Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans Should Avoid Social Issues
NewsMax ^ | 031912 | Wayne Allyn Root

Posted on 03/19/2012 11:23:44 AM PDT by Fred

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last
To: Responsibility2nd

How do you think Romney is trustworthy on social issues? He’s been pro-abortion and not only pro-”gay” rights but seriously enthusiastic about the homo agenda. I loathe Romney and will never vote for him. I’ll vote for Santorum if he’s the candidate, which I doubt he will be. He’s not a fighter and his voting record is not good at all in the fiscal/huge gov’t department. Way too compromising. You know that quote from “Conan the Barbarian”? Something about smashing the enemy, driving them in front, and hearing the wailing of their women? That’s what I want.


101 posted on 03/19/2012 5:28:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

well I do not know about any of the other stuff, but I wager a guess that Harriet Miers was to draw fire away from the ultimate nominee, Roberts, who is fan double tastic and who never would have made it had the legislators not been worn down from bashing Harriet. The whole kabuki theater was a real treat to watch.


102 posted on 03/19/2012 5:43:53 PM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

I’ll take either Santorum or Newt. Can’t STAND Romney.


103 posted on 03/19/2012 6:01:05 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Ann Coulter isn't about conservatism. Ann Coulter is about Ann Coulter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I agree. (Though it will need to take an amendment for abortion.)


104 posted on 03/19/2012 6:21:22 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

As long as we give the government power over marriage, they have power over marriage.

If you don’t like it, take the power over marriage away from the federal government and return it back where it belongs.

That’s what so many fail to realize.


105 posted on 03/19/2012 6:24:10 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

“As long as we give the government power over marriage, they have power over marriage. If you don’t like it, take the power over marriage away from the federal government and return it back where it belongs. That’s what so many fail to realize.”

Boom! Droppin knowledge!


106 posted on 03/19/2012 6:27:19 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
>> Two different arguments. I agree abortion is wrong. Where I disagree is that it’s the role of the Federal government to deal with the problem. I think Roe v. Wade should be repealed because this is a state issue, not because I want the Federal government deal with it the way I see fit. I also know that if it did go back to the states, most would ban it. <<

And how this "send it back to the states" argument of yours work when it was attempted with the slavery issue, Senator Stephen A. Douglas? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

107 posted on 03/20/2012 12:22:39 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
???

Slavery was dying out by the time of the civil war. So, by handing back to the states, the problem was solving itself. Had we kept to that, instead of having our federal government screw around with the matter, there would have been no more slavery... *AND* no civil war.

And thus, no concept of an income tax or a powerful federal government.

Once again, a good example of how federalizing matters always makes them worse; no matter how noble the intent or good the cause.

108 posted on 03/20/2012 12:24:21 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla; EternalVigilance
The problem here is you don't know your history... especially if you think slavery was "dying out" in the U.S. around 1860 and that "sending to back to the states" improved things. We were one of the last nations to abolish slavery, I think only one latin american country had a later date of 1872 or so. Most of the european countries had abolished slavery by the 1830s, and they didn't do so by "sending it back to the states". Read up about "Bleeding Kansas" and you can see exactly what happened when the federal government tried to wash their hands of it in 1858 and take Stephen Douglas' advise to "let the state decide for themselves". Epic disaster.

But since you believe that "federalizing matters always makes them worse; no matter how noble the intent or good the cause", would you support the repeal of the 2nd amendment and "sending it back to the states" to determine for themselves whether or not the citizenry in those states are allowed to have guns? States rights, right?

109 posted on 03/20/2012 3:02:16 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: BillyBoy
???

Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states. Which means the states agree with them. Why would you remove an amendment, that was agreed on by the states, as an example of states rights?

If anything, that's an example of statism.

111 posted on 03/21/2012 8:43:24 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
>> Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states. Which means the states agree with them. Why would you remove an amendment, that was agreed on by the states, as an example of states rights? <<

Really? What about all the "states rights!!!" freepers demanding the repeal of the 17th amendment? Do you agree with them? Last time I checked, it was ratified by the states, which means the states themselves voluntarily agreed to give up their right to appoint U.S. Senators. Do you think the repeal of the 17th would be an example of statism? Or do you think it would a victory for "states right!!!" If it's the latter, how do you explain your conflicting beliefs that repeal of the 2nd would be "statism"?

112 posted on 03/21/2012 8:58:17 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Your confusing the ends with the means. States rights is all about the means.

What about all the "states rights!!!" freepers demanding the repeal of the 17th amendment? Do you agree with them? Last time I checked, it was ratified by the states, which means the states themselves voluntarily agreed to give up their right to appoint U.S. Senators.

Yes, they did. And if the states want to repeal it, then it should be repealed by the states. As for those freepers (myself included), we think the 17th Amendment was a bad idea and want it repealed. So, we work to get it repealed. As it's a Constitutional amendment, there will have to be another amendment to repeal it, a la Prohibition.

Do you think the repeal of the 17th would be an example of statism? Or do you think it would a victory for "states right!!!

So the answer to that would depend on *HOW* it was repealed. Note that... *HOW* it was repealed (see how the process matters?) If the President or Congress just enacted an Executive Order or law annulling it, that would violate the Constitution... and the rights of the states. If, on the other hand, a new Amendment was added to the Constitution repealing it, then that would be great.

Same for the 2nd Amendment. If a 2/3rds majority of states want it repealed (G-d, I hope not!), then they can. Whereas all these federal gun laws that try to do so via legislation violate states rights.

That process is what separates America from the tinpot dictatorships around the world. For we are supposed to be a nation ruled by *LAW*, not by *PEOPLE*. And our supreme law of the land is the Constitution... and we better d#$n well follow it.

EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT TO OUR CONVENIENCE!!!

113 posted on 03/21/2012 12:24:40 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
>> Same for the 2nd Amendment. If a 2/3rds majority of states want it repealed (G-d, I hope not!), then they can. <<

Ah, got it. Passing 2nd amendment good. Passing human life amendment BAD:

Guaranteed national right to own a gun > Guaranteed national right to life

Needless to say, I disagree with your priorities.

114 posted on 03/21/2012 1:17:30 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

???

You make no sense.

Where does acknowledging that if 2/3rd of our states want to repeal the 2nd Amendment... equal that I support it?

Seriously, now. That is straight out of the Ayers handbook.

In essence, you are saying that recognizing the Constitution of the United States is something you reject.

Obama... is that you in disguise?


115 posted on 03/21/2012 1:42:53 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson