It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 1333
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
Murraybob wrote:
You can look it up.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:47 am
Posts: 2858
Ray Gun wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
You can look it up.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12016
Location: Concealed.
Murraybob wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
You can look it up.
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
The states may have - on their own - decided to end them, sometimes as late as 1833, but nothing in the Constitution made those state Churches illegal.
May have? They did end them concurrent with establish state constitutions that declared the recognition of unalienaible individual rights, natural law, natural rights, etc. And in most cases, before the Constitution was ratified. And in no case did any state, as you claimed, in "fact" establish a religion. It's OK to admit you were wrong. :) Come on, you tried to claim Hawaii was a state, 100 years before it gained admittance - in the same post you were ranting about others' lack of historical education.

I also notice you ignored the idea of how states were created, ie the effect of the Northwest Ordinance establishing freedom of religion in that territory BEFORE the United States carved it into states. Even if the Constitution had never been ratified, where do you suppose those states would have gained the legal supremacy to void the pre-existing ordinance created by the higher government that gave them their existence in the first place. Maybe, just maybe your oft reppeated opinion isn't as legally dsipositive as you want to think it is.

Also, you still haven't answered the original question of when or where conservatism became a belief that man had no unalienable immunity against state-level socialism or state-level theocracy. Remember, your claim that states of the US had in "fact" established religions was only a throw-in.

Quote:
It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court suddenly discovered that the states couldn't have a Church any more than the Federal Gov't.
FWIW, when I speak of what is Constitutional, etc., I almost never speak of what the court says. But it is reasonable to think that as issues come up and are discussed people can "discover" rights that were unalienable all along.

Quote:
By what fantasy do you hold the colony church's to be agents of the British Crown?
I don't believe I wrote that. However, by way of analogy, I suppose if a local Muslim cleric in a place like Iran orders the stoning death of a rape victim in accordance with the doctrine of the decress of the ruling Ayoltollah's - you could reasonably say he was an agent of the government.


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.


Last edited by manofaiki on Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:47 am
Posts: 2858
s martin wrote:
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:47 am
Posts: 2858
monticello wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
You can look it up.
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?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12016
Location: Concealed.
Murraybob wrote:
monticello wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
You can look it up.
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?

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
manofaiki wrote:
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a state from having an official church. The First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law......"
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.

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

Quote:
The point is, many of the original colonies kept their state churches until well after the Constitution was ratified.
That point is factually false, and you would know that if you read the very Wikipedia page you posted.

Quote:
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.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
Murraybob wrote:
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.
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.


Last edited by Ray Gun on Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
Murraybob wrote:
Administratively speaking, he is a disaster.
Adminstratively speaking, it was the most productive leadership in US history for the conservative movement, but a disaster to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 1333
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a state from having an official church. The First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law......"
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.

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

Quote:
The point is, many of the original colonies kept their state churches until well after the Constitution was ratified.
That point is factually false, and you would know that if you read the very Wikipedia page you posted.

Quote:
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.
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.


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

Quote:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4]


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.

Quote:
Most people understand that a government "established" religion is not a voluntary association. Are you one of those people?


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
manofaiki wrote:
The State Church of Connecticut; when did it end? The State Church of Massachussetts?
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? :)

Quote:
You seem to really and actually believe there were no 'state churches' after the Constitution was ratified or something.
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.

Quote:
This is very troubling because you seem [oops, there is is again] to want to come across as if you know what you are talking about
I do know. And there is another "seem" inference to create another straw man.

Quote:
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.
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. :hm2:


Last edited by Ray Gun on Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:31 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Michigan
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
michigancastaway wrote:
This article destroys the Romney lie that he envisions a different Federal Health Care Plan versus a state one.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:31 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Michigan
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12016
Location: Concealed.
michigancastaway wrote:
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



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. :pout: :mutter: :hopmad:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
The State Church of Connecticut; when did it end? The State Church of Massachussetts?
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? :)

Quote:
You seem to really and actually believe there were no 'state churches' after the Constitution was ratified or something.
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.

Quote:
This is very troubling because you seem [oops, there is is again] to want to come across as if you know what you are talking about
I do know. And there is another "seem" inference to create another straw man.

Quote:
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.
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. :hm2:


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:30 pm
Posts: 50
Ray Gun wrote:
Manny Fraker wrote:
If Santorum wins the nomination the Democrats now know how to beat him - keep him talking about birthcontrol.
That's why George Stef started the ball rolling at the NH primary by spending 20 minutes asking them about state power to ban contraceptives. He was fishing for something he could twist into "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party."


Absolutely. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 9959
manofaiki wrote:
Did state churches exist before the Constitution was ratified? Did they exist after the Constitution was ratified?
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
SparkyX wrote:
mikeishere wrote:
Not really different than Obama, Romney will push for a ban on 'assault' weapons; he favors the Brady Bill and thinks the Second Amendment has something to do with hunting varmints. Santorum recognizes my Constitutional rights.

No different at all than what Obama just did to change our military rules to open homosexuality, Romney looked forward to the exact same thing and told disappointed log cabin republicans in 1994 that Clinton's DADT was merely a stepping stone to open homosexuality in the military down the road. That and the FACT that Romney had ZERO Mass Constitutional reason to tell clerks to start issuing marriage licenses to queer couples. Romney is either lying that he favors an amendment to define marriage as one of each or, he is afraid of homosexuals, or the is a closet case himself - which is true I don't think matters. Something tells me I don't have to worry about Santorum caving in to homosexual demands for special rights. They now include TEACHING homosexual sex practices to children in some MA public schools whether their parents want their kids exposed to it or not - thanks Mitt!

No Child Left Behind is the colossal failure that we all knew it would be but it was what Bush wanted. Imagine that, a senator voting in favor of what a prdesident of his very same party was promoting in a display case with flashing lights in a idiotic attempt to appease liberals. Santorum wasn't the only republican who found himself stuck between a rock and hard place with Bush's liberal lose-lose policies.


And if Romney mirrors Obama on those social issues, how will that effect the economy and job growth?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:13 pm
Posts: 1165
"My fellow Americans, Meghan McCain has a bachelor's degree." Now that is, as Hemingway might put it, a damn fine joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group