RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/15/2012 8:54:50 AM)

Its honest. Got to give her that. And at least it now makes sense why she was carrying on as she was.



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/20/2012 10:56:41 PM)

quote:

Which form does he want to ban?


None, AFAIK.



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/20/2012 11:05:41 PM)

quote:

So in your opinion requiring a state to respect the rights granted by the US Constitution is an expansion of federal power? So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?


Yes.
The 14th Amendment should be repealed and the nation restored to a loose federation of sovereign states as the Founders intended.



vincentML -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 8:57:30 AM)

quote:

Griswold first created the "right to privacy" and then used the power of the federal gummint to force the states to respect it.
Yeah, that's not an expansion of federal powers.
If they created the requirement to go about in public armed with a firearm, that would be an expansion of personal power.


Sorting this then: personal power to go about armed with a firearm; expansion of federal powers to go about armed with a condom [8|]

quote:

The 14th Amendment should be repealed and the nation restored to a loose federation of sovereign states as the Founders intended.


An inconvenient historical event: the Founders ditched the Articles of Confederation and established the Constitution.

Second inconvenient historical event: the 14th Amendment was established after certain of the States rebelled for fear they would lose the right of some of its citizens to own other humans.

Your idealogy cost the nation 600,000 lives. States Rights lost that war but its adherents continue to bitch. Perhaps the news has not yet reached your state. Best invest in better telegraph lines.



DomKen -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:06:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

So in your opinion requiring a state to respect the rights granted by the US Constitution is an expansion of federal power? So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?


Yes.

Sure....



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 10:30:29 AM)

quote:

So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?


That is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.
if you didn't like it you could move or organize .....



GotSteel -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 11:15:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
Almost every GOP presidential candidate says they want "smaller government" and "less government intrusion" -

BUT -

You don't need to resort to absurd hypotheticals to point out the hypocrisy in the Republican small government rhetoric. For instance here's Jon Stewart easily calling Eric Cantor on it: http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2010/10/13/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-rep-eric-cantor



GotSteel -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 11:19:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
An inconvenient historical event: the Founders ditched the Articles of Confederation and established the Constitution.

Second inconvenient historical event: the 14th Amendment was established after certain of the States rebelled for fear they would lose the right of some of its citizens to own other humans.

Your idealogy cost the nation 600,000 lives. States Rights lost that war but its adherents continue to bitch. Perhaps the news has not yet reached your state. Best invest in better telegraph lines.

Well said, you beat me to it.



GotSteel -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 11:23:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
quote:

So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?

That is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.
if you didn't like it you could move or organize .....


When did Thomas Jefferson stop being a Founding Father?



DomKen -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 11:37:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?


That is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.
if you didn't like it you could move or organize .....

That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the founders wanted. Read the writings of Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison.

For instance
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html



Miserlou -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 5:39:26 PM)

quote:

How can you reconcile "smaller government" and "less government intrusion" with a federal ban on all forms of contraception, enforced by the local/state/federal police?
you can't.

canadian prime minister trudeau once said something on this sort of thing, something about the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation. i think that basic stance is the only one consistent with the idea of a free people. who, what, and how consenting adults reach orgasm really is nobody's business but theirs, and that goes for what form of contraception they use as well.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 8:17:58 PM)

As has been established time and time again, most modern-day Republicans are hypocrites. When they say "small government" what they mean by this is "no taxes" and "no restrictions on guns" and "no welfare". They don't mean people's private lives should be free from government intervention. On a social issues, they fundamentally believe that government has the right to restrict people's rights.

The right wing has been on the attack on birth control and abortion since at least the 70s if not longer. This is not anything new. The real birth control battle will play out over who has to cover costs of birth control. The real reason the right wants to control access to birth control is to protect insurance companies from having to cover the costs of birth control. I am sure if you peel back the layers of this, the insurance companies are lobbying the right wing on birth control. This is not actually about the morality of preventing pregnancy. This is about money.

Anyone who cares about the right of women to continue to use birth control irrespective of whether they are married or not, should donate money to either the ACLU or Planned Parenthood. This battle will ultimately play itself out in the courts. Witness what has gone on with abortion. The right wing will continue to whittle away at reproductive rights until very little is left.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm

People vote Republican largely due to the belief that it keeps their taxes lower. They forget that comes at the cost of losing personal freedoms. People have to be willing to put their money where their mouths are. If you support the concept of personal freedom then support liberal policies and liberal politicians and stop voting as if reducing taxes is the only thing that matters.

A civilized society with a strong stable government does not come cheap. You want a place where no one pays tax. Move to Greece.



Miserlou -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:06:52 PM)

quote:

As has been established time and time again, most modern-day Republicans are hypocrites.
as much as it pains me to admit it, i can't dispute that statement, nor most of your post.

however, there are some of us who really do believe in the benefits of smaller government and trying to live within our means, and no, we all wouldn't make cuts to social welfare programs first.



slvemike4u -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:20:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Do yourself a favor. Go through some threads. You believe only conservatives get beat up?

Popeye is Independent... and gets it alot.

I am Dem.. get more than my share.

Sanity... is.. .ok... Im not sure.

Firm is conservative.

Heretic is Conservative and he just called all liberals a name I wouldnt call you.

Now, you want to play the poor pity my party game?

Go right ahead, you wont gain any sympathy that way.

Hey Tazzy how could you forget about me,I take a lot of shit around here too(most of it shoveled by you as you make fun of my feeble attempts to flirt with Lucy).
If anyone has a right to a pity party it is poor me....but as I asserted in another thread it seems you hate little old me,for reasons that escape me completely [:D]



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:22:06 PM)

oh please, you love the attention



slvemike4u -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:34:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

So you'd be fine if your state made Shi'a Islam the official required religion and forced you to go to the mosque every Friday?


That is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.
if you didn't like it you could move or organize .....

Why would he be the one to consider moving,seems things are going along as he likes....and that,things being what they are,you are dissatisfied.
Perhaps it's time to tape some boxes together eh? The 14th amendment is in no danger of being repealed,so why are you staying ?



slvemike4u -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:35:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

oh please, you love the attention


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

oh please, you love the attention

Yes I do,yet you never mentioned me...hence the complaint.....lol.



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/21/2012 9:43:17 PM)

Honey, tormenting you is just a bonus for me and Lucy. [;)]



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/22/2012 6:10:10 PM)

When he stopped taxing citizens to support the State-sponsored Church.



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/22/2012 6:13:08 PM)

Under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the States had huge powers denied the federal government.
The establishment clause did not apply to the States.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625