exchange of ideas; for you it is only a bludgeoning-point. (Like a talking point, but you attack anyone who disagrees.)
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.