AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Just makes one wonder where all these nut-cases are coming from? It seems once they become die-hard conservatives, something strange happens to their brains, and nothing is left but sawdust.

my conservative dad used to say "there's nothing worse than a convert". applied evenly across the many converts i've met and their various "used to wases", i'd have to agree. Very Happy

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

okie wrote:

... the Democrats, that support killing their own unborn.

unlike the republicans, who wait till they're 18, then have someone else kill them.

You have no good answer for the accusation, do you, DTOM. Face it, the abortionists are really really compassionate. If thats your view of compassion, I want no part of your politics.

If individuals do not have the constitutionally secured right (a liberty interest secured by the Fourteenth Amendment) to determine their own procreative destinies, then the State has the power to control a woman's uterus and a man's testicles. Is that what you want, okie? If so, then the State would have the power to force abortions and sterilizations. Your opposition to individual control over their own procreation is both dangerous and hypocritical. You demand that women have babies they cannot support, but you throw tea parties and scream bloody-murder if the government spends any money on social welfare programs to provide for these babies once they are born.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Homophobia, speaking for myself, I am not afraid of any homosexual person, nor do I dislike them as people, far from it, but I do find the behavior strange and repulsive if flaunted. I think if almost everyone was honest, they would say the same. Afraid? - no, so calling it a phobia is another weird and concocted term that doesn't fit. I do have a phobia of some things that I am truly afraid of, but this situation does not fit that scenario at all. This is another case of the homosexual lobby hijacking and misusing terms, just as they have done the word, "gay."

Come to think of it, liberals are now redefining the words, "hate" and "bigot," and all manner of other words, mis-applying them in all kinds of ways.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

... the word, "gay."

have to admit i've never understood how that came about. like happy to be here, or what? none of our gay friends have really been able to tell us.

i guess it's like the etymology of the way "dude" gets used. who knows? it just does.

0 Replies

@okie,

How come every ******* time a liberals hears an opposing point of view, they call it HATE SPEECH?

I guess they are free to be hypocrites relative to the position on tolerance.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

okie wrote:

Men are created equal, but not behaviors, DTOM. If you can find gay marriage in the constitution, let me know.

not mentioned specifically, but this is;

Quote:
from the 9th amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

so unless you can show me where the constitution or the amendments specifically disallow gay marriage, i guess your just whistling up the chimney.

Numbskulls like okie erroneously think that no rights exist unless the constitution grants them. Informed people understand that the constitution is not a charter of rights; it's a foundational document that organizes our government and denies to our government the power to unreasonably or arbitrarily deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. In other words, the constitution doesn't "grant" okie the right to wear a hat or to stay up as late as he wants, but the government cannot take those rights away unless the government has a rational, important, or compelling reason for doing so that outweighs the rights of the individual.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

That's because they love to use adjectives and words that actually doesn't apply, but they believe using it over and over will make them come true. That's the reason why conservatives have the same definition of words like "socialism" that's not even found in any dictionary.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie,
The issue really is not Constitutional, it is legislative.

What the pro homosexual marriage people forget to remember is this.........

Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

In 1996, Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Pub. L. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996). Congress passed DOMA because of a decades-long assault on marriage, and particularly in response to a Hawaii court decision that suggested there is a right to same-sex “marriage” in the Hawaii Constitution. The legislative history reflects a congressional concern about the effect that legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Hawaii would have on other states, federal laws, the institution of marriage, traditional notions of morality, and state sovereignty. H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 at 1-18 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23.

DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (1997).

Legislative History

DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996, becoming Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C. It passed the Congress as H.R. 3396.

DOMA passed the U.S. House on July 12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 (vote no. 316). Floor statements on the bill will appear in the Congressional Record of that day. House hearings on DOMA were held on May 15, 1996 in a subcommittee of the Judiciary, Committee on the Constitution. The leading legislative record is the House Report, No. 104-664. The hearing before the subcommittee can be found here.

DOMA passed the U.S. Senate, unamended, on September 10, 1996, by a vote of 85 to 14 (vote no. 280). The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on July 11, 1996 (on the bill S. 1740), and they were printed as Senate Hearings 104-533.

Dopey Debra can now try to argue against this legislation. It is a States Rights issue. Has been and always should be.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

How come every ******* time a liberals hears an opposing point of view, they call it HATE SPEECH?

I guess they are free to be hypocrites relative to the position on tolerance.

i'm sorry, i must have been so busy planning ways to retard your rights that i missed the part where i mentioned HATE SPEECH.

get a ******* grip, man.

1 Reply

That Woiyo is so gay . . .

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Not you, Jerk...Debra. Read the ******* post before you respond!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That Woiyo is so gay . . .

really? he seems like a supremely unhappy person to me...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Go back to bed , Old man!

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Not you, Jerk...Debra. Read the ******* post before you respond!

awww, thank you for the LOVE SPEECH, fella.

0 Replies

There really is a wonderful irony in his rantings, no?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Woiyo makes me look good! LOL

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Numbskulls like okie erroneously think that no rights exist unless the constitution grants them. Informed people understand that the constitution is not a charter of rights; it's a foundational document that organizes our government and denies to our government the power to unreasonably or arbitrarily deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. In other words, the constitution doesn't "grant" okie the right to wear a hat or to stay up as late as he wants, but the government cannot take those rights away unless the government has a rational, important, or compelling reason for doing so that outweighs the rights of the individual.

For a lawyer, you sure have goofy opinions. For example, the government does not require a license (yet) to wear a hat, but if it did, it would have some control over what kind of hat to wear, just as it does licenses for driving various kinds of vehicles, owning various kinds of weapons, the list is endless. The government makes all kinds of distinctions about licenses and permits it grants. Try going hunting and fishing, Debra, and your rights to shoot an animal or catch a fish varies depending on the when, where, and how. This is only one example of thousands. For a lawyer, you are woefully ignorant.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Still banging your Doggie?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie loves to mention the Constitution, but forgets one of the major one on "all men are created equal." Discrimination of any type is discrimination against a group of people who has not harmed him or "his" kind, but they want to limit their constitutional rights based on their homophobia. It's more like a heterosexual commits more "crimes" than homosexuals, and the divorce rate among heterosexuals runs over 50%. Why aren't they discriminating against heterosexuals who damage family lifestyles more often? Talk about blind, they have it in spades!

Gosh !

The government discriminates against folks who earn more than about $220K/year AGI by limiting their otherwise allowable itemized deductions and charging them a much higher marginal income tax rate.

The government discriminates against people who are not members of various "protected minorities" in terms of various social services; review of voting rules in some states; the applicability of various "hate crime" laws and many other like issues.

The government discriminates against people who are under 65 years of age and not economically qualified for Medicaid, by not providing then subsidized health care.

The list of such things is very long. "Equal protection under the law" does not mean absolute equality in all things as you and Debra Law very clearly and repeatedly imply.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Numbskulls like okie erroneously think that no rights exist unless the constitution grants them. Informed people understand that the constitution is not a charter of rights; it's a foundational document that organizes our government and denies to our government the power to unreasonably or arbitrarily deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. In other words, the constitution doesn't "grant" okie the right to wear a hat or to stay up as late as he wants, but the government cannot take those rights away unless the government has a rational, important, or compelling reason for doing so that outweighs the rights of the individual.

For a lawyer, you sure have goofy opinions. For example, the government does not require a license (yet) to wear a hat, but if it did, it would have some control over what kind of hat to wear, just as it does licenses for driving various kinds of vehicles, owning various kinds of weapons, the list is endless. The government makes all kinds of distinctions about licenses and permits it grants. Try going hunting and fishing, Debra, and your rights to shoot an animal or catch a fish varies depending on the when, where, and how. This is only one example of thousands. For a lawyer, you are woefully ignorant.

How does anything you said above constitute a response to anything that I said?

Where in the f'ing constitution do you find that you have a right to wear a hat? NO WHERE -- that's because the constitution is NOT a charter of rights. Thus, your argument--i.e., where in the constitution do you find the right to "gay" marriage--is STUPID.

The constitution tells our government what it can and cannot do. It says, e.g., government has the power to regulate commerce, etc., but the government does not have the power to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property unless doing so serves a legitimate (rational), important, or compelling government interest and the government does not have the power to deprive persons of equal protection under the law. You don't need a college degree or a juris doctorate to understand that basic concept about our constitution.

With respect to your "license" talk, if the state allowed heterosexuals to apply for a driver's license or a hunting license but deprived homosexuals of that same privilege to apply for those same licenses, then the state would be violating the equal protection clause. The same holds true for marriage licenses. As our society exists today, both homosexual persons and heterosexual persons are pairing up and forming families. The state has no rational, important, or compelling interest that warrants disparate treatment.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know