What it takes to be a Liberal...

[sadlier]

It appears that to be a Liberal a thinking person will qualify in at least one of the categories in the list:

1. The person is "power hungry" and seeks to rule over others.
2. The person covets other's belongings.
3. The person is selfish.
4. The person is a hypocrite.

Has anyone found this not to be the case?

[smokin68]

Looks like you're defining a "conservative" .

[acmanko]

no not a conservative, a neoconservative. there is a difference.

[sadlier]

I also notice that the liberals resort to name calling rather that just sticking with the facts. This also leads to the hypocrisy (#4) in that it was the liberals that began the phrase "end the politics of personal destruction" - yet we see how they resort to personal destruction when they cannot defend their views with logic and facts...

[acmanko]

It appears that to be a Liberal a thinking person will qualify in at least one of the categories in the list:

1. The person is "power hungry" and seeks to rule over others.
2. The person covets other's belongings.
3. The person is selfish.
4. The person is a hypocrite.

Has anyone found this not to be the case?
1. Bush
2. Big Business
3. Cheney
4. Ted

[sadlier]

1. Bush
2. Big Business
3. Cheney
4. TedYour #2 is a good demonstration of #2. The very term "Big Business" has a negative connotation. Why? Because "Big Business" is accused of having lots of money and not giving it to them. That desire to own the money which belongs to "Big Business" is called coveting - liberals are coveting "Big Business'" money. And the coveting of the money that doesn't belong to them leads to anger and hatred against "Big Business". Ironically it is anger and hatred which opposes peace and love - another hypocrisy of liberals wherein they are for 'world peace' and everyone loving everyone while being angry at "Big Business" because of the coveting. Good job in pointing out how easily liberals start falling just by coveting the money of someone else.

[sadlier]

Sounds like your talking about janesNot in particular - just trying to see if there is a liberal who doesn't fall into at least one of those categories...

[ga-hvac-tech]

O K, how about this:

#5 A liberal is someone that thinks society (that is people in general) is not smart or wise enough to take care of themselves; so someone should (or a law needs to be passed) to take care of them and make decisions for them. And oh, BTW that someone should be me...

My opinion: Liberals are about control (controlling others), at the same time their lives are a mess. The are also not about taking responsibility for themselves...

[bootlen]

Coveting means wanting something that someone else has. Not willfully sharing is called selfishness.

[sadlier]

Don't liberals want the money that "Big Business" has? Aren't they trying to pass a Windfall tax to get some of the money? Aren't they cursing "Big Business" for failing to give that money to them in the form of pay raises, bonuses, or taxes?

In clarification, I was referring to 'sharing their money with everyone' as 'sharing it with liberals who profess to represent everyone'. Those that are affiliated with the AFLCIO is an example. In rereading how I phrased it I see where you are coming from... I'll go back and clarify it.

[smokin68]

O K, how about this:



My opinion: Liberals are about control (controlling others),

more like a neo(nazi)conservative, as said earlier.









at the same time their lives are a mess.


This defines all groups.








The are also not about taking responsibility for themselves...


This I agree with, but again represents all groups(Bush finally admitted wrong)

[corny]

It appears that to be a Liberal a thinking person will qualify in at least one of the categories in the list:

1. The person is "power hungry" and seeks to rule over others.
2. The person covets other's belongings.
3. The person is selfish.
4. The person is a hypocrite.

Has anyone found this not to be the case?

sounds like an average human being to me....

[sadlier]

sounds like an average human being to me....You must be hanging with the wrong crowd...

[geerair]

I also notice that the liberals resort to name calling rather that just sticking with the facts. This also leads to the hypocrisy (#4) in that it was the liberals that began the phrase "end the politics of personal destruction" - yet we see how they resort to personal destruction when they cannot defend their views with logic and facts...Apparently you don't read the Conservlican posts here. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If the administrator banned personal insults, 99% of the Conservlicans would be rendered mute. ;) ;)

[chucko615]

Apparently you don't read the Conservlican posts here. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If the administrator banned personal insults, 99% of the Conservlicans would be rendered mute. ;) ;)


Oh really geerair! I haven't called anybody names, no matter how I"ve felt about their opinions.

[sadlier]

Apparently you don't read the Conservlican posts here. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If the administrator banned personal insults, 99% of the Conservlicans would be rendered mute. ;) ;)It was the Liberals that coined the phrase, not the Conservlicans. It would be hypocrisy for the Liberals to resort to personal destruction, not the Conservlicans, since it is the Liberals who tout how one should not utilize the "politics of personal destruction".

[geerair]

Oh really geerair! I haven't called anybody names, no matter how I"ve felt about their opinions.Well, you are one of the 1%. :)

[geerair]

It was the Liberals that coined the phrase, not the Conservlicans. It would be hypocrisy for the Liberals to resort to personal destruction, not the Conservlicans, since it is the Liberals who tout how one should not utilize the "politics of personal destruction".Really? You must have forgotten the wailing of the Conservatives about the "politics of personal destruction" during the Bork confirmation hearings.


Let's face it. Both sides of the political spectrum are raving hypocrites and have been since man organized into societies.

Your categories equally as well to Conservatives as Democrats.

To insinuate these are soley characteristics of liberals is the height of hypocrisy.

[sadlier]

Really? You must have forgotten the wailing of the Conservatives about the "politics of personal destruction" during the Bork confirmation hearings.


Let's face it. Both sides of the political spectrum are raving hypocrites and have been since man organized into societies.

Your categories equally as well to Conservatives as Democrats.

To insinuate these are soley characteristics of liberals is the height of hypocrisy.Ok, cite where a conservative was complaining about "politics of personal destruction" during the Bork hearings. You will only find where it was noted how Liberals previously squealed that the "politics of personal destruction" must end then they turn around and do the very thing they stated shouldn't be done; In other words they were being caught in their hypocrisy.

Whereas you claim that "both sides are raving hypocrites" support your claim by identifying where true conservatives are hypocrites. Don't be a typical name-calling Liberal that cannot back up your claims, ok? By the way, there was a time in which hypocrisy was a character flaw shunned by the general populous and, as such, neither side was a raving hypocrite because the people would not tolerate such character. Now days hypocrisy is the "name-of-the-game" for the liberals but still shunned by the honest Conservative.

You imply that the categories equally apply to Conservatives as Democrats. I did not say Democrats, I said Liberals. There are still a few Democrats which I don't think would fall into the list; In particular they are old Democrats. However the honest Conservative simply does not fall into the list because the honest Conservative lives by one basic rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Liberals do not live by such a simple standard, rather their standard is usually centered aroud a selfish "give me, give me, give me" attitude. We see this in their actions such as wanting government benefits ('give me something and make someone else pay for it'), taxing the "rich" at an unequal rate ('give me some benefit from their money'), strikes ('give me more money and give me less work'), property taxes ("give me your money or give me your property"), etc.

You say, "To insinuate these are soley characteristics of liberals is the height of hypocrisy." I neither insinuated nor implied that they are solely charactersistics of Liberals. Sure, there are others that would fall in to that category, too. What I said is that every liberal falls into at least one of those categories and many fall into all of the categories. If I am wrong then I'd like to see the Liberal identified.

[geerair]

Ok, cite where a conservative was complaining about "politics of personal destruction" during the Bork hearings. You will only find where it was noted how Liberals previously squealed that the "politics of personal destruction" must end then they turn around and do the very thing they stated shouldn't be done; In other words they were being caught in their hypocrisy.Here you go:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen011199.asp



Whereas you claim that "both sides are raving hypocrites" support your claim by identifying where true conservatives are hypocrites. Don't be a typical name-calling Liberal that cannot back up your claims, ok? By the way, there was a time in which hypocrisy was a character flaw shunned by the general populous and, as such, neither side was a raving hypocrite because the people would not tolerate such character. Now days hypocrisy is the "name-of-the-game" for the liberals but still shunned by the honest Conservative.What is your definition of a "true conservative" and post a list of whom you consider "true conservatives."



You imply that the categories equally apply to Conservatives as Democrats. I did not say Democrats, I said Liberals.Okay liberals.


However the honest Conservative simply does not fall into the list because the honest Conservative lives by one basic rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Who are these honest conservatives can you name them?



Liberals do not live by such a simple standard, rather their standard is usually centered aroud a selfish "give me, give me, give me" attitude. We see this in their actions such as wanting government benefits ('give me something and make someone else pay for it'), taxing the "rich" at an unequal rate ('give me some benefit from their money'), strikes ('give me more money and give me less work'), property taxes ("give me your money or give me your property"), etc.Conservatives don't partake of government benefits?

Conservatives don't want to pay less taxes and have benefits from someone elses' money?

No conservative ever went out on strike?


Property taxes? Are you against education?



You say, "To insinuate these are soley characteristics of liberals is the height of hypocrisy." I neither insinuated nor implied that they are solely charactersistics of Liberals."What it takes to be a liberal" certainly gives the impression that the characteristics are peculiar to liberals.



Sure, there are others that would fall in to that category, too. What I said is that every liberal falls into at least one of those categories and many fall into all of the categories. If I am wrong then I'd like to see the Liberal identified.Russ Feingold.

And you feel no conservative would fall into at least one of your categories?

[sadlier]

Here you go:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen011199.aspOk, so the article is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in coining the phrase. The article is not stating that they should "stop the politics of personal destruction"; It was documenting how Democrats used false claims to try to destroy a person then they began griping about "politics of personal destruction" when their 'god' was in trouble for documented acts. Try again.

[sadlier]

What is your definition of a "true conservative" and post a list of whom you consider "true conservatives."Ronald Regan is one you might recognize. Whereas he had plenty of enemies in the media, look at what those who knew him said about him, such as the White House Barber.

[JLT-III]

Here you go:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen011199.asp



I would be very suspicious of this source. I agree with you though. My take...simple, they are on BOTH sides. We are looking at the start of the new Russia if we can't see this. ...the frog in the kettle? Turn the heat up slowly, he never feels it and dies. The culprit hides behind both sides. There is a third side that plays both sides to the middle. You must never name them. To do so would be political suicide. I'll give you a hint. World bankers, media moguls, left-leaning and right stepping neo-cons. They are well on their way to destroying the country. I swear to you, it is not a right-left prob. You must turn the problem on it's side to see it correctly.

Please allow me to introduce myself...I'm a man of wealth and taste...

[geerair]

Ok, so the article is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in coining the phrase. The article is not stating that they should "stop the politics of personal destruction"; It was documenting how Democrats used false claims to try to destroy a person then they began griping about "politics of personal destruction" when their 'god' was in trouble for documented acts. Try again.What the article represents is a conservative whining about the politics of personal destruction but yet it is a weapon conservatives have perfected and raised to an artform.



Sheer conservative hypocrisy.

[sadlier]

Conservatives don't partake of government benefits?
Conservatives don't want to pay less taxes and have benefits from someone elses' money?
No conservative ever went out on strike?
Property taxes? Are you against education?
Nice try. Apply the "do unto others" rule and see where true conservatives stand.

If a person wants to pay less taxes yet get more benefits without a streamilining of the government factor then that would be the mentality of a liberal. You know, the 'give me, give me, give me' attitude. A conservative would expect less government benefits with less taxation unless there is an efficiency factor involved.

Education? Are you saying that it is fair for a childless couple to pay for other's education at the threat of losing their property if they choose not to?

[geerair]

Ronald Regan is one you might recognize. Whereas he had plenty of enemies in the media, look at what those who knew him said about him, such as the White House Barber.So a true conservative is someone who incessantly talks about family values while his own family wallows in dysfunction, supplies weapons to rogue nations, lies, disregards the law, talks a good game about reducing government and spending yet actually increase the size of the government and runs up enormous deficits.

This is your idea of a true conservative?

[ga-hvac-tech]

I think Geer may have a point here: Having said that, lets be clear that a ture conservative does not whine.

Some of you might remember that I am one that does not like politicians at all. My personal view is that some liberals have historically used the methods of politics to promote their careers in government. Recently it appears some folks we call neo-conservatives seem to do this also.

Lets sort out the diffeence between a TRUE conswervative and a politician. That may be a better place to go.

The following is all my opinion, and BTW one of the things that makes this country great is that I can have that opinion and voice it publicly w/out fearing for my life and the lives of my family/friends.

*A true conservative made their money wisely and honestly in the workplace. They may have done it by running a business, or by being an employee. But they have mastered making a living by honest business practices (not by feeding at the special interest cafe).
*A true conservative has raised a respectable family on their own BEFORE they get into politics. And they did it w/out endless government handouts.
*A true conservative seeks to share the wisdom they have learned by experiencing life; to those that have not been there yet. Kinda like mentoring.
*A true conservative would not make a career of politics. They would do what they could for the betterment of the country, and stop there.
*A true conservative believes that there is a higher power than what they can see and do in their own strength, and that this higher power (call it maturity and wisdom if you like, I call Him God) is something to be sought with zeal.
*A true conservative sees that folks all have value, and that creating a place where every person can be free to reach their dreams and goals is the better society.
*A true conservative also understands that the betterment of the community is more important than them having their own way on an issue.
*A true conservative has high standards, and does not compromise them (most important does not compromise for $$$).

Sadly, we do not have many true conservatives in public office anymore. This, IMO, speaks volumes for the mess we have in this country.

But I do think there is an answer: Traditional value systems, less worship of $$$ and materialism, and generally a spirit of community (not socialism or co-dependency). You know; Mom, apple pie, picket fences, county fairs... :D

Thoughts???

[geerair]

Nice try. Apply the "do unto others" rule and see where true conservatives stand.They stand where everybody stands........self interest


If a person wants to pay less taxes yet get more benefits without a streamilining of the government factor then that would be the mentality of a liberal. Streamlining government? You only have to look at the last three conservative presidents to see they did nothing to streamline government and in fact increased the size of the government.



A conservative would expect less government benefits with less taxation unless there is an efficiency factor involved.history doesn't support that statement.






Education? Are you saying that it is fair for a childless couple to pay for other's education at the threat of losing their property if they choose not to?You don't pay your taxes you suffer the consequences.

You don't think everyone benefits from an educated society?

How would you propose to fund public education in a manner that would be fair to all parties involved?

[geerair]

I think Geer may have a point here: Having said that, lets be clear that a ture conservative does not whine.

Some of you might remember that I am one that does not like politicians at all. My personal view is that some liberals have historically used the methods of politics to promote their careers in government. Recently it appears some folks we call neo-conservatives seem to do this also.

Lets sort out the diffeence between a TRUE conswervative and a politician. That may be a better place to go.

The following is all my opinion, and BTW one of the things that makes this country great is that I can have that opinion and voice it publicly w/out fearing for my life and the lives of my family/friends.

*A true conservative made their money wisely and honestly in the workplace. They may have done it by running a business, or by being an employee. But they have mastered making a living by honest business practices (not by feeding at the special interest cafe).
*A true conservative has raised a respectable family on their own BEFORE they get into politics. And they did it w/out endless government handouts.
*A true conservative seeks to share the wisdom they have learned by experiencing life; to those that have not been there yet. Kinda like mentoring.
*A true conservative would not make a career of politics. They would do what they could for the betterment of the country, and stop there.
*A true conservative believes that there is a higher power than what they can see and do in their own strength, and that this higher power (call it maturity and wisdom if you like, I call Him God) is something to be sought with zeal.
*A true conservative sees that folks all have value, and that creating a place where every person can be free to reach their dreams and goals is the better society.
*A true conservative also understands that the betterment of the community is more important than them having their own way on an issue.
*A true conservative has high standards, and does not compromise them (most important does not compromise for $$$).

Sadly, we do not have many true conservatives in public office anymore. This, IMO, speaks volumes for the mess we have in this country.

But I do think there is an answer: Traditional value systems, less worship of $$$ and materialism, and generally a spirit of community (not socialism or co-dependency). You know; Mom, apple pie, picket fences, county fairs... :D

Thoughts???I think you have some very good points but I also believe your list applies to most U.S. citizens regardless of their political view.

[ctrlguy]

The problem with this whole line of argument is that, on the one hand, you have political philosophies: liberal, conservative, and on the other hand, you have people who identify with one or the other philosophy. People are imperfect, so pointing out that this liberal or that conservative fails in his or her conservatism or liberalism is an argument that people are imperfect. Well there's big news. The argument, though, should be about which political philosophy yields the most benefit for the most people. I would like some of the liberals in the discussion to point out examples of successful societies based on their view of how a liberal society should be structured. For us conservatives, it seems well established that societies with the most freedom from regulation and taxation and the least interference from government are the most successful. Why do France and Germany, for example, the embodiment of socialist/liberal political thought, have perenially high unemployment rates and low rates of job creation and entrepreneurship? Why is South Korea successful and not North Korea? Why did the Soviet Union fail?

[scrogdog]

Large government is not a true conservative stance regardless of the actions of individual administrations.

What it takes to be a liberal? Well, to me, it takes the ability to put trust in individuals who show us every damn day that they are not capable of running thier own lives, making any kind of financial decisions or making any kind of moral judegments... and yet that is exactly what they seek to do.

The conservative idea is to let individuals run thier own lives instead of living under a nanny state. Why would we want politicians who are collectively among the biggest liars and losers on the planet niggle every detail of our lives?

Listen up Tinknocker... that is the difference between a neo-con and a traditional conservative. Small government and limited spending simply so that we minimize the damage and consequences from the policies and ideals of complete idiots who are not interested in you and me, but only thier own re-electability. I'm trying hard to think of one that is worth spit and I am coming up empty. Perhaps the likes of a Lieberman or McCain.

[geerair]

The problem with this whole line of argument is that, on the one hand, you have political philosophies: liberal, conservative, and on the other hand, you have people who identify with one or the other philosophy. People are imperfect, so pointing out that this liberal or that conservative fails in his or her conservatism or liberalism is an argument that people are imperfect. Well there's big news. Exactly. that is the point I have been making.





The argument, though, should be about which political philosophy yields the most benefit for the most people. I would like some of the liberals in the discussion to point out examples of successful societies based on their view of how a liberal society should be structured.The United States.


For us conservatives, it seems well established that societies with the most freedom from regulation and taxation and the least interference from government are the most successful.So when is a conservative government going to live up to these ideals?






Why do France and Germany, for example, the embodiment of socialist/liberal political thought, have perenially high unemployment rates and low rates of job creation and entrepreneurship? Even with these problems, France remains one of the world's largest economies with very low poverty rates.






Why is South Korea successful and not North Korea? Why did the Soviet Union fail?I would hardly call repressive regimes based on a dictator form of governace liberal.

[ctrlguy]

Nicely put, Scrog.

Another point: Liberals are constantly trying to increase the size and scope of the government. This seems odd, given that they typically loathe the current President. If you want a strong government, you have to be prepared not to like the people who get elected. If you don't like them and they have lots of power, you will not be happy. What's the solution to that?

[ga-hvac-tech]

I think you have some very good points but I also believe your list applies to most U.S. citizens regardless of their political view.

I agree Geer, I think in general the majority of folks in this country understand.

My question is this: WHY do we tolerate the goofballs in public office? Why do we not just vote them out and get folks that have the same value systems we do?

Curious???

[sadlier]

So a true conservative is someone who incessantly talks about family values while his own family wallows in dysfunction, supplies weapons to rogue nations, lies, disregards the law, talks a good game about reducing government and spending yet actually increase the size of the government and runs up enormous deficits.

This is your idea of a true conservative?I'll presume you're speaking of President Bush. Let's look at this:

1. Family wallows in dysfunction. Prove it.

2. Supplies weapons to rogue nations. Expound and prove it.

3. Lies. There is absolutely no evidence that he lies.

4. Talks a good game about reducing government but actually increases it. He's acting like a liberal so why moan about it?

No, Bush is not a true conservative especially from those things you've identified regarding increasing government beauracracy.

[Mr Bill]

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l286/mrbillpro/hillary1.jpg

[sadlier]

Russ Feingold.

Let's see, just looking on his website he states, "the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold". That is the Oath of Office. In that Oath of Office he is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Now looking a few paragraphs earlier he states, "The federal marriage amendment, which would write discrimination into the Constitution...". Perhaps Russ has failed to understand the Constitution. The simplest law that was held at the time of the framing of the Constitution was the Common Law. Under the Common Law marriage is only between a man and a woman. The rights of the Common Law has been preserved under the 9th Amendment. So now we see that Russ has a double standard (or ignorance) wherein he is touting the Oath of Office and how it is writing discrimination into the Constitution when the Constitution is based on the very issue he is speaking against! Perhaps that is plain old ignorance rather than a double standard, which would by hypocrisy, so give me a moment to read some more of his speaches and I'll see if it gets worse.

[sadlier]

People are imperfect, so pointing out that this liberal or that conservative fails in his or her conservatism or liberalism is an argument that people are imperfect.Yes, but look a little deeper. If a true conservative does something that is regarded as deprived in character he will try to change it and become a better person. When a liberal does any of the things in the list, all of which shows lack of character, he has no sense to improve and become a better person. In fact they are proud of their lack of character and seek to redefine good character. One example of this is Clinton lying about smoking pot then at least one liberal telling children in a school how wise it was for Clinton to lie to get in to office. A conservative would have hung his head in shame yet the Liberals hold their head high when they find themselves lacking in good character.

[acmanko]

How to you explain that conservatism is a branch of liberalism?

[sadlier]

You don't pay your taxes you suffer the consequences.

You don't think everyone benefits from an educated society?

How would you propose to fund public education in a manner that would be fair to all parties involved?Identify where in the Constitution there is an authorization for national funds to go to education. There is none. Education is a matter that should be taken up at the state level, not the national level. Eduaction can be funded through the parents (which many fund the eductaion twice - once through paying the private schools then again through taxation), the family, the extended family, the local community, charities, churches, local governments, county governments, etc.

[acmanko]

It looks like protestants and small business owners are the most liberalhttp://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism

[sadlier]

Streamlining government? You only have to look at the last three conservative presidents to see they did nothing to streamline government and in fact increased the size of the government. Are you saying that Bush#1 and Bush#2 are conservative? That's news to me. Just because they are Republican doesn't make them conservative. Regan was a Conservative and look at the spiteful congress he had to deal with. Look at the bills that Congress passed to him for signing. There was serious questions regarding the constitutionality of line-item vetos for the purpose of weeding out the riders that Democrats would put on to the bills. Yes, Regan did make a deal with congress that he would sign a bill which was in their favor (ie bigger government) IF they would reduce spending. He kept his part of the bargain but the Democrat congress would not keep their end of the bargain. That is one of the characteristics of a true conservative: They are honest and so their first thought is in presuming that others are honest. However with liberals it is the opposite: They are dishonest and so they first presume others are dishonest. They lie so they first presume others lie. They are hypocrites so they presume others are, too. Regan trusted a liberal congress and found out that they couldn't be trusted. That was the last time he trusted them at their word.

[NHMoldInspector]

Think that guns are dangerous in the hands of American citizens but believe there is no danger posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of China, North Korea, Iran or Iraq.


blame government inaction for the spread of aids yet blame personal irresponsibility for an increase in obesity.


believe publicly owned corporations are the source of repression yet advocate for bigger and more powerful government.


be against tightening up our nation's borders yet complain that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from poor Americans while also complaining that employers should be paying illegal aliens more.


condemn the NRA for advocating the Constitution while supporting the ACLU for advocating one part of it.


refer to standardized tests as racially biased while promoting racial quotas in hiring and school admissions.


believe that gender differences are learned while claiming that homosexuality is genetically pre-determined.


attack one radio talk show host for referring to black abortions as immoral because of the way he said it while sending donations to Planned Parenthood whose founder advocated government actions to prevent inferior races from mating.


Believe the same teacher who is incapable of effectively teaching your children to read or perform mathematical calculations because he or she is underpaid is perfectly capable of teaching your kids about sex.


simultaneously protest in the name of 1) protecting senior citizens' purchase power on fixed incomes and 2) raising the minimum wage.


believe the 500 channels business has given us are incapable of producing "quality programming" the way PBS can.


believe tax breaks are immoral, even though they result in government pulling in greater tax revenue, because they do not give anything back to people who don't pay taxes to begin with.

[geerair]

I'll presume you're speaking of President Bush. Let's look at this:

1. Family wallows in dysfunction. Prove it.

2. Supplies weapons to rogue nations. Expound and prove it.

3. Lies. There is absolutely no evidence that he lies.

4. Talks a good game about reducing government but actually increases it. He's acting like a liberal so why moan about it?

No, Bush is not a true conservative especially from those things you've identified regarding increasing government beauracracy.Actually I was talking about your example of a true conservative, Reagan. Then again some of that does apply to Bush as well.

[NHMoldInspector]

:p

Forget Vampires and Werewolves, The Left and the ACLU are the New Undead!!!
Yes I said it.


Anyway, let's compare the classic undead, such as vampires and werewolves to the american left and especially the ACLU.


Classic Undead;
Vampire;

A soulless creature that cowers at the sight of a crucifix and lives by sucking the blood of other creatures that it ambushes in the dark. Cannot be seen in a mirror's reflection.


American Left Undead;
ACLU Lawyer;

A soulless creature that cowers at the sight of a crucifix and lives by sucking money from the government suing Christians it ambushes. Refuses to be seen in any media interview, since the glaring light of truth shone upon the world through an honest question is the ACLU Lawyers equivalent of a mirror.


American Left Undead;
Liberal Whiner;

A soulless creature that cowers at the sight of a crucifix causing an immediate call to it's brethren at the ACLU and wants everyone to live in a dream world by sucking hardearned money away from those with drive to coddle those with no drive. Can usually be seen braiding pit hair in San Francisco or following Cindy Sheehan like a slavering moron.


Classic Undead;
Werewolf;

A diseased creature that appears normal during the day but changes hidiously during certain times of the month into an unrecognizable creature of destruction.


American Left Undead;
ACLU Lawyer;

A diseased creature that appears normal until they enter a courtroom, where they immediaately turn into a creature with hypnotic powers over judges that twists reality to attempt to switch the world to their dreamland version of reality, an example of which is the European Union. This version of reality is failing miserably.


American Left Undead;
Liberal Whiner:

A diseased creature that appears normal when you talk to them in polite company but readily becomes a raving madman at the mention of Bush, the Global War on Terror or Rush Limbaugh.


Classic Undead;
Zombie;

A soulless brain eating creature that wanders through the land randomly attacking people to further it's agenda of destroying people to consume their brains. Unable to think for itself.


American Left Undead;
ACLU Lawyer;

A soulless, brainless creature that wanders through the land looking for other brainless creatures to further it's agenda of of destroying the U.S. by brainwashing it's gullible inhabitants. Unable to think for itself.


American Left Undead;
Liberal Whiner;

A soulless, brainless creature that wanders through the land looking only at the liberal slanted media and believing that up is down, the palestinians and radical muslims are peaceful people and the war in Iraq is illegal. Unable to think for itself.


As you can see, just my cursory look at the New Undead has opened my eyes, and I am sure, your eyes also.

The only question remains is this;

Do we use stakes through the heart, silver bullets or beheadings to protect ourselves and our country?

I vote for silver bullets. A stake through the heart means you must get within their reach, and I am leaving the beheadings to the "peaceful radical muslims".


Now, how many more can you come up with?

XPOSTED@Kender's and Cao's
posted by Kender at 12:26 PM

[geerair]

Let's see, just looking on his website he states, "the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold". That is the Oath of Office. In that Oath of Office he is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Now looking a few paragraphs earlier he states, "The federal marriage amendment, which would write discrimination into the Constitution...". Perhaps Russ has failed to understand the Constitution. The simplest law that was held at the time of the framing of the Constitution was the Common Law. Under the Common Law marriage is only between a man and a woman. The rights of the Common Law has been preserved under the 9th Amendment. So now we see that Russ has a double standard (or ignorance) wherein he is touting the Oath of Office and how it is writing discrimination into the Constitution when the Constitution is based on the very issue he is speaking against! Perhaps that is plain old ignorance rather than a double standard, which would by hypocrisy, so give me a moment to read some more of his speaches and I'll see if it gets worse.Hmmmmm...... Feingold's position is upholding the constitution.

Federal Marriage amendments violate one of the most basic Constiutional rights we have, that of equal protection under the law. Also the FMA violates the establishment clause and the free exercise of religion clause, also fundamental rights given by the Constitution.

Feingold's dissent of the FMA is a shining example of the support of the Constitution and is a fine example of adhering to his oath of office.

Try again.

[geerair]

Identify where in the Constitution there is an authorization for national funds to go to education. There is none.i don't believe I ever said it was enumerated in the Constitution.




Education is a matter that should be taken up at the state level, not the national level.Yes, I believe education is fundamentally a state perogative but it is also in the nation's best interest to have a system for educating children. thus you have support from the national government.




Eduaction can be funded through the parents (which many fund the eductaion twice - once through paying the private schools then again through taxation) the family, the extended family, the local community, charities, churches, local governments, county governments, etc.And where would county and local governments find the money to fund your program?

[geerair]

Are you saying that Bush#1 and Bush#2 are conservative? That's news to me. Just because they are Republican doesn't make them conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman




Regan was a Conservative and look at the spiteful congress he had to deal with. Look at the bills that Congress passed to him for signing. There was serious questions regarding the constitutionality of line-item vetos for the purpose of weeding out the riders that Democrats would put on to the bills. Yes, Regan did make a deal with congress that he would sign a bill which was in their favor (ie bigger government) IF they would reduce spending. He kept his part of the bargain but the Democrat congress would not keep their end of the bargain. That is one of the characteristics of a true conservative: They are honest and so their first thought is in presuming that others are honest. However with liberals it is the opposite: They are dishonest and so they first presume others are dishonest. They lie so they first presume others lie. They are hypocrites so they presume others are, too. Regan trusted a liberal congress and found out that they couldn't be trusted. That was the last time he trusted them at their word.They were a liberal congress? That's news to me. No true liberal would lie.

[bootlen]

Welcome, NMHI. Two great and astute posts. Keep it up, friend!

[ga-hvac-tech]

Hey guys, I think I figured it out:

A liberal is someone that cannot see (see being defined as understand) anything beyond the tip of their own nose and what profits them now.

They just are not capable of understanding that some others are a lot wiser then they are, and as a result shut up and listen and learn.

You know, A salesperson is ultimately one who's job it is to manipulate the thinking of another for the financial gain of the former. And a salesperson is the easiest person to sell to. They can be manipulated easily; just find their "I want" button and punch it.

Wonder if a liberal is just the same: They are easy to sell 'Big Brother' to, because deep inside they really do not have the understanding of what is right, and the convictions to do it regardless of the price.

I think it was Patrick Henry that said something to the effect that he really did not want fellow citizens in this country he was founding who would rather have a government give them a false sense of security; than fellow countrymen that would fight for true freedom.

[bootlen]

And a salesperson is the easiest person to sell to. They can be manipulated easily;

Well, gee. I feel so much better now. :(

[ga-hvac-tech]

Well, gee. I feel so much better now. :(

Sorry Boot, please do not shoot the messenger... :D

[NHMoldInspector]

I don't know...I agree with most of your post but if you manipulate me it is only because I felt bad for you and thought it would be nice to let you have one to feel good about yourself,,<<salesperson. Though many are manipulative I chose to just have the best and the products sell themself...but I am not a hard closing salesperson...I just have the attitude that everyone needs my products and if you don't buy it , your loss. I guess I don't count though, since I am not a libtard.

Though I will definitly agree that liberals don't understand that reality isn't subjective to belief. What is, is, no matter how many lies a liberal tells about it.

Anyway, good post though.

www.liberalwhiners.com has some good links it seems like it is under construction, that is where I got the above post originally but I found it somewhere else.

Have a great night guys.

[sadlier]

Hey guys, I think I figured it out:

A liberal is someone that cannot see (see being defined as understand) anything beyond the tip of their own nose and what profits them now.

They just are not capable of understanding that some others are a lot wiser then they are, and as a result shut up and listen and learn.Actually I'd have to disagree. I've worked with plenty of liberals and your description doesn't fit any of them. With those I've worked with it appeared that the differences boiled down to a few core characteristics that are different than a conservative's core characteristics. Some of the basic attitudes are, "I want what serves me best", and, "They're out to screw us".

[NHMoldInspector]

oh, and don't forget a liberal will charge you with two counts of murder for shooting a woman a month pregnant, but execute 30 million babies and call it a choice. Or at 7 months a fetus...

And a liberal will say that the majority of America is pro gay marriage when in fact there are at least 37 state ammendments banning it. Libs need to loosen yonderr chinstrap and get off the little bus....37 is more than half of 50...hehe...I saw a liberal definition list too , I will go find it and post it.

[NHMoldInspector]

Welcome To LiberalSpeak.com
LiberalSpeak ---> English
Listen and remember to hear not only what liberals say but what they really mean.


"Right to privacy" - Abortion

"Heteronormative" = Making comments too specific to only heterosexual relationships

"Progressive" = Left Liberal or Socialist

"Radical" = Conservative

"Undocumented Immigrants" = Illegal Aliens

"Special interest groups" = Non-liberal groups

"Monopoly" = Any corporation with market cap over $500 million

"Fundamentalist" = Conservative

"Greed" = Profit motive

"Rigid Ideologue" = A conservative who stands on principles.

"Compromise" = Agree with liberal agenda

"Affirmative Action" = Racial Preferences

"Lies" = "Policy Differences"

"Patriotism" = "Judgement"

"Racism" = "Anyone who Disagrees with Us"

"Fascism" = "We don't have a clue what it means, but we use it anyway"

"Assault Weapons" = Any Firearm including scary looking guns with a military appearance. The functionality of said guns is irrelevant.

"Cut" = Reduction in the rate of growth

"Pandering" = What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don't like. Usually applies to the NRA or religious right.

"Coddling" See "pandering."

"Health Care" = Abortion rights

"Unconstitutional" = "we don't like it."

"Open Minded" = "Subscribes to Liberal Dogma"

"Profiteering" = Not losing money

"Managed competition" = Government takeover

"Overheated economy" = Prosperity

"Fully fund" = Write a Blank check

"Diversity" = Lock step conformity with liberal agenda

"Closed-minded" = Does not agree with liberal agenda

"Right wing extremist" = Please See 'closed-minded' & 'extremist'

"Social responsibility" = Force someone else to pay for it

"Socially responsible investments" = Invest in money-losing ventures that liberals failed to get taxpayer funding for

"Welfare for the rich" = What people have left after taxes

"Corporate welfare" = Gross revenue minus taxes

"Corporate subsidy" = See 'corporate welfare'

"Deserving poor" = People who vote for liberals

"Tax the rich" = Tax anyone with a job

"Multiculturalism" = America is responsible for all the world's ills and is inferior to all other cultures

"Choice"= The right to terminate (kill) your unborn child, but does not include the right to decide where your child will attend school if he or she survives "choice". Choice to carry a firearm for self-defense? No! Choice to privatize your Social Security? No!

"Oversight" = Government

"Working Americans" = Only lower and middle class Americans

"Conduct a review" = Strategic delay.

"Exploit" = Employ

"Consistent ethic of life" = "We’re not really pro-abortion, but we’re embarrassed by the Church’s pro-life teachings because it places at odds with our favored party, the Democrats.”

"Militants" = Islamofascists

"Insurgents" = Terrorists

"Freedom Fighters" = Please see "Militants" and "Insurgents".

"Decriminalization" = Legalization

"Regulate" = Ban

"Unilateral Action" = "A small coalition of the "bribed and coerced".

"Undermining democracy" = When any Republican legislation passes.

"Assault" = Republican/conservative legislation on civil rights, medicare, welfare, social security, etc.

"Unprecedented" = Anything a conservative does to challenge thirty years of liberalism.

"The constitution is a living document." = The Constitution is malleable enough to be reworked at the whim of the courts.

"Deficit Reduction" = Tax Hike

"Mean-spirited" = Any Republican attempt to roll back the welfare state or any entitlements

"At risk youth" = Any kid likely to become a criminal. This phrase is used when pushing for spending for some social
program.

"Hate rhetoric" = Criticism of liberals.

"Angry white male" = A white male who voted Republican/conservative.

"Racism" = Opposition to anything a minority wants.

"Gun lobby" = National Rifle Association (NRA)

"Religious right" = Conservatives who believe in God.

"Extremist" Anybody who opposes anything a liberal wants.

"Guns on the street" = Private ownership of firearms. Also includes guns locked inside cabinets.

"Bipartisanship" = When "moderate" and/or "Rino" Republicans go along with the liberal agenda.

"Tax breaks for the rich" = Any Republican tax plan.

"War on the poor" = See "Tax breaks for the rich."

"Democracy" = Liberal legislation

"Criminal's gun of choice" = Whatever class of firearm the liberals are trying to ban at the moment. Crime statistics concerning
the particular weapons are irrelevant.

"Contributions" = Taxes

"Stolen election" = When the Republican candidate gets more votes than the Democrat candidate.

"Progressive" = Socialist

"Independence Card" = A government debit card to replace food stamps.

"Discrimination against poor women" = When republicans pass legislation

"American People" - Democrats, all others fall into the right-wing conspiracy camp who aren't considered American, and have no 1st Amendment
rights.

"Pat Buchanon Republicans" = Racist bigoted Republicans. Please see 'Extremists".

"Moral Victory" = Voters approved ponzi socialist scheme

"Christian Right" = People who go to church and vote.

"Gun nut" = Any person who owns a gun.

"Enlightened" = Those that openly protest or boycott Conservative or Libertarian agenda

"Tools" = Money

"Ultra Conservative" = A person who is too conservative.

"Womens Rights" = Supporting the right to destroy a fetus for any reason, including personal convenience.

"Fetus" = An unborn child that is to be aborted.

"Baby" = An unborn child that is not to be aborted.

"Censorship" = A government's refusal to fund a work of art

"Sexist" - A man who disagrees with women who hold liberal views.

"Victims": = The liberals target constituency....Black people and women, but essentially members of every group, except heterosexual males and ethnic groups that tend to hold conservative
views.

"Homophobe" = A person who believes that man-woman love and marriage ought to be society's ideal.

"Investment" = We want to spend more of your money.

"Filthy Rich" = A person who works two jobs.

"Obscenely Rich" = A person who employs others.

"Intolerance" = Disagreeing with the liberal point of view.

"Propaganda" = Facts and data that supports an opposing view.

"So and so has an agenda" = A person who disagrees with a liberal.



"Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."

Ronald Reagan:o

[sadlier]

Federal Marriage amendments violate one of the most basic Constiutional rights we have, that of equal protection under the law. Also the FMA violates the establishment clause and the free exercise of religion clause, also fundamental rights given by the Constitution.Oh? Explain how the Equal Protection clause applies to gay marriage. Do you even know where that is found in the Constitution? Have you even read the Constitution lately, or better yet, studied the Constitution???

How does the FMA violate the establishment clause of the Constitution? Do you even know where that is found in the Constitution or are you just regurgitating what you've heard? In no way does the FMA violate the establishment clause and I hold you to prove otherwise.

Fundamental rights of the Constitution??? The Constitution is founded on the principle that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It is plain as day in the common law! Go see for yourself by reading about marriage in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law. And since you don't know who Blackstone was, he was a chief justice in England and taught the common law. He taught in such a simple manner that even you and Russ could understand the Common Law. He published some of his lectures on the Common Law in his commentaries book only a decade before the Constitution was founded. His Commentaries was a very highly regarded book for learning about the Common Law and was one of the first books in the Library of Congress. It was a very common book among the early congressmen and was highly regarded in the lawmaking process. Yet now you're coming along and trying to say that the FMA somehow violates the Constitution??? You don't know the Constitution, do you!?!

[sadlier]

oh, and don't forget a liberal will charge you with two counts of murder for shooting a woman a month pregnant, but execute 30 million babies and call it a choice. Or at 7 months a fetus..An exellent example of liberal hypocrisy.

[NHMoldInspector]

Free religion clause....

You know what irks me. The first ammendment says "the govt shall make no law regarding AN establishment of religion" It doesn't say "THE establishment of, so the context means one pre existing. Then we get into the issue that the separation was only so there would be no denominational superiority amongst Christians. They never thought it would get raped like this.

Then it is the athiests and agnostics who supposedly founded the country which is a bunch of Bull$#!+. How is this, there was 51 of the 55 signers of the declaration of Independance proclaimed they were Jesus freaks...

Here are just a few liberal slappers with references.

[NHMoldInspector]

Quotes of the Founding Fathers!

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

[NHMoldInspector]

Justice Joseph Story said:

“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]




Noah Webster said
:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

“Education is useless without the Bible” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]




This is a prayer excerpt from Washington's diary:

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."

John Adam's said:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “July 4th ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”


“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.


John Quincy Adams said

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.


Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence said:

" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

At the Constitutional convention of 1787 Ben Franklin said:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”

He is reciting scriptures from the bible...the sparrow falls is from Matthew and the rest is two OT verses that he paraphrased and added words to.


In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton

• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock said:

“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"


Patrick Henri Said:

This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay said:

“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

[NHMoldInspector]

Thomas Jefferson Said:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston said:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison said:

We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government

James McHenry - A signer of the Constitution said:

Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

Jedediah Morse:

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787




William Bradford Wrote this about what they were seeking when they came to America"
wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

From the Mayflower Compact:

“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

New York Spectator. August 23, 1831
“ The court of common pleas of Chester county, [New York] rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.

New England Primer: | Photograph of The New England Primer reprint
Used in public and private schools from 1690 to 1900 second only to the Bible
Some of its contents:
A song of praise to God
Prayers in Jesus’ name
The famous Bible alphabet
Shorter Catechism of faith in Christ

:eek: :D ;)

g'nite

[glennac]

Holi Smoke NHMI, you can talk the horns off a bill goat. I'm glad you are on our side. I think it might be impossible to get to the brain dead like Ace, tenhead, corny, etc. Keep it up we need fresh blood in this battle to preserve what little we have left of freedom and Western Culture. ;) ;)

[sadlier]

Here's what Russ Feingold says.

His is for increasing the Minimum Wage. Where in the Constitution does it give the congress authority to dictate how much an employer must pay?

He proposed a bill that would "increase penalties for employers who seek to unlawfully undermine the union organizing process." Where in the Constitution does it empower congress to dictate whether a company can lay-off or fire a person at their discretion?

He supports Federal Job Training. Where in the Constitution does it give congress the authority to provide welfare for specific people?

He is "proud to support the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child without fear of losing their jobs." This is hypocrisy. At one point he is for "equal protection for gays" but now he is for discriminating against those that aren't having anything to do with children and don't have any health issues! Why not follow out his unconstitutional interpretation of Equal Protection to allow ANYONE to have 12 weeks unpaid leave? Even so, where in the Constitution does it empower congress to mandate business practices, especially one which may be detrimental to a business?

He is "also a cosponsor of S. 840, the Fair Pay Act of 2003, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that employers base wages on skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions." Oh, where in the Constitution does it empower congress to mandate this?

He has "supported efforts to provide adequate funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the primary source of federal child care grant assistance to the states." And once again, where in the Constitution does it authorize congress to provide specific welfare to a group of people??? NOWHERE!

So here we have a congressman who is under oath to uphold the Constitution yet he is supporting a myriad of bills which are not permitted under the Constitution. This is one fine example of why only people with integrity and character should be voted for: They will uphold their oath unlike Russ. Anyhow, the question now becomes: Why would Russ support so much legislation in violation of the Constitution? For votes, of course. So if he is doing it for votes only then that would classify under #1, Power Hungry. He's not there to do what is correct, he is there to do what it takes to stay in office. His oath is required to come first yet he sets it aside for power.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Well NH Mold Insector, I think you have painted a convincing picture that many of the founding fathers were devout ot thier Christian Faith (a view that you and I share BTW, I just do ont have the proof at my finger tips).

Thank you for posting those quotes, a good read and a qelcme refresher to keep one's mind clear of deception of the truth of history of our great country.

BTW--It is said that Ben Franklin was the most liberal of the whole bunch back then. Would anyone have believed that based on the quotes above?

A thought for the readers: If I were going to produce counterfeit money, would I make pink $3 bills? Of course not. I would make bills that were as close to the real thing as possible. But if I introduced a little flaw, noticed by only the few very observant, would the flaw be accepted? After all, everyone accepts them as money, who cares??? And then if I introduced another flaw a few years later, would that also be accepted? Now lets carry this over a generation or two. The dollar bill could be significantly different, but nobody would notice, because they were accustomed to minor changes.

I believe it is also true with morality and character of life. If we tolerate a little deviation this week, and next month a little more, and next year more; how long will it be before we are accepting things that are obviously and seriously wrong...

And could this be part of what is wrong with our country???

[geerair]

Oh? Explain how the Equal Protection clause applies to gay marriage.No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Do you even know where that is found in the Constitution? Fourteenth amendment


Have you even read the Constitution lately, or better yet, studied
the Constitution???From what I have seen of your posts I have read and studied the constitution much more extensively than you.


How does the FMA violate the establishment clause of the Constitution? Some religious groups support same sex marriage, the practical effect of the FMA would be to give constitutional endorsement to some religions while denying the free exercise rights of others. This would be in effect favoring one religion over another.

Favoring one relligion over another is a clear violation of the establishment and the free exercise clauses.



Do you even know where that is found in the Constitution or are you just regurgitating what you've heard? First amendment



In no way does the FMA violate the establishment clause and I hold you to prove otherwise.already done. See above.



Fundamental rights of the Constitution??? The Constitution is founded on the principle that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It is plain as day in the common law! Go see for yourself by reading about marriage in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law. And since you don't know who Blackstone was, he was a chief justice in England and taught the common law. He taught in such a simple manner that even you and Russ could understand the Common Law. He published some of his lectures on the Common Law in his commentaries book only a decade before the Constitution was founded. His Commentaries was a very highly regarded book for learning about the Common Law and was one of the first books in the Library of Congress. It was a very common book among the early congressmen and was highly regarded in the lawmaking process. Yet now you're coming along and trying to say that the FMA somehow violates the Constitution??? You don't know the Constitution, do you!?!If as you assert the Constitution is "founded on the principle that marriage is only between a man and a woman" then what need is there for the FMA?

[geerair]

Free religion clause....

You know what irks me. The first ammendment says "the govt shall make no law regarding AN establishment of religion" It doesn't say "THE establishment of, so the context means one pre existing. And?




Then we get into the issue that the separation was only so there would be no denominational superiority amongst Christians. They never thought it would get raped like this.It has been interpreted consistently by the supreme Court to mean that the government must not favor one religion over another or interfere with the free exercise of religion.

It means all religions not just Christianity.

[geerair]

Thomas Jefferson Said:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”


“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison said:

We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government

James McHenry - A signer of the Constitution said:

Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

Jedediah Morse:

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787




William Bradford Wrote this about what they were seeking when they came to America"
wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

From the Mayflower Compact:

“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

New York Spectator. August 23, 1831
“ The court of common pleas of Chester county, [New York] rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.

New England Primer: | Photograph of The New England Primer reprint
Used in public and private schools from 1690 to 1900 second only to the Bible
Some of its contents:
A song of praise to God
Prayers in Jesus’ name
The famous Bible alphabet
Shorter Catechism of faith in Christ

:eek: :D ;)

g'niteInteresting quotes but in the context of the Constitution they mean nothing. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of god or a government of religious laws.


The founding fathers had all suffered under a government that intermingled religion and government and specifically added the first amendment to ensure that the government and religion would not become intermingled and that freedom of religion and freedom from religion would be available to all.


I'm sorry you went to all this bother only to discover it was all for naught. But then maybe some received spiritual uplift from these quotes. :)

BTW-Could you post the website from which you obtained these quotes.

[scrogdog]

Interesting quotes but in the context of the Constitution they mean nothing. The Constitution is a secular document with no mention of god or a government of religious laws.

Exactly.

Why is it, do you think, that our founding fathers are so revered? It is because they could come up with such a fine document as the constitution WITHOUT personal beliefs getting in the way of how things should be.

Think about that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (watch :))... if you want to understand the intent of our forefathers with regards to the writing of the Constitution of the United States of America, then you would be wise to start with the 85 essays known as The Federalist Papers, If you come away from that reading with the idea that the Constitution was based on ANY religious belief, let me know right away and we'll debate it. :)

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

[geerair]

Here's what Russ Feingold says.

His is for increasing the Minimum Wage. Where in the Constitution does it give the congress authority to dictate how much an employer must pay?United States Constitution article 1, section 8, clause 3. Commonly known as the Commerce Clause.



He proposed a bill that would "increase penalties for employers who seek to unlawfully undermine the union organizing process." Where in the Constitution does it empower congress to dictate whether a company can lay-off or fire a person at their discretion?United States Constitution Article 1, section 8, clause 3. commonly known as the Commerce Clause.


He supports Federal Job Training. Where in the Constitution does it give congress the authority to provide welfare for specific people?United States Constitution Article 1, section 8, clause 3. Commonly know as the Commerce Clause.




He is "proud to support the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child without fear of losing their jobs." This is hypocrisy. At one point he is for "equal protection for gays" but now he is for discriminating against those that aren't having anything to do with children and don't have any health issues! Why not follow out his unconstitutional interpretation of Equal Protection to allow ANYONE to have 12 weeks unpaid leave?They can if they meet the requirements of the law. Discrimination is not allowed on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.





Even so, where in the Constitution does it empower congress to mandate business practices, especially one which may be detrimental to a business?United States Constitution article 1, section 8, clause 3. Commonly know as the Commerce Clause.








He is "also a cosponsor of S. 840, the Fair Pay Act of 2003, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that employers base wages on skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions." Oh, where in the Constitution does it empower congress to mandate this?Article 1, section 8, clause 3.









He has "supported efforts to provide adequate funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the primary source of federal child care grant assistance to the states." And once again, where in the Constitution does it authorize congress to provide specific welfare to a group of people??? NOWHERE!United States Constituton Article 1. section 8. Powers of Congress.








So here we have a congressman who is under oath to uphold the Constitution yet he is supporting a myriad of bills which are not permitted under the Constitution. This is one fine example of why only people with integrity and character should be voted for: They will uphold their oath unlike Russ. Anyhow, the question now becomes: Why would Russ support so much legislation in violation of the Constitution? For votes, of course. So if he is doing it for votes only then that would classify under #1, Power Hungry. He's not there to do what is correct, he is there to do what it takes to stay in office. His oath is required to come first yet he sets it aside for power.Of course all of these "myriad bills" are covered by the Constitution which means Feingold is indeed upholding his oath to support the Constitution.

Which means your diatribe against Feingold is invalid.

[NHMoldInspector]

Four years after the Declaration of Independace was signed a bill was passed making it manditory for all schoolds to teach the Bible...what about the separation? Why did you have to be a declared Christian to hold a public office after the "separation"? What they ran from was denominational persecution not religious persecution so if you look at it like you said in the context of what was happening...it was unheard of to not be Christian in those days, the divider was what kind. Catholic , episcople, etc...So ya, in the context for which it was written liberals are nothing but liars who warp the constitution!

As if that isn't enogh I think Patrick Henri summed it up when he said,

"“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

Look it up.

It says asylum, not control!

[ga-hvac-tech]

One of you may need to help me on this one.

I am thinking it was Thoman Jefferson, but it might have been another that said:

When we degrade this fine country to enforcing the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, we have written our own obituary.

What I read there is that the wisdom that was prevalent in the minds of the founding fathers was waaay beyond proving a point by citing a written statement.

No, they were men that had strong convictions based on long hours of study and thought. And they also were men that had experienced an abundant amount of life, both enjoyable and sorrowful. They did not seem to be men that were quick to trendiness, and they do not appear to be men that were swayed by pubilc opinion.

No, they understood that a higher power was clearly evident when one looked byeond the simple things. These were ture leaders (something we do not have much of now-a-days).

I agree with the mold inspector: We need to seriously study the intent of the founding fathers to understand what they wrote in the constitution. Otherwise, we will only be mouthing off simplistic ideas that probalby are nowhere near what was truely being written.

Example: If I say: Please go to the store and get me a loaf of bread, what does that mean? Does it mean to go to Kroger's and buy white bread? Or does it mean to go to Whole Foods and buy Nature's Own Multi-Grain? And obviously there is a difference in quality between the two breads. Now if someone knew me, they would know that I am serious about nutrition and would not eat white bread, because I believe it is lacking in nutritional food value. And because they know me, they would know that I meant the latter shopping trip. I believe it is the same with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We need to understand the viewpoints of the writers before we can understand the writings.

Thoughts???

[geerair]

Four years after the Declaration of Independace was signed a bill was passed making it manditory for all schoolds to teach the Bible...what about the separation? Why did you have to be a declared Christian to hold a public office after the "separation"? What you are missing is that the Consatitution was not ratified until 1791 and later still adopted by the states.

The Colonial states did pass numerous religious laws and some states even had official state religions. However, after the Constitution was ratified these state laws fell by the wayside.

Some states moved toward separation of church and state even before ratification of the Constitution.





What they ran from was denominational persecution not religious persecution so if you look at it like you said in the context of what was happening...it was unheard of to not be Christian in those days, the divider was what kind. Catholic , episcople, etc...The context was that the Constitutional framers desired a nation that allowed religious freedom and the freedom to pursue any religious view or none at all. To this end they included in the Constitution guarantees that the government would remain neutral with regard to religion.





So ya, in the context for which it was written liberals are nothing but liars who warp the constitution!I doubt of Scrogdog would appreciate being called a liberal.







As if that isn't enogh I think Patrick Henri summed it up when he said,

"“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

Look it up.

It says asylum, not control!No one has ever been able to find this quote in the papers of Patrick Henry or any account of it in colonial papers or in any writings of that time.

The quote is almost certainly a forgery.



I would not be surprised if the some of the other quotes you have posted are bogus as well.


Your source either directly or indirectly seems to be David Barton who has a reputation for using fabricated, out of context or unreliable material.

[NHMoldInspector]

Ya, an easy answer since neither of us have had time to go to the library of congress and check. However, originally there was an elapsed version of that was said to be a forgery on some libtard page and the reference was added as a retort. All of those quotes with references are able to be referenced...to bad no liberal ever dare look!

[ga-hvac-tech]

An interesting example of human nature:

In the Biblical scolars community, it is well known of a Jewish historian named Josephus. He is considered to be one of the leading authorities of Jewish history during the times of Biblical stories and the writing of the Bible.

If one reads his works; it is interesting that he totally omits the incident of the golden calf in the winderness between Egypt and the Promised land.

Hmmm, so here we have evidence that a historian would consciously alter the facts to suite his/her views.

OK, fast forwad a ways: Since most historians tend to be liberals, would it be too far a stretch to suggest that there could have been some tampering of the facts??? Especially towards the left???

After all, who amoung us does not 'put forth their best foot', even though it may not be 100% accurate???

Finding accurate accounts of history requires lots of research. One needs to study from numerous (as in as many as can reasonably be found) sources. Then one needs to carefully evaluate the integrity and character of the sources to verify that the writer was/is above what was mentioned concerning Josephus. Only AFTER that level of research, would one be able to accurately and wisely say that they have a definitive accounting of history.

SOO: Who amoung us had done that research?

Personally, I can say I have when it comes to Bibilcal times history.

[NHMoldInspector]

Ya, I have all of antiquities and war of the Jews etc, but even as a Jewish historian there are points made about Jesus that some would claim false...like when Josephus said he was the messiah... I am thankful that the discovery of the dead sea scrolls backed up the integrity of the Scriptures people prevfiously argued were twisted by the Catholics...not the case. I am 2 yrs into a Grad of theology program but I have 2 yrs to go...kinda on the backburner right now.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Ya, I have all of antiquities and war of the Jews etc, but even as a Jewish historian there are points made about Jesus that some would claim false...like when Josephus said he was the messiah... I am thankful that the discovery of the dead sea scrolls backed up the integrity of the Scriptures people prevfiously argued were twisted by the Catholics...not the case. I am 2 yrs into a Grad of theology program but I have 2 yrs to go...kinda on the backburner right now.

Wow Moldy,

I wish I had the time to do that degree. Most of my studies were/are because it facinates me.

Did you learn Coine Greek and fiddle with the Greek verb tenses?

[NHMoldInspector]

I do Greek word studies, but you are confusing a masters of theology. In most cases the Grad of theology is a 4 yr certificate program that excludes the other classes. A masters in theology is a degree, this is a diploma program. I always check the greek when a contraversy pops up. It would be nice to let you assume I know more than I do, but I am too honest for that. I know many "Grad of" programs may be but this one isn't it deals with doctrines, cults, scripture, ministerial ethics, and examining each book in depth...and yes it does go into the greek but I definitly don't know it fluently. I look it up on a cases by case basis. A Grad of ecclesiology is similar. It requires no prior college and leaves out all the other courses. I still have 2 more yrs to do...it is accredited but I do it via correspondence.

[ga-hvac-tech]

THX for the reply there NMHI,

The program you are in sounds interesting! Would you mind sending me a link to the home site for the program?

Home dot Service at CHS-Inc dot net

And since you are new here; the CHS stands for Christian Home Service, Inc.

I grew up in a church where the pastor did the greek all the time. He would explain how the particular verb tense affected the meaning of the word. Then he would go on to explain how that changed the translated meaning of the Scripture.

Now on a few passages, I think he was off the path. But back in the 60's, anyone that really understood Grace was pretty progressive.

I never really learned greek either, but I have all the reference books necessary to do serious exegiting of Scripture.

Have a GREAT rest of the weekend!

[mrfixit-ms]

This post was great..You will never convince the Psudo-intell any thing. It boils down to My MIND is made up and do not confuse me with facts. Love to see the people who have been responsible for the degrading of american life get a history lesson.

[geerair]

Ya, an easy answer since neither of us have had time to go to the library of congress and check. However, originally there was an elapsed version of that was said to be a forgery on some libtard page and the reference was added as a retort. All of those quotes with references are able to be referenced...to bad no liberal ever dare look!From wikiquote: "This has been cited at some sites as being in a speech to the House of Burgesses in May 1765, but the date and the quote both seem spurious; it is extremely anachronistic to have Henry speaking of the colony of Virginia in 1765 as a "nation" that afforded "peoples of all faiths "the freedom of worship."

Reference added as a retort? The reference was added as an attempt to add legitimacy to a fabricated quote. This is a common practice of the christian historical revisionism industry. Only weak-minded religious zealots fall for this kind of flim-flam.

[jpb2]

1. Bush
2. Big Business
3. Cheney
4. Ted

Get a job. You do not have a clue .

[allniter728]

a couple of diferrences not yet mentioned between conservatives and liberals .a cons wants as little gov as possible running his life and a liberal wants to enact laws to run your life.conservatives want to work hard and and get ahead ,liberals want everyone to get ahead regardless of effort.conservatives can manage their own money and liberals want to redistribute a conservatives hard earned money to those without.liberalism is just a step below communism.

[sadlier]

No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [regarding the FMA]"Equal Protection". How does the FMA fail to protect gays? Is it permitting people to beat them up? No. Your one line senteced failed to explain anything.

[geerair]

"Equal Protection". How does the FMA fail to protect gays? Is it permitting people to beat them up? No. Your one line senteced failed to explain anything.In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.

[glennac]

"Equal Protection". How does the FMA fail to protect gays? Is it permitting people to beat them up? No. Your one line senteced failed to explain anything.


Sadlier with all do respect I don’t think you will find much if any support for your issues on this form. Maybe you should go to on MoveOn.org., they would tend to agree with you. Give us a break.:eek: :eek:

[oloenneker]

Sadlier with all do respect I don’t think you will find much if any support for your issues on this form. Maybe you should go to on MoveOn.org., they would tend to agree with you. Give us a break.:eek: :eek:

Uh, Glen, ya might want to actually READ his posts...

He's way over on your side of things...

I doubt he will find any sympathy at MoveOn.org...


But then again, you're just a James protoge, spout now, think later.

[glennac]

Sadlier, I'll take that back. I was tired of at lot of long posts and I got your position on gay marriage turned around. Your just fine and I am one of the few on this form will admit to a mistake when I make one and I have in the past and sure I will in the future but at least I’ll own up to them. Carry on you got my support. Sin Loy (sorry about that).:D

[sadlier]

Some religious groups support same sex marriage, the practical effect of the FMA would be to give constitutional endorsement to some religions while denying the free exercise rights of others. This would be in effect favoring one religion over another.

Favoring one relligion over another is a clear violation of the establishment and the free exercise clauses.:D:D:D That's so screwy it's humorous! Under the same logic, then, we need to change the laws regarding murder since it is a religous belief of Muslims that unbelievers should be killed... And we can't have the laws just favor Christian and Jewish religons now, can we???? And under satanic religons human sacrifice still goes on and we can't have the laws discriminate against them too, right??? So you must be for removing the laws on murder so those religons can exercise their free beliefs, right?

In case you forgot to read a previous post on the matter (which you probably read but ignored), the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You once again changed the constitution from "an establishment" to "the establishment"; The terms are not interchangeable. Furthermore we are to understand that each and every word of the constitution was placed there for a purpose (you know, that Marbury v. Madison ruling which you also studied, but not really). 'An' was intentionally placed there instead of 'the' so that we cannot screw up what they were meaning; Yet liberals still try to screw up the simple statement. So here is a simple primer in English:

read the Amendment closely: "CONGRESS shall make no LAW..." It doesn't say anything about a STATE making the law nor Congress making a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on the matter, but just simply one group of people (congress) shall not make a law "respecting AN establishment of religion". If they meant to use the word, 'the', they would have used it. But they didn't. They said, "AN establishment of religion". They also didn't say, "establishment of A[N] religion". It says "an establishment of religion". The "of religion" portion is a preopsitional phrase which describes "establishment". For clarification the prepositional phrase can be left out to make a simpler sentence. Thus it would read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment" (understanding that the definition of establishment would be more like, 'creation'). However the simpler sentence is vague without the prepositional phrase to tell us what they are not to establish. The statement also does not PROHIBIT them from making other establishments, such as 'an establishment of jacka$$es' (ie DNC); Just an establishment "of religion" is prohibited. That would be a state-sponsored religon. We have seen that happen back in England long before the Constitution was framed. So there you have it: the Amendment is simply stating that congress (but not the states) cannot make a law which creates a religon. Does that mean they cannot pray in meetings? Of course it doesn't - praying in meetings is not a law and it is a LAW that they cannot pass. Does that mean they cannot display the 10 commandments? Of course not! Displaying the 10 Commandments is not a law but an act performed without the passing of a law. Remember that it is a LAW that congress cannot pass that establishes a religion. So can congress pass a law REQUIRING the 10 Commandments to be displayed? No, that would begin to establish a religion. If they want to display it they must do it without the passing of a law which would also include passing a law for funding of it. Can a STATE pass a law to require the 10 Commandments to be displayed? Certainly - as long as it doesn't violate the state Constitution or laws because the 1st Amendment is only applicable on the FEDERAL level... But of course you already knew that from your studies of the Constitution, right?

Now comes the big question: How does a liberal conclude that passing a law regarding marriage can be construed as the establishing of a religion??? He does so by misinterpreting the plain language of the Constitution! And then when someone like me has to sit down and try spelling out the plain and simple English phrasing of the Constitution and what it means the liberal will ignore the facts and continue making misinterpreted claims as though he never knew better! Your demonstration of the denial of truth has caused me to reflect on the other liberals I know and see. I think that might make another category on the list: Denies truth and facts. I'll have to ponder that one a little more.

[sadlier]

In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.Oh, and so then next you'll also want to call it discrimination if 1/2 of the benefits for a married couple aren't given to a single person, right?

[sadlier]

In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.Oh, and so then next you'll also want to call it discrimination if a polygamist with 3 wives (making a total of 4 in the marriage) doesn't get double the benefits, right?

[sadlier]

In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.Oh, and so then you'll also want to call it discrimination if a man marries a sheep and is denied full benefits from his beastiality union, right?

[sadlier]

In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.There is no such thing as a "married homosexual couple". Marriage is only between a man and woman - go check it out in the common law.

[sadlier]

Sadlier, I'll take that back. I was tired of at lot of long posts and I got your position on gay marriage turned around. Your just fine and I am one of the few on this form will admit to a mistake when I make one and I have in the past and sure I will in the future but at least I’ll own up to them. Carry on you got my support. Sin Loy (sorry about that).:D I'd only be offended if I was a liberal... Wait, the liberal wouldn't be ashamed to frequent that site... I guess I wouldn't be offended no matter what!:D:D:D

[geerair]

:D:D:D That's so screwy it's humorous! Under the same logic, then, we need to change the laws regarding murder since it is a religous belief of Muslims that unbelievers should be killed......
And we can't have the laws just favor Christian and Jewish religons now, can we???? And under satanic religons human sacrifice still goes on and we can't have the laws discriminate against them too, right??? So you must be for removing the laws on murder so those religons can exercise their free beliefs, right? Your argument omits a crucial distinction.

Murder is illegal.

Being homosexual is not.







In case you forgot to read a previous post on the matter (which you probably read but ignored), the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You once again changed the constitution from "an establishment" to "the establishment"; The terms are not interchangeable. Furthermore we are to understand that each and every word of the constitution was placed there for a purpose (you know, that Marbury v. Madison ruling which you also studied, but not really). 'An' was intentionally placed there instead of 'the' so that we cannot screw up what they were meaning; Yet liberals still try to screw up the simple statement. So here is a simple primer in English:

read the Amendment closely: "CONGRESS shall make no LAW..." It doesn't say anything about a STATE making the law nor Congress making a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on the matter, but just simply one group of people (congress) shall not make a law "respecting AN establishment of religion". If they meant to use the word, 'the', they would have used it. But they didn't. They said, "AN establishment of religion". They also didn't say, "establishment of A[N] religion". It says "an establishment of religion". The "of religion" portion is a preopsitional phrase which describes "establishment". For clarification the prepositional phrase can be left out to make a simpler sentence. Thus it would read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment" (understanding that the definition of establishment would be more like, 'creation'). However the simpler sentence is vague without the prepositional phrase to tell us what they are not to establish. The statement also does not PROHIBIT them from making other establishments, such as 'an establishment of jacka$$es' (ie DNC); Just an establishment "of religion" is prohibited. That would be a state-sponsored religon. We have seen that happen back in England long before the Constitution was framed. So there you have it: the Amendment is simply stating that congress (but not the states) cannot make a law which creates a religon. True. I don't know why you went to so much trouble when I agree that the "respecting an establishment" means a state religion.



Does that mean they cannot pray in meetings? Of course it doesn't - praying in meetings is not a law and it is a LAW that they cannot pass.But the constitutionality of government actions is not decided by the Congress but rather by the Supreme Court. As such these prayers can be deemed by the Supreme Court as an establishment of a religion by the government.


Does that mean they cannot display the 10 commandments? Under a strict interpretation of the establishment clause religious icons cannot be displayed on public land unless the display is of a more historical than religious nature or is part of a display includng other religions.



Displaying the 10 Commandments is not a law but an act performed without the passing of a law. Remember that it is a LAW that congress cannot pass that establishes a religion.It is an act that can result in a lawsuit which can ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. the act does not need to be initiated by congress to result in a hearing before the Supreme Court.


So can congress pass a law REQUIRING the 10 Commandments to be displayed? No, that would begin to establish a religion.True.


Can a STATE pass a law to require the 10 Commandments to be displayed? Certainly - as long as it doesn't violate the state Constitution or laws because the 1st Amendment is only applicable on the FEDERAL level... But of course you already knew that from your studies of the Constitution, right? You are absolutely wrong. The Constitution including the 1st amendment is the supreme law of the land and as such applies to both Federal and state levels. The Supreme Court has the authority to rule on any state law concerning the constitutionality of that law.

I can't imagine where you got this ridiculous idea.













Now comes the big question: How does a liberal conclude that passing a law regarding marriage can be construed as the establishing of a religion??? He does so by misinterpreting the plain language of the Constitution! And then when someone like me has to sit down and try spelling out the plain and simple English phrasing of the Constitution and what it means the liberal will ignore the facts and continue making misinterpreted claims as though he never knew better! Your demonstration of the denial of truth has caused me to reflect on the other liberals I know and see. I think that might make another category on the list: Denies truth and facts. I'll have to ponder that one a little more.Son, anyone who insists the first amendment is only applicable at the Federal level has no business attempting to explain the meaning of the Constitution.

I would suggest you find better sources for your study of the Constitution because the sources you have are leading you astray.

[geerair]

Oh, and so then you'll also want to call it discrimination if a man marries a sheep and is denied full benefits from his beastiality union, right?No, because the law applies to humans not animals.

[geerair]

Oh, and so then next you'll also want to call it discrimination if 1/2 of the benefits for a married couple aren't given to a single person, right?Why would half the benefits of a married couple be given to a single person?

[geerair]

Oh, and so then next you'll also want to call it discrimination if a polygamist with 3 wives (making a total of 4 in the marriage) doesn't get double the benefits, right?Why would I think that? Polygamy is illegal.

[geerair]

There is no such thing as a "married homosexual couple". There is in Mass. and New Jersey.

[bootlen]

Your argument omits a crucial distinction.

Murder is illegal.

Being homosexual is not.




No, his does not. YOURS does.

Being homosexual is not illegal, true. Marrying someone of the same sex IS.

[bootlen]

No, because the law applies to humans not animals.

True. But your post should have been prefaced with "Yes". His post says a ..."man"...

Last time I checked, a "man" is human.

[bootlen]

Why would half the benefits of a married couple be given to a single person?

U-u-u-h, I think that is precisely his ultimate point.

[bootlen]

Why would I think that? Polygamy is illegal.

For now.

[bootlen]

There is in Mass. and New Jersey.

That just means there are at least 3 entities that do not understand the definition of the word "marriage"...MA, NJ, and you.

[geerair]

Marrying someone of the same sex IS.Nope, it is not illegal Perry Mason.

[geerair]

True. But your post should have been prefaced with "Yes". His post says a ..."man"...

Last time I checked, a "man" is human.Point flies miles over Perry 's head. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

U-u-u-h, I think that is precisely his ultimate point.Ummmmmm............go backand read again Perry. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

For now.Yes. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

That just means there are at least 3 entities that do not understand the definition of the word "marriage"...MA, NJ, and you.Yes Perry. From the looks of it you will need to boost that number significantly in the coming year.

[bootlen]

Nope, it is not illegal Perry Mason.

It is where I live. Is it legal where you live?

[bootlen]

Point flies miles over Perry 's head. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh! You had a point. Care to share?

[bootlen]

Ummmmmm............go backand read again Perry. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I know what it says. You just don't comprehend.

[bootlen]

Yes Perry. From the looks of it you will need to boost that number significantly in the coming year.

I doubt it.

[geerair]

It is where I live. Is it legal where you live?Post the relevent law.

[geerair]

Oh! You had a point. Care to share?It's there in the earlier post Perry. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

I know what it says. You just don't comprehend.Bawhahahahahahahaha


You haven't a clue. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

I doubt it.Yes, keep your eyes open. ;)

[bootlen]

Post the relevent law.

No need. I already know what the law here says. The question is to you...is it legal where you live?

Go ahead and answer. Let's see how honest you can be. Let's see how good your word is.

[geerair]

No need. I already know what the law here says. The question is to you...is it legal where you live?

Go ahead and answer. Let's see how honest you can be. Let's see how good your word is.Post the relevent law. Go ahead. You have the entire web to help you.

[sadlier]

You are absolutely wrong. The Constitution including the 1st amendment is the supreme law of the land and as such applies to both Federal and state levels. The Supreme Court has the authority to rule on any state law concerning the constitutionality of that law.

I can't imagine where you got this ridiculous idea.I got it from study of Supreme Court rulings... I didn't think you studied the Constitution! If your logic holds true that it is applicable to both Federal and State then there would have been no need for the portion of the 14th Amendment which contains a phrase that parallels the 5th Amendment. Read the first Amendment again... it is CONGRESS, not the STATES, that shall make no law...

There are Supreme Court cases in which arguments have been made that the Bill of Rights are also applicable on the state level when not specifically identified. The Court has ruled against such interpretations each time. One argument was made that all rights preserved under the 5th Amendment (which is on the Federal level) are also preserved under the 14th Amendment (state level right protection); The Court disagreed.

[bootlen]

Post the relevent law. Go ahead. You have the entire web to help you.


Ya got nothing, geer. Nothing.

I love it! I DO love it.

He loses an argument and wants someone to post a written law. Poor guy.

[acmanko]

Same sex marriage is not allowed in SC, but you can marry first cousins.

[bootlen]

Same sex marriage is not allowed in SC, but you can marry first cousins.

Now that second bit of info I would not have known.

[sadlier]

No, because the law applies to humans not animals.According to liberals we are all animals. Go ask PETA. So you are for discrimination against other animals then, right?

[acmanko]

google SC marriage law:D

[geerair]

Ya got nothing, geer. Nothing.

I love it! I DO love it.

He loses an argument and wants someone to post a written law. Poor guy.So if your so certain you should have no trouble citing the relevent law.

We will be witing for your cite Perry.

[geerair]

According to liberals we are all animals.According to science we are primates.







Go ask PETA. So you are for discrimination against other animals then, right?Yes, those not legally recognized as human. You bet.

[geerair]

google SC marriage law:DI have. It will be fun to see bootie squirm on this one. :p :p :p

[bootlen]

SECTION 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony.

(A) All persons, except mentally incompetent persons and persons whose marriage is prohibited by this section, may lawfully contract matrimony.

(B) No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

(C) No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

SECTION 20-1-15. Prohibition of same sex marriage.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

Yeah. I'm really squirming. :cool:

[bootlen]

BTW, ac. Looks like you were wrong about 1st cousins.

[sadlier]

Why would half the benefits of a married couple be given to a single person?I'll play liberal's advocate here. It is simple math. When 2 people get together and gain a benefit then the equation goes: 1 benefit / 2 people = 1/2 benefit per person.

Now when those 2 people get together they reduce their net expenditures per person. Let's say that before they got together they were each paying $1,000 per month rent a piece. Now that they are living under the same roof they now each pay only $500 per month per person. Utilities likewise would decrease per person to roughly half. So the single person now a higher cost of living per person than the married couple and the single person is also taxed at a higher rate than a married couple. If anyone needs the added help/benefit it is the single person who is paying more per person to live, yet the benefits are only given to those that are married and don't have nearly as high of a cost/person ratio and don't pay as much in taxes. And because of that they should be getting benefits to help out since they are paying more to get less; Perhaps they should get double benefits. Gays living together, however, still benefit from the reduced cost/person ratio as compared to single people... so why shouldn't you fight for the benefits of a single person as compared to the benfits of gays?

[geerair]

SECTION 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony.

(A) All persons, except mentally incompetent persons and persons whose marriage is prohibited by this section, may lawfully contract matrimony.

(B) No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

(C) No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

SECTION 20-1-15. Prohibition of same sex marriage.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

Yeah. I'm really squirming. :cool:If you will notice there are penalties for violating certain sections of this law. There is no penalty for same sex marriage.

What you have is the state refusing to recognize gay marriage. Refusing to recognize a marriage is not pronouncing gay marriage illegal.


Keep your day job.

[geerair]

I'll play liberal's advocate here. It is simple math. When 2 people get together and gain a benefit then the equation goes: 1 benefit / 2 people = 1/2 benefit per person.

Now when those 2 people get together they reduce their net expenditures per person. Let's say that before they got together they were each paying $1,000 per month rent a piece. Now that they are living under the same roof they now each pay only $500 per month per person. Utilities likewise would decrease per person to roughly half. So the single person now a higher cost of living per person than the married couple and the single person is also taxed at a higher rate than a married couple. If anyone needs the added help/benefit it is the single person who is paying more per person to live, yet the benefits are only given to those that are married and don't have nearly as high of a cost/person ratio and don't pay as much in taxes. And because of that they should be getting benefits to help out since they are paying more to get less; Perhaps they should get double benefits. Gays living together, however, still benefit from the reduced cost/person ratio as compared to single people... so why shouldn't you fight for the benefits of a single person as compared to the benfits of gays?You are assuming both gays work. What if only one partner brings home a paycheck?

Now the gays are at a disadvantage because of the increased costs of an additional person. So the single guy is coming out ahead because his paycheck is covering expenses for one rather than two.

[bootlen]

If you will notice there are penalties for violating certain sections of this law. There is no penalty for same sex marriage.

What you have is the state refusing to recognize gay marriage. Refusing to recognize a marriage is not pronouncing gay marriage illegal.


Keep your day job.

Either way, they may as well not be "married". Mox nix to me.

And there are bills in both SC houses to strengthen the wording.

BTW, I'm still not squirming.

[geerair]

BTW, I'm still not squirming.You wouldn't have answered if you weren't. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bootlen]

You wouldn't have answered if you weren't. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Answered what?

Speaking of answering, you haven't.

[chillbilly]

You are assuming both gays work. What if only one partner brings home a paycheck?

Now the gays are at a disadvantage because of the increased costs of an additional person. So the single guy is coming out ahead because his paycheck is coving expenses for one rather than two.



The decision to work is an individual choice. If a gay couple want equal treatment under the law, they'll have to make responsible choices...like making enough money to cover their expenses.
It's called managing life.




sadliers post is dead on;

The fact that single people are discouraged by tax code laws is just more blatant evidence that the government encourages as many little taxable toddlers as they can get running around and discriminates against single taxpaying citizens.

[geerair]

Answered what?Replied

i.e. posted a response


Speaking of answering, you haven't.Refresh my memory

[bootlen]

Is homosexual marriage legal...oh, excuse me...recognized where you live?

Wow! Bugged and forgetful, too.

[geerair]

Is homosexual marriage legal...oh, excuse me...recognized where you live?

Wow! Bugged and forgetful, too.Not recognized in Texas. ;)

[jpb2]

Why not ? we recognize illegal aliens, and welfare trailer trash along with minorities that dont pay taxes. Why not give those who are at least paying the same benefiet as straight folk. I also believe if you pay no tax bill you should not have the right to vote

[geerair]

Why not ? we recognize illegal aliens, and welfare trailer trash along with minorities that dont pay taxes. Why not give those who are at least paying the same benefiet as straight folk.Why not indeed?

Unforunately there are still some troglodytes who believe that equal rights apply only to whitebread Republicans. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[sadlier]

You are assuming both gays work. What if only one partner brings home a paycheck?

Now the gays are at a disadvantage because of the increased costs of an additional person. So the single guy is coming out ahead because his paycheck is covering expenses for one rather than two.So you're saying that if one partner decides to be a lazybutt then he should receive more benefits just because he is with someone that works? Oh yeah, you liberals believe in rewarding those that won't work. I forgot.

[sadlier]

In other words, benefits that accrue to a married heterosexual couple could be denied to a married homosexual couple.Getting back to the confusion you and Russ have regarding if the FMA and the Constitution, this is what Blackstone said regarding marriage in the Common Law:

"The second private relation of persons is that of marriage, which includes the reciprocal right and duties of husband and wife; or, as most of our elder law, books call them, of baron and feme."

This is chapter 15 in his book. It says, "husband and wife", "baron and feme". Not, "husband or wife and husband or wife", nor "person and person". Husband is male, wife is female. Baron is male, feme is female. Mariage is between male and female. The Constitution upheld this premise in the Bill of Rights - But you probably don't know where because you never really studied the Constitution, right?

[geerair]

So you're saying that if one partner decides to be a lazybutt then he should receive more benefits just because he is with someone that works? Oh yeah, you liberals believe in rewarding those that won't work. I forgot.Oh dear, now you are calling homemakers "lazy butts"?

Now you are dissing Mom, applepie and America.

Shame on you. ;) ;)

[sadlier]

Why not give those who are at least paying the same benefiet as straight folk.For thousands of years (millions of years according to liberals) there was a purpose in marriage. Marriage was the beginning of the family unit which would result in children. The children would grow up and become part of society, eventually running it. Of the children there would be boys that would become part of the military. There were girls that would turn into women and take care of the household while men were doing what needed to be done. It was generally considered as a disgrace to be childless. Part of this had to do with who would take care of the old generation - their children. Without the basic family unit society would begin to dwindle and there would be undue problems placed on society by those who didn't have a family to take care of them.

Benefits are given to a married couple in part because of the need for children to continue on society. Also in part because of the added financial burden of providing for children. So then since that is part of the purpose for providing the benefits then why should those who are not sacrificing to provide society's next generation be given the same benefits and breaks? Are they putting aside their life to raise children? No. Who will likely take care of them when they get old? You got it, the children of the married couples; You know, the children of the ones who set aside things in life so they could raise the next generation. Looking at it from a societal point of view it is selfish of the gays to expect the same benefits of a married couple when they aren't going to do the sacrificing and struggles of a married couple in bringing up the next generation. And then add in that they may also end up being a burden for society to take care of near the end of their lives... and who will society be at that time? The children of those that got the benefits. And, of course, they'll expect those children-now-adults to provide for them if they become a burden on society (IE "tax them dag-gum kids") all because they chose a deviant lifestyle rather than a traditional lifestyle. How selfish indeed.

By the way, remember what #3 is in the initial post? Selfish.

[sadlier]

Oh dear, now you are calling homemakers "lazy butts"?

Now you are dissing Mom, applepie and America.

Shame on you. ;) ;):D:D:D Don't tell my mom, ok?

[geerair]

Getting back to the confusion you and Russ have regarding if the FMA and the Constitution, this is what Blackstone said regarding marriage in the Common Law:

"The second private relation of persons is that of marriage, which includes the reciprocal right and duties of husband and wife; or, as most of our elder law, books call them, of baron and feme."

This is chapter 15 in his book. It says, "husband and wife", "baron and feme". Not, "husband or wife and husband or wife", nor "person and person". Husband is male, wife is female. Baron is male, feme is female. Mariage is between male and female. The Constitution upheld this premise in the Bill of Rights - Could you point out where in the bill of rights it speaks of marriage? And further, if marriage is codified and defined in the Constitution, what need is ther for the FMA?





But you probably don't know where because you never really studied the Constitution, right?This from the constitutional scholar who insists the first amendment is only applicable on the Federal level. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

For thousands of years (millions of years according to liberals) there was a purpose in marriage. Marriage was the beginning of the family unit which would result in children. The children would grow up and become part of society, eventually running it. Of the children there would be boys that would become part of the military. There were girls that would turn into women and take care of the household while men were doing what needed to be done. It was generally considered as a disgrace to be childless. Part of this had to do with who would take care of the old generation - their children. Without the basic family unit society would begin to dwindle and there would be undue problems placed on society by those who didn't have a family to take care of them.What century are you living in? It is certainly not the current one.







Benefits are given to a married couple in part because of the need for children to continue on society. Also in part because of the added financial burden of providing for children. So then since that is part of the purpose for providing the benefits then why should those who are not sacrificing to provide society's next generation be given the same benefits and breaks? Are they putting aside their life to raise children? No. Who will likely take care of them when they get old? You got it, the children of the married couples; You know, the ones who set aside things in life so they could raise the next generation. Looking at it from a societal point of view it is selfish of the gays to expect the same benefits of a married couple when they aren't going to do the sacrificing and struggles of a married couple in bringing up the next generation and when they may very well end up being a burden for society to take care of near the end of their lives. And, of course, they'll also expect someone else's children to provide for them if they become a burden (IE tax them dag-gum kids). How selfish indeed.

By the way, remember what #3 is in the initial post? Selfish.Hmmmm.........you seem to have forgotten that there are gay couples that do in fact have and are raising children.

And what of straight couples who make a decision not to have children or who are unable for medical reasons to have children? do they also fall into your selfish category?

[sadlier]

Could you point out where in the bill of rights it speaks of marriage? And further, if marriage is codified and defined in the Constitution, what need is ther for the FMA?Amendment #9. What do you think those rights are that were retained by the people? Wait, you probably don't know what 'enumeration' means. The phrase means those rights spelled out specifically. The Amendment preserves rights that the people had which are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. And what are those rights? The rights under the Common Law. Now go back and read if Blackstone classified marriage as a right while he identified it as between male and female.

[sadlier]

What century are you living in? It is certainly not the current one.I can tell that from the ignorant statements you keep making. Just because there are those that chose not to know any better doesn't change how the system was intended.

[sadlier]

Hmmmm.........you seem to have forgotten that there are gay couples that do in fact have and are raising children.

And what of straight couples who make a decision not to have children or who are unable for medical reasons to have children? do they also fall into your selfish category?You don't know the definition and depth of 'lie', do you also not know the definition and depth of 'selfish'?:rolleyes:

So are you saying that the laws should be changed, or laws enacted, to cover all of the gays just because maybe 2 out of 100 might raise a child? If it weren't for heterosexuality over the thousands of years there wouldn't be any children for the gays to raise. Heterosexuality lifestyles should be honored.

[sadlier]

This from the constitutional scholar who insists the first amendment is only applicable on the Federal level. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Excuse me, I believe we were talking about the United States Constitution, not some state constitution. The United States Constitution is the constitution for the federal government, not for any state. States have their own constitutions, but you probably didn't know that either. Unless the US Constitution specifically identifies state-level provisions then it can only be interpreted as on the federal level. I have already pointed out where the 14th was enacted which mirrors portions of the 5th with one exception: It specifically identifies that it is on the state level. Utah wouldn't have needed to specifically include in it's constitution a provision regarding the separation of church and state if the provision in the US Constitution was applicable. So now what proof do you have otherwise?

[geerair]

Amendment #9. What do you think those rights are that were retained by the people? Wait, you probably don't know what 'enumeration' means. The phrase means those rights spelled out specifically. The Amendment preserves rights that the people had which are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. And what are those rights? The rights under the Common Law. Now go back and read if Blackstone classified marriage as a right while he identified it as between male and female.Then if common law defines marriage as being between a man and woman only and the ninth amendment preserves rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the states, then what need is there for the FMA?

You have a serious flaw in your interpretation of the Constituton.

[geerair]

I can tell that from the ignorant statements you keep making. Just because there are those that chose not to know any better doesn't change how the system was intended.Get out of the fifties man, Ward and june Cleaver are dead.

[bootlen]

Then if common law defines marriage as being between a man and woman only and the ninth amendment preserves rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the state, then what need is there for the FMA?

You have a serious flaw in your interpretation of the Constituton.

Because there are liberal judges who are rewriting Constitutional law through extremely poor interpretation of the Constitution.

[geerair]

You don't know the definition and depth of 'lie', do you also not know the definition and depth of 'selfish'?:rolleyes:

So are you saying that the laws should be changed, or laws enacted, to cover all of the gays just because maybe 2 out of 100 might raise a child? If it weren't for heterosexuality over the thousands of years there wouldn't be any children for the gays to raise. Heterosexuality lifestyles should be honored.No laws need to be changed or enacted. Merely an enforcement of the equal protection clause would be sufficient

[geerair]

Excuse me, I believe we were talking about the United States Constitution, not some state constitution. The United States Constitution is the constitution for the federal government, not for any state. States have their own constitutions, but you probably didn't know that either. Unless the US Constitution specifically identifies state-level provisions then it can only be interpreted as on the federal level. I have already pointed out where the 14th was enacted which mirrors portions of the 5th with one exception: It specifically identifies that it is on the state level. Utah wouldn't have needed to specifically include in it's constitution a provision regarding the separation of church and state if the provision in the US Constitution was applicable. So now what proof do you have otherwise?The U.S. Constititution is the Supreme Law of the land and applicable at all levels, federal, state and local.

State Constitutions are subservient to the U.S. Constitution.

Any laws included in State Constitutions or state legal codes can be struck down by the U.S. Constitution.

As an example, the Texas sodomy law was struck down by the Supreme Court a few years back.


If you think the U.S. Constitution is not applicable at all levels then you have a deeply flawed understanding of the U.S legal system.

[geerair]

Because there are liberal judges who are rewriting Constitutional law through extremely poor interpretation of the Constitution.You are on to something but not in the way you suggest. Keep thinking, you have spotted the flaw in Sad's argument.

[scrogdog]

Excuse me, I believe we were talking about the United States Constitution, not some state constitution. The United States Constitution is the constitution for the federal government, not for any state. States have their own constitutions, but you probably didn't know that either. Unless the US Constitution specifically identifies state-level provisions then it can only be interpreted as on the federal level. I have already pointed out where the 14th was enacted which mirrors portions of the 5th with one exception: It specifically identifies that it is on the state level.

Well, I am not sure how you determined that the Constitution is only applied on a federal level; that is simply not true.

In a Federalist system, which we are, power is shared through federal, state and local level governments. But there is a strict set of rules that say who can do what. In ALL cases, state constitutions must abide by the provisions of the federal constitution. For example, a state constitution cannot deny any accused individual the right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

Under the constitution, powers reserved exclusively for the federal government include;

The ability to print money
The ability to declare war
The ability to establish an army and navy
The ability to establish a treaty with a foreign government
The ability to regulate commerce between states and international trade
The ability to establish post offices and issue postage
The ability to make laws necessary to enforce the constitution

The exclusive powers of state governments are;

The ability to establish local governments
The ability to issue state licenses (hunting, driving, etc)
The ability to regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
The ability to conduct state elections
The ability to ratify amendments to the US Constitution
The ability to provide for public health and safety
The ability to exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S. Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)

The powers shared by national and state government;

The ability to set up courts
The ability to create and collect taxes
The ability to build highways and transportation systems
The ability to borrow money
The ability to make and enfore laws
The ability to charter banks and corporations
The abilty to spend money for the betterment of the general welfare (:D)
The ability to take (condemn) private property with just compensation

As a matter of fact, in commenting on the purpose of the 14th Senator Luke Poland of Vermont analyzed it as follows:


It is essentially declared in the Declaration of Independence and in all the provisions of the Constitution. Notwithstanding this we know that State laws exist, and some of them of very recent enactment, in direct violation of these principles. Congress has already shown its desire and intention to uproot and destroy all such partial State legislation in the passage of what is called the civil rights bill.... It certainly seems desirable that no doubt should be left existing as to the power of Congress to enforce principles lying at the foundation of all republican government if they be denied or violated by the States.

See, the issue to debate, back then, was not gay rights, but rather the rights of blacks who were very recently slaves and were probably a little bit pissed about it. If the US constitution guaranteed them rights as citizens, then state level constitutions could not prevent them from purchasing and bearing arms (many state constitutions did, in fact, do exactly that - the 14th made those state provisions illegal from the time of its passage).

Utah has a perfect right to have a redundant sounding law in their constitution. But I am afraid that its inclusion has led you on a path of faulty logic. At NO TIME may a state constitution be at odds with the federal constitution, that’s all. There is nothing to read in to the fact that Utah’s constitution has a redundant article in it. Whether Utah needed to do it or not is more or less irrelevant. By the way, they did not need to do it. The US constitution supercedes state constitution IN ALL CASES except for when, as noted above, a state is granted exclusive authority to make the decision.

I’m no fan of gays having kids, just so you know (note my sig). But the constitution is what it is.

[geerair]

Well, I am not sure how you determined that the Constitution is only applied on a federal level; that is simply not true.

In a Federalist system, which we are, power is shared through federal, state and local level governments. But there is a strict set of rules that say who can do what. In ALL cases, state constitutions must abide by the provisions of the federal constitution. For example, a state constitution cannot deny any accused individual the right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

Under the constitution, powers reserved exclusively for the federal government include;

The ability to print money
The ability to declare war
The ability to establish an army and navy
The ability to establish a treaty with a foreign government
The ability to regulate commerce between states and international trade
The ability to establish post offices and issue postage
The ability to make laws necessary to enforce the constitution

The exclusive powers of state governments are;

The ability to establish local governments
The ability to issue state licenses (hunting, driving, etc)
The ability to regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
The ability to conduct state elections
The ability to ratify amendments to the US Constitution
The ability to provide for public health and safety
The ability to exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S. Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)

The powers shared by national and state government;

The ability to set up courts
The ability to create and collect taxes
The ability to build highways and transportation systems
The ability to borrow money
The ability to make and enfore laws
The ability to charter banks and corporations
The abilty to spend money for the betterment of the general welfare (:D)
The ability to take (condemn) private property with just compensation

As a matter of fact, in commenting on the purpose of the 14th Senator Luke Poland of Vermont analyzed it as follows:



See, the issue to debate, back then, was not gay rights, but rather the rights of blacks who were very recently slaves and were probably a little bit pissed about it. If the US constitution guaranteed them rights as citizens, then state level constitutions could not prevent them from purchasing and bearing arms (many state constitutions did, in fact, do exactly that - the 14th made those state provisions illegal from the time of its passage).

Utah has a perfect right to have a redundant sounding law in their constitution. But I am afraid that its inclusion has led you on a path of faulty logic. At NO TIME may a state constitution be at odds with the federal constitution, that’s all. There is nothing to read in to the fact that Utah’s constitution has a redundant article in it. Whether Utah needed to do it or not is more or less irrelevant. By the way, they did not need to do it. The US constitution supercedes state constitution IN ALL CASES except for when, as noted above, a state is granted exclusive authority to make the decision.

I’m no fan of gays having kids, just so you know (note my sig). But the constitution is what it is.Very good.

You must have some teaching experience in your background. ;) ;)

The only quibble I have is that you state that the "US Constitution spercedes state constitutions in all cases except for when noted above, a state is granted exclusive authority to make the decision."

The states do indeed have exclusive authority to make those decisions but those decisions must adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the federal courts have the power to rule on the constitutionality of those decisions.

Am I reading you correctly?

[chillbilly]

Very good.

You must have some teaching experience in your background. ;) ;)

The only quibble I have is that you state that the "US Constitution spercedes state constitutions in all cases except for when noted above, a state is granted exclusive authority to make the decision."

The states do indeed have exclusive authority to make those decisions but those decisions must adhere to the U.S. Constitution




Simply not true. State decisions are not bound by any statute to be forced to adhere to Federal guidelines.
Just because the U.S.Constitution can trump the state's constitutional guidelines does not mean that they will.

[scrogdog]

Well, my thoughts were poorly worded, but you are both right, actually.

Let's take the case of gay marraige. The issuance of licenses is an exclusive power of state government. Now, that could be changed to be regulated by the federal constitution, but only by ratified amendment.

In other words, the federal constitution would not seek to make a law on state licenses... it can't be done the way things are right now.

On the other hand, were a state to refuse a license based on unconstitutional grounds, or make a statute in the state constitution regarding state licenses that was based on federally unconstitutional grounds, then yes, that would be cause for review.

[geerair]

On the other hand, were a state to refuse a license based on unconstitutional grounds, or make a statute in the state constitution regarding state licenses that was based on federally unconstitutional grounds, then yes, that would be cause for review.Exactly.