Posted on 01/06/2011 5:17:20 AM PST by markomalley
Since you are trying to equate a person’s religion or race with a type of behavior I would say that you are proving that it is you who do not know what a ‘right’ is.
Also your type of thinking could easily be shown to work against you. No where does the Constitution mention many things that are currently against the law. One could easily say that murder itself is not harmful but simply a natural occurrence in line with “survival of the fittest’ (we even did have duels in early America) so by your thinking the ‘We the People’ should not have the ‘right to representation’ to decide murder as harmful either. (I do not agree of course being that it violates our ‘right to life’ but your twisted thinking could be used to say otherwise, already many libertarians and leftists already twist things to claim that abortion is not murder when it very clearly is).
At to your question of CO2 emissions I of course think that the greenies are liars and insane but if I was to say that they had no ‘right to representation’ on the issue then the same could be applied to dumping chemicals in waterways, poisonous gases into the air, etc… So of course yes there is a ‘right to representation’ on such an issue as the dangers of CO2 emissions but I being sane would vote against it.
And then you ask me to define ‘harm’ but it is you who want to have your specific definition of ‘harm’ become a dictate to the people. I simply claimed that it is ‘We the People’ who decide the definition of ‘harm’ and not some elite justices or you or your libertarian/leftist elites. There are many arguments to be made that sodomy, incest, and other types of perversions of sexuality are harmful. Let ‘We the People’ decide.
You seem to think that the Wiccan rede that you follow is written in the Constitution but it is not. You claim that we can not make laws that YOU think are not harmful. You need to take your own hint. It is YOU who are not really thinking. You’re simply believing. There is a big difference and it is obvious by your mindset.
And just to point out that this is your beliefs and not the Founders. Many of these types o laws that you believe are against the Constitution existed and were endorsed by the Founders as being left up to ‘We the People’ through our ‘right to representation’. Sodomy laws, incest laws, etc… existed and were supported by the Founders.
Lots. Do you want to criminalize adultery and toss every one who commits it into prison?
Diseases like AIDS and hepatitis?
What about far more common and just as deadly diseases like influenza and pnuemonia? Do you want to toss people who don't wash their hands or cover their mouths when they sneeze into prison?
Children of single mothers being raised by the state?
Why is the State in the business of raising children? That's the problem. Those morons f*** up everything they touch. The last thing they should be doing is raising kids.
Prostitutes plying their trade in front of businesses or homes?
It's called "zoning" and it's a local Government function, not the State's.
Again, show me in the US Constitution where the right of consenting adults to do whatever they want is enshrined.
Why it's right there in Amendment the 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any other questions?
L
So your one of these people who believes that the ninth Amendment allows people to do whatever that they want except that it denies them the ‘right to representation’ on laws. What a joke.
The 9th Amendment proves that the ‘We the People’ have the ‘right to representation on issues not that you can deny the People that right.
Which Founders? Citations please.
WE HAVE A WINNER! ! !
Shorter and more succinct than this one is hard to find:
Genetic inbreeding causes birth defects, sometimes resulting in drain bammage... and liberals that are likely to reproduce with other viable idiot mutants.
In one sense this is a good thing; otherwise we would run out of Senators, college professors, and Federal Judges.
Thanks, mmercier
The Windsors are in great shape - check out the real results of Incest (First Cousin marriages) when carried out for a thousand years.
Just look at the Saudi Royal Family. Or, any Moslim will do.
Expect some Muslims to file suit that laws against polygamy are religious discrimination against a practice that is common in a large percentage of the world's population. Expect them to win in the current legal climate.
Well using the words ‘endorsed by’ may be misplaced by me (and I have no time now to research exact positions of the Founders on these types of laws) but do you deny that laws against ‘sodomy’ and ‘incest’ existed at the time of the Founders? When did they ever oppose them as being un-Constitutional? We recently have had threads showing Washington’s position against sodomy in the Armed Forces and I have seen other posters here at FR post references to sodomy laws that were supported by the Founders.
Over the course of the coming weeks I will find time and research this more heavily being that I suspect that this will come up again.
“Expect them(Moslims) to win in the current legal climate.”
Maybe, maybe not, but in all cases, bafflegabbing a judge is one thing, but genes don’t listen well.
Thanks to both incest and their ‘faith’, Moslims are not just suffering from an inferiority complex - they are genetically inferior.
Actually, the intellectual content of all of your posts on this entire thread can be boiled down to these three words of yours, lurker.
The factors you blithely pretend do not exist in every iota of your demonstrated position - from the genetic degradations incest verifiable produces and what that means to the children produced (who should be represented somewhere in all this) to the coercive power of parents over their progeny are staggering.
I am somehow doubtful that advocating the legalization and legitimization of incest fits in with the rules and goal of Free Republic. However much it may be a personal desire of yours, it is not and never has been compatible with conservatism.
Well, I see you couldn't debate without turning to a PERSONAL ATTACK.
You have made yourself sound just like the SUBJECT of this article who personally attacked the Conservatives by 'projecting' about their 'wild' behavior, while he was spending nights humping his daughter.
I don't BELIEVE you would do such a thing, but I am THINKING you are using the same tactics he was.
Before you complain about the splinter in L's eye, maybe you should work on the LOG in yours?
I am somehow doubtful that advocating the legalization and legitimization
Legalizing isn't the same as legitimizing. Why don't you go back and reread what I've said on this thread. Feel free to move your lips as you do. I hear that helps with comprehension sometimes.
L
The story is that it all started with a snake, an apple, and a woman who was told there was something she could not do.
You’re right; a parent should care for and protect his/her child. I called that guy a PERVERTED HOG, but that’s an insult to hogs everywhere. (I’m not at a loss for words to describe him.) What will he do if his daughter ever has any children (hopefully, not by HIM)? Will he molest his grandchildren? Uneducated, really ungodly pig he is.
Thanks for giving me the thread. Terribly depressing story. Mother should have been horsewhipped.
Agreed. It’s impossible to find the words to describe how evil this is.
I think if you type ‘princess boy’ into the FR search By Title: you will get three or four threads.
#1 The 9th Amendment does not protect the rights of incest, adultery, sodomy, etc.
#2 No, I wouldn't vote to make adultery or sodomy illegal, but I and other voters have the right to make those decisions—not unelected, black-robed tyrants.
#3 I think you have an idealized view of liberty that ipso facto does not work, because homosexual sodomy was ruled a constitutionally protected act in 2003 (Lawrence v Texas). In the real world, it doesn't stop at the bedroom door.
This is precisely why law schools and the practice of law needs Christian conservative women in it. Women in general are better able to articulate emotional issues, but need the discipline of law or some other rigorous profession in order to put their words about feelings to practical use in turning around this society. And they need to be grounded in the ancient moral law of our civilization.
So far, the preponderance of women in law appears to be secular feminists like "Justice" Kagan.
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.