Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santa Barbara Libertarians help win Boy Scout discrimination fight
LP News ^ | February | LP

Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-457 next last
To: Texaggie79
That's nice but if the guy was having these parties, I wouldn't be to satisfied with a court summons. I would like the activity to cease and desist. That usually takes an arrest. When I get a speeding ticket, I just try not to get caught, but I still speed. See what I'm getting at?

I would like to see every drug agent, who participates in no-knock raids that are at wrong addresses or result in the death of someone or plant phoney evidence to wrongly convict someone, be in prison or on death row. Or BATFags, who also do knockdown raids and plant phoney evidence and kill people, be in the same places. Or Feebs, who participate in atrocities like Waco and Ruby Ridge, be in prison or on death row. Or ANY LEO who uses "asset seizure laws" to confiscate someone's property he or she covets be imprisoned. Or any politician who advocates ANY law not 100% in line with the Constitution, AND necessary, be subjected to exactly the same penalties as he or she proposes OTHERS be subjected to. Or Billy Jeff Clinton and Hil-liary be in prison just because they personally offend me with their smarmy, trailer-trash ways. However, I'll SETTLE for the eradication of these unjust, unconstitutional edicts and pardons for those wrongfully convicted under them. So you'll have to settle for the eviction, 'cause it ain't ever going to be a perfect world and there is NO RIGHT to not be offended by someone or something. You do what is rightful under the circumstances and swallow your ire at what, in a FREE society, you cannot properly do. Then you pray that YOU do not fall afoul of the deeds and covenants yourself. Because you know full well that you offend those around you (look at what you do HERE, case in point!!! ;-) ). So someone could be looking at you the same way you looked at your partying neighbor.

241 posted on 02/19/2002 1:07:43 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: zoyd
If the Boy Scouts owned an apartment building and rented out units to the general public, they would be required to make the apartments available to applicants without regard to their races.
242 posted on 02/19/2002 1:09:58 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
So you think that my neighbor should be able to do these things in his front yard for all to see?

BTW, it appears you have issues with officers of the law. Timmy McVeigh didn't get help.

243 posted on 02/19/2002 1:10:54 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I'm not talking about Boy Scouts owning apartments. I'm talking about Boy Scouts not allowing gay men to be Scoutmasters.

Whose rights are trumped? Daddy Gov ('our society) or the Boy Scouts?

244 posted on 02/19/2002 1:14:38 PM PST by zoyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: zoyd
Our society makes distinctions between private organizations and public enterprises.
245 posted on 02/19/2002 1:17:07 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Is it impossible for you to answer a direct question?

You call yourself a conservative?

246 posted on 02/19/2002 1:18:23 PM PST by zoyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Our society makes distinctions between private organizations and public enterprises.

Say, I missed that part of the Constitution. Could you point out where that power is enumerated?

Thanks in advance!

247 posted on 02/19/2002 1:23:08 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: zoyd
Leftists and Libertarians fail to distinquish between private organizations and businesses open to the public.

Leftists and Libertarians fail to distinquish between race and sexual perversion.

248 posted on 02/19/2002 1:24:14 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Say, I missed that part of the Constitution.

Big surprise.

Private clubs aren't commerce.

249 posted on 02/19/2002 1:27:37 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Exactly.

Read Section 1. -- People are not to be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process.

Fiat declarations that a queer or an addict is a criminal is not due process.

250 posted on 02/19/2002 1:27:56 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Private clubs aren't commerce.

Oh, so it's the 'Interstate Commerce Clause', is it?

251 posted on 02/19/2002 1:29:35 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Only in the context of having this borderless world use the Constitution of the UNITED STATES as a guideline.

False.

236 posted on 2/19/02 1:52 PM Pacific by Roscoe

Oh? Prove it. Otherwise you are full of barbra striesand. Where is it false? I am a Constitutionalist, once libertarian, and I would have it no other way. Nor would anyone I know or ever spoke with about it. A borderless world that lived under the same principles as set forth in the Constitution MIGHT be a good place to live. A borderless world under the heel of the UN would be hell on earth. So where am I wrong?

252 posted on 02/19/2002 1:30:49 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
People are not to be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process.

Due process is following the law.

253 posted on 02/19/2002 1:31:11 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Which explicitly enumerated powers of Congress under our Constitutiion are supported by the LP platform?
254 posted on 02/19/2002 1:33:49 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Oh, so it's the 'Interstate Commerce Clause', is it?

Are county supervisors Congress?

255 posted on 02/19/2002 1:35:05 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Your out of context quote, as usual, adds little to the discussion.
I suggest that IF you have a point, -- make it.
256 posted on 02/19/2002 1:35:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
No. Why is that relevent?
257 posted on 02/19/2002 1:37:35 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
No. Why is that relevent?

Read the first post.

258 posted on 02/19/2002 1:39:48 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Leftists and Libertarians fail to distinquish between race and sexual perversion.

A master of conversational perversion speaks.

[and one is led to wonder of his obsession with sexual perversion]

259 posted on 02/19/2002 1:41:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
What's out of context about it?

The court admirably dispelled falsehoods regarding the actual meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Those reading the Engligh language with the meaning which it ordinarily conveys, those conversant with the political and legal history of the concept of due process, those sensitive to the relations of the States to the central government as well as the relation of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the process of justice, would hardly recognize the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for the various explicit provisions of the first eight Amendments. Some of these are enduring reflections of experience with human nature, while some express the restricted views of Eighteenth-Century England regarding the best methods for the ascertainment of facts. The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.

ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)


260 posted on 02/19/2002 1:42:49 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-457 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson