See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1839
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Rotara (#0)
I can vote for this man. It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it. Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
Yeah, yeah, fuck the bankers! :)
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Dissolving the Federal Reserve and everyone attached to it would be a great start! ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Barr is a psycho, he believes in the prosecutorial state. Be good, like the president says or we'll kill you. Who wants that kind of pressure?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
I know, I've been trying to spook them into it for last decade or so. :)
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it. Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too? I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why Christians Are Voting BALDWIN "Judeo Christian Values have always been part of Chuck Baldwin’s way of life. We are asking for your vote, your prayers and your financial support. (because as George Carlin said, "He's all powerful all perfect all knowing and all wise, but somehow [God] just can't handle money!" And those with the most money have the most access to God! Just ask any blue suited Republican, like Chuck!) Please join us to help move America forward. Chuck Baldwin is the “Real Deal.” Download bumper sticker art Please contact National Headquarters to buy bumper stickers and yard signs." (includes BOTH talking points for Chuck's campaign! "Money is God's business, American business is next to Godliness!") _______________________ Self-Imposed Halos, Self-Imposed Martyrdom Are there Christians today who are actively seeking martyrdom? That might sound like a bizarre question, but perhaps it's not. There were plenty of early Christians who did actively seek martyrdom — not a metaphorical martyrdom, but a real martyr's death. It appears to have gotten so bad that Christian leaders had to impose new rules and restrictions on Christians in order to reduce the number of unnecessary martyrs. If the tendency existed in Christianity at the beginning, it shouldn't be a surprise if it continues through today in some form. Christians aren't still being thrown to genuine lions, but they do frequently complain of persecution if anyone dares disagree with them or suggests that they shouldn't be privileged. Some Christians actively seek out ridicule and contempt through deliberately obnoxious behavior. But for them, that's just being good Christians — if atheists behaved with a fraction of such attitudes, the outcry is horrific. Read more... And, remember, "true Christians" like raw porno and Chuck Baldwin!
Does that mean Baldwin is your guy?
Guess you already answered that qustion. Are you a seer?
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved. Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done? As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now. Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches. Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives? Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
Great reasons to vote for him. Marriage should be defended. It is a man and a woman. Two queers do not a marriage make no matter how much they yell or for that matter no matter what the stinkin govt says. You mean he isn't for killing innocent babies. Awesome, someone I can look up to.
You mean like rape, murder theft. That is what laws are supposed to be based on...Morality. What do you want them based on immorality?
I agree. It is Baldwin or a write-in for Bugs Bunny. Even a cartoon rabbit would be better than McO'Bummer.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
When is the last time you walked by a Judeo Christian church? They are like apples and oranges. You could just as well have Bhuddeo Christian Churches. I'm starting to get a little tired of "our" Judeo values.
Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage issue and don't believe in getting a license from the state to get married. As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not. All I have said is that Chuck Baldwin is infinitely preferable to Obama, who doesn't even mind infanticide, and McCain, who seems to think that it is perfectly all right to kill any number of Americans in bs wars for the benefit of the MIC and the bankers.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd either one--they would both be giant steps up from those two clowns.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Wrong. The laws should be based on The Constitution and the federal govt has long ago exceeded its limited jurisdiction, because stupid shits like you don't understand the true principles and only agree or disagree if its excessive if it's a bill you support or oppose. According to the present cowards and schemers their "pseudo Christian morality" permits (and funds) the slaughter of Palestinians, Iraqis and any other innocents not protected by the highly dubious morality of which you speak. The questions were posed to someone else for a reason. Your sophomoric reactionary neoconisms are just so much horseshit for people who can't think in the abstract long or deeply enough to understand the harm they cause with their (and your) draconian hypocrisy. Save your shit for the next "rally of the stoopids".
If someone believes, as does Pastor Baldwin, that abortion is murder he would be untrue to his conscience to do otherwise than to oppose it. I disagree with state intervention on it, but do find abortion to be tantamount to infanticide, and I do not share his particular religious beliefs. Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified. Abortion is one of those issues that causes strong emotion because for those who oppose it they are opposing what they view as murder, and while you may disagree with that conclusion - given that viewpoint that the anti-abortion movement people have you must admire their commitment to their beliefs. All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Concur. I'd even take "Heckle and Jeckle" over Oh'Bummer and McNutz.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No I was right. The laws are supposed to be moral. Take Nazi Germany for instance. Should their laws have been based on their constitution or should they have just been moral? Back to the constitution. The constitution is supposed to be moral. That is why we have changed several immoral things about it. Such as slavery. Morality shouldn't be at war against the constitution. Take abortion for example. There is nothing in the constitution about protecting the pretend right to abortion. In fact the opposite is true.
However, upon what codes of behavior and morality was the Constitution based? If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers they were all strongly influenced by religious codes of morality. They may not have been born agin' fundamentalists but they very much were influenced by religious thought. You cannot divorce just government from moral codes. Amorality is what has taken us close to the yawning abyss which beckons.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Oh/Bummer and McNutz Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Bingo - rube, you win the prize for wittiest post today. Good one! harharharahar!
Bingo - rube, you win the prize for wittiest post today. no..no..no... Judeo Christain values. It is a value system based on the 10 commandments and other moral teachings in the Bible. They are compatible. They are the same. You can pretend that they aren't but people who know better will just laugh at you.
because dawg's against federal codification of abortion doesn't translate into his wanting codification of his views, does it? i believe his position, as is mine, is that abortion should be a state legislation issue and not federal. isn't this Ron Paul's opinion as well?
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
Ron Paul is wrong on that one. I was willing to let it slide and vote for him anyway because I know where he is coming from. But you can't have legal murder in one state and it illegal in another state. Legal murder is a very stupid idea.
How about a question Obama was to much of a pussy to answer in tonights forum. When do babies get human rights?
I was just commenting within the narrow context of the post. As I pointed out I am opposed to Federal Government intervention even though I personally find abortion a repugnant practice. However, I do agree that abortion is not within the limited mandate granted the Feral Government by the Constitution, and I do not believe that the 3/4 majority necessary to pass an amendment outlawing abortion exists. So, to some degree it is a moot point. Also Ron Paul expressed his opposition to the practice of abortion while still maintaining a Constitutionalist position.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Oh pleazzzzeee...I've had a very hard day dealing with a humorless individual...now you, OldFriend, come on to me with this...err...Biblical we are at one with Israhell...SOS, SOS...rube, Dawg....save me, help me....I am a maiden in distress...
Obama believes in murdering them even after they were born alive from an abortion which didn't "take." He is right up there with Hitler.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. uh...Show me where I said that. I said the values in the old testament and new testament are the same. A common value system or right and wrong. Do you understand now?
I think that can hold true ONLY for Torah True Jews as opposed to Talmudists who wiggle and writhe to avoid the application of those Commandments to the lower animals - you know - non-Jews.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I don't think Obama is right up there with Hitler. I strongly disagree with his position on abortion. But he is no Hitler. I don't know but I suspect that Hitler would have been pro life when it came to Germans.
I can agree with that original.
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy? And, if Baldwin spoke out against America's military imperialism and demanded that the money stay in the pockets of taxpayers, (close 700 bases in 130 countries) then how many families would feel pressured to terminate pregnancies because we can no longer keep mothers at home and survive on a single income? The federal govt is the cause of so many of the problems they pretend to try to solve (and always with criminal sanctions not "socialist subsidies" to expectant mothers because that money is earmarked for military contractors and Israel) and they, the true criminals create boogie persons (some class of citizens, but never "too much govt" or over reaching power hungry politicians and their fellow closet mates, Christian fanatics) to keep us from seeing the truth. Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"? Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate. Any attempt to sell him as "Ron Paul Lite" is horse shit. Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Okeedoekee... so you believe in the sanctity of life, I take it. What's your opinion on young lives of around ages 18-25 who are being sent out to fight and die in foreign locations, primarily sand locations for something other than US national defense? I speak of our young soldiers currently stationed in Eeeerak, dying for Israel/MIC/oil industry. Do you feel as strongly about protecting their lives, voting for a candidate who will bring them home ASAP, a top priority for our nation?
I said the values in the old testament and new testament are the same. A common value system or right and wrong. Do you understand now? I fully understood you the first time, Old Friend, Judeo Christian values and THEIR REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS according to Garp, I mean, according to G_d.
You cannot murder your child. What makes it ok one minute and not the next. What about if someone hits your wife in the stomach and kills the unborn. Should they be charge.? If you say yes then you are a hypocrite. If you say no then your a heartless SOB. I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
Wow, just say wow! Old Friend, you are quite the little poster boy for all them down home JudeoChristian (?) values.
Point taken. Obama could even be worse than Hitler because he isn't even pro life for Americans.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate. That is both unfair and untrue. Chuck Baldwin has been a staunch opponent of Zionist aggression, to the point of earning the coveted slur of anti-semite, in his opposition to Zionist actions. He has been in the vanguard in opposing the ADL's anti-free speech "Hate Law" legislation and has been instrumental in keeping it from passing. I don't agree with him on everything but I think you are unfair to him based upon just one issue.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake. For instance, when the federal govt passed a "gun free zone" around schools based on the interstate commerce clause it was overturned. Do you know why? When you can successfully argue that then you'll be skilled enough for a discussion of this type. No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority. There is no federal statute that outlaws murder. (except on federal reservations or in the commission of terrorism, etc, and other jurisdictional questions that make it a federal crime. Now if murder is REEL BAD and REEL IMMORAL then why isn't any murder automatically a federal crime? Think about it. The Branch Davidians were murdered and the feds told us they were child abusers. There were no federal child abuse laws that justified the machine gun/immolation murders of those people! They were murdered under the guise of serving a search warrant for an item that would have required a two hundred dollar tax to be paid in order to be in compliance with the law. Believe me, the govt ain't in the business of saving children. they are the number one threat to them, and if you advocate putting their safety in federal hands then you really need to study up some more. Once unborn children become wards of the federal govt then people like Bush will force mothers to take experimental vaccines that enrich drug companies and endanger children's lives. And all because you find abortion so morally reprehensible that you'll grab at any proposed solution including a deal with the demon himself to end it.
Ever heard of the concept of reaping what you sow. So you are against the death penalty? If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty? Not me, i'd string them up myself.
that's funny.
They were just first on the Bill or Rights. The constitution is crap without the Bill of rights.
Show me, if you can, where the Constitution authorizes government payments to foreign governments or welfare for any individual. I can wait. Have you ever read the little book, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat? If not, I highly recommend it and you can read it online here. I suggest if you want Chuck to answer your questions then who better than you to ask him?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I have never agreed with Bush's bs war and if you had ever read many of my posts you should know that. I am against foreign aid--all of it*--because the Constitution doesn't make any provision for it. I am against bs wars engaged in without a declaration of war by Congress in pursuance of actual and genuine American interests. And not against people who cannot be shown to have harmed us. *By that, I mean government to government aid. I have no objections to American citizens giving freely of their own money to any cause they believe is worthwhile or to any person they want to help no matter where they may be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So you are against the death penalty? If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty? Not me, i'd string them up myself. Whatever...so how does death penalty relate to your wishing that "pregnant bitches" die from their back alley abortions? Are you trying to change the subject, maybe? But on the subject of death penalty, to answer your question, I am very consistent in my positions. I believe that the death penalty is a necessary evil in society as is abortion.
Thank you for clarifying your position for me. Frankly I was not certain what your positions are, especially since you said you would vote for Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who I believe holds Israel on the same footing as America. Do you believe Pastor Baldwin, if President, would send American soldiers to fight and die for Israel? Would you support that decision? Postscript: I have no issue with citizens making donations as long as they don't declare donations to foreign nations as being income tax deductible on their US tax returns. Would you agree?
Changing the subject lol. Is that what you were trying to do relating it to the war in Iraq? I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear.
That is actually inconsistant. You are in favor of killing innocents and guilty. So in other words you are for right and wrong. Me on the other hand am against abortion and for the death penalty (if they get it right). Right and right.
It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary".
Oh. And thanks for answering my previous questions. At least you were courteous enough to do that.
b. I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear. a. did I ask you? b. I thought that's what you meant.Thanks for leaving no doubt. Carry on.
Testy testy. I'll sidestep the barbs and strawmen to simply stay with the issue as it is an important philosophic point. Which religious principles did I browbeat you with? I simply pointed out that the basis of philosophic understanding of the Founders were based to no small degree upon their religious views and that is supported copiously in their writings. Yes, they had other influences and understandings, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, etc., .... By today's standards they were very learned men. Religion, taking it in the generic and avoiding specific dogma, is at its base an understanding, or an attempt to understand what we, "man", are. From that basis flows an understanding what we mean by rights and responsibilities. Religion, within its province, addresses those interrelationships of understanding the nature of man and thus from that what is moral, ethical, and just. Natural law is just such a realm and its basis is what is regarded as man's basic nature and rights and that springs again from the realm of religion. Many of these standards, ethical sensibilities, can be found in more than one of the great religions. Whether Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism it is regarded as wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, and to commit murder (not that people belonging to such religions do not do these things but that they are recognized as criminal). These are all fundamental principles which comprise what we call a just society and they are all issues explored within the realm of religion and ethical precepts supporting them and are the basis upon which codified law is generated. To seperate religion from law and from government is to suggest that amoral relativism should be the standard upon which we govern. The horrors that such a society would visit upon the innocent is not a pleasant thought. Because you personally have a "bug" on religion does not change history, nor, thankfully, society.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. But go into our wallets? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! By what logic is the taxpayer's purse sacrosanct but the body of a woman open to govt compliance inspections? The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. And, (like welfare) abortion should not be a federal question or mandate for the states either way. Just as murder is a state law, so should be any laws pertaining to abortion. It is not an issue that the constitution addresses just as slavery was not a question that the federal govt was lawfully empowered to settle. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. No offense but, it would help if you weren't intentionally obtuse when I try to explain things that require some intelligence which you obviously have. I expect that from numb nuts but not from you.
Postscript: I have no issue with citizens making donations as long as they don't declare donations to foreign nations as being income tax deductible on their US tax returns. Would you agree? I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances. But maybe you could ask him. I am not his campaign manager, just a supporter who thinks that he is the best man running. I was for Ron Paul but Ron dropped out. As for your second question, I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years, even wrote a couple of books about it back in the 80's (both of which are out of print). I don't think most Americans should even be filing such tax returns because the reality is that there is no law which requires them to. And the only reason most people file them is due to ignorance and misunderstanding and a large dose of fear. In fact, it is mainly due to fear of losing what they have acquired and of having jurors who are as ignorant as they are finding them guilty for so-called "crimes against the state" and sending them to prison that keep most people filing forms they are not required to file and paying the government money they never owed in the first place.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. a. our post modern world's decadent sexual mores b. what does society do with unwanted babies, some of whom might be damaged through drug or alcohol use during pregnancy, many of whom might not be adoptable due to race mismatch with prospective parents who wish to adopt c. what right does government or society to intrude in an individual's private personal decision that involves a woman's body? does the government have ownership rights to a woman's uterus? is it in the constitution that government can withhold medical services to a woman because she is pregnant and wants to abort?
Your understanding of the classics still doesn't prepare you to defeat the constitution and the limits under which it was intended to serve. Do you understand why "gun free school zones" was not a legitimate federal issue? Do you know why the only means the feds have to enforce federally mandated speed limits is the withholding of funds? Why are there no national criminal sanctions or fines for violators of the federal speed limit? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT OF LIMITED POWERS, and better scholars than you and I have tried to defeat that for their own reasons? (The diff is, I know why they failed and why your argument is retreading over losing ground) Until you do, you're just making smoke to hide your "constitution deficit". And, high sounding references to the classics do not justify exceeding the limits under which the federal govt was intended to operate. It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
b. I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years a. there is no mutual self defense treaty between Israel and the USA. Israel pointedly refuses to sign such a treaty with us. So what circumstances could possibly justify our sacrificing American blood and treasure on behalf of such a self-serving selfish nation like Israel? As for Baldwin - I think you know the answer about how he prioritizes Israel from his writings on another thread. You don't need to be his campaign manager to figure out what he'd do and that's why I don't see Baldwin as being an AmericaFirster or one bit better than McCain/Obama. b. We file income tax out of fear. That's a given but what exactly is your position on declaring as income tax deductible those donations given to foreign nations?
Me on the other hand am against abortion and for the death penalty (if they get it right). Right and right. As I told you earlier, I am consistent in viewing both capital punishment and abortion as necessary evils. "Necessary evils" = imparts the concept of "without prejudice."
Sigh. First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it. However, that was not my point which you are steadfastly missing or ignoring i.e., what influences and standards guided the Founding Fathers in constructing that document? Hint: The prohibition against "establishments of religion" was not set up to guard the state against religion but the church against the state. Well at least you were half right. Under the existing Constitution it is not a Federal issue, but I think your over the top example is simply begging the question since the phrase "nor should it be" is your personal value judgement. The kind of thing the Founding Fathers took into consideration in writing the Constitution - value judgements and the Constitution was not written in a vacuum devoid of understanding of the preceding thousands of years of history, and religion, for good and ill, was very much a part of that history. Further the Founding Fathers were largely a religious group and schooled in religion and that schooling had no small influence in their final product i.e., the Constitution.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
And the Bill of Rights was not meant to establish the rights of men but was the "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution, the "thou shalt nots" aimed at the government. These are God given rights and "thou shalt not" touch them!
Thank you, a most excellent point.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Damn right I would be. The death penalty is wrong, and human beings do not rate the perogerative to decide who's life should end when.
You proved you are not pro-life with your self serving blood thirtiness regarding capital punishment. Your alleged anti-abortion sentiment is not pro- life, it is about controling women.
OI, you are by far the ass-kickin'est. Hey Mike.
That is because you are a blood thirty, anti-life, conflicted nose thumber in regards to the value of human life.
Howdy, how goes?
Still givin' er. See my animal scraps thread.
This might reduce the ability to manipulate whole societies through fiat currency based upon debt, reduce the expansion of war machines universally, and end fictional law in commerce ... but, should we dissolve the "fed" we needs be careful to institute a monetary policy that restrains the oligarchs ability to usurp it, ie., the gold standard. My opinion is against any standard that would allow those with ill gotten gains from the fiat system to turn them into control of a new system through the gold they have stolen already. Most of this ill gotten gain can be tracked down and restored to the nations having suffered the losses by and through corruption of international banking authorities. Depending upon how this might work out could determine the best form of monetary policy for the future. I had always been convinced that a gold/silver backed currency would be superior to any other. I think differently today because of the obvious, nothing would change besides the method of valuation. The holders of large blocks of gold would remain in control of international monetary policies only benefitting themselves. Treasury Notes without backing other than America's (and other countries) willingness and ability to produce the merchandise desired by the world at large would create the need for those wishing to purchase things from America to have currency capable (Treasury Notes) of transacting business. The demand for products would support the value of the currency and make Americans realize the import of production. The important thing to address is dissolution of "the fed" as it is the most blatantly criminal institution in America and causation of 90% of the grief/slavery. This, the richest nation on planet earth, has been raped to the point of bankruptcy by a small group of banking elites and their willing toadies. There exists a plentitude of honest and moral people weary of fiat induced slavery willing to monitor and maintain the purity of a replacement institution. Transparency being the key ingredient. The next biggest fraud are CORPORATIONS when considered as "legal persons" complete with protections from suit that no natural person has available. This situation must be rectified. And lastly, all laws need to be written so that a 4th grader can comprehend them in plain language, having been publicly noticed for 30 days prior to passage and made law. Restoration of privately prosecuted criminal complaints, taking discretion away from govt. prosecutors is another must. We can do this but it may require some bloodshed because the greedy blood- sucking sons of ugly bitches have much to lose and nothing to gain should Americans eradicate them. I'm sure there are many others with ideas and concepts much better than these simplistic notions of mine. The important thing for us all to realize is that we've been robbed by the most sophisticated mafia on earth. 99% of their theft is conducted through our participation and contributions to their system, which consumes our souls for a pittance but worse makes us accomplices in their treachery worldwide. No more influence peddling/bribery, this should be made a Capital Offense, punishable by death.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
2. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. 3. The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. 4. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. 1. Good for you. But you know, this board "ain't my first rodeo" as they say. So I was probably posting that somewhere else when you were posting it here (maybe even before). 2. Not quite. I responded to your questions, even though I don't much care for your tone. When it comes to the human body murder is illegal. Period. Murder, at least as most people define it, means to take an innocent life. Ron Paul, a man I admire very much, has delivered something over 4,000 babies in his career and is opposed to abortion so I think I am in pretty good company--and the fact is that many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds of non aggression. You seem to value the right to privacy very highly and I do too but when rights are in conflict something has to give. The right of the baby to live, once conceived, takes precedence over any right to privacy of someone else. You know, when people talk about being "pro choice" they are not talking about killing a wildebeest or something indefinable and unrecognizable, but a living human being. That is my position. May not change your mind and I can accept that. 3. I don't dispute that the transfer payments are made but I certainly do dispute the legality of it. If it isn't Constitutional it isn't legal because the Constitution itself is "the supreme law of the land" and the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear enough to all but the most severely brain damaged that powers not expressly given to the federal government were still the province of the people and/or the states. 4. I don't advocate any foreign aid whatsoever, at least not government to government aid which I have denounced on this very thread. I have no problem with any American citizen giving his or her money to any cause they believe is just and to anyone they feel is worthy of their help no matter where they are or who they are. But any time a government takes money through coercion and fear from those who have earned it and gives it to someone they favor more, whether it is some vote-buying scheme or aid to some of their "friends" in other governments, it is still theft and should be looked at as such. I regard them as thieves.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That is because you are a blood thirty, anti-life, conflicted nose thumber in regards to the value of human life. No it is because I am being consistent. If one actually thinks abortion is murder as I know it is. Then you should support the death penalty for murderers. Especially if you support the death penalty for other crimes. You on the other hand compromise your principals by pimping for Obama.
You proved you are not pro-life with your self serving blood thirtiness regarding capital punishment. Your alleged anti-abortion sentiment is not pro- life, it is about controling women. Pro life is a label like pro choice. They mean different things to different people. I'm anti abortion. Anti murder of innocent people. People who kill other people should be killed. After a trial of course. If some woman wants to murder her baby and dies in the process. I have no sympathy for her. And I will add this. Men who abandon and don't take care of their children are scum. I don't know what the solution is to dead beat dads. But something severe is in order.
I came to respect Ron Paul's position on federal capital punishment for one reason: the federal government can use it to intimidate people, and the central government already has too much power over life and limb. States should decide life and death issues, based on the Constitution, according to Ron Paul.
No I told you. Because you were being a hypocrit on this subject. I don't know how anyone who claims to care about the suffering in Iraq that we are inflicted could be for killing babies in the womb. Its sickening. Disgusting and uncivilized.
My position is, and has been for quite a few years, not to pay taxes I don't owe and don't file forms I am not required to file. And I believe if enough people would do that and just mind their own business that the world would be a much better place. As for people taking whatever "deductions" they are "allowed" to take I don't have much of a problem with it in any event because most people are actually giving the government a gift they don't owe it no matter how much or how little they pay in "income" tax. Because, correctly understood, income doesn't mean what most people have been brainwashed into believing it means. It should be clear to anyone who has ever spent even a little time studying the issue that income means a "profit or gain" and those terms are synonymous. And no one has ever been able to show me where there was a nickel of profit in an "equal exchange."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I should expand on my opinion regarding the death penalty. I support it in theory. My problem is I sure wouldn't want to get the wrong person. So although I am for it, I wouldn't want to burden of meting out that sentence. But with a woman trying to kill her baby. Well that leaves out all doubt.
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings. We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end. At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own.
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord For me that pretty much sums up what pro-life means...no gray areas there!
Thank you very much.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I am against killing innocent life that commited no crime. That is different then being for killing the savages and murderers who take action and kill an innocent person. I'm sorry you can't see that Mike. There should be lots of safeguards as to make sure innocent people aren't found guilty at trial.
At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own. I agree that politicians pander with the Death Penalty. I agree that it isn't applied "fairly" across the board. I think that it does deter some crime but obviously not all crime. Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end." So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue.
I don't take it personal. You make a good and valid point. Yes many christians are hypocrites at times. Myself included. What you quote in Romans I believe talks about an individual. Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority. I support the death penalty in theory. I would never want to be the one to have to carry it out, unless it involved my family. If someone killed my kid. I would want to take out vengence on that person. Would I go so far as to do it. I don't know and don't want to know. If that makes me a hypocrit so be it. I talked about a woman getting an abortion (attempted murder) dying in the act. All I said is that I would have no sympathy for her. None at all. Not even a little. That is different then some lone nut going out and killing women who had abortions.
The death penalty is never applied equitably or fairly using your alleged standards of application. It cheapens the currency of huiman life and empowered others to justify their thuggery and murder to advance their own selfish objectives and purient self interest. Ending capital punishment is am important step the United States needs to take to step toward advancing human rights and to end violence. It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices, and is not done for justice, but to satisfy bloodlust in those applying it that is too uncomfortably simular to that of anyone breaking the law to murder themselves. You are wrong, and do not like this penalty because of a sense of justice, but to satify what is the worst in your own character as a human being. WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
Mike what you said is well thought out. I can kind of understand where you are coming from. I support the death penalty in "theory". If they got the right guy every time I would fully support it. But they don't. If the death penalty went the way of the Dodo it wouldn't bother me to much. I don't want to see innocent people put to death for crimes that they didn't do. If they really did do it I would have no problem putting them to death for things such as murder. To take an innocent life by willingly killing another is so wrong and if there was a way to do it right every time and punish the murderer with death. I think that would be just.
I think that you are half right here. Sometimes it doesn't advance justice. But when they get it right it does.
I understand the power of vengeance however if you ever talk to someone who has taken a life it stays with them till the day they die thats why I feel for all those grunts.. no fun living with deaths demons better to leave that to God
So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue. Our entire nation in every sense ... rationalizes harmony with and truly worships the god of government, ignoring their real benefactor / Creator while refusing to admit it. The God of the Bible clearly states that you can't serve two Masters ... most Christians attempt this when they finance Uncle Sambo so he can murder little kids in Arabic countries and then run to church on SUNday to profess their faith. [Christ warned against hurting "one" of these little ones]. Faith is acting righteously upon trust in the author and Creator of the Universe knowing that this entity holds all power over all things. Setting the example of faith by honoring the Creator's commands regardless of what men say. (Peter stated "whose laws should we obey, men's or God's ?) The Scripture that illustrates the danger to the hypocrits of Christianity is the one where Christ speaks of the resurrection before the throne of judgment, and many cry out that they have healed the sick and removed demons in "His" name ... to which "He" replies ... "DEPART FROM ME for I HAVE NEVER KNOWN YOU" Hypocrisy and Truth have no relationship with each other.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
Hope you are not taking Romans 13 out of context allow me..... It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect. No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that. For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law? So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.) By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans Chapter 13 by Chuck Baldwin
I haven't read all of what you said yet. But let me start with this. I interpret Romans narrowly. Kind of like the constitution. What are the "delegated" powers to the governments. I believe they have the legitimate functions mentioned in Romans 13 and maybe elsewhere and no more. Not redestributing wealth or other such stuff governments are involved in today.
I think we are largely on the same page.
26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government FEMA Recruiting Pastors To Prepare For Martial Law Logged In Members don't see these ads! Join for Free Today! A Pastor has come forward to blow the whistle on a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation. In March of this year the Pastor, who we shall refer to as Pastor Revere, was invited to attend a meeting of his local FEMA chapter which circulated around preparedness for a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency. The FEMA directors told the Pastors that attended that it was their job to help implement FEMA and Homeland Security directives in anticipation of any of these eventualities. The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.
He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well. I won't be voting for anybody for President becasue there is no one running that is worthy of my vote.
God is always good!
Good points. Also, isn't anyone here troubled by the fact that a pastor is running for President? I think it's unbelievable that in a pluralistic secular nation as our own a religious minister is running for the highest office in the land. And I would be equally troubled if Baldwin were a priest, rabbi, cleric, whatever. The head of a church or synagogue or mosque should not be heading our nation. It's constitutionally inappropriate.
Our Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
buck, I used the phrase "constitutionally inappropriate" not unconstitutional - and a pastor as President, as head of state, is constitutionally inappropriate - it would not be in keeping with the spirit, the vision of our Founding Fathers for our fair nation
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed . Furthermore a pastor in the Oval Office would alienate not coalesce the public at large - in America today, there are people of different faiths, different versions of Christianity itself.
I'm talking about the ideal pastor with a true commitment to liberty, including a solid and proven track record of criticizing government meddling in cases of religious liberty, as well as governments being used as tools for achieving religious dominionism. In practice, I might tend to side with you.
Indeed. ...Revolutionary America's most famous orator, Patrick Henry, called patriots to arms in cadences borrowed from itinerant evangelists. Religion played other important roles in mobilizing support for Revolution regardless of whether it was evangelical or not. Colonists often encountered Revolutionary themes for the first time when local ministers announced the latest news from the pulpit or when parishioners exchanged information after Sunday meetings. Ministers occupied an important place in the colonial communications network throughout the eighteenth century, especially in towns where few people had access to newspapers and official information was dispensed from the pulpit or lectern. Sunday afternoons provided a convenient time for men who had already gathered for worship to form militia units and drill, and many ministers used their sermons to motivate the minutemen. Israel Litchfield, a young Massachusetts minuteman, recorded that his local minister keyed biblical texts and sermon themes to the great events of 1775. Reverend Ebenezer Grosvenor situated the people of Scituate within a cosmic drama pitting the New English Israel against red-coated enemies of God, and urged the militiamen who would drill that afternoon to prepare well for the conflict. In Virginia's Shenendoah Valley the Lutheran minister John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg concluded a Sunday sermon of 1775 by throwing back his ministerial robe to reveal a military uniform, rolling the drum for Patriot recruits, and leading them out for drill. Few ministers matched Muhlenberg's flair for drama, but many throughout the colonies used their pulpits to mobilize resistance. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SPHERE The fact is that preachers played a major role in the American Revolution against England. Anyone who denies this doesn't know much American history.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Do you assume that there is not even one honorable man who, if elected to office, would not roll over and play dead or go along to get along? I sincerely doubt that Chuck Baldwin could be controlled by the folks who control Bush and who will control McCain and/or Obama.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Imo, they're all state issues. They all are like honey to single issue knuckle-draggers, have nothing to do with economics or defense. They provide fodder for demagogues thereby allowing fringers to decide elections.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
In practice, I might tend to side with you. But buck, Pastor Baldwin is not an intellectual ideal construct. He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yes I honestly believe that Pastor Baldwin is unsuitable for the Oval Office, a leadership position. He is not an AmericaFirster, frankly. His deficits are different from McCain's or Obama's but a vote for any of the 3 men would be a vote for a lesser of the 3 evils depending on one's perspective on evil.
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You are correct. I have read little of what the good Baptist pastor has written. What I have read was the article link that robnoel inserted to this thread, wherein Pastor Baldwin defended Ron Paul's position on Israel. But in the course of Pastor Baldwin's argument, he presents half-truths about Israel and about our current government's relationship with Israel. This shows to me that Pastor Baldwin struggles with what he would do, as opposed to what he says should be done. Since Pastor Baldwin could not tell the full truth in the article cited by robnoel, I find that dishonesty disturbing. Our current ME foreign policy is AmericaLast/IsraelFirst. I have no confidence in Pastor Baldwin changing the course that has been set for America starting with LBJ's Administration. Baldwin's religious outlook would interfere and cloud his judgment when it came to reversing America's current ME foreign policy. I have no doubt whatsoever. Obama and McCain have been coopted by lobby groups to maintain status quo in our AmericaLast ME foreign policy. Baldwin has been compromised by his religious mindset. Different influences but the end result is the same in all 3 men. For me, misguided foreign policy is the greatest single threat to America's future. Protecting the unborn blah blah pales in comparison from my point of view. Abortion is not bleeding US blood and treasure in the ME - foreign policy is.
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Chuck Baldwin has a chance if enough people mistake him as a Baldwin from the family of actors with that name, that's about it. ;-D
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness." Please note nothing about "foreign policy"
It is very obvious the Religious Right has become little more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. In their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand, they are willing to compromise their principles, no matter how important they are to them. As such, it has become a hollow movement. They are now a movement without a cause, except for the chore they take on of advancing the Republican Party.” James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him. How does this make sense? I mean, if family values are a main focus of his movement, how can he condone the shallow, self serving behavior McCain displayed to his first wife when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley? And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family? One thing is certain, he and other leaders of this movement will have at least four years in the socio-religious-political wilderness to reflect on the bizarre spectacle they represent to the rest of us and their flock as they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and how not to repeat their role in this upcoming defeat of the GOP in the general election.
Please note nothing about "foreign policy" And I'm sure you would agree that US Constitution - written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 - is the written charter which gives the US government its marching orders, so to speak. In the US Constitution, its first three words – “We The People” – confirms that the government of the United States exists to serve American citizens. Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Although I agree with you on this Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. This is pure BS Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
The Founding Fathers saw the dangers of European influence where church and king were intertwined and that's why the Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America. Having a Pastor Baldwin figure, or a Rabbi Baldwin figure, or a Cleric Baldwin figure in the White House is antiethical to the Founding Fathers' conceptual dream for America. Furthermore family values are warm fuzzy mushy watch words for a movie script but how do family values help a President to save America from its single worst threat to its future survival - ie foreign entanglements and 24/7 militarism?
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens - are the responsibility of a Higher Power and the property of its mother. How does the US government have any constitutional standing with regards to an unborn fetus? Frankly I don't understand where you see the US government's obligation to serving the unborn fetus comes from.
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
life begins at inception
In 1791, the first Constitutional amendment came into effect. The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state because it was written to protect its citizens' religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect. My religious freedom would be threatened if the President of the USA - the face of the most powerful elected office in government - were that of a minister, rabbi, or cleric. Perhaps you need to read the text of the Constitution including its Amendments more carefully.
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
de facto....OK in your interpretation... however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution does not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
Biblically speaking that is so. But the Bible is not the Constitution and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities. According to Amendment XIV, it's all PERSONS BORN [as opposed to fetuses unborn] who are named as being citizens of the United States and of the State they reside. Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem? Perhaps if it were Cleric Baldwin or Father Baldwin as opposed to Pastor Baldwin we were talking about, you might see the problem more clearly.
Granted...however "it's all PERSONS BORN" if you agree that life begins at inception thats a moot point ...no?
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
and a round and round we go
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Haaaahahaha! Now you're catching on. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Yeah, right. You see perfectly and know all things. Gotcha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. This shiite must be revoked immediately.
And it's precisely because of this type of inflammatory statement, that serves no political discourse purpose but is only put forward to be an insult, that causes you to be perceived and summarily dismissed by most posters as a crude brain-addled headcase. Adding "sarcasm" or " ;-) " qualifiers does not transform your mindless droppings into legitimate thoughtful political opinion, btw.
I think you are mistaking my paleocon political sentiments re: how the Constitution defines US government powers and responsibilities with my personal religious beliefs that dictate how scrapper should and does behave. Actually fyi I am not an atheist. But I do not think my personal religious beliefs or your personal religious beliefs have any bearing on what is defined as our government duties by the US Constitution, which, btw, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
Sensitivity to Jews is one of the big motivations for our outright elimination of Christian pageantry and observance in public life in the past 30 years. Before that, we were a publicly Christian nation. It might have been somewhat uncomfortable for people who didn't believe the same doctrines as those being expressed, but at least there was consensus as to what communities wanted to observe on holidays and other notable days.
On this we agree however there is always a however our disagreement as you stated you are a "paleocon" a stand for federalism I am on the other side a anti-federalist
Every time you think about posting a pro-Israel remark, just put this nice lady's face in your mind for a moment. Keep in mind that she's what I see when I read your posts. Just letting you know.
Irrelevant to ANYTHING I have ever posted. I don't agree with James Dobson on his flip flop. I wouldn't and won't vote for McCain but I won't vote for your hero Obama either. McCain doesn't care how many he sends off to kill and be killed and Obama doesn't care how many babies are murdered. They are both nothings of the highest order.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why not?
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Eyes usually suffice. But not always. Can't always tell with fat chicks.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
My we sure are indignant. Listen, I tolerate your inane labeling of people in a manner meant to dehumanize and belittle for the 'sin' of deciding whom to vote for and who dare explain the reasons for their choice. In fact, I put up with allot of your crap without such a time of the month moment like you are having here. Maybe you should think about that. Because I don't give a rip about your whine if impropriety of my post when taken in the full context of things. In any event, thanks for sharing, I am amused, if nothing else.
It's not at stake. It is long lost. You want a return to constitutional federalism? Then blow up the interstate highway system. I'm serious. And it might very well work out that way in the long run anyway, albeit unintentionally.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Perhaps the first order of business should be the passage of an amendment making amendment easier. IMO, the constitution is too hard to change, and, simply on the basis of the fact that the standard deviation of N votes is proportional to sqrt(n), both amendments and override of a veto should be easier. Looking at the initial number of senators the united states had, an override purely by chance was MUCH easier than today. The same chance today would require only 52 or 53 votes. A house override should require only a simple majority. The expansion of the number of senators and representatives has helped make the executive more powerful. It might not make us any freer, but the state and the lawyers who run it would have less desire and need to resort to sophistry.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
In fact, I put up with allot of your crap without such a time of the month moment like you are having here. There is a solution for you if you don't like my posts and maybe you should make use of it. I have no problem with you not reading my posts. You shouldn't take any chance that you might learn something such as the fact that your hero is establishment clown through and through and that anyone who would support him OR McCain prove that they are not in touch with reality. The reality that both of them are traitors and un-American and should never have been considered for any position above that of dog catcher.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. In any event, thanks for sharing, I am amused, if nothing else. Forgot to mention this--in some parallel universe, should such a thing exist, and my twin is there perhaps he would care what you do or don't give a rip about. But in this universe and for me it would not be possible to care any less. The day I start worrying about what someone who supports establishment clowns thinks about me or what I post is the day I should be put away.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Nitpick: The Interstate Highway system was pushed through as a Defense Initiative. Congress is also permitted under the Constitution to create "Post Roads" which would also suffice to create a highway.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
You seem to forget it is you who took umbrage to my post whining it wasn't to your liking, and that I am responding to that. Try to keep the thread of cause and effect, Jimmie. You are embarrassing yourself here.
Simple. Obama is for murdering babies in the womb and maybe outside the womb. Obama is part of the gay lobby. Not really complicated.
Just a simple philosophical question here; would you support supplying prenatal and postnatal care to women w/o health care insurance?
You are embarrassing yourself here. You don't seem to keep up very well. I "took umbrage" that you posted irrelevant bull$#it to me, not related to anything I had ever posted. Unlike you, I don't support establishment-owned critters like Obama and McCain so it doesn't make all that much difference to me when this or that person lies about how they are not going to support one or the other of them and then change their minds the next day. I don't expect all that much from most public figures and I am rarely disappointed in them. And as for "embarrassing" myself, not hardly. I am not the one who supports a monster who goes even farther on the kill the baby plan than NARAL or the swimmer (Teddy Kennedy). Maybe you will overcome your hypocrisy one of these days. One can only hope. "He actually did vote on March 13, 2003, in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee to approve the Illinois Born Alive Act, which was the same as the federal law. Then he voted it down," Stanek said. "He is the most pro-abortion senator. … Even NARAL went neutral [on the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." The Born Alive Infant Protection acts on the state and federal levels provide that infants who do survive abortions should be given necessary medical care and treatment. Stanek has been working to institute such provisions since, as a nurse, she discovered an abortion-surviving infant alive, but relegated to a closet shelf where the child was left to die. Obama's long reputation for abortion advocacy has been a red flag in his intense efforts to collect support from voters who oppose the idea of partial-birth abortions, which Obama has supported, and who want to protect survivors of abortion procedures. He's often said, and his own website repeats, that he would have supported the Illinois state law protecting those born-alive infants if it had had a "neutrality" clause like the federal law, which states the law specifically is not intended to impact the status of babies before birth. But Stanek said documentation uncovered by Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee reveals Obama did vote against a version of the Illinois that was the same as the federal law, contrary to what the candidate has stated. "Since then we have found two separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts," Stanek wrote. "In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Simpleton, that is you. The race reflects the division in American society concerning a woman's right to chose whether or not to have an abortion. You have McCain who said; "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." And you have Barack Obama who this week reaffirmed his personal opposition to abortion, but also affirmed belief a woman who is carrying should be given the choice whether to have an abortion or not. The main difference between the two is McCain waffle to pander to the right, and Obama is consistent in his view on abortion. So much for your stark bombastic comment on the topic. As for your strange and typical interjection of your particular fascination and continued obsession with gays, get a psychiatrist and deal with this personal conflict of yours'. Your, "so tell me, how long have you beaten your wife" approach to political dialog is a component that makes your own forum dead in the water as people tire of this childishness and leave, or don't bother coming to it. People also feel uncomfortable with someone who professes to be against homosexuality in a protesting too loudly fashion that advertises the sexuality of same gender relationships more then knocks them. Get help for your problem here, and leave me out of it.
According to your harebrained logic, Bush is a better candidate for a third term then either of the Republican or Democratic candidates here. He claims he would never hurt any little old stem cell, never mind sanction any abortion. But this allegedly strongly pro-life, never goes to church Christian who claims God talks to him has gutted this country's job base and the economy and created endless war that has meant the death of many thousands of people, maimed many thousand or others, and created an army of refugees. In the context of things, you and A K A Stone/Old Fiend aim for strumming an emotionalistic chord on your one string guitar aiming for a Pavlovian response from people that will try to make them forget the full context of things. You two should get a room, and leave the rest of us out of your kinky little baitful political love fest here.
More of your idiocy. I never voted for Bush the first time and in case you don't know it he is not eligible to run for another term. And your suggestion that I should "get a room" with another man and thereby suggesting I am a queer gives you a spot on the clown filter.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Hey now, nobody said you did. I merely point out that by your logic, Bush is more qualified to stay there running things into the ground then either of the two candidates of the major political parties. Read for context Jimmie, although is is indeed amusing to watch you sputter around like you are here. As for the comment of mine that merely points out that politics creates strange bed fellows, whom you tag team in here is your problem, not mine.
Because I said so. And it is wrong. If you are for abortion then you are immoral by definition.
You asked a question of why Dobson flip flopped. I simply told you the answer. Based on the forum between Obama and McCain of this past weekend. I will vote for neither.
Rich kid gets a new car but... Here, this definately is a girl you would resonate well with, she was made for you.
Uh...I'm happily married with four kids.
Yeah, one who occasionally makes "I'd tap that sort of comments concerning a nice looking babe." That aside, I merely pointed out a mindset you remind me of. That you are tragically doomed to never find fulfillment with one so like you is just going to have to remain a tragedy for the ages, isn't it?
Yeah, that horse left the barn in the early 19th century -- and Jefferson lamented the sophistry on that point.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Okay... And it is wrong. No you can have abortion in one state and not another. It's not any more immoral than for you to permit abortion in China. Why permit abortion in China? Is it simply that you do not have the power to prohibit it? If you are for abortion then you are immoral by definition. I agree with that.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
However, from a Constitutional perspective the intent of the Founders WAS to make it difficult, but not impossible, to alter the Constitution. The reasoning being that it should not be changed for light and transient reasons nor as a result of the clamoring of the mob. While it is frustrating at times one remedy would be not to add another amendment making it easier but to repeal an amendment; specifically the 17th Amendment which made Senators subject to election by the general electorate - thus removing it from the sole discretion of the several State Legislatures and thus making it a popularity contest subject to manipulation through money power. This was one of the original checks and balances that emphasised State Power and Authority over the Feral Government. It's restoration to uh, umm, original intent would restore one of the checks and balances making the government subject to manipulation. It means that you have to control a majority of State Legislatures to control the Senate. A very difficult and expensive proposition.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I'm powerless to influence China. Or this government for that matter. I'm just saying it is wrong and I don't like it. It is barbaric.
NOT TRUE
It is barbaric unless it is done to palestinians. You claim Palis are less than human dickweed. You are the most hateful person on the net and you claim the joos can and never have done any wrong. You are one of lucifer's major deciples and you eat little jooish foreskins when your joos do a circumcision. Tell us; do you eat them raw or do you cook 'em first?
Quit sucking the shit out of pali assholes shit for teeth.
Aw you peeked penis breath! I bet you are gay to boot. Did you convert to the gay lifestyle or were you born that way? At least I don't eat circumcised penis foreskins.
#2. To: Rotara (#0)
I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
#3. To: Old Friend (#1)
Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it.
#4. To: Dakmar (#2)
#5. To: Old Friend (#1)
Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
#6. To: Rotara (#4)
Dissolving the Federal Reserve and everyone attached to it would be a great start!
#7. To: Old Friend (#1)
I can vote for this man.
Lord Acton
#8. To: James Deffenbach (#7)
#9. To: Dakmar (#8)
Lord Acton
#10. To: Rotara (#0)
Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
He believes that the values that have made America strong are just those values. (Sex education, birth control and "HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES" in schools. Remember, when the Judeo and the Christian values conflict, well, that's why the Judeo comes first!) Many people came to this country for religious freedom and Chuck Baldwin like others are proud of the fact that freedom is and always will be offered. (To the Judeos if not The Christians) As a Christian he knows that faith (in the dollar? In Israel? In The easter Bunny? Or, in Judeo Christian Values, heavy emphasis on the Judeo?)is something a person has to own and hold dear but can never be forced into.
#11. To: Dakmar (#5)
#12. To: Dakmar (#8)
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#9)
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
#14. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban.
#15. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties?
#16. To: James Deffenbach, Dakmar (#9)
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10)
Judeo Christian Values
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
Lord Acton
#19. To: Original_Intent (#16)
I agree. It is Baldwin or a write-in for Bugs Bunny. Even a cartoon rabbit would be better than McO'Bummer.
Lord Acton
#20. To: Old Friend (#15)
That is what laws are supposed to be based on...Morality.
#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#19)
Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd either one--they would both be giant steps up from those two clowns.
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#20)
#24. To: HOUNDDAWG (#20)
The laws should be based on The Constitution and the federal govt has long ago exceeded its limited jurisdiction
#25. To: Original_Intent (#22)
Concur. I'd even take "Heckle and Jeckle" over Oh'Bummer and McNutz.
Lord Acton
#26. To: James Deffenbach (#25)
#27. To: Rube Goldberg (#17)
When is the last time you walked by a Judeo Christian church?
#28. To: scrapper2 (#27)
When is the last time you walked by a Judeo Christian church?
#29. To: Original_Intent, HOUNDDAWG (#21)
Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified.
#30. To: christine (#29)
Ron Paul's opinion as well?
#31. To: HOUNDDAWG, All (#20)
#32. To: christine, HOUNDDAWG (#29)
#33. To: Old Friend, Rube Goldberg, HOUNDDAWG (#28)
Judeo Christain values. It is a value system based on the 10 commandments and other moral teachings in the Bible. They are compatible. They are the same. You can pretend that they aren't but people who know better will just laugh at you.
#34. To: Old Friend (#31)
How about a question Obama was to much of a pussy to answer in tonights forum. When do babies get human rights?
Lord Acton
#35. To: scrapper2 (#33)
we are at one with Israhell
#36. To: scrapper2, Old Friend (#33)
Judeo Christain values. It is a value system based on the 10 commandments and other moral teachings in the Bible. They are compatible. They are the same. You can pretend that they aren't but people who know better will just laugh at you.
#37. To: James Deffenbach (#34)
#38. To: Original_Intent (#36)
#39. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
#40. To: James Deffenbach (#34)
Obama believes in murdering them even after they were born alive from an abortion which didn't "take." He is right up there with Hitler.
#41. To: Old Friend (#35)
uh...Show me where I said that.
#42. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
#43. To: Old Friend, HOUNDDAWG (#42)
I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
#44. To: Old Friend (#37)
I don't think Obama is right up there with Hitler. I strongly disagree with his position on abortion. But he is no Hitler. I don't know but I suspect that Hitler would have been pro life when it came to Germans.
Lord Acton
#45. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"?
#46. To: Original_Intent (#21)
(Edited)
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
#47. To: scrapper2 (#43)
#48. To: James Deffenbach (#44)
Point taken. Obama could even be worse than Hitler because he isn't even pro life for Americans.
#49. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution.
#50. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Lord Acton
#51. To: scrapper2 (#40)
(Edited)
Okeedoekee... so you believe in the sanctity of life, I take it. What's your opinion on young lives of around ages 18-25 who are being sent out to fight and die in foreign locations, primarily sand locations for something other than US national defense? I speak of our young soldiers currently stationed in Eeeerak, dying for Israel/MIC/oil industry. Do you feel as strongly about protecting their lives, voting for a candidate who will bring them home ASAP, a top priority for our nation?
Lord Acton
#52. To: Old Friend (#47)
(Edited)
Ever heard of the concept of reaping what you sow.
#53. To: James Deffenbach (#51)
(Edited)
I have never agreed with Bush's bs war and if you had ever read many of my posts you should know that. I am against foreign aid--all of it--because the Constitution doesn't make any provision for it. I am against bs wars engaged in without a declaration of war by Congress in pursuance of actual and genuine American interests. And not against people who cannot be shown to have harmed us.
#54. To: scrapper2 (#52)
Whatever...so how does death penalty relate to your wishing that "pregnant bitches" die from their back alley abortions? Are you trying to change the subject, maybe?
#55. To: scrapper2 (#52)
But on the subject of death penalty, to answer your question, I am very consistent in my positions. I believe that the death penalty is a necessary evil in society as is abortion. Oh and tell me why abortion is "necessary".
#56. To: scrapper2 (#52)
#57. To: scrapper2 (#52)
#58. To: Old Friend (#54)
a. Changing the subject lol. Is that what you were trying to do relating it to the war in Iraq?
#59. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
(Edited)
No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority.
#60. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
#61. To: scrapper2 (#53)
Do you believe Pastor Baldwin, if President, would send American soldiers to fight and die for Israel?
Lord Acton
#62. To: Old Friend (#56)
It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary".
#63. To: Original_Intent (#59)
#64. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
a. I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances.
#65. To: Old Friend (#55)
(Edited)
That is actually inconsistant. You are in favor of killing innocents and guilty. So in other words you are for right and wrong.
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#63)
(Edited)
It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
#67. To: Original_Intent (#66)
First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#68. To: farmfriend (#67)
#69. To: Old Friend (#47)
"If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty?"
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#70. To: Old Friend (#56)
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#71. To: Original_Intent (#66)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#73. To: Old Friend (#54)
"I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#74. To: wudidiz (#72)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#74)
(Edited)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#76. To: Rotara (#4)
(Edited)
Dissolving the Federal Reserve and everyone attached to it would be a great start! ;-)
#77. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
1. I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here.
Lord Acton
#78. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
"I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear."
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
#80. To: Old Friend, Ferret Mike (#78)
#81. To: scrapper2 (#58)
a. did I ask you?
#82. To: scrapper2 (#64)
We file income tax out of fear. That's a given but what exactly is your position on declaring as income tax deductible those donations given to foreign nations?
Lord Acton
#83. To: buckeye (#80)
I came to respect Ron Paul's position on federal capital punishment for one reason: the federal government can use it to intimidate people, and the central government already has too much power over life and limb. States should decide life and death issues, based on the Constitution, according to Ron Paul.
#84. To: James Deffenbach (#77)
#85. To: Old Friend (#78)
"No it is because I am being consistent. If one actually thinks abortion is murder as I know it is. Then you should support the death penalty for murderers. Especially if you support the death penalty for other crimes."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#86. To: Old Friend (#79)
#87. To: Old Friend (#84)
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
Lord Acton
#88. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings.
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end.
#90. To: robnoel (#86)
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord
#91. To: Old Friend (#88)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#92. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices
#94. To: Old Friend (#90)
#95. To: Old Friend (#89)
Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end."
#96. To: Old Friend (#90)
(Edited)
Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority
#97. To: robnoel (#96)
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
#98. To: robnoel (#96)
#99. To: Old Friend (#97)
#100. To: Rotara (#0)
(Edited)
#101. To: RickyJ, All (#100)
He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well.
#102. To: scrapper2 (#101)
#103. To: buckeye (#102)
Our Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
#104. To: scrapper2 (#103)
#105. To: buckeye (#104)
(Edited)
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
#106. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers...
#107. To: buckeye (#104)
Lord Acton
#108. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed .
Lord Acton
#109. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
#110. To: buckeye (#106)
(Edited)
I'm talking about the ideal pastor...
#111. To: scrapper2 (#110)
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
#113. To: scrapper2 (#112)
Lord Acton
#114. To: James Deffenbach, robnoel, buckeye (#113)
(Edited)
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
#115. To: scrapper2 (#114)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
#117. To: scrapper2 (#116)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: scrapper2 (#114)
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#120. To: robnoel (#118)
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
#121. To: scrapper2 (#120)
#122. To: Ferret Mike, robnoel (#119)
their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand...I mean, if family values
#123. To: robnoel (#121)
#124. To: scrapper2 (#122)
Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America.
#125. To: scrapper2 (#123)
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens
#126. To: robnoel (#124)
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
#127. To: robnoel (#125)
#128. To: scrapper2 (#126)
(Edited)
The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state
#129. To: robnoel (#125)
#130. To: robnoel (#128)
however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution did not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
#131. To: scrapper2 (#129)
and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities.
#132. To: scrapper2 (#130)
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem?
#133. To: robnoel (#131)
(Edited)
Secular Humanists' argument bump
#134. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#135. To: scrapper2 (#116)
My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Lord Acton
#136. To: scrapper2 (#129)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
#137. To: Rotara, robnoel, christine, rowdee, buckeye, mirage, lodwick, X-15, diana, Original_Intent, All (#127)
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
#138. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#139. To: scrapper2 (#138)
#140. To: scrapper2 (#138)
The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
#141. To: Rotara (#134)
#142. To: Ferret Mike (#119)
James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him.
Lord Acton
#143. To: Old Friend (#30)
But you can't have legal murder in one state and it illegal in another state.
#144. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
#145. To: James Deffenbach (#142)
"Irrelevant to ANYTHING I have ever posted."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#146. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake.
#147. To: Original_Intent (#32)
I do not believe that the 3/4 majority necessary to pass an amendment outlawing abortion exists
#148. To: Ferret Mike (#145)
I tolerate your inane labeling of people in a manner meant to dehumanize and belittle for the 'sin' of deciding whom to vote for and who dare explain the reasons for their choice.
Lord Acton
#149. To: Ferret Mike (#145)
Because I don't give a rip about your whine if impropriety of my post when taken in the full context of things.
Lord Acton
#150. To: Tauzero (#146)
interstate highway system
#151. To: James Deffenbach (#149)
"The day I start worrying about what someone who supports establishment clowns thinks about me or what I post is the day I should be put away."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#152. To: Ferret Mike (#119)
And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family?
#153. To: Old Friend, all (#152)
#154. To: Ferret Mike (#151)
You seem to forget it is you who took umbrage to my post whining it wasn't to your liking, and that I am responding to that. Try to keep the thread of cause and effect, Jimmie.
Sen. Barack Obama is more dedicated to abortion at any time for any reason than even the National Abortion Rights Action League, according to documents unveiled by the National Right to Life Committee and publicized by WND columnist Jill Stanek, who also blogs at JillStanek.com.
Lord Acton
#155. To: Old Friend (#152)
"Simple. Obama is for murdering babies in the womb and maybe outside the womb. Obama is part of the gay lobby."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#156. To: James Deffenbach (#154)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#157. To: Ferret Mike (#156)
According to your harebrained logic, Bush is a better candidate for a third term then either of the Republican or Democratic candidates here.
Lord Acton
#158. To: James Deffenbach (#157)
"More of your idiocy. I never voted for Bush..."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#159. To: Tauzero (#143)
Why not?
#160. To: Ferret Mike (#155)
#161. To: Old Friend (#159)
--
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#162. To: Ferret Mike (#161)
#163. To: Old Friend (#162)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#164. To: mirage (#150)
Congress is also permitted under the Constitution to create "Post Roads" which would also suffice to create a highway.
#165. To: Old Friend (#159)
Because I said so.
#166. To: Tauzero (#147)
Perhaps the first order of business should be the passage of an amendment making amendment easier. IMO, the constitution is too hard to change, and, simply on the basis of the fact that the standard deviation of N votes is proportional to sqrt(n), both amendments and override of a veto should be easier. Looking at the initial number of senators the united states had, an override purely by chance was MUCH easier than today.
#167. To: Tauzero (#165)
Why permit abortion in China? Is it simply that you do not have the power to prohibit it?
#168. To: scrapper2 (#110)
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists
#169. To: Old Friend (#167)
I'm powerless to influence China. Or this government for that matter. I'm just saying it is wrong and I don't like it. It is barbaric.
#170. To: LACUMO (#169)
#171. To: Old Friend (#170)
Quit sucking the shit out of pali assholes shit for teeth.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest