Don't lose sight of the fact that the unethical "Ethics Committee" brought some 83 charges against Newt Gingrich because he was upsetting the apple cart. He was vindicated of all but one, which included a fine. But if you prefer the "main stream media" take on this, go for it.

FWIW, I know enough about Gingrich to write a book - having read most of his books, taken his course on American Civiliation, studied some of his speeches, and following his exploits of the floor of Congress on C-SPAN. He has some effective ways of thinking that are different than mine, so I looked into as I had done with others: Aristotle, Bobby Fisher, Milton Friedman, for example. I knew he was going to lose his Speakership months before it happened and why - and it had nothing to do with conservative vs RINO.

But, if I may tack back, I have an interesting Romney quote. This is before he adopted this caricature of federalism that has been since adopted by Coulter and in this thread by Manofaiki (where we can have socialism, theocracy and dictatorship, as long as it is at the state level). Before that, he had no trouble holding out Romneycare to Obama as the model that should be followed - and didn't suggest any Constitutional impediment to a "federal government insurance company."

"Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option."

It is interesting now that he has opted for faux-federalism to resist arguments that O-care is based on R-care, but back in 2009, before he had to be "severely" conservative, he literally offerred up R-care as a model for O-care. Sure, he's for repealing his own idea.

I got into this thread because I have a complaint with Santorum asking democrats to come into GOP primaries and help him screw up the voting. If you want to continue to argue about Romneycare, I have other things to do. I have mixed feelings on the subject and don't wish to waste any more time on that one. I support Romney over Santorum because he is a grown-up and has much better qualifications on economic problems.

He also shares the same moral values that Santorum has, but doesn't get preachy about it. Instead, he just lives it. In addition, his wife has a much cleaner past than does Santorum's, according to some things I have heard.

Really? Never knew Santorum supported and funded abortion or made promises to the gay marriage crowd.
What do you call morals exactly?

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a state from having an official church. The First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law......"

You seem to be confusing the state legislature of, say, Virginia, with the Congress of the Federal Gov.

The point is, many of the original colonies kept their state churches until well after the Constitution was ratified. They were not illegal, and they were not disbanded and ended because there was any sort of Constitutional conflict.

The Constitution makes it clear the Federal Government cannot have an official church. The Constitution says not one thing about whether or not the states can have one, because that is left up to each and every individual state to decide for itself. At least, that was the case until 1947, when the Supreme Court made it's ruling that states also couldn't have churches.

Churches are voluntary associations. The way you keep throwing around the word 'theocracy' tells you me you don't have a clue what you are talking about. No one was compelled to belong to any church, and it was decided early on there would be no religious tests for holding public office.

Having a state church did not mean every other kind of church in that state was illegal. You don't appear to know much about the religious history of this country.

The point is, he lost the support of the GOP and the conservatives in the party. Administratively speaking, he is a disaster. When president, you have to manage the country and provide leadership. It involves more than debating.

He has a liberal past (originating with his parents) that I don't agree with. He has repented from that. You seem selective about who you are willing to forgive for past mistakes.

Romney does not have any baggage with his personal life. His life has been an example.

Which is the more perfect leader religious or public? One who has fallen and repented or one who never waffled?

I wasn't referring to the first amendment. I referred to the Northwest Ordinance and the states that were created from the territory. You can either make a legal argument about how citizens in that territory can be deined rights by a state government that are recognized in the Ordinance. Do think there was something in the Constitution that repealed the Ordinance? You can either answer this time or rant again.

I am not confusing anything. I asked you a simple question, and you have spent six posts not answering.

Is it your contention that conservatism is belief in or advacacy of state-level theocracy and state-level socialism?
It seems to be that either yes or no would work, and take you a great deal less time.
-----

That point is factually false, and you would know that if you read the very Wikipedia page you posted.

Theocracy is what I was always talking about. Most people understand that a government "established" religion is not a voluntary association. Are you one of those people?

For some reason that I cannot fathom, you keep bringing up 1947 and the Supreme Court discovering something. How about 2010? The Court "discovered" a right to keep and bear arms. I don't know what either has to do with the questions you don't answer.

Sorry, I am capable of post about more than one thing at a time. The Romneycare comments were not a response to you.

Do you have complaint against the Romney people who changed the rules to make it an open primary? I would expect conservativtes to have a complaint against open primaries, which the establishment knows favors the RINO's because Dems vote for them. No one from the Romney camp had a problem with Dems voting when they changed the Mich rules, or voting for Romney in New Hampshire. That's supposed to be part of his "electability." Imagine that, you have a problem with someone contesting him for those votes. Maybe they skip primaries and go straight to coronation.

Adminstratively speaking, it was the most productive leadership in US history for the conservative movement, but a disaster to you.

Gingrich was single-handedly responsible for the creation of welfare reform, the balanced budget and the 1994 Republican majority. That is leadership. The people who criticize him now do not want their teat taken away.

The State Church of Connecticut; when did it end? The State Church of Massachussetts?



You seem to really and actually believe there were no 'state churches' after the Constitution was ratified or something. This is very troubling because you seem to want to come across as if you know what you are talking about, yet you can't seem to realize that state churches were operating just fine before the Constitution was ratified, and why, they went on operating just find AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

How about that? Both before and after. I'll say it again: there is not one thing in the Constitution that prohibited a state from having an official church. Many of the states had official churches before the Constitution was ratified, and continued to have those churches afterward.

Whatever the hell the Northwest Ordinance may or may not have said, that is a fact.

I can't quite believe I'm even having to argue basic historical facts with you. Those state churches indeed existed, some well into the 18th century.



Uh dude? The states that had official state churches had other kinds of churches as well. NOBODY was required to be a member of a church, state sanctioned or otherwise.

You seem to have a really screwed up idea of how things were back then. The State church of Massachussetts outlawing and forbidding other churches and compelling people to be members? Who in the holy hell taught you that nonsense?

Thanks, you just reinforced for me yet again you haven't got a clue about the actual colonial history of religion in America.

You really need to stop holding yourself forth as some kind of expert on how religion was or wasn't practiced in the colonies and in the early United States.

So, you are amending your pleadings again without notice. First, you claimed states of the US did in "fact" establish religions. Then, you backed off a bit to claim "many" states still had established religions after the Constitution's adoption, which backs off the falsity of the first claim, and wouldn't support the same legal theory, but which is also false. Is this your version of presenting a good faith argument? Being caught in factual error twice, and then just proceeding with a blown argument like nothing happened?

You use these presumptions about what I "seem" to "believe" to create straw men to argue against. Search your own posts for the word "seem" to get an idea of many presumptions you make about me, in lieu of answering the original question.

I do know. And there is another "seem" inference to create another straw man.

I haven't recited any colonial history, so any "nonsense" you perceive, is only your presumption. The only history I referenced is that 1) no state established a religion (a fact you misstated but are slowly coming around on), and that 2) the NW Ordinance included freedom of religion. That's it. And neither of the facts is "colonial" history.

All this diversion, distraction, straw-manning, chest-pounding, and other fallacies when a yes or no would suffice. Here is the question again.
Is it you contention that "conservatism" is the advocacy and belief in state-level theocracy, state-level socialism, and state-level tyranny?

I am beginning to wonder what the world record on evasion is.

This article destroys the Romney lie that he envisions a different Federal Health Care Plan versus a state one. It turns out he wrote an op ed recommending the individual mandate in the national health care bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292520/romney-urged-obama-adopt-individual-healthcare-mandate-andrew-c-mccarthy

What you mean is he envisionED something different then versus what he says he envisionS now. If you accept his current argument that R-care is conservative (personal responsibility), the O-care must conservative, too.

RayGun,

My point is he is a liberal whore trying to convince us he is conservative. He will say anything to get the nomination.

Personally, I am tired of his supporters on this site and Coulter's support. I don't know why she thinks a liberal Republican in the White House is somehow a better option. Maybe she should write a book on why America should join her in her love of liberals with R T-Shirts.

Kind of blows that 10 th amendment BS excuse Romney has been floating this time around doesn't it?

The fact that he was trying to persuade Obama in a USAToday Oped in 2009 to adopt the individual mandate and elements of RomneyCare into Obamacare.

Just another flip-flop, just another lie....
Hell this SOB is at the Clintonian lying level now.

Why the heck can't we get a decent person for a nominee.

Anyone who "trusts" anything Mitt Romney promises is a fool.

Did state churches exist before the Constitution was ratified? Did they exist after the Constitution was ratified?

If you answer either question with 'No', that's where the conversation is breaking down, Ray. They did exist, both before and after.

The State church in Mass. was not the only church in Mass. There were Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Quaker, and about 10 other kinds of Christian churches in Mass. There were also Jewish synagogues.

At no time was any one compelled to join any of these churches, much less the official state church.

The fact no state created another state church after the Constitution's ratifying does not imply that the 9 state churches already in existence were somehow illegal or needed to be disbanded.

Absolutely.

Did murder exist before and after the Constitution was ratified.

I thought I asked a very simple question which you have spent nine posts avoiding. I asked:
Is it you contention that "conservatism" is the advocacy and belief in state-level theocracy, state-level socialism, and state-level tyranny?

I didn't ask you to misstate Colonial history. I didn't ask you about the Constitution. I didn't ask you about 1947.

The people who vote for Obama are generally poorer and more reliant on government handouts so they are less concerned about the economy and job growth. So when they see a challenger with no difference on social issues they are going to stay with Obama believing his and MSM lies . For example, blacks and Hispanics are generally against an openly queer military; a candidate promising to restore DADT would be an attraction to them. Romney offers no such attraction.

"My fellow Americans, Meghan McCain has a bachelor's degree." Now that is, as Hemingway might put it, a damn fine joke.