It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:47 am
Posts: 2861
s martin wrote:
Ask his two first wives? Ask Hillary. Ask Jackie. Ask the tooth fairy. The fact that Newt has 2 divorces means nothing. His relationship with his children means everything. Newt's accomplishments as speaker leaves everything Mitt has accomplished in the dust.
Part of Newt's accomplishments as Speaker are his being forced out by the conservatives in his own party. The guy is an organizational disaster. That is now showing up in his campaign.

If you want to compare the trustworthiness of Newt to Clinton and Kennedy then go ahead. I think that makes my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:31 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Michigan
Quote:
Ann is right. Santorum is weak. What the hell has he ever done? Talks like a conservative, but doesn't always vote like one.


Well, he tied Romney in Michigan, Romney's "home state". Both got 15 delegates.

And when folks start calling one of the Republican candidates an idiot, you know who the conservative is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 12763
Location: Concealed.
Murraybob wrote:
monticello wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
monticello wrote:
The subject is appealing to moderates and independents and democrats to vote whenever and however.
No it is not. The subject is Santorum's lack of integrity by appealing to the democrat opponents in order to get through the primaries. It is a fact that Michael Moore and the other democrats are supporting Santorum in the primaries. And why would they do that? Do you think it is because they would support him in November? Hardly.
monticello wrote:
I hope he feels comfortable walking over the graves of the other GOP candidates that he helped bury with his money and tactics. But hey you seem perfectly capable in this instance of rationalizing anything to yourself.

:laugh:

So Romney is leaving dead bodies? Isn't that called hyperbole?


You have reduced your argument to all is fair for my cause but not for yours, the same argument Romney makes, he shares those tactics with Obama.
No, you have reduced it to that. My argument seems to have gone over your head.

At least Santorum has the support of Michael Moore. He has that in his favor.


Is Michael Moore under Romney's or Santorum's control? I think not.

Do you fall for the Democrats line pretending to be more afraid of Mitt and calling him more extreme than the other candidates? :laugh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:27 pm
Posts: 4796
Location: Circling the monetary black hole
Interesting that Ann would criticize Santorum for what her preferred candidate is just as bad at doing.

The best conservative leaning speaker in the race is Newt, by far. The best libertarian leaning speaker in the race is Paul, by far.

Neither Santorum nor Romney come close to espousing anything but divisive politics and quasi-conservatism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Murraybob wrote:
Part of Newt's accomplishments as Speaker are his being forced out by the conservatives in his own party.
Really? And what date was this force out vote? Or are you just making up your own history?

I can't imagine a Romney-ite capable of defining very well who is a conservative. After all, as I have learned right here, from Ann's erudite expositions, Romney-ites think state-level socialism and state-level threocracy is "conservative." I have read enough of Gingrich's work to be confident he doesn't agree with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
s martin wrote:
..... wants to raise minimum wage, ....


Gee Ann, that will make for an interesting debate topic for Obama and Romney huh? Picture each of them on stage trying to out bid each other with how much they plan to raise the minimum wage. Perhaps we can make it an auction format? $20, do I hear 25$, $20 going once , $20 going twice .... $25 from the man with the starched collar, do I hear $30? How lovely....

Hands down that position nails Romney to the wall exposing him as an outright liar about being "pro
business" or some sort of free enterprise TEA Party capitalist. Nothing could be further from the truth because minimum wage is and always was a tool to simply inflate the union wage scale via central government fiat.

Sorry Mitt, the only valid conservative position is to ABOLISH the minimum wage.


Last edited by mikeishere on Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 6473
Location: Ohio
I would be perfectly happy with this article if it weren't for the ten or so that were published before it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
friendofGod wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
If it ends up Romney, a socialist vs a Marxist: I'll be looking to vote third party.
Come on. Romney a Marxist? You are delusional.
No. Obama is the Marxist.

I like when O'Reilly asked Romney - is Obama a socialist? Romney says, no. :laugh:

Romney has to say, no. If he said yes, wouldn't the next question be - if Obama is a socialist, then why aren't you: both of the you socialized medecine? :laugh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:32 am
Posts: 556
Location: Plano Texas
Ann Coulter wrote:
...The problem is not Santorum's conservative positions, it's that he can't defend them.


More spectacularly, you can't defend Romney. So what's your point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 109
Location: Texas
Ann makes me feel like I'm the problem. The more I listen to Rick the more I like him. I understand him. I don't have college degree and I understood him when he called Obama a snob. My gut tells me Mitt will not win in November. The same feelings I had when I voted for Dole and again when I voted for McCain. Maybe the republican party is not for me any longer. I left a democratic voting family when I was 18 years old in 1976 and voted for Ford. My party is broken, maybe it's time to move on, I want those convictions I had in 1976 that moved me then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
Ray Gun wrote:
friendofGod wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
If it ends up Romney, a socialist vs a Marxist: I'll be looking to vote third party.
Come on. Romney a Marxist? You are delusional.
No. Obama is the Marxist.

I like when O'Reilly asked Romney - is Obama a socialist? Romney says, no. :laugh:

Romney has to say, no. If he said yes, wouldn't the next question be - if Obama is a socialist, then why aren't you: both of the you socialized medecine? :laugh:


:thumb:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
I be a sayin agin, maybe Ann wants Romney because he would be the weakest GOP candidate possible, the most Obama-like, for one simple reason that she absolutely would not want to share with us yet, - having Romney will open the door the widest for a yet undeclared independent / third party candidate who Ann knows is intending to announce their candidacy. (A rogue perhaps?)

This is the only explanation that gives me any comfort. If only I knew it for a fact because if it was true I would be defending Romney like a true Massachusetts liberal or maybe even shut my grinning mouth altogether.

C'mon Ann, you can tell us, this being a private message board and all, are we witnessing early preparations for a GOP reformation of Biblical proportions?

I'd rather find myself grovelling in tears at Ann's feet begging for her forgiveness than to keep having to post my objections to her support of Romney.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:32 am
Posts: 556
Location: Plano Texas
mikeishere wrote:
I be a sayin agin, maybe Ann wants Romney because he would be the weakest possible GOP candidate possible, the most Obama-like, for one simple reason that she absolutely would not want to share with us yet, - having Romney will open the door the widest for a yet undeclared independent / third party candidate who Ann knows is intending to announce their candidacy. (A rogue perhaps?)

This is the only explanation that gives me any comfort. If only I knew it for a fact because if it was true I would be defending Romney like a true Massachusetts liberal or maybe even shut my grinning mouth altogether.

C'mon Ann, you can tell us! This being a private message board and all.

I'd rather find myself grovelling in tears at Ann's feet begging for her forgiveness than to keep having to post my objections to her support of Romney.


This is pitiful. Dude, just put her picture away. Only then will be able to think in a lucid manner. Heck, she was in love with Christie for crying out loud, a person who can't let a day pass without trashing conservatives on a liberal TV show. She's gone man. She's dumped you. Get over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Abysmul wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
friendofGod wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
If it ends up Romney, a socialist vs a Marxist: I'll be looking to vote third party.
Come on. Romney a Marxist? You are delusional.
No. Obama is the Marxist.
I like when O'Reilly asked Romney - is Obama a socialist? Romney says, no. :laugh:
Romney has to say, no. If he said yes, wouldn't the next question be - if Obama is a socialist, then why aren't you: both of the you socialized medecine? :laugh:
:thumb:
If you can get that far, let's take one more baby step.

We all know how important the Supreme Court is. We all know the Blue-State (BS) Governor exception includes Romney's judicial appointments. Some of us know that Romneycare is being challenged in the Massachusetts court system. What I am wondering is will I find a judge that Romney appointed who thinks Romneycare is unconstitutional.

Let's take that just one little baby step more. I wonder if we look at a list of those who have endorsed Romney and compare it to those who voted for (or found acceptable): Kagan, Sotomayor, Holder, Holdren, and Sunstein for starters.

You know, because I just have a wild hunch, you won't find the likes of Jim Demint voting for or approving of any of them. I have this sickening vision of Obamacare lawsuits dragging out for years, and someday the Supreme Court upholding things 5-4, with a Romney nominee being one of the 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 16907
Location: MI
Ray Gun wrote:
RoadRunner wrote:
Quote:
Rick! We're conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion -- and the federal government can't.
I understand now what you're saying. While a state can establish a religion they can't infringe on other religions.
Establishing one religion IS infringing on another. Aren't Christians "infringed" upon in Iran?

Two weeks ago Ann was describing conservatism as state-level socialism and now as state-level threocracy. So much for preserving the blessings of liberty. I thought conservatives believed in unalienable rights, not tyrannical constructs.
Are you saying that a church would be wrong to establish a city?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 1333
Comparing Newt to Clinton and Kennedy? Clinton and Kennedy were the scofflaws. Newt divorced, married, divorced, married. Many, many Americans have had the same experiences as any of the three parties mentioned. Newt has said he made mistakes, and has reconciled with God.
Newt bucked the system in Washington to get awesome results. The RINOs do not like Newt, but they looooooovvvve Romney. Romney will not change the system. He'll nibble around the edges, just like Bush did. It is foolhardy to believe Romney can bring about the in-depth change that is required to put this nation back on the right footing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
PlanoMatt wrote:
She's gone man.

Yeah Luke, to the dark side. Where's Yoda when you really need him?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
RoadRunner wrote:
Are you saying that a church would be wrong to establish a city?
Taking "wrong" to mean First Amendment problem, I have to think about that one. My first obstacle is the definition of a "city." You could call you land a "city." Probably wouldn't make it one, though. I tend to think "wrong" stuff might depend on the nature of your city laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
States not only can 'establish a religion' for their particular state, it was in fact DONE.
Nothing you have said negates Ann's point.
The Founders already negated it.

OK, Mr. Fact, which state of the United States ever esablished a state religion?
:popcorn:

(Hint: Kandahar is not state).


If by 'established' you mean 'recognized official state churches already in existence at the time of the Consitutition's ratifying, here's just one:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_stat ... n_colonies

Nine of the original 13 colonies had state churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

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] As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary American politics.

[there's where your viewpoint was first established, Ray Gun - in 1947 by FDR's stacked court. Not until 1947 did anybody try to read the Constitution as prohibiting the states from having official churches and religious functions.]

All current State constitutions do mention a Creator,[citation needed] but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment. The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[6][7] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.


What the Constitution states is that the newly created FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could not establish an official religion for all of the states. That's up to each individual state.

I can't believe I'm even having to argue this. What the hell are they teaching in schools these days? Apparently basic American history has been long forgotten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
manofaiki wrote:
States not only can 'establish a religion' for their particular state, it was in fact DONE.
ray gun wrote:
OK, Mr. Fact, which state of the United States ever esablished a state religion?
I had to repeat the question in the hopes you would see the gap between it and your answer.

manofaiki wrote:
Nine of the original 13 colonies had state churches.
You mean British Colonies had established religions? Yes, they did. That was another country. None of those was a "state of the United States" when the religion was established. As they became states, they began disestablishing, some at the time of the Delclaration, some later.

Quote:
The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.
Hawaii was not a "state of the United States" at that time.

So, your proclaimed "fact" is indeed not a fact. You cannot name a single state of the United States that established a religion. Can you admit you were wrong?


Last edited by Ray Gun on Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
States not only can 'establish a religion' for their particular state, it was in fact DONE.
ray gun wrote:
OK, Mr. Fact, which state of the United States ever esablished a state religion?
I had to repeat the question in the hopes you would see the gap between it and your answer.

manofaiki wrote:
Nine of the original 13 colonies had state churches.
You mean British Colonies had established religions? Yes, they did. That was another country. None of those was a "state of the United States" when the religion was established. As they became states, they began disestablishing, some at the time of the Delclaration, some later.

Quote:
The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.
Hawaii was not a "state of the United States" at that time.

So, your proclaimed fact is indeed not a fact. You cannot name a single state of the United States that established a religion. Can you admit you were wrong?


States can have their own churches. After the ratifying of the Constitution, you seem to be under the illusion that the 9 state Churches just went 'poof!' and ceased to exist.

That did not happen.

Again, you must have skipped over this:

Quote:
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.


Can you admit you can't read?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Let's not lose sight of the point Ann was making. States can do ALL KINDS OF FREAKING THINGS the Federal Gov. can't do.

And yes, up until FDR's stacked court in 1947 made it official, States could have their own churches.

States today can mandate car insurance on every single driver in the state. Or not. It's up to them. The Federal Gov.'t has no say in it.

Another thing totally left up to each and every individual state is the age of consent to sexual activity, which varies across the fruited plain. So does the age when you can buy a drink. Or smoke.

Naturally people would be up in arms if the liberals tried to pass a one-size-fits-all law in Washington federalizing the age of consent for all 50 states. It would be recognized exactly as the power grab it is.

Ann is answering the people claiming what Romney did at the state level was just as illegal and unConstitutional as what Obamacare does at the Federal level.

It's not. Romneycare may have been a freaking stupid thing to do, but one thing it wasn't was unConstitutional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
manofaiki wrote:
States can have their own churches. After the ratifying of the Constitution, you seem to be under the illusion that the 9 state Churches just went 'poof!' and ceased to exist. That did not happen.
I don't think the churches, either the physical buildings or the organizations of people went "poof," and wrote nothing that would justify such a wild inference.

When the colonies became states and "disestablished" the church as a state church, that means legal (British) theocracy ended. The church became the property of the people, and ceased to be an agency of government.

Now, the orignal comment that sparked your ranting was - when did "conservatism" became belief in "state-level theocracy." Do you still think states of the United States established theocracy? Do you still think conservatives believe the states of the US have the power to become theocracies; that, for example, a sufficient Muslim population could turn Michigan into the Shariah Republic of Mishistan?

Or perhaps, you might think, as I do, that when the Ordinance of 1787 stipulated freedom of religion in the Northwest Territory, it pre-empted what would later be the state of Michigan from establishing a theocracy.


Last edited by Ray Gun on Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:30 pm
Posts: 50
When Santorum won three primaries in a row a couple weeks ago I said he was a good guy and someone who I'd vote for presisdent, but when he changes the debate from the ecomnomy and onto social issues he will loose. Well that just happened.

If Santorum wins the nomination the Democrats now know how to beat him - keep him talking about birthcontrol. I mostly agree with Santorum on social issues but he won't make much progress in that area if he looses the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 7527
Location: Get Ready! Here Comes The WAILING!!
Ray Gun wrote:
manofaiki wrote:
States can have their own churches. After the ratifying of the Constitution, you seem to be under the illusion that the 9 state Churches just went 'poof!' and ceased to exist. That did not happen.
I don't think the churches, either the physical buildings or the organizations of people went "poof," and wrote nothing that would justify such a wild inference.

When the colonies became states and "disestablished" the church as a state church, that means legal (British) theocracy ended. The church became the property of the people, and ceased to be an agency of government.

Now, the orignal comment that sparked your ranting was - when did "conservatism" became belief in "state-level theocracy." Do you still think states of the United States established theocracy? Do you still think conservatives believe the states of the US have the power to become theocracies; that, for example, a sufficient Muslim population could turn Michigan into the Shariah Republic of Mishistan?

Or perhaps, you might think, as I do, that when the Ordinance of 1787 stipulated freedom of religion in the Northwest Territory, it pre-empted what would later be the state of Michigan from establishing a theocracy.


By what fantasy do you hold the colony church's to be agents of the British Crown? Again: when the Constitution was ratified, no state Church was 'de-certified' or whatever fantasy you are telling yourself. 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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:43 am
Posts: 1
Santorum is beginning to seem like a crybaby. Just look at how he is contesting the two votes in Michigan. He says that Romney cronies made this deal behind closed doors but the policy to give those two votes to the winner of the the popular vote was decided on February 7th.

I like Rick but really... this is so Al Gore-ish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
dbmartin wrote:
Santorum is beginning to seem like a crybaby.
You'd be surprised at how many pro-Romney newbies just happened to join this forum the last five weeks.

I have been wondering what it is you all have been doing all these years for political release that made so many of you opt for this one spot at this particular time - to inform the rest of us what piddling thing is wrong with Gingrich and Santorum. Was Santorum sitting on a bench?

I admit, I may have a slanted view of things - but with a national debt bigger than the economy, unfunded liabilities 4-5 times the size of the economy, the Constitution in crisis - I see this as a historically consequential election. This might be as significant as Lincoln-Douglas-Breckenridge-Bell (1860). And you would try to persuade me by saying one them is "starting to sound like a crybaby?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 2199
RoadRunner wrote:
Quote:
Rick! We're conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion -- and the federal government can't.
I understand now what you're saying. While a state can establish a religion they can't infringe on other religions.

Quote:
A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people's right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion.
Yes, because of the Fourteenth Amendment and how the Supreme Court interpretted the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to expand the First Amendment to apply to states. I agree with you that it doesn't prevent states (or cities) from establishing a religion, but some people would argue that and the court cases would be expensive.

Jerry Brown of California revoked a conservative Baptist church's tax exempt status because it disagreed with his own religious beliefs. The legislature overwhelmingly overruled him. The lawmakers spent a lot of time cleaning up after this idiot that makes Wassermann-Schultz look smart. Despite the dismal track record, here we go again. I watched those proceedings from Oregon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:17 pm
Posts: 17
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:30 pm
Posts: 50
dbmartin wrote:
Santorum is beginning to seem like a crybaby. Just look at how he is contesting the two votes in Michigan. He says that Romney cronies made this deal behind closed doors but the policy to give those two votes to the winner of the the popular vote was decided on February 7th.

I like Rick but really... this is so Al Gore-ish.


He was also looking like a crybaby during the debates when he'd whine to the moderator about not getting enough questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Manny Fraker wrote:
He was also looking like a crybaby
And Romney was looking like a pedophile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Here is Romney explaining how he saved the Olympics. Federal bailout.

"We actually received over $410 million from the federal government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything ever done before and we did that by going after every agency of government.”

(Good thing he didn't have to do some work for Freddie Mac to earn the money).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:47 am
Posts: 2861
Ray Gun wrote:
Murraybob wrote:
Part of Newt's accomplishments as Speaker are his being forced out by the conservatives in his own party.
Really? And what date was this force out vote? Or are you just making up your own history?
Newt decided not to run for speaker again because the votes were not there for him to succeed. The conservatives turned against hem. It is a matter of record. He also decided to not run for House again because of the damage that he admittedly did to the GOP.

You can look it up.


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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