Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
You jumped right in with both feet.
I wasn’t the one that brought up gays to being with. This is your sides red herring.
My side? I'd be careful with that.
FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.
I AM pro-Religion, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and I know better than you that it is a privilege to post here.
You bigger government Nanny Staters just can't stand anyone who might get in the way of your quest for control. Hence pissing contests like this one...
I’m glad you’re feeling better.
Libertarians would have us believe that Jefferson was a libertarian atheist who followed the Constitution to the letter and this couldn't be further from the truth.
Here are some highlights about Jefferson that the libertarians would prefer we ignore:
- During the lame duck Congressional session of 1801, the Judiciary Act of 1801 (also called the Midnight Judges Act) was passed and it gave still-President Adams the authority to appoint more judges. Adams did, but Secretary of State Madison (acting on Jefferson's behalf) refused to seat the judges and Jefferson tried to revoke the appointments. Jefferson would even force Congress to impeach a sitting Supreme Court justice for being critical of him. Eventually, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. In other words, Jefferson is indirectly responsible for judicial activism.
- In 1801 Jefferson would send US troops to northern Africa in the First Barbary Coast War. This was done WITHOUT a declaration of war, but WITH Congressional authorization. The libertarians would prefer we all forget that the earliest phase of America's War on Islamofascist Terrorism began during Jefferson's term and was also fought without any declaration of war by Congress.
- And finally, there is the Louisiana Purchase where Jefferson ignored the Constitution and bought land from France.
I haven't lost anything. You cannot refute that the Founders backed state laws against sodomy so you redirect the debate even going so far as saying "This is your sides red herring." It is also the view of FR and Jim Robinson.
You bigger government Nanny Staters
Back to Post 366 which you never answered.
So you believe that the Founders backed nanny states? Because I have already posted to you in Post 324 that at the founding of our country and until the 70's there were state laws against sodomy.
So you believe that the Boss is a nanny stater too?
Or was it only White, Male, Land-owners?
You haven't answered my question, WHERE is that in the Constitution?
In the Founders time, those men listed would be someones PROPERTY and ineligible to hold office.
First of all, not all blacks were slaves. Secondly, WHERE in the Constitution does it indicate that blacks are ineligible for office?
You seem to be reading a lot of things into the Constitution that simply aren't there.
It's looking like that.
They yell about Constitutional laws and the Founders and then reject the Founders morality. Even at the state level. It looks like they use the Founders as a shield when they are really rejecting what they built and believed.
You know as well as I do that it isn't in the Constitution up until the 14/15th Amendments. Voting regulations have always been set by the States. However, Federal laws set Citizenship. Women and racial minorities held in servitude were not given equal access to those Rights and were considered property.
Property cannot hold office. Nor could it vote.
Any more red herrings?
As for what is and isn't in the Constitution, are you sure you want to go down that road? FAA, FCC, DEA, NEA, DoE, NASA, etc... None of which have a single job duty laid out in Art 1 Sect 8.
But then again, neither is legislating sex between consenting adults, but that doesn't seem to slow you down either...
Nope. I can't. I also haven't tried. I do occasionally point out that the Founders didn't give this power to the FedGov either, but you continue to twist between what States are allowed to do, and what the Constitution allows.
So you believe that the Boss is a nanny stater too?
If he believes that the Fedgov should have this power, something I have seen ZERO evidence of, then yes. I don't like putting words in peoples mouths though, so I'd rather ask him before presuming as you are doing.
Jim? Can we settle this one? I'm being painted as pro-gay agenda when I most certainly am not. I am pro-limited Federal Government with expansive States rights as long as they don't fall afoul of the protections for our Rights in the Bill of Rights.
If my views are that at odds with FR's mission statement, can you please let me know? It's your playground and if this other poster is correct, then my last 11 years here are called into question.
I'd like to think they haven't been, and I'd prefer to stay if you will let me.
What say you Jim?
In what post? Give a quote and a number.
I have ONLY talked about state sodomy laws, even giving links.
On the other hand, you said this:
My Post 324
I'm going to bed but thought that I'd interject that sodomy laws were state laws.
Your Post 335
Yes. I know. Very few of those have survived.
For good reason. It isn't any of your damn business.
I don't WANT it to be any business of mine. A government, State or Federal, powerful enough to legislate such intimacies between consenting adults has WAY too much power.
Doesn't quit jibe with your BS post to Jim, does it?
Your statement to Jim: Jim? Can we settle this one? I'm being painted as pro-gay agenda when I most certainly am not. I am pro-limited Federal Government with expansive States rights as long as they don't fall afoul of the protections for our Rights in the Bill of Rights.
I’m guessing he’d be surprised to hear that.
If there had been any doubt in my mind, this thread would have ended it.
Sure it does. One is the reality of the situation and the other my opinion on a specific topic.
Also, again, it's not up to you to determine "BS". Nor is it up to you to determine who posts here and who doesn't.
Jim's house. His rules. It seems the height of hubris you running around threatening other posters.
Please note: I've never threatened you.
Constitutional governance is anarchy? Who’da thunk it...
Wrong again.
The Constitution NEVER said that women or blacks weren't citizens and couldn't vote.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution or any amendment giving ANYONE the right to vote. All any amendments do is state the conditions under which a right to vote established by the state cannot be denied.
Property cannot hold office. Nor could it vote.
You are operating under the false impression that all blacks were slaves and that none were citizens.
Any more red herrings?
I'm sure if you try hard enough you can come up with more.
As for what is and isn't in the Constitution, are you sure you want to go down that road? FAA, FCC, DEA, NEA, DoE, NASA, etc... None of which have a single job duty laid out in Art 1 Sect 8.
What does any of this have to do with libertarian anarchy and devotion to immorality?
But then again, neither is legislating sex between consenting adults, but that doesn't seem to slow you down either...
I guess the 10th Amendment only matters when it is furthering libertarian desires?
You dance real purty.
Also, again, it's not up to you to determine "BS".
Sure it is. I compare posts and statements and my BS meter starts screaming.
Nor is it up to you to determine who posts here and who doesn't.
More baseless accusations. I neither called Jim nor said that you couldn't post. It's not up to me if you want to commit FR suicide and I never said it was.
Jim's house. His rules. It seems the height of hubris you running around threatening other posters.
Threaten you?!! Who called Jim? It wasn't me!
You stated in post 391 you continue to twist between what States are allowed to do, and what the Constitution allows.
Where is your proof of that? Give it or retract the accusation.
Oh, women were considered mere property at the time of the writing of the Constitution? News to me! Maybe quote where in the Constitution that is enunciated. They weren't allowed to vote of course but that is not the same as being considered to be mere property.
IOW... It set conditions which must be met for someone to Vote. A distinction without a difference. Before that, they could NOT vote.
You are operating under the false impression that all blacks were slaves and that none were citizens.
Of course not. However, they were not afford all of the Rights of the rest of us. This is undeniable. Even by you.
What does any of this have to do with libertarian anarchy and devotion to immorality?
Devotion to immorality? I live a very moral life. I attend church, am monogamously married, and I'm raising my kids the same way. So much this this alleged "devotion" you are prattling about...
Also, Constitutionally limited government is not "anarchy". It just doesn't give you as much control as you want. Sorry... Them's the breaks.
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.