Top 10 Federal Government autrocities

[Contumacious]

You don't believe pregnant women carry live human babies.

Next.

Listen Vern, I understand that from the mystic standpoint what the women have done is sacrilegious. Get even in judgment day. Whenever your god almighty determine that day to be.

But if you try to intertwine ecclesiastical with civil constitutional law then I will fight you every step of the way.

Relocate to a country where theocracies are permitted,ie, Afghanistan, Iran, Ireland....esther la vista dude.

.

You are way off topic. How do you know if someone is alive? They have a pulse. We're talking about stopping a beating heart. If you want to talk about religion, start another thread.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.................................NOT.

If Mary and You are EQUAL , what aspect of CIVIL Law authorizes you to tell her what to do?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[kaz]

How the **** am I supporting you?

The constitution does not mention other rights RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, ie, the right to take a crap, to take a leak, ad nauseam.

Are you then............constipated?

.

The ninth says that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights (or other amendments) are no less important then rights that are listed. I agree with that. And since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it's specifically not a Federal Power and the 9th says it's as important as all the other Amendments protecting our rights. Since abortion is not listed, you're supporting my point that it's a State right to decide, or the people's themselves, but it is not a Federal right. That is how you are supporting me.

 

[kaz]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.................................NOT.

If Mary and You are EQUAL , what aspect of CIVIL Law authorizes you to tell her what to do?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

On that we agree. The question is who is doing the telling. According to the 9th and 10th amendments, it's the States or the people. It's not the Federal government.

 

[Ernie S.]

Listen Vern, I understand that from the mystic standpoint what the women have done is sacrilegious. Get even in judgment day. Whenever your god almighty determine that day to be.

But if you try to intertwine ecclesiastical with civil constitutional law then I will fight you every step of the way.

Relocate to a country where theocracies are permitted,ie, Afghanistan, Iran, Ireland....esther la vista dude.

.

You are way off topic. How do you know if someone is alive? They have a pulse. We're talking about stopping a beating heart. If you want to talk about religion, start another thread.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.................................NOT.

If Mary and You are EQUAL , what aspect of CIVIL Law authorizes you to tell her what to do?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You're forgetting baby Bubba, who is also equal. Mary wants to kill Bubba which gives government the authorization and the duty to tell her what to do.

 

[kaz]

You are way off topic. How do you know if someone is alive? They have a pulse. We're talking about stopping a beating heart. If you want to talk about religion, start another thread.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.................................NOT.

If Mary and You are EQUAL , what aspect of CIVIL Law authorizes you to tell her what to do?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You're forgetting baby Bubba, who is also equal. Mary wants to kill Bubba which gives government the authorization and the duty to tell her what to do.

Actually her intent is not to kill Bubba, it's to remove Bubba from her body. Rather then actually taking the personal responsibility to convince her that it's wrong, you run to a politician who promises to use government guns to do your job for you. It's her body, not yours.

 

[xsited1]

Have you read the discussion? I'll shout, see if you can hear. I am saying...

It's not in the Constitution, therefore the Federal government has no say

....

Correction: The Federal government does have a say if a murder is a Federal crime.

Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power to go into a State and prosecute a citizen for murder?

It doesn't. The Federal government has the right to legislate in accordance with specific Federal provisions. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress authority over crimes on the high seas, to regulate the armed forces, to legislate generally over Washington DC, and generally make laws that are necessary and proper. While there is nothing too specific, generally, if there is some reason it is a federal problem that the murder occurred, Congress can make it a crime.

I understand where you are coming from and agree with much of what you posted. However, we have differing views when it comes to human life.

 

[Contumacious]

How the **** am I supporting you?

The constitution does not mention other rights RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, ie, the right to take a crap, to take a leak, ad nauseam.

Are you then............constipated?

.

The ninth says that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights (or other amendments) are no less important then rights that are listed. I agree with that. And since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it's specifically not a Federal Power and the 9th says it's as important as all the other Amendments protecting our rights. Since abortion is not listed, you're supporting my point that it's a State right to decide, or the people's themselves, but it is not a Federal right. That is how you are supporting me.

1) Firstly, I agree with attorney [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Amendment-Legislative-Recognition-Conditions-Introduction/dp/1584778202"]Bennett B. Patterson[/ame] that the Ninth Amendment is a declaration of natural rights intended by the Founders to apply to the states;

2) Now, if you are not an anti-abortion mystic nut and you are taking Dr Paul's view then I understand your position. In that case you would agree that an Alabamian has a right to travel to New York and have an abortion, right?

.

 

[kaz]

Correction: The Federal government does have a say if a murder is a Federal crime.

Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power to go into a State and prosecute a citizen for murder?

It doesn't. The Federal government has the right to legislate in accordance with specific Federal provisions. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress authority over crimes on the high seas, to regulate the armed forces, to legislate generally over Washington DC, and generally make laws that are necessary and proper. While there is nothing too specific, generally, if there is some reason it is a federal problem that the murder occurred, Congress can make it a crime.

I understand where you are coming from and agree with much of what you posted. However, we have differing views when it comes to human life.

In other words, you want it so it's in there. Look up "enumerated" in the dictionary.

And get off your lazy ass and go convince them to not have abortions and that they have choices. I realize it's easier then doing it yourself and it's more fun to sit on your couch and eat potato chips, but no one told you freedom was easy and when you turn it over to your beloved government then you are no longer free. Electing your warden doesn't mean you're not in prison.

 

[kaz]

How the **** am I supporting you?

The constitution does not mention other rights RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, ie, the right to take a crap, to take a leak, ad nauseam.

Are you then............constipated?

.

The ninth says that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights (or other amendments) are no less important then rights that are listed. I agree with that. And since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it's specifically not a Federal Power and the 9th says it's as important as all the other Amendments protecting our rights. Since abortion is not listed, you're supporting my point that it's a State right to decide, or the people's themselves, but it is not a Federal right. That is how you are supporting me.

1) Firstly, I agree with attorney [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Amendment-Legislative-Recognition-Conditions-Introduction/dp/1584778202"]Bennett B. Patterson[/ame] that the Ninth Amendment is a declaration of natural rights intended by the Founders to apply to the states;

2) Now, if you are not an anti-abortion mystic nut and you are taking Dr Paul's view then I understand your position. In that case you would agree that an Alabamian has a right to travel to New York and have an abortion, right?

.

"He argues that the amendment would become valuable if it was construed to incorporate the doctrine of natural law, which he ranks above constitutional rights."

I believe the amendment is more valuable when it's not "construed" to incorporate anything. The 9th is in fact a pair with the 10th.

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Hamilton argued it was dangerous to have a Bill of Rights because it suggested that government had the power to violate those rights in the first place. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it's less of a right then one that is. The Federal government has no power over abortion. Your arguing that it does opens all sorts of very dangerous doors.

You can believe Natural Laws are more important then constitutional ones, but the place for you to argue that is the State legislatures. Making up Federal powers as you insist on doing is counter to everything else you you agreed with. And you say I'm inconsistent, please.

 

[Contumacious]

The ninth says that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights (or other amendments) are no less important then rights that are listed. I agree with that. And since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it's specifically not a Federal Power and the 9th says it's as important as all the other Amendments protecting our rights. Since abortion is not listed, you're supporting my point that it's a State right to decide, or the people's themselves, but it is not a Federal right. That is how you are supporting me.

1) Firstly, I agree with attorney [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Amendment-Legislative-Recognition-Conditions-Introduction/dp/1584778202"]Bennett B. Patterson[/ame] that the Ninth Amendment is a declaration of natural rights intended by the Founders to apply to the states;

2) Now, if you are not an anti-abortion mystic nut and you are taking Dr Paul's view then I understand your position. In that case you would agree that an Alabamian has a right to travel to New York and have an abortion, right?

.

"He argues that the amendment would become valuable if it was construed to incorporate the doctrine of natural law, which he ranks above constitutional rights."

I believe the amendment is more valuable when it's not "construed" to incorporate anything. The 9th is in fact a pair with the 10th.

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Hamilton argued it was dangerous to have a Bill of Rights because it suggested that government had the power to violate those rights in the first place. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it's less of a right then one that is. The Federal government has no power over abortion. Your arguing that it does opens all sorts of very dangerous doors.

You can believe Natural Laws are more important then constitutional ones, but the place for you to argue that is the State legislatures. Making up Federal powers as you insist on doing is counter to everything else you you agreed with. And you say I'm inconsistent, please.

Natural rights are , UNALIENABLE, and are protected by , but no dependent upon , the US Constitution for their existence.

Women are free people and have complete right of self ownership. They have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue their happiness. They need not give a shit about how the State of North Dakota feels about abortions.

.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

On the abortion debate: Let's look at an analogy. If you come home in the middle of a blizzard to find a homeless guy sheltered in your yard, do you have an obligation to allow him to stay and survive? If you kick him out and he dies, did you murder him?

It's a similar story here. It's the woman's body. If she considers the baby an intruder she has the right to seek to have the baby removed.

Note I said baby, not fetus or cluster of cells. I find abortion morally reprehensible, but I'd want you to go to jail for kicking out the homeless guy in my analogy too. I recognize that abortion is a consequence of the stigma society attaches to single motherhood and the fact that some guys are too irresponsible to even try to be dads. As long as pre-martial sex is happening, as long as single mothers are facing a crushing burden in society, abortion will exist.

The hypocrisy here is that the folks that want to force their views on others about abortion are frequently the same folks that oppose the sex Ed that could reduce the need for abortion and the welfare programs that could help support the child and mother. Their hypocrisy enables the situation.

On the list: it's hard to take this list seriously with it's titile when it doesn't include the American Indian holocaust, the Japenese internment, the brutal anti insurgency campaign agianst the Phillipinos, the overthrows of governments in Guatemala, Iran, Panama, etc and the criminal handling of the Influenza Pandemic.

 

[Contumacious]

Note I said baby, not fetus or cluster of cells.

OK then, edit your post and write fetus or cluster of cells.

I find abortion morally reprehensible,

I find fascism, whether inspired by a god or Marx, morally reprehensible.

.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Note I said baby, not fetus or cluster of cells.

OK then, edit your post and write fetus or cluster of cells.

I find abortion morally reprehensible,

I find fascism, whether inspired by a god or Marx, morally reprehensible.

.

I find forcing your views on others despicable. That's why even though I find abortion terrible and horrific I don't support making it illegal. It's her body, her choice.

My suspicion is that we are maybe two generations away from this being a moot point. A vast majority oppose abortion once the baby can survive birth. Science keeps pushing that date back. Eventually women won't go in for abortions, but for early term birth.

 

[Contumacious]

Note I said baby, not fetus or cluster of cells.

OK then, edit your post and write fetus or cluster of cells.

I find abortion morally reprehensible,

I find fascism, whether inspired by a god or Marx, morally reprehensible.

.

I find forcing your views on others despicable.

HUH?

I haven't forced my views on any one. I merely recognize that women have that right and that even though I am not a woman , I will not let the powers-that-be divide and conquer.

My suspicion is that we are maybe two generations away from this being a moot point. A vast majority oppose abortion once the baby can survive birth. Science keeps pushing that date back. Eventually women won't go in for abortions, but for early term birth.

That's great news unless you fuckers want taxpayers to support the progeny.

.

 

[Moonglow]

I kill my sperm daily

 

[Moonglow]

OK then, edit your post and write fetus or cluster of cells.




I find fascism, whether inspired by a god or Marx, morally reprehensible.

.

I find forcing your views on others despicable.

HUH?

I haven't forced my views on any one. I merely recognize that women have that right and that even though I am not a woman , I will not let the powers-that-be divide and conquer.

My suspicion is that we are maybe two generations away from this being a moot point. A vast majority oppose abortion once the baby can survive birth. Science keeps pushing that date back. Eventually women won't go in for abortions, but for early term birth.

That's great news unless you fuckers want taxpayers to support the progeny.

.

he's got a place in the military

 

[Contumacious]

I kill my sperm daily

For your sake , I hope you are not in North Dakota. The ND Taliban will skin you alive for killing babies.

.

 

[kaz]

Natural rights are , UNALIENABLE, and are protected by , but no dependent upon , the US Constitution for their existence.

Yes, because the Constitution limits the greatest threat to our Freedom, the Federal government. You want to blow it out by making them the guardians of our bodies, a double edged sword if you open your eyes. Once the Federal government has the power to determine that abortion is a natural right, it has the power to decide other rights are not natural and take them away. You are just too naive. The Constitution limits government, you want to turn around and hand it limitless power.

Women are free people and have complete right of self ownership. They have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue their happiness. They need not give a shit about how the State of North Dakota feels about abortions

The same laziness practiced by the left. It's a right, you're too lazy to go out and make it happen, so you cop out and let politicians do the job for you. Then you don't understand where the chains on your hands and feet came from. They were THRILLED when you asked them to take care of your problems for you. But somehow they never did.

Once you decide that government is actually a solution and not a threat, you are toast. And you my friend, are toast...

 

[Contumacious]

Natural rights are , UNALIENABLE, and are protected by , but no dependent upon , the US Constitution for their existence.

Yes, because the Constitution limits the greatest threat to our Freedom, the Federal government. You want to blow it out by making them the guardians of our bodies, a double edged sword if you open your eyes. Once the Federal government has the power to determine that abortion is a natural right, it has the power to decide other rights are not natural and take them away. You are just too naive. The Constitution limits government, you want to turn around and hand it limitless power.

Women are free people and have complete right of self ownership. They have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue their happiness. They need not give a shit about how the State of North Dakota feels about abortions

The same laziness practiced by the left. It's a right, you're too lazy to go out and make it happen, so you cop out and let politicians do the job for you. Then you don't understand where the chains on your hands and feet came from. They were THRILLED when you asked them to take care of your problems for you. But somehow they never did.

Once you decide that government is actually a solution and not a threat, you are toast. And you my friend, are toast...

Gee, I don't know when or where I said that trust government bureaucrats. But let me clarify that I don't trust them at all.

But if I were a resident of Northdakotistan, and my 18 y/o BFF was pregnant I would find it easier to take her to NYC than to try to convice a legislature full of religionists convinced that they can ignore her rights because they answer to a greater power.

.

 

[kaz]

Gee, I don't know when or where I said that trust government bureaucrats

You did when you said you trust the Federal Government to identify natural rights and gave them the power to force States to comply with their will. That is a huge amount of trust. And they have done nothing over the last 235 years but prove they can and will abuse that power.