The "death" of the Republican Party will "save" America.

[JoeB131]

Name them.

Do your own research....

 

[freedombecki]

You were clear, and you are clearly an ignoramus who has zero understanding of the constitution or even the language. I suggest you return to school, or at least make a conscious effort to expand your mind and increase your knowledge. Hit the classics, and read the works of the founding fathers, instead of just skimming pop culture and calling it "education".

i probably have more education than you do, snookums...

And my understanding is exactly that of the learned judges who sit on our courts. When you make a law based on your religion, it gets slapped down. HARD.

One of the ten commandments is about murder. Those who do it get slapped down, it's part of our law based on the Bible.

The reason I know that is true, is because in certain Muslim countries, wife murders do not get any attention whatsoever. That means a man can fall in love with someone else, eliminate the wife who would object and besmirch his new trophy, and her family would have no rights to justice against him, because he could make up a claim no one could refute with the only witness dead.

In our Christian system, if evidence is produced you likely murdered your wife, at least, you will go to trial and face justice.

So lawyer up like Teddy did after Chappaquiddick. That way, Demmies can sing your praises at their convention after you are gone.

And if the Ju$tice$ $ee the $ame way, you're $cot free, if e$teemed court under$tand$ your me$$age.

 

[freedombecki]

Name them.

I predict he won't be able to.

 

[koshergrl]

Crickets.

Because it's a lie.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If the democrats didn't support financial lunacy, I would support them. If the republicans didn't support social repression I would support them. If both parties weren't owned by the elitist bankers and corporate interests, I would support them. Thus, libertarianism is the only side that makes sense.

Republicans support social repression? Can you please tell us what that is in your mind and how Republicans are doing this?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And PS...you don't have the RIGHT to persecute people based on their BELIEF SYSTEM. This is very basic...we have the RIGHT not to be discriminated against based on our religion...and saying that people who have faith have no place in politics is the very essence of discrimination and persecution. You do not have the right to dictate to someone what they may believe, or how they must come to their world view. You don't have the right to block the progress of a person based on whether or not a particular religion has somewhere down the line influenced them. That is discrimination, and a violation of human rights.

You have every right to keep your backward, stupid, homophobic, misogynistic beliefs in your homes and churches.

But they have no place in government.

But your morality does have a place in government at the exclusion of all others? How does that work? According to the universal principle of inherent human rights? Well, obviously not. According to the Declaration of Independence? Well, obviously not. According to the Constitution? Nope. Not according to that either. So where precisely do your backward, stupid, tyrannical, monstrous, hillbilly, bucktooth beliefs belong?

Why, they apparently belong in a fascist society, fawned over by a herd of bootlick statists. The business end of a loaded gun pointed at your head relative to the Second Amendment says, ultimately, that I can promote my moral convictions beyond my home or church, you two-bit punk leftist thug, you Nazi whore.

 

[regent]

Money or people? It was a simple choice by conservatives. Conservative values center on money not people so Republicans went that route. One only has to look at the candidates each party puts forth and see the difference, money or people.
Money can buy an awful lot of votes, and the Republican strategy is to buy votes with advertising using patriotism, and fear as their themes. They have used the fear of socialism since Social Security was suggested, but they also realize that new fears must be introduced so now it's labor unions, medical care, education, and the most recent, make it difficult for the elderly and disabled to vote.

 

[koshergrl]

You can't make money unless somewhere you're doing a lot of something for people..and they like it.

So Conservatives are of course about people, even if that point had anything to do with reality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Money or people? It was a simple choice by conservatives. Conservative values center on money not people so Republicans went that route. One only has to look at the candidates each party puts forth and see the difference, money or people.

*Snort*

Nonsense. You understand nothing about conservatism, i.e., classical liberalism, the essence of the socio-political philosophy enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, for crying out loud!

(another brainwashed product of the public education system divorced from the founding doctrine of his very own nation)

Conservatives care about human life and liberty above all things. The security of private property against government usurpation backed by an armed citizenry are the ultimate checks against tyranny, and the first principles of private property are the sanctity of human life and the integrity of nature's biological family. It is lefty who is the materialist, obsessed with the money and the things and the "security" of this world.

He is obsessed with the provisions of government.

That is why is it lefty who has no regard for the lives of the unborn. It is lefty who insists on monopolizing the pubic education system, blocks the avenues for school choice, for example, even for the children of the improvised trapped in worthless inner-city schools. It is the conservative who is heartbroken over and fed up with these outrages!

It is lefty who seeks to socialize and, therefore, ration medical care. It is lefty who typically champions the euthanasia of the old and infirmed. Of course, medical care costs always go up everywhere socialized medicine is tried (the reasons for this well-understood by the conservative), and it is lefty who blocks the sort of reforms that conservatives have been trying to enact for decades, reformes that would actually reduce the costs of health care and insurance without undermining the availability and quality of care!

It is lefty who typically spits on the religious system of thought that embraces God and humanity, not the material; encourages kindness and charity, not the material.

It is lefty who imposes his "morality" on others via every public institution he can lay his filthy paws on, not the conservative!

Everything is government with lefty. Billions of resources redistributed and squandered for an ever-diminishing return of sloth and dependency.

The elites of leftyism don't give a damn about you; it's about controlling you.

Some folks just can't think beyond the black-n-white sloganeering of statist speak. It is not what lefty says about his agenda that matters. It's what he actually knows to be true about himself in his heart of hearts. It's what he does and the outcomes of his agenda that matter.

Money can buy an awful lot of votes, and the Republican strategy is to buy votes with advertising using patriotism, and fear as their themes. They have used the fear of socialism since Social Security was suggested, but they also realize that new fears must be introduced so now it's labor unions, medical care, education, and the most recent, make it difficult for the elderly and disabled to vote.

LOL! Well, we sure as hell know that lefty is not patriotic about the founding American ethos! As for fear? The conservative? LOL! Stow it. Everything with lefty is fear and crisis. Liar.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry, you have blown the progressive circuits.

Stand by for a re-utterance of a liberal mob catchphrase, or a strawman in the form of racism or "forcing" pregnancy upon rape victims.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm sorry, you have blown the progressive circuits.

Stand by for a re-utterance of a liberal mob catchphrase, or a strawman in the form of racism or "forcing" pregnancy upon rape victims.

 

[regent]

Money or people? It was a simple choice by conservatives. Conservative values center on money not people so Republicans went that route. One only has to look at the candidates each party puts forth and see the difference, money or people.

*Snort*

Nonsense. You understand nothing about conservatism, i.e., classical liberalism, the essence of the socio-political philosophy enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, for crying out loud!

(another brainwashed product of the public education system divorced from the founding doctrine of his very own nation)

Conservatives care about human life and liberty above all things. The security of private property against government usurpation backed by an armed citizenry are the ultimate checks against tyranny, and the first principles of private property are the sanctity of human life and the integrity of nature's biological family. It is lefty who is the materialist, obsessed with the money and the things and the "security" of this world.

He is obsessed with the provisions of government.

That is why is it lefty who has no regard for the lives of the unborn. It is lefty who insists on monopolizing the pubic education system, blocks the avenues for school choice, for example, even for the children of the improvised trapped in worthless inner-city schools. It is the conservative who is heartbroken over and fed up with these outrages!

It is lefty who seeks to socialize and, therefore, ration medical care. It is lefty who typically champions the euthanasia of the old and infirmed. Of course, medical care costs always go up everywhere socialized medicine is tried (the reasons for this well-understood by the conservative), and it is lefty who blocks the sort of reforms that conservatives have been trying to enact for decades, reformes that would actually reduce the costs of health care and insurance without undermining the availability and quality of care!

It is lefty who typically spits on the religious system of thought that embraces God and humanity, not the material; encourages kindness and charity, not the material.

It is lefty who imposes his "morality" on others via every public institution he can lay his filthy paws on, not the conservative!

Everything is government with lefty. Billions of resources redistributed and squandered for an ever-diminishing return of sloth and dependency.

The elites of leftyism don't give a damn about you; it's about controlling you.

Some folks just can't think beyond the black-n-white sloganeering of statist speak. It is not what lefty says about his agenda that matters. It's what he actually knows to be true about himself in his heart of hearts. It's what he does and the outcomes of his agenda that matter.

Money can buy an awful lot of votes, and the Republican strategy is to buy votes with advertising using patriotism, and fear as their themes. They have used the fear of socialism since Social Security was suggested, but they also realize that new fears must be introduced so now it's labor unions, medical care, education, and the most recent, make it difficult for the elderly and disabled to vote.

LOL! Well, we sure as hell know that lefty is not patriotic about the founding American ethos! As for fear? The conservative? LOL! Stow it. Everything with lefty is fear and crisis. Liar.

Speaking of the founding ethos can you explain why Jefferson did not use Locke's "property" in the Declaration of Independence?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Speaking of the founding ethos can you explain why Jefferson did not use Locke's "property" in the Declaration of Independence?

Excellent question. . . .

Actually, Jefferson is not the originator of pursuit of happiness. It is not merely a poetic turn of phrase or an allusion to something new or different. It is a complex construct. That very terminology was used by Locke and other classical liberals before Jefferson. Jefferson's terminology regarding the third element of Locke's triadic formulation of natural law—life, liberty and property—was used to emphasize the meaning of property in its entirety. Neither Locke nor the Founders held that one's personal property was merely the material possessions or assets that one might own, but began with the ownership of one's own self, the ramifications of which are (1) the right to be secure in one's material possessions, (2) the right of personal well-being and (3) the right of freedom of opportunity. Those familiar with the terminology of the emerging political philosophy of natural law of the time understood why Jefferson used that phrase.

Hence, pursuit of happiness refers to the ownership of one's own self and to everything that entails.

 

[regent]

Speaking of the founding ethos can you explain why Jefferson did not use Locke's "property" in the Declaration of Independence?

Excellent question. . . .

Actually, Jefferson is not the originator of pursuit of happiness. It is not merely a poetic turn of phrase or an allusion to something new or different. It is a complex construct. That very terminology was used by Locke and other classical liberals before Jefferson. Jefferson's terminology regarding the third element of Locke's triadic formulation of natural law—life, liberty and property—was used to emphasize the meaning of property in its entirety. Neither Locke nor the Founders held that one's personal property was merely the material possessions or assets that one might own, but began with the ownership of one's own self, the ramifications of which are (1) the right to be secure in one's material possessions, (2) the right of personal well-being and (3) the right of freedom of opportunity. Those familiar with the terminology of the emerging political philosophy of natural law of the time understood why Jefferson used that phrase.

Hence, pursuit of happiness refers to the ownership of one's own self and to everything that entails.

Well that rates a C, but here's another one. Why did Jefferson blame the king and not parliament?

 

[JoeB131]

[
One of the ten commandments is about murder. Those who do it get slapped down, it's part of our law based on the Bible.

Societies- including Islamic ones- outlawed murder without the bible. Everyone kind of agrees murder is wrong. And the bible thinks all sorts of people should be killed- gays, adulterers, blasphemers, people picking up sticks on the sabbath. So they aren't against killing, just murder.

[
The reason I know that is true, is because in certain Muslim countries, wife murders do not get any attention whatsoever. That means a man can fall in love with someone else, eliminate the wife who would object and besmirch his new trophy, and her family would have no rights to justice against him, because he could make up a claim no one could refute with the only witness dead..

The sad thing is, you actually believe this shit.

In our Christian system, if evidence is produced you likely murdered your wife, at least, you will go to trial and face justice.

So lawyer up like Teddy did after Chappaquiddick. That way, Demmies can sing your praises at their convention after you are gone.

And if the Ju$tice$ $ee the $ame way, you're $cot free, if e$teemed court under$tand$ your me$$age.

You mean the accident where the authorities investigated and ruled it was indeed an accident?

Wow, you guys just can't give that one up.

I'm wondering if you would care so much about this lady killed in an accident if Ted was for protecting insurance companies and their obscene profits.

 

[JoeB131]

And PS...you don't have the RIGHT to persecute people based on their BELIEF SYSTEM. This is very basic...we have the RIGHT not to be discriminated against based on our religion...and saying that people who have faith have no place in politics is the very essence of discrimination and persecution. You do not have the right to dictate to someone what they may believe, or how they must come to their world view. You don't have the right to block the progress of a person based on whether or not a particular religion has somewhere down the line influenced them. That is discrimination, and a violation of human rights.

You have every right to keep your backward, stupid, homophobic, misogynistic beliefs in your homes and churches.

But they have no place in government.

But your morality does have a place in government at the exclusion of all others? How does that work? According to the universal principle of inherent human rights? Well, obviously not. According to the Declaration of Independence? Well, obviously not. According to the Constitution? Nope. Not according to that either. So where precisely do your backward, stupid, tyrannical, monstrous, hillbilly, bucktooth beliefs belong?

Why, they apparently belong in a fascist society, fawned over by a herd of bootlick statists. The business end of a loaded gun pointed at your head relative to the Second Amendment says, ultimately, that I can promote my moral convictions beyond my home or church, you two-bit punk leftist thug, you Nazi whore.

Actually, my morality comes EXACTLY from the constitution, which is heavy on protecting individual rights.

So if I want an abortion, (which admittably would be hard, given my lack of uterus) I can get one. The constitution says so.

The constitution says you don't have the right to make my kid recite praises to your imaginary sky friend in the school I'm paying for through taxes.

It's really pretty simple.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Speaking of the founding ethos can you explain why Jefferson did not use Locke's "property" in the Declaration of Independence?

Excellent question. . . .

Actually, Jefferson is not the originator of pursuit of happiness. It is not merely a poetic turn of phrase or an allusion to something new or different. It is a complex construct. That very terminology was used by Locke and other classical liberals before Jefferson. Jefferson's terminology regarding the third element of Locke's triadic formulation of natural law—life, liberty and property—was used to emphasize the meaning of property in its entirety. Neither Locke nor the Founders held that one's personal property was merely the material possessions or assets that one might own, but began with the ownership of one's own self, the ramifications of which are (1) the right to be secure in one's material possessions, (2) the right of personal well-being and (3) the right of freedom of opportunity. Those familiar with the terminology of the emerging political philosophy of natural law of the time understood why Jefferson used that phrase.

Hence, pursuit of happiness refers to the ownership of one's own self and to everything that entails.

Well that rates a C, but here's another one. Why did Jefferson blame the king and not parliament?

No, that would be an A, and this scholar of the history of ideas and events, especially one who has studied and written voluminously on the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in light of his learned reading of Locke's Two Treatises of Government is not interested in being lectured by a leftist who obviously eschews the classical liberalism of America's founding while pretending that conservatives misrepresent lefty's political agenda via fear. And all the while—LOL!—guys like JoeB clearly expressing ideas that originated with the likes of Rousseau and Marx.

 

[Dot Com]

I could live w/ them being relegated to a permanent minority status Its looking that way too because they're not replacing themselves fast enough.

 

[koshergrl]

You have every right to keep your backward, stupid, homophobic, misogynistic beliefs in your homes and churches.

But they have no place in government.

But your morality does have a place in government at the exclusion of all others? How does that work? According to the universal principle of inherent human rights? Well, obviously not. According to the Declaration of Independence? Well, obviously not. According to the Constitution? Nope. Not according to that either. So where precisely do your backward, stupid, tyrannical, monstrous, hillbilly, bucktooth beliefs belong?

Why, they apparently belong in a fascist society, fawned over by a herd of bootlick statists. The business end of a loaded gun pointed at your head relative to the Second Amendment says, ultimately, that I can promote my moral convictions beyond my home or church, you two-bit punk leftist thug, you Nazi whore.

Actually, my morality comes EXACTLY from the constitution, which is heavy on protecting individual rights.

So if I want an abortion, (which admittably would be hard, given my lack of uterus) I can get one. The constitution says so.

The constitution says you don't have the right to make my kid recite praises to your imaginary sky friend in the school I'm paying for through taxes.

It's really pretty simple.

Not at the cost of the lives of others.

Yes, it is pretty simple. A baby is an individual who has a right to live. #1 protected freedom of the Constitution.

 

[squeeze berry]

I could live w/ them being relegated to a permanent minority status Its looking that way too because they're not replacing themselves fast enough.

so if they have minority status do they get affirmative action?