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: 2125
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
Comments (1-127) not displayed.
.
.
.
#128. To: scrapper2 (#126)
(Edited)
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.
Comments (168 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe 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?
.
.
.