Posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:47 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Paranoid, no, I don’t think so...
Situationally aware is more like it.
I really don’t think we disagree. The constitution refers to “the people” but in reality they mean the legislature. Nowadays however, many look upon the legislature as being the state rather than the people.
“Neither federal or state constitutions grant rights to the people.”
Of course they do. To be precise it’s a guarantee of rights but again it’s semantics. The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) are largely a collection of these guarantees as well as specific governmental restrictions.
I will correct my earlier statement—The legislature may arguably be considered the government(state). The legislatORS are “the people” by proxy.
Leviticus is crystal clear, though the deviants try to dismiss it.
Don't believe the Old Testament, try First Corinthians?
Again the perverts twist or dismiss the judgment of eternal damnation on the practicers of homosexuality.
God can and will forgive every sin including homosexual behavior, but those who
wont forsake this abomination are doomed and damned according to Almighty God.
And I think anybody who leads these people to believe otherwise has their blood on their hands.
You and your candidate had a free ride for several months while he played the "will I or won't I?" game. Now he's an official candidate and a little criticism has you demanding that entire groups of people be banned from FR. Now, I personally have refrained from saying anything specific about Mr. Thompson. As I have stated in other threads, I think he'd be a good candidate that I could support. I've even said that the alleged issue regarding his wife is totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. My wife and I have a significant age difference. That said, what criticism I've seen has been mild in comparison to what the Clinton machine has in store for the eventual Republican candidate. (For example, the attack on Rush Limbaugh) So, as others have said to me, if you can't handle criticism from fellow Republicans, whether you consider it valid or not, what makes you think you can withstand the coming Hillary slime machine onslaught?
“Bzzzt. Wrong again. I’m not obtuse, your comparison is idiotic, and you show every sign of being an idiot yourself.”
Call me what you will, but you just don’t have the correct mental faculties to see the clear comparison. Because you are obtuse, and obviously a little rude and obnoxious to boot. You don’t have to like the comparison, but it is valid.
Be that as it may. You need to face reality. Fred’s “federalism at all costs” will cost him votes. Maybe the few he needs to win. So whether you are obtuse or I am an idiot really doesn’t matter. Its the votes that count.
BTW - I strongly recommend you stop trying to support Senator Thompson. You personnally are hurting his image by your behavior.
All you've done is insult me. Your quoted words are deeply, hilariously ironic.
My point exactly (in case I didn’t do a good job of making it previously). Nobody, anywhere in America, has actually voted for or even ASKED that we vote to have gay marriages. The queer groups know that and this is the reason they go through the courts so they can get a group of liberal socialists in black robes do it for them without the consent of the governed.
“All you’ve done is insult me. Your quoted words are deeply, hilariously ironic.”
No, I have vigourously disagreed with comments you made to another and then insulted your logic...at least originally. Whatever, I’m not the one acting as an apologetist for a candidate like you are Senator Thompson. You, once again, miss the point if you don’t realize that your actions hurt the person you defend. The only person my actions hurt are myself...I’m not defending anyone or touting a particular position, per se.
I am trying to be direct here, and not to insult you further. We are just arguing in circles and resolving nothing.
BS yourself. The "1800's" were a period of transition. But from the first time "Ug" clonked "Og" over the head and took him home to scrape mammoth skin until the 1800's, slaves WERE considered property, a period of tens of thousands of years. In the 1800's the tide began to turn against slavery, but to say "most people" were against it is simply to ignore facts.
The property argument was a canard, a rational to fit the need. They would have called slaves elephants if that would have satisfied the requirement. That doesn’t mean the vast majority of people would have believed them to be elephants only that it was an effective solution.
People can rationalize anything if the motivation to do so is strong enough. WWII is a perfect example. Most Germans had a pretty good idea what was going on with the Jews. Know it was wrong? Of course the majority did but they rationalized it away by believing it wasn’t happening or it was on a small scale and mostly criminals of the Reich. In their heart of hearts did they really know what was going on? Yep, but it’s easier to BS oneself than anybody.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I do agree.
So, St. Paul was "rationalizing" when he told the runaway slave to return to his master, and asked his master to forgive him for running away and to not treat him harshly for doing so???
Your "rationale" argument might have been true for a minority just before the Civil War, but at no time before that--slaves as property was the globally accepted practice. But you just keep repeating your bogus argument as if that will make it true.
The FACTS are on my side, bubba.
You get more disgusting with each post.
Cmon by 1850 the US was in the distinct minority. You are talking 2000 years ago.
It is true that St Paul as well as most Christian leaders of the time showed no particular animosity for slavery but I suppose the the concept of “certain inalienable rights” was pretty foreign to them. It wasn’t however, in the US circa 1850.
You were accusing me of comparing different time period, your analogy has done so on a grand scale.
Broad opposition to slavery is a VERY recent phenomenon in human history. To give you an example from the history of my own family who settled in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the early 1630's. They bought some of the first slaves brought into the English colonies (in, I think, 1637). Yet, two hundred years later they were fighting the Civil War to end slavery (whether their motivation was to "defend the Union" or "end slavery" the history I have doesn't cut finely enough to tell).
But the simple fact is that even in the North, MOST people could have cared less about slavery--the MAJORITY fought to "defend the Union".
So, no, I do NOT think that "by 1850 the US was in the distinct minority"--by which poorly phrased sentence I assume you mean that slavery was opposed by a significant majority. Nothing I've ever read (and I read a LOT) indicates any such thing.
The two hundred year period from the mid-1600's to the mid 1800's is a blink of an eye in human history, for most of which time, slavery was a completely accepted phenomenon, during which "slaves as property" was a completely accepted notion.
And the thing you also have to remember was that the Constitution wasn't written in 1850---it was written in 1787--at which time the opposition to slavery was NOT "a majority position".
The civil war was more about states rights then it was about slavery although slavery was certainly part of it.
I said exactly what I meant, the United States in 1850 was a member of a minority of nations in the world that still tolerated slavery.
I thought you meant that a majority of "people in the US" were opposed to slavery.
Nonethelss--your statement as regards "nations" is also not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements
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.