Posted on 05/23/2008 10:12:33 AM PDT by LeGrande
Therefore they'd be for minimal taxes and minimal government interference in their lives, but they wouldn't care about social issues.
The rest of your points would be very extreme.
“Therefore they’d be for minimal taxes and minimal government interference in their lives, but they wouldn’t care about social issues.”
OK until you got to “social issues”. The Founders would like all but the “social issues” part. Note carefully the lesson taught to one Rep. Davy Crockett by Horatio Bunce. Google it, as it is perhaps the most compelling lesson on why government is forbidden to do charity.
“They wouldn’t feel an obligation to feed the poor. Let them starve, that’s evolution at work, right? Taxes for such issues is theft, right?”
Wrong, and here is why:
A. Man is a social organism, therefore in group amity is an inherited behavioral predisposition.
B. “Taxes for such issues is theft” is incorrect. The correct version would read, “Taxes for such issues is forbidden by the Constitution.”
“They probably wouldn’t care much about support for traditional families either. Let the gays marry if they want to, maybe they’ll spread less disease. Marriage isn’t holy it’s just a contract. Polygamists? Whatever floats your boat? Government should have no say?”
Every sentence need correction, so here goes:
A. Conservatives know that the introduction of marriage as we know it started under Jewish law, specifically under Moses.
B. They also know that marriage is the basis of Western society.
C. Being Conservatives, they know better than casually changing a historically tested social mechanism which has produced the most Liberty and wealth the world has ever know.
D. Homosexuality IS abnormal, therefore Conservatives treat it as such. As for your disease theory, “Those who insist in recreating in sewers can expect to contract diseases.”, as Dr. Morton Anis said.
E. If you check, you will find that marriage to a Jew, and therefore, by extension to a Christian, is both a contract and a contract undertaken in the presence of G*d.
F. Polygamy was forbidden because having a wife makes a man out of an over-age boy. And, when one man has many wives, many men have no wife - such societies are unstable because those unmarried men have no place except as surplus males, and males without the responsibilites of a husband and father. Think “Muslim male”, as is too often the case in Muslim societies. Read Churchhill in his famous “River War” description of Islam. “There is no more retrograde force . . .”.
G. “Whatever floats your boat” was the mantra of Hippies - they didn’t have to support themselves. Respectfully, that one is a straw dog of the mange infested sort.
H. “Government should have no say.” Government should have a “say” only when one citizen’s actions impact the freedoms of other citizens, because courts exist to balance rights in conflict. They will come into conflict, due to human nature; therefore we institute government.
“If people want to destroy themselves with drugs, let them?”
Where in the Constitution do you find authorization for DEA, the War On Drugs”, ad nauseam? Duicide is still the citizen’s decision, because we are sovereign, not subjects. Subjects are forbidden suicide because in killing themselves, they are depriving the sovereign (King, ad nauseam).
Americans are individually sovereign and thus have the right to suicide.
“Just give us the right to shoot them dead if they pick a daffodil out of my front yard?”
In Texas, if they pick that daffodil out of your yard at night, you already have the right to shoot them.
What’s with all the straw dogs - do you own a kennel of ‘em?
;-)
Acceptance of, and living one’s life according to, the American Founding Documents does not require a belief in G8d. But, as Will & Ariel Durant said, for most people, such a belief is essential if theya re to succeed in living a moral and ethical life.
Don't you find it odd that all of the rest of the early polygamists had lots of contemporaneous records and lots of progeny, but JS has neither?
Emma ran some of his wives out of the house. So Smith may not practiced polygamy as much as he would have liked, but it sounds like he was practicing it, which is why Emma ran them out.
You mean she ran out the maids? I certainly think that JS might have had affairs. You have a strange definition of marriage.
DNA testing doesn't prove Smith wasn't a polygamist, it may just prove that he wasn't a very fertile polygamist.
That might be true, except that he had a number of kids through Emma. He was obviously fertile.
What little I've read indicates that only 5 of the 12 children believed to be Smith's have been DNA tested. And the testing only works on male children. So the only thing DNA testing has proved so far is that 5 males that were thought to be his, aren't.
That is correct, DNA testing has failed to identify a single descendant. Did you know that the number of people claiming to be descendants dropped precipitously when DNA testing became available? When they first started the DNA testing they anticipated hundreds of results : )
I am a former Mormon, now an atheist. I studied the early Church history with access to the Church records.
What kind of evidence would convince you? How about a revelation from God commanding Joseph Smith to enter into polygamy and commanding his wife to go along with it or be destroyed? Would that be sufficient? Sheesh!
Two things were happening, Emma was refusing to allow JS to practice polygamy, hence the revelation, then JS was killed. I have no doubt that JS would have practiced polygamy eventually, despite Emma's protests. You do know that many of the revelations were aimed at placating Emma. Emma knew where all of the skeletons were.
I musta missed that one. Maybe you could post a link?
For the visually impaired may I suggest that you start at 302 and work backwards.
Arrogance.
I have no defense against that charge : (
The FACT is that is not the only piece of evidence that demonstrates he was. But then when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail......
The 27 year old women provided both a DL and BC. That is adequate documentation. The CPS officials broke the law.
Oh, so you are prejudging them now too...inside information, can you provide documentation? (crickets) Wow, the hangman will be busy in Texas according to your imperial proclaimation.
I didn't run to the admin mod. Virginia Ridgerunner did. I prefer that the mods stay out of this. You really need to check your facts before you start spouting off and you can certainly leave the thread too.
Oh, and do you have proof or only your speculation? Wow, you own the threads now too ROTFLAICGU. If I throw a stick will you leave?
I have not been defending the FLDS beliefs or practices. Your stating that I have been makes you one sick liar. Since you insulted me personally, I definitely will try to insult you if it is possible.
You have been defending the practice of wedding and bedding young teenagers. If the shoe fits - wear it.
I object because the CPS over reached. The CPS went in looking for Sarah and found a wall of disinformation and silence so they grabbed all the girls in Sarah's age range. That was OK and justifiable, based on the distress call and warrants.
But The CPS quickly determined that the original roundup hadn't rescued Sarah. So they went back in and grabbed more kids and even adult women this time, desperate to find Sarah. Still no Sarah. So the CPS decided to simply take all of the kids, because at this point there was no turning back and they were discovering that "Sarah" might have been a prank call. The CPS was in trouble and now they are trying to justify their actions and save Texas from a huge liability.
These children were rescued and you're calling the rescuers kidnappers and clearly implying that the death penalty should be administered to them; that they should be put to death for their actions, as in posts 217 and 291.
The CPS grabbed, imprisoned, stripped, photographed and interrogated without an attorney present, adult women. That is clearly in violation of the Federal Color of Law statute. Are you stating that the CPS did not violate the law?
The women were given the opportunity to leave with the children. Some did, some went back. Would you rescue adult women against their will?
Are you stating that the women were given the opportunity to leave with all of their children? That is a lie and you know it. I know that you have been following this case closely. Why would you state a lie like that?
Notice how your post was twisted (in the last paragraph from the poster) to become a strawman the poster could use to accuse you of lying? ... This is one sick poster and best avoided.
The FACT is that is not the only piece of evidence that demonstrates he was. But then when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail......
Sounds to me like you are admitting that there is no contemporaneous evidence or DNA evidence that Joseph Smith was polygamous. Now if you would kindly break that news to the rest of your cabal members I would appreciate it.
The 27 year old women provided both a DL and BC. That is adequate documentation. The CPS officials broke the law.
Oh, so you are prejudging them now too...inside information, can you provide documentation? (crickets) Wow, the hangman will be busy in Texas according to your imperial proclaimation.
Are you denying that the CPS took adult Women into custody? I can prove that they did and that that was against the law. But before I take the time and effort to do that, I want you to be very clear on those two points.
I didn't run to the admin mod. Virginia Ridgerunner did. I prefer that the mods stay out of this. You really need to check your facts before you start spouting off and you can certainly leave the thread too.
Oh, and do you have proof or only your speculation? Wow, you own the threads now too ROTFLAICGU. If I throw a stick will you leave?
Just look at who Virginia Ridgerunner posted to when she posted to me. She posted to me and the Admin Monitor, when I replied, I replied to both as is proper.
You have been defending the practice of wedding and bedding young teenagers. If the shoe fits - wear it.
You are a liar. I have never defended the practice of wedding and bedding young teenagers.
You have knowingly made a false allegation. That makes you a reprobate. I am feeling charitable this morning : )
Have I ever said they weren't? Are you implying that I am defending that practice? What kind of sick, twisted, perverted person would imply that? You JRochelle? Are you a sexual pervert? FastCoyote and DannyTN certainly are and they are your cabal buddies.
I can twist words and cast innuendos a lot better than you can. You can try and imply something that isn't true but I am happy to call you on it.
If I wrote the laws, I would say castration followed by dismemberment and I would be willing to execute the punishment. Yes raping a child is certainly worse than kidnapping. I certainly hope that you aren't implying that I don't think that.
[That is almost correct. Law enforcement has no obligation to act until after a crime has been committed.]
So, if a LEO sees a known child molester walking down the street with a shot gun headed towards a school, the LEO has no obligation to act? Yikes, they aren’t even that weird on planet Kolob.
[I doubt that you will ever see me post an article that supports any law enforcement agency]
I might have some libertarian leanings, but what you are proposing is all the way to anarchist.
[I see that the truth hurts. Maybe you should learn not to lie or spam people with your sick twisted porn. ]
That sick twisted porn was meant to show what a twisted warped dirtbag your friend Warren Jeffs is. When people here claim there is no evidence, that puts the lie to that idea pretty quickly. But I understand, you have to scurry under a rug and pretend there is no evidence, otherwise your world collapses.
[Well, at least you don’t deny that you are a liar or a pervert, that is a start.]
]
I just wonder if the Mods ever work both sides of the aisle equally, because that seems just a slight wee tiny bit personal, like something someone would say who was thinking with their emotions rather than their brain. Or perhaps someone with Turet’s syndrome.
Joseph Smith was "practicing" polygamy long before the 1844 Revelation. I posted a sermon a couple weeks ago from one of the Mormon Prophets who stated that Joseph Smith revealed this revelation to him as early as 1837. Your contention that Joseph Smith was not "practicing polygamy" is ludicrous on its face. Maybe Emma didn't allow them to live in her house, but that does not mean that Joseph wasn't busy practicing his polygamy in the Oval Office in the Navoo and Kirtland temples. The evidence of his philandering is overwhelming. But some people refuse to see.
You do know that many of the revelations were aimed at placating Emma.... Emma knew where all of the skeletons were.
Are you speaking of Blood Atonement?
For the visually impaired may I suggest that you start at 302 and work backwards.
I think it is clear to everyone that you lost that argument.
I am not condemning the very noble goal of Texas and CPS in rescuing these people. What I am condemning is the method that they used.
First because the CPS did it improperly, the likely result is that that everyone will go back to the compound and the FLDS will be living off of the payments that the State of Texas is going to be making for a very long time.
Secondarily, but maybe more ominously, If the CPS is vindicated, their methods may become standard operating procedures and at that point our Constitutional rights will become meaningless. The precedent that this case could set could be huge. That terrifies me.
If the evidence was obtained in an illegal way, that is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and the case must be dismissed.
[The evidence of his philandering is overwhelming.]
LeGrande is making an extremely tenuous legalistic argument that Joe Smith was a serial adulterer, just not a polygamist. Given that Smith gave sermons and was the rootsource of the polygamy doctrine as well as a philanderer, this would be similar in form to arguing Hitler was not a mas murderer because no one ever saw him gassing a Jew.
But such is the type of obfuscation we can expect. Perhaps Legrande needs his own Ecumenical thread so he doesn’t have to be called on inconvenient points of logic.
Not the criminal case.
The Rangers' search warrant was separate from the one CPS got and the warrant they got covers all their evidence.
They do not believe the court fight will have any impact on the criminal investigation.
Don't mess with Texas, and the fat lady isn't even warming up yet.
Criminal investigation of polygamous sect unimpeded by court wrangling
But others have made the very good point that one third of the white population and two thirds of the black population also has men who father children with multiple women, and since these couples (or whatever they are) don't have State of Texas licensed marriages, what's the difference?
Indeed, the criminal case is quietly moving ahead. We’re not hearing much about it, because there’s no leaks. I hope they nail these people, but good.
This post calling two freepers sexual perverts is an example of how twisted this poster is ... best to avoid this one when you see what it can get away with posting on an open thread.
I will try to be patient and Kolob isn't a planet. First a convicted child molester would be breaking the law by carrying a shotgun and the officer would have a duty to arrest him. Now let us suppose the child molester is simply walking down the street headed to a school. I believe that once the Molester gets within a certain distance that he is once again breaking the law but not until he gets within that distance. The direction the molester is walking is not important.
What you are claiming is that the officer has the duty and right to arrest someone A Priori, i.e before they commit a crime, based solely on the deduction of the officer.
Arresting someone before they commit a crime or even threatening to arrest someone before they commit a crime or if they deny a search, violates the basic premise of the Constitution. Specifically the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Basically everything hinges on probable cause and the law is clear on what constitutes probable cause, A crime is witnessed by the officer or a warrant has been issued. In the case of the above mentioned child molester the police has to witness a crime before he can act. It is a very clear legal principle and I hope that I explained it in a way that FastCoyote can understand.
Now onto the CPS. The CPS had two valid search warrants and probable cause. They searched and seized, all legally except for snatching the adults. That is when the problems started, they couldn't find Sarah, whose call was the basis for the probable cause. They also failed to witness a crime or see that a crime that was imminent. A pregnant underage girl is not evidence that a crime is occurring or imminent. That was the appellate court ruling and it was correct. The correct legal response of the CPS at this time should have been to restore everything to its original state. That means returning the children if any of you are from Rio Lindo.
Now, anything that the CPS discovers will be inadmissible in court because of the poisoned fruit doctrine. Finding evidence of crimes at this stage actually shields the FLDS from prosecution, because the evidence was obtained illegally and can't be used against them in a court of law.
Those of you who are defending the CPS at this stage are inadvertently aiding the FLDS, because it is very likely that the Texas Supreme court will uphold the appellate court. Have I explained this simply enough?
I might have some libertarian leanings, but what you are proposing is all the way to anarchist.
No, I am simply trying to support the Constitution.
That sick twisted porn was meant to show what a twisted warped dirtbag your friend Warren Jeffs is. When people here claim there is no evidence, that puts the lie to that idea pretty quickly. But I understand, you have to scurry under a rug and pretend there is no evidence, otherwise your world collapses.
Now you know that Warren Jeffs is not my friend and yet you continue to libel me. That is reprehensible. At least when I call you a liar and a pervert, I am telling the truth.
No one is claiming that there is no evidence, certainly there are tons of evidence, sadly most of it will be lost. What we are claiming is that "Sarah" doesn't exist and that the entire probable cause was based on a hoax. And that the CPS exceeded their authority and violated the FLDS members Constitutional rights.
I just wonder if the Mods ever work both sides of the aisle equally, because that seems just a slight wee tiny bit personal, like something someone would say who was thinking with their emotions rather than their brain. Or perhaps someone with Turet’s syndrome.
You Cabal members are the ones who call the Mods. You shouldn't complain when they slap you.
By suggesting that I have Turet's syndrome, running dog, you are implying that when I call you a liar and a sexual deviant that I am not in control of my actions. I can assure you that I do not have Turet's.
Do any of you Cabal members, besides running dog, think that the government should be able to seize or search without probable cause? I didn't think so.
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.