Instead of ruining some decent threads and I am as guilty as anyone here, lets bring it to this forum. Isolate it to here. I was thinking after reading some posts, what the hell did my political comment have to do with what Women from the FSU want? Since we have a referee in Olga she can tell us to take our certain diatribes to this post or move the post's here and keep the others clean. Men are politcal creatures and that's just our make up. We also can police ourselves. If anyone is acting like an idiot in a thread send them here, myself included. There have been many good threads that started off well but ended off point because, well we are men, but we shouldn't deter from what are real agenda is. Finding a great woman!!!!Plus the added benefit for our lady visitors they can learn different things about our countries lifestyle and politics in a one stop post. And yes Sancho you little snippets of whatever they mean are welcome here. Opinions please I would be interested in hearing them?
Later All from the Political Junkie and a real conservative
Scott you are a trip and trying to split hairs here now. In the purest form todays conservatives are liberal, we are liberal in the form that we do not want to control anyones life, We believe in ultimate freedom. I don't care what two men do or two women do in the privacy of their own homes. The operative word is privacy. Don't impose your lifestyle on me I won't do mine to you. I believe in God and his Son Jesus Christ, but it doesn't mean your wrong if you don't. The freedom to choose. I don't care if you want an abortion, just don't ask me or my state to pay for it because of your indescretion. Just because you are gay or another color of skin doesn't give you special rights. Earn them like most people do.
Don't try to take my guns away from me because your are frightened of my freedom. I believe in a hand up and not a hand out. If you want to smoke reefer that's your business,I'm not asking to tax your weed, don't tax my tobacco. If you think the government can solve your problems then tell them to get the post office straight first. If you send a young man into harms way have the balls to win the war and don't let them die in futility. Instead of aborting children give them up for adoption, that gets rid of the child slave trade. Force people to be accountable for their actions. A tax rebel and a deadbeat dad will spend more time behind bars than a murderer or rapist. Get involved in your local political parties, they mean more that what the President ever will. First and foremost charity begins at home, and if the rule was ever followed we would end the welfare state we have created.
I suppose I weigh in this way. The purpose of our federal government was that it was SUPPOSED to be an agent of the people. It's primary function was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights.
So, my first issue would be that we have completely gone of the deep end and forgotten what's a right and what's a privilege.
The primary rights are spelled out in the Declaration of Independance.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Technically, this really came from an earlier work on John Locke, of which the ORIGINAL words are:
Life, Liberty, and Property
When I forfathers wrote this up, they went with former becuase they viewed the end purpose of property WAS the pursuit of happiness. Keep in mind that our bodies are property themselves, so the former certainly makes sense.
Also keep in mind that it states that man is created with certain inalienable rights. We generally are referring to what is called "Natural Rights".
The whole general point, and revolutionary for it's time (AND SHOULD STILL BE!) is that government does NOT create rights. Rights exists outside of government. So if government can't create a right, what can it do? It can deny or infringe them.
How does it do this? By the use of force, which in the ONE fundemental aspect of government excluded by ANY other agency. Government is on the only agency that can use force. It has a monopoly on it, in fact.
If government by definition is the use of force against one or more people, and government can't create rights, then we can inherenly say the following:
Any right that requires the use of force for it to exists, cannot by that statement BE a right.
I want to further clarify a pretty obvious point. Any individual can use force, as well.
When you hit someone, you use force. When you push someone out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, you use force. When you raise your own hand to block a blow from someone else, you use force.
The libertarian stance is you cannot use initiate force against another.
Ayn Rand was not herself a Libertarian. She was an Objectivist, but practically every view I know of in Objectivism applies to Libertarianism.
To quote some info:
In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation of force I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated.
To use force in retaliation -- in self defense against those who initiate it -- is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral man has nothing to gain when a man tries to kill him, but he has much to lose if he does not defend himself. For this reason it is right, just, and proper to use force in retaliation and self-defense. The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil -- but to initiate (start) force is. Contrary to the vile doctrines of the pacifists, force used in self-defense is a species of the good.
Any man (or group of men) who initiates force against others is a dictator -- a monster -- and should be treated as such, to the extent he initiates force.
Citizens may not delegate the right to initiate force to government, as they do not possess the right to begin with. As Ayn Rand has commented "there is no such thing as the right to enslave." As no individual in his private capacity, as a citizen, may initiate force against others, neither may he in his public capacity as a state official initiate force either.
That is why the original constitution was so remarkable. It stated what the GOVERNMENT was allowed to do. Ultimately, the intent was to PROTECT rights. In that case, the INITIATION of force has already occured.
What amazes me about the infancy of the constitution is the framers totally understood the potential of what is happening today in our country. They knew we were treading a fine line between utlimate freedom or Natural Law as Antonin Scalia so passionately refers to it and despotism. If you read the Federalist papers and The Anti Federalist papers the ultimate responsibility is still laid at the doorstep of the american people. We control our destiny and no one else. No government is stronger than the will of the people. Unfortunately our enemies of freedom have take pages out of Josef Goebbels play book in propoganda. There is a book that really shook
me up it's call the Shadows of power, The council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline. By James Perloff. Though Ronald
Reagan was not the perfect president he was not a member of the CFR or Trilateral Comission. That's what I loved about the man, he put America first in his heart and really believed in the mission of the framers. He also saw taxation as an evil for control over the citizenry.
Scott keep preaching to the choir, just don't ask me to sing LOL. If we can convince one person each to look at every issue involved and see if our freedoms are threatened then the world will become a better place. The masses are spoonfed their news via the big three media outlets. I can't remember that last time I ever watched those idiots they are the propoganda arm of totalatarinist side.
ail squarely on the head! The founding fathers new that times may change, but the nature of goverment does not. I wonder what there first response would have been to the first time the courts stated the Constitution was a "living document".
Anyway, I want to throw in some of my favorite quotes from various sources.
L. Neil Smith
America's historic misfortune is that her people have never been quite equal to the ideals upon which she was established.
The average media personality rises to his level of incompetence simply by getting up every morning.
Believe what you like about "wasting your vote", nothing will ever alter a fundamental assumption on the part of Democrats, Republicans -- and the vast bureaucracy they've created together -- that even the slightest manifestation of individuality (let alone individualism) is a threat that must be dealt with.
Choose your allies carefully: it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be held morally, legally, or historically accountable for the actions of your enemies
Conservatives are accustomed to being called fascists and are well prepared to defend themselves on that ground. Liberals are used to being called socialists. Those labels can be switched, however, and remain valid and instructive. It also catches them completely unprepared. (Remember my comment on being a classical liberal?)
Don't be disheartened by opinion polls or the outcome of elections. History has never been made by the majority and it never will be.
The function of government is to provide you with service; the function of the media is to supply the Vaseline.
If you lose, go down fighting. It costs nothing extra, and now and again ...
If you're not a little bit uncomfortable with your position, it isn't radical enough. How can you be too principled? Take the most extreme position you can -- you're claiming territory you won't have to fight for later, mostly against your "allies".
In this world we live in, there are good ideas and there are bad ideas; those who can't tell the difference conduct opinion polls.
It is not the purpose of education to produce good citizens, but to help children become successful human beings. The former is properly identified as "indoctrination" and, when undertaken at the taxpayers' expense, should be illegal.
Know, otherhandwise, that the easiest, most humiliating path to defeat is thinking that to beat the enemy you must be like him. Avoid the temptation to set your values aside "for the duration". What's the point of fighting if you give up what you're fighting for? If remaining consistent with your values leads to defeat, you chose the wrong values to begin with. (I follow this in regards to our fight on Terrorism)
Know when to give up a lost cause. Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.
Money, first and foremost, is a medium of communiaction, conveying the information we call "price". Government control of the money supply is censorship, a violation of the First Amendment. Inflation is a lie. (ABOLISH THE FED!)
he more fundamental position is the highest ground, allowing the most "perpendicular" attack. If he argues politics, argue ethics -- things seldom go beyond this stage. If he argues ethics, argue epistemology (look it up). If he argues epistemology, argue metaphysics. If he argues metaphysics, you're up against Darth Vader and you're in trouble. Switch back to politics and accuse him of being out of touch with everyday reality. Or ask him if he's stopped beating his wife.
Never soft-pedal the truth. It's seldom self-evident and almost never sells itself, because there's less sales resistance to a glib and comforting lie.
The only way to beat the government is to become the government. Over two centuries, American democracy has acquired something analogous to an immune system to protect it from the merest threat of wisdom, intelligence, honor, decency, individuality, or courage. Anyone entering the system who exhibits any of those undesirable attributes sooner or later finds himself broken and cast aside -- if he is fortunate -- or assimilated.
Remain the judge of your own actions. Never surrender that position by default. When the enemy screams "Foul!" the loudest, you know you're doing him the most damage. Those who help him scream are also the enemy.
Tell me what you think, not what you think other people think. If you voted in terms of what you're ready for, instead of what you've convinced yourself others are ready for, we'd have had Constitutional government, a Libertarian society, and eradicated socialism half a century ago.
Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment's respite deserve only the end of a rope.
Want a clear indication of what the welfare state is really all about? Note that the barest necessities of life -- food, clothing and shelter -- are all taxed.
Washington, D.C: where they took a perfectly good swamp and turned it into a sewer.
Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments -- commonly known as the Bill of Rights -- are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers failed to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?
You cannot force me to agree with you. You can force me to act as though I agree with you -- but then you'll have to watch your back. All the time.
You may never convince the other guy, but it's often worthwhile to keep arguing for the effect it has on bystanders, especially his allies.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
"....Instead of aborting children give them up for adoption, that gets rid of the child slave trade...."
Instead of giving birth to an unwanted pregnancy, abort the fetus.
Our prisons and inner city streets are already overcrowed with an unmanageable amount of unwanted children who grow up to be violent criminals.
For every argument in favor of defending the life of an unwanted fetus, there are many more in favor of defending and preventing the needless sacrifices forced upon victims of rape, assault and murder.
IMNSHO, abortion is the lesser of two evils.
Out adoption system is broken beyond repair, corrupt to the core and buried in redtape....not to mention the small detail that generally qualified adopting parents do not want adopt crack babies or chidren whose parents have dubious medical or drug use histories.
If our state and federal legislators insist in maintaining a wellfare system by invoking compassionate idealism, the very least I expect wish and regularly campaign for is the reform needed to discourage those who make a career of out of having children for the sole purpose of perpetuating the freeloading at our expense.
Paying for the abortion is a heck of a lot cheaper and as I explained above safer for the future would be victims of violent crimes.
Toad this topic is one you and I will never agree on! Maybe at a later time I will refute your comments, but the problem is we molly coddle criminals too much these days instead of punishing them severly. Abortion won't stop criminals just like taking guns away from good people won't stop killing with guns.
<i>As Richard M. Weaver wrote in 1957, "with the United States insisting on independence for this and that country halfway around the world – independence for Czechoslovakia, independence for Indo-China, independence for Korea, independence for Israel – it has certainly been handsome of the South not to raise the question of its own independence again." The South and the American Union (1957)</i>
Considering all the history of the Civial War I've read, I just find the comment amusing in the context of the U.S. position in the Cold War.
From your previous post Regarding Francis Marion, also known as the Swamp Fox, I admired him for the fact that he gave up enormous wealth to take up the cause of freedom in the Revolution, he could have easily stayed at home, supported the British and became wealthier than he was.
Along with the Civil war, I recomend anyone to buy Ken Burns Civil War, what a great documentary, Also one interesting Figure was Nathan Bedford Forrest, even though demonized as the person who started the Ku Klux Klan, He was a very wealthy individual and knew the South was in difficult financial straits, so he financed his own army in support of what he believed in. I wonder how many individuals today would go to those extremes for a cause? I know there are some and wish they would step up now and help find statesmen to run for political office instead of a bunch of puppets tied to special interests.
I took the night thinking how I was going to refute the merits of your arguement without sounding condescending. I am very passionate about the issue of abortion. And I have been accused at times of being condescending about it so I wanted to be eloquent in my rebuttal.
Some of the arguements you laid have merit but you have a misguided approach to the matter. One I am in total agreement with the adoption process and the disriminatory practices it has. You'll never convince me that poor people can't love and raise children as well as rich. Plus anything the government is involved in usually is a cluster-fuck.
Abortion is one of the most evil and henious practices our society uses. If you support abortion you cannot support the excercise of the death penalty. The reason is both are morally and philosophically different. The main reason is capital punishment is used as a penalty for the appreciation of life. We value life so much that will will issue the ultimate penalty for taking another persons life. The problem with abortion is it devalues life, relegates it to a matter of convenience. If you are willing to committ the act be responsible to accept the child. Our society has rewarded women to have multiple children by different fathers to gain tax money through welfare. One child I'll buy, but when you have multiple children that's abuse and your ass needs to be kicked off the welfare dole. Plus how many women do you know that are single mothers with one child on welfare? I don't know of many. Two fathers have to accountable for their children. Not only in financial aid but in emotional support and take an active role in their lives. This is where the government fails miserably. They pay the women who have multiple children and the government acts as an absentee father, with no moral or emotional support for the children.
Also since the proliferation of abortion in our society you have begun to see more kids killing kids and severe brutal actions by children. This is a direct result of the abortion/devaluation of life
process. Along that process, it seems the liberal guidence of contraceptives to be also a miserable failure. If it is so free and
readily available, what's the need for abortion? As you said above you would gladly pay for the abortion, okay I will gladly pay for the pill, I would rather do that then support the homocide of an unborn fetus. Along those lines, how can a person, Like in the Scott Peterson case be charged with two crimes of murder when the fetus isn't recognized as a life. If you recognized the fetus as a life in that case, then abortion in the truest sense is murder.
The case against abortion is more than the right too chose what to do with one's body. There are by far more societal and moral issues involved. And if we are willing to compormise our moral standings then this country is head straight to hell in a hand basket.
Also, under our constitution, the rights of health, education and welfare is left respectivley to the states in the 10th amendment.
So if you support abortion you are being duped by the left to circumvent our great constitution which defends, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So if my state chooses not to legalize abortion it is their right. I wonder, how many states if it was put to a vote would make abortion on demand illegal, probably 46 of them. Plus who is going to defend the right of the unborn?
Not the least, their are three victims to abortion, the mother, the child and society are all victims in this brutal act. We pay in society because of the devaluation of life, it promotes criminal activity or in some minds justifies it. You can kill a child so whats the big deal about robbing someone, stealing a car or murder? Abortion also takes away personal responsibility, fuck it I can pregnant and have it aborted, even if I don't have the money I'll just let the taxpayer pick it up for my indescretion. What message does that send to children.
There are so many other points I could bring out, but I know you support the death penalty, so sit back in think for one second my friend, If you support the death penalty for the sanctity for life, how can you support abortion which holds no sanctity for life.
I'm not trying to change your mind Toad, I'm just bringing out points for you to ponder. I agree with you about the many children and the prison issue, but when we as a society agree to killing of unborn innocent children, how can we as a society have any expectations out of children at all?
This is where congress lost their back bone, first and foremost it is a states rights issue and When Roe v. Wade came up congress should have directed the supreme court that this was not within their scope and authority, which can be found in the federalist papers. This is part of the checks and balances. Supreme court became a super legislature and infringed on the house and senate and states rights.
"Marbury vs. Madison" The Supreme Court effictively stated that ONLY IT can determine what is constitutional and what is not, regardless of what in the Federalist papers, etc. And NO! I do NOT support that statement.
This is by far not the last first nor last time that this will happen.
I am very familiar with Marbury v. Madison, but I find political appointments not an issue, in todays times it wouldn't even made certorari. You have to remember also during roe v. wade , the court was the most liberal that it has been in some years, Marshall, Douglas,
Burger, Black, radical leftist, hell they turned Hugo Black who was a conservative from Alabama, go figure that one. The current court kind of scares me right now, I hate to say this, but I wish Rehnquist would retire so Bush could appoint Scalia as Chief Justice, that would stop a lot of bullshit on the court. Plus expose the Libs before the election when they would try to Bork him. I put him on the Same intellectual level With Bob Bork, but Scalia has a skill to make the common man understand court decisions. The two of them are the greatest constitution minds in our generation. Thank God for them.
The court was not intellectually honest when it accepted Roe v. Wade, most of those Justices were judicial activists. Hell William O.Douglas admits it in his Book Go East Young man.he also states that Roe v. Wade was the courts best and worst moment. I wonder what he meant, best because of the attention and worst because of the horrible decision? And how they trampled on Americans freedoms?
You like quotes Scott, I like Thurogood Marshalls quote when he was asked what he was going to do in retirement. He responded sit on his big fat ass. Well business as usual for Mr. Marshall that's all he did as a Justice on the court.
They key to this is our representatives and finding statesmen willing to take on tough issues and not worry about getting re-elected.
Yes, I like quotes. Usually, its because the issue at hand was known by those at the time. I think I forefathers were extremely bright, and realized that though the times may change, the nature of man and government don't.
Marbury vs. Madison had a very profound effect for all federal government actions outside of just appointments.
Okay, here comes the quote!
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
The ultimate arbiter of federal issues is "We the People". We've just been ingrained for so long on how the government should fix things, that we have completely forgotten, it's not supposed to do what it's doing to begin with.
Without enforcable limits (which we as citizens must do), the majority of Senators/Gongressmen have no motivation to do so. With the 16th Amendment in place (and partially due to the 17th amendment), the checks and balances are so far out of wack, I don't know realistally how it will be recovered.
That does not keep from me from speaking out and trying to stop it from the point of a citizen.