Posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:16 AM PST by The_Freemason
When on the thread earlier I figured his “yep” answer to your question was a self immolation:)
IATZ
He sounded familiar.
With his claim that his position is embracing freedom, he reminded me of the pro-homo trolls from TrewBlew.
Yes, but you think you’re the only one, and your making the absurd conflation between Bush and Tea Party Republicans today. Your points are valid, your math is awful.
Mostly true, but GWB did *not* start wars w/o Congressional approval, and the GOP has little interest in controlling your “morals and values” — they’re too busy falling over each other trying to be Democrat-lite.
You put forth excellent arguments surrounded by sound reasoning...
I disagree with abortion, but people screaming “baby killer” is not going to get a damn thing changed. It will only harden the heart of pharoh..
A different approach has been needed for a long time. Perhaps using your approach may succeed where others have failed. I have suggested at that if the feds got out of this entirely ( based upon their own decisions and definitions, the issue is clearly a 10th amendment issue, unless their own definitions are changed )and left this issue to the states, I would bet money that half would outlaw it entirely. That would be a large victory. Not a complete one, but a huge one. That would be a starting point.
As for marriage, if you want to go down to the courthouse and sign a paper for a civil union, that is an entirely different thing than marriage. A marriage is sanctioned by god. A marriage is not a civil union.
Now, I do know the gay lobby is trying to force churches and religions to have to perform marriages. This is just plain wrong on so many levels they cannot all be listed here. To have the government force a religion to do their bidding is unconstitutional. Period.
As for the drug thing, I am against the drug laws as they currently stand. The “War on Drugs” was started to stem and stop the flow of drugs into this country. It was to go after the “Kingpins” and mules that bring it in.
It has morphed into a government sanctioned police action against the common citizen. Grandmothers killed by feds in their living rooms because of a “tip” from another drug user, ex marines gunned down because they are “suspected” of having associated with dealers.
You see, it was too hard to go after the big boys, so the feds started going after the low hanging fruit ( which if I recall was never going to happen, Nixon said so )...
the penalties for minor drug possession are worse than the drug themselves, and innocents are being killed because of it... This is why I am against the war on drugs, fed overreach..
The constitution is an excellent document, but it is not a liberal document, nor is it a conservative document. It is a document that if applied literally, would piss off just as many conservatives as it would liberals.
What I say, think, feel and do is my business, as long as it does not interfere with your right to say, think, feel and do....
And, like it or not, the constitution guarantees this to me, and to you...
The framers designed a system of government that keeps the federal government out of my life. It was never designed to regulate what I feel, what I say, Whom I worship or what I choose to ingest. This power was not granted to the feds. It is therefore reserved to the states and the people respectively.
Original intent = true freedom, and that is a scary thought for a whole host of people, a great many reside right here on this forum.
“Original intent = true freedom, and that is a scary thought for a whole host of people, a great many reside right here on this forum.”
Oh?
Like what, the questions I asked the original poster in post 40?
Did the Founder INTEND to allow homosexuals free reign?
[Hint, the answer is no, they had anti-sodomy laws.]
I miss OWK (”one who knows”)
OWK, are you lurking? You need to put on the flame retardant underwear and show these folks how to Libertarian flame war.
OWK was teh ghey.
did the founders intend for peoples homes to be raided and for them to be gunned down over a powder, pill or plant?
as for your question, like it or not, show me where the feds were granted that power...
not your opinion, but the place in the document where the feds are granted this power...
show me..
Where in my question to you did that arise?
They saw them as sluggards and worthless drunkards.
Who “them”?
Drunkards and sluggards, the vice of drunkeness was known then.
Addictive behavior isn’t new.
I am saying no such thing.
My post to the former FReeper was in a fraternal context. Masons are non-denominational but that does not mean they have to check religious beliefs at the door of their lodges. It was in that context, as well as reminding him of FR’s adamant pro-traditional family stance, that the post was made.
And if you’ll review my post history you’ll find two things: first, I’m a rock-ribbed socon and second, I have long advocated turning away from the Republican Party as it is currently constituted.
“Ready, Fire, Aim”, Joe.
Who pays for boozers' care when they overdose, or tobacco users' care when they get cancer? Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?
In a perfect Libertarian world they would have to pay higher premiums for their “lifestyle choice.” But in reality they want everyone else to share in the cost through premiums.
If you don't like your insurer's pricing policies, the conservative answer is to replace your insurer - not expand government to ban non-rights-violating acts.
Upon further review of both your original post and your explaination, I withdraw my comment...
sometimes ya just gotta read a little closer...
“without consequences “
Not true.
Cocaine has had known health consequences for its entire history.
Same with opium.
Correct. Just ask Len Bias.
the reasoning for my comment was to put up a comparison as to the damage done by overreaching feds...
the feds have no power over marriage, it is a right reserved by the states and the people, respectively.
the feds have no power over what you ingest, it is a right reserved by the states and the people, respectively.
the feds were GRANTED very specific, and very few powers for a reason...
the ultimate power lies with the states..
one could say that those that want to give the feds more power than they were GRANTED, is basically a champion of big government...
like I said, and I stand by it, the Constitution, enforced as written, would piss off both liberals and conservatives equally....
Not true.
Cocaine has had known health consequences for its entire history.
So do alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers - but none of those health consequences could justify a ban.
And when someone pushes homosexual marriage onto my children?
Or similarly wants to give them drugs?
What then?
“Oh, that’s freedom”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.