Fred Thompson and federalism, our Constitution's plan! [Archive]

johnwk

11-06-2007, 04:06 PM

You guys are tough, but here goes!

If an itemized list were created to identify actions of Congress which directly and indirectly inflict misery upon Mary and Joe Sixpack living in say Michigan, high on that list would be the subjugation of federalism by the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties.

Fred Thompson appears to have correctly identified this primary cause of the people`s suffering and is zeroing in, with both guns blazing, on this very important issue which the Washington Establishment and the leaders of our two major political parties obviously consider to be off limits in political campaign discussions.

And just what is meant by federalism, our Constitution`s plan? Federalist Paper No. 45 explains it this way:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

So, federalism, for the purposes of this discussion, is a constitutionally defined separation of powers ___ those which have been enumerated and delegated to Congress by the people of the various states, and, those which have been retained by the various States and the People therein. But why is an open and informative discussion concerning the subjugation of federalism by Congress considered to be off limits by our Republican and Democrat Party leaders? Because the leaders of each party personally benefit tremendously by subjugating federalism and seizing unauthorized power.

For example, right now we have approximately 5000 political plum job holders at the federal department of education which have outrageous salaries, their own top of the shelf health care plan, and, they get a very, very generous retirement pension plan for administering and redistributing money for a function not authorized by our written federal Constitution, but which Mary and Joe Sixpack are taxed to finance. Keep in mind the people of each state by their state Constitution have established their own system of public schools, and have authorized state taxes, not federal taxation, to fund those systems!

So why do we have 5000 federal employees living quite comfortably on the federal dole who are meddling in a state authorized function? In return for living so well, these federal political plum job holders double as Congress`s foot soldieries during federal election time to help prop up the Washington Establishment`s Empire.

But just think, by closing down the parasitic Federal Department of Education, more appropriately referred to by Michelle Malkin as The Department of Embezzlement (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin053001.asp), and repealing the un-constitutional No Child [“dime“] Left Behind Act, and getting rid of 5000 federal political plum jobs, Mary and Joe, as federal taxpayers, would have their federal taxes reduced by approximately $67 BILLION, which was America’s entire federal budget in 1952! Just think, if this amount would be returned to the States by the rule of apportionment, Michigan would receive a very generous $26 MILLION which I‘m sure would come in handy for the people of Michigan to help finance Michigan’s public education system which they established by their State Constitution.

So, when Fred Thompson talks about a return to federalism, a subject off limits by the Washington Establishment, what Fred is really talking about is removing the shackles of slavery from Mary and Joe Sixpack who have been made the personal tax slaves for the Washington Establishment and its millions of federal political plum job holders. But let us take a closer look at the slavery imposed upon Mary and Joe. For those who do not think they have been made a tax slave by the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders, maybe this will get your attention.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW (http://federaljobs.net/)

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,715,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or stop working for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000.

The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.

On the other hand, Mary and Joe Sixpack’s average annual wage amounts to approximately $40-45 K

In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits``:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.

Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employee`s contribution.

Also under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301441.html)

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.
<SNIP>
The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the article meant to state is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to our nation’s privileged class ___ federal employees and their families. This is not meant to suggest that all federal employees and functions are illegitimate, but, those which are legitimate as identified by our written Constitution ``are few and defined``

Fred Thompson is on target when talking about a return to federalism. The sad truth is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation`s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2003/pd103003a.html). Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law ___ our constitutions, state and federal.

Fred Thompson may have hit upon something! Certainly, if our founders were confronted with today’s situation they would more than likely have said: “He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence
Regards,
JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, [H.R.25‘s family consumption allowance], we can then bribe them for their vote, maintain our positions of power and keep the remaining portion of America’s population enslaved to pay the bills

Rhino

11-07-2007, 07:36 AM

Keep in mind the people of each state by their state Constitution have established their own system of public schools, and have authorized state taxes, not federal taxation, to fund those systems!Federal taxes are used to support schools.

I notice you also posted this on Volconvo.

Lazarus

11-07-2007, 08:15 AM

Federal taxes are used to support schools...On paper, yes... In fact those taxes are used as a stick to drive the states in the direction that Washington wants them to go... Its legalized extortion that only serves to impose Socialism and Atheism on the public...

The larger portion of taxes paid by any single taxpayer goes to the Federal government, with the lesser portion going to the state... This is just the opposite of what the framers of the Constitution intended...

The Department of Education is one of those Federal agencies that serves no purpose except to pander to the NEA and enslave the masses... A typical creation of Jimmy Carter... It should be eliminated and the burden of public education passed to local control...

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-07-2007, 08:22 AM

The Department of Education is one of those Federal agencies that serves no purpose except to pander to the NEA and enslave the masses... A typical creation of Jimmy Carter... It should be eliminated and the burden of public education passed to local control...

:claps::claps::claps::claps:

Just one the reasons I voted for Laz for PoM ... brilliant observation, my friend!

johnwk

11-07-2007, 09:01 PM

Federal taxes are used to support schools.

Exactly! And by what Constitutionally autorized power does Congress tax Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Maryland to support the New York City public school system? Let us look at the facts.

The People of Maryland delegated the power for a state funded and regulated educational system to their state elected officials, and not to the folks in Washington.___, the wording being as follows:

“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”___ Art. 3 Maryland‘s Constitution

The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms:
“the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”___ Art. 4 Maryland‘s Declaration of Rights

In addition the Maryland Constitution states in emphatic words:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.” ___ Maryland‘s Declaration of Rights.

This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States by their ratification of our federal Bill of Rights, and in particular the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which was adopted to further restrict the federal government powers. This very intention, to further restrict the federal government powers, is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm)

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the united States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution viz: etc., etc.,

And let us not forget what Madision states with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

So, why do we have a federal department of education? Because the creation of a federal department of education also allows the creation of 5,000 political plum jobs, many of which have excessive salaries, top of the self medical plans, and very generous retirement plan, all of which Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Maryland can only dream of having but are taxed to finance.

And what do these political plum job holders do at the federal Department of Education? Surprise, they pilfer money from the Department’s budget into their own pockets See: The Department of Embezzlement (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin053001.asp)

If we had an honest candidate running for the presidency, one who supports federalism, our Constitution‘s plan, that person would be pointing out how the Washington Establishment has made Mary and Joe Sixpack its personal tax slaves and that by closing down the unconstitutional federal Department of Education and returning its current budget [$ 67 BILLION, which was our federal government entire budget in 1952] to the various states by the rule of apportionment, Michigan, for example, would receive a very generous $26 MILLION!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

johnwk

11-08-2007, 06:52 AM

House Approves Ban on Anti-Gay Discrimination (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/washington/07cnd-employ.html?ex=1352178000&en=8fc363a11cf497b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

By DAVID M HERSZENHORN
Published: November 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The House approved a bill this evening granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.

The bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, is the latest version of legislation that Democrats have pursued since 1974 when Representatives Edward I Kock and Bella Abzug of New York first sought to protect gay men and lesbians with a measure that they introduced on the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the confrontation between gay men and police officers at a bar in Greenwich Village that is widely viewed as the start of the American gay rights movement.

“On this proud day of the 110th Congress, we will chart a new direction for civil rights,” said Representative Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat and leading gay rights advocate, in a speech ahead of the vote. “On this proud day, the Congress will act to ensure that all Americans are granted equal rights in the work place.”

Snip>

While 19 states and Washington, D.C., have laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and many municipalities offer similar protections, federal law offers no such shield, although it does bar discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, disability and pregnancy.

Why is there no federal laws barring discrimination on sexual orientation within the various states? Surprise! The Times has failed to report that reason.

There is no power granted to Congress in our federal Constitution to enter the States and compel business and property owners to enter into unwanted contracts with homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, etc. Not only does such a bill propose to subjugate federalism, but also proposes to trample with impunity upon one of mankind’s most fundamental and unalienable rights ___ the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations!

Every member in the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the bill must be viewed as a domestic enemy of federalism, our Constitution‘s plan, and ought to have their home address published on the internet just as child molesters now are who also seek to trample upon the unalienable rights of individuals.

Aside from that, this bill is a back door attempt by our homosexual friendly crowd on Capitol Hill to eventually force every state in our union to adopt homosexual marriages.

If you think the coming election is not about the preservation of federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and protecting unalienable rights, you are asleep at the switch and part of America’s problem!

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

Federalism is in fact the real “big tent” everyone loves to talk about. If homosexuals all want to go to Massachusetts, get married and live happily ever after, that is what federalism is all about, a big tent system, so long as when it comes time to protect our nation from foreign threats, Massachusetts sends its apportioned share of troops and pays its apportioned share of any general tax laid among the States by Congress!

JWK

Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism as our Constitution's plan:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

Rhino

11-08-2007, 07:45 AM

Exactly! And by what Constitutionally autorized power does Congress tax Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Maryland to support the New York City public school system?None. I was merely pointing that out.

Maggie_T

11-08-2007, 11:14 AM

:claps::claps::claps::claps:

Just one the reasons I voted for Laz for PoM ... brilliant observation, my friend!

I'll second that, Sis. :thumb:

johnwk

11-09-2007, 07:38 AM

.
For a list of members of the House who voted to subjugate federalism and trample upon one of mankind’s most fundamental unalienable rights ___ the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations ___ CLICK HERE (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1057)

These are domestic enemies of our constitutional system and federalism, and every member in the House of Representatives who voted in favor of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, ought to be viewed as a domestic enemy of federalism, our Constitution‘s plan, and should have their home address and picture published on the internet just as child molesters now are who also seek to trample upon the unalienable rights of individuals.

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 09:08 AM

Interesting discussion on federalism. I see some potential members of The Federalist Society here. However - Fred Thompson is not a federalist. He's a Republican card carrying member of the Washington Establishment. His website advertises his will to increase funding for the most intrusive anti-federalist (and corrupt) federal program ever created. It dove-tails right into his confusion over defense of marriage and family; the area most sensitive to intrusion, and most damaged by federal intrusion over the past 20 years. He wants to increase funding for this program - that has resulted in the elimination of the Bill of Rights as a useful instrument. He's not who he pretends to be. He's not one of The People he's trying to impress.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-09-2007, 09:28 AM

His website advertises his will to increase funding for the most intrusive anti-federalist (and corrupt) federal program ever created.

Elaborate, please.

He's not one of The People he's trying to impress.

So which candidate impresses you?

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 09:50 AM

Elaborate, please.

In a recent televised debate, he mentioned quickly at the end of a response on education that the most serious problems in the country have to do with the need for more fathers in families. The statement immediately got the attention of the fathers' rights community, which has been saying that very same thing for years. I looked at Fred's website a few days ago, and found a statement under issues -> education that he wants to increase funding for child support enforcement; a corrupt program that's never done anything good and has been pegged as part of the problem. (and the other things I said above) I checked again just before posting this. Looks like they deleted the statement from the website. Good politics I expect, but I have no reason to suspect it means a change in his position. I'm probably going to be sorry for the next thing I type - because I know people here hate it when I say it - but he's a Reagan Republican - talking conservative talk and meaning exactly the opposite - a conservative rhetorical packaging of support for far left social(ist - of the most extreme kind) policy.

So which candidate impresses you?

<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/07/three-election-pledges/">Three Election Pledges</a>

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-09-2007, 10:20 AM

In a recent televised debate, he mentioned quickly at the end of a response on education that the most serious problems in the country have to do with the need for more fathers in families. The statement immediately got the attention of the fathers' rights community, which has been saying that very same thing for years. I looked at Fred's website a few days ago, and found a statement under issues -> education that he wants to increase funding for child support enforcement; a corrupt program that's never done anything good and has been pegged as part of the problem. (and the other things I said above) I checked again just before posting this. Looks like they deleted the statement from the website. Good politics I expect, but I have no reason to suspect it means a change in his position.

Unless you can provide proof of this allegation, I'm sorry I am unable to consider it as I have no basis other than your assertion.

I'm probably going to be sorry for the next thing I type - because I know people here hate it when I say it - but he's a Reagan Republican - talking conservative talk and meaning exactly the opposite - a conservative rhetorical packaging of support for far left social(ist - of the most extreme kind) policy.

Please show me Fred Thompson's "support for far left social(ist-of the most extreme kind) policy. You alluded to one issue, what are the others?

Three Election Pledges (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/07/three-election-pledges/)

Not an answer. I asked a question, I didn't want to read an article. If you support no one, just say so.

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 10:29 AM

Well, you can believe it or not. It's your vote.

It's a short article. I'll let you read it if you want an answer, cause you're acting too much like a bully. Not a way to get on my good side.

Seabee

11-09-2007, 10:44 AM

I'm probably going to be sorry for the next thing I type - because I know people here hate it when I say it - but he's a Reagan Republican - talking conservative talk and meaning exactly the opposite - a conservative rhetorical packaging of support for far left social(ist - of the most extreme kind) policy.

I would hope he is a Reagan Republican. But I do not see any indication of anything Reagan did that could be considered Leftist. Nor have I seen anything that Thompson wants to accomplish that is Leftist. As far as intrusion into the bedroom, my understanding of Thompson's position was that he would let the States legislate the people's wishes on Gay Marriage, etc. State's rights, sounds pretty conservative to me.

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 10:53 AM

I would hope he is a Reagan Republican. But I do not see any indication of anything Reagan did that could be considered Leftist. Nor have I seen anything that Thompson wants to accomplish that is Leftist. As far as intrusion into the bedroom, my understanding of Thompson's position was that he would let the States legislate the people's wishes on Gay Marriage, etc. State's rights, sounds pretty conservative to me.

Yes, it SOUNDS that way. Totally acknowledged. That's exactly what I said.

Rhino

11-09-2007, 12:04 PM

Not an answer. I asked a question, I didn't want to read an article. If you support no one, just say so.He doesn't know. He's looking to go third party, but has not selected a candidate.

Lubbock

11-09-2007, 12:21 PM

" . . . for child support enforcement; a corrupt program that's never done anything good and has been pegged as part of the problem. . . . "

Excuse me?

Explain that statement, please.

Rhino

11-09-2007, 12:44 PM

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 12:45 PM

" . . . for child support enforcement; a corrupt program that's never done anything good and has been pegged as part of the problem. . . . "

Excuse me?

Explain that statement, please.

It seems like a pretty straight-forward statement. I can point you to lots of reading, even a new book that's selling well and has all 5 star reader reviews on Amazon.com .... here's a couple of comments:

In the context of this discussion, I suppose the first thing that should be pointed out is that Constitutionally, family law is not a federal issue. The US Office of Child Support Enforcement was created by Congress in 1975 when it was tacked on to social policy legislation that members of Congress actually cared about at the time. When President Ford signed it, he stated that the child support enforcement program took the federal government too far into family issues and promised corrective action later. It is definitely not consistent with the Constitutionally based federalist concept to support the existence of the program - let alone wanting to increase funding. The only people to show up to speak in favor of the amendment were Ronald Reagan and representatives from the National Organization of Women. By the time Reagan took office, there was a line at the door looking for handouts from the new pork-barrel program. There is now a huge industry driven entirely by our tax dollars. Thank you Ron.

On the point that it has never done anything good - it's just a fact. It never has. The percent of child support ordered that is paid remains about the same as it was before the program existed. The problem is not that the program needs more power and funding, it's that the problem it was created to address never existed. No problem that it could solve. What it has accomplished is the elimination of due process. This resulted from a federal appealate court reclassifying marriage and family law as social policy in order to allow states to take full advantage of the pork. Doing that required allowing arbitrary treatment by states. The former classification, that actually does correspond to the Constitution, was that family law is part of civil law. In its civil law classification, due process rights existed - limiting arbitrary intrusion by the state.

That it is part of the problem was really a limited response on my part. It has created many problems. That it is part of the problem of family break-down is partly due to the fact that it is responsible for the formal legal destruction of the institution of family - explained above. There is also an extremely well documented case that it actually causes family break-down - i.e. divorce. That may be an overly simplified statement - but it drives higher divorce rates. The short explanation is that it rewards women for having children but not being married to the father. It's now a very profitable practice. The long and very thorough case is presented by Stephen Baskerville in his new book: http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6802967-7190520?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194637278&sr=8-1Taken into Custody: The war against fatherhood, marriage, and the family.

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 12:52 PM

Lubbock

11-09-2007, 12:56 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-09-2007, 01:01 PM

Well, you can believe it or not. It's your vote.

It's a short article. I'll let you read it if you want an answer, cause you're acting too much like a bully. Not a way to get on my good side.

I'm sorry if I came across as a "bully", my-bad. :smirky: I was interested in the information, that's why I asked. I didn't call-names, or make unsubstantiated assertions. I didn't know asking questions and making comments constituted "bullying".

Again, sorry if it appeared as though I was bullying. I'll just take what you said at face-value, and leave it at that. :thumb:

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 01:09 PM

I'm sorry if I came across as a "bully", my-bad. :smirky:

OK, it's all copperstetic. :thumb:

RogerFGay

11-09-2007, 01:27 PM

One more quick addition to my response. The reclassification of family law to social policy allowed the federal government to remain involved to begin with. It also allows states to act arbitrarily in family law cases in order to increase the amount of federal funding they receive.

The social policy classification is given to, for example, welfare entitlements. A different constitutional standard applies because social policy issues are the result of arbitrary political decisions - for example, the level of welfare entitlements. The constitutional requirement for equal protection or equal treatment under law is what makes an entitlement an "entitlement." When the political decision is made to provide a benefit, then everyone similarly situated is entitled to to the benefit; implementation of social policy must not arbitrarily discriminate.

This, legally, redefines marriage and family as nothing more than the result of government policy choice. The way was then clear for a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage based on equal treatment.

johnwk

11-09-2007, 04:10 PM

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 02:31 AM

Which Constitution did the Mass. Court point to when referencing the “equal protection of the laws”?

JWK

The basis of the claim is the Mass. Constitution. As is required by our federal system and federal Constitution, the Mass. Constitution is consistent with the federal constitution regarding basic rights; and the court, in making the decision refers to both the Mass. and the federal constitution.

<a href="http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=2&ACTION=SEARCH&bQlocfnd=True&CFID=0&DB=MA%2DORCS%2DWEB&Method=TNC&query=TI%28+Goodridge+%22Department+of+Public+Heal th%22%29+%26+CO%28sjcf+sjcres+sjcopj%29&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT512131011&RLTDB=CLID%5FDB502131011&sp=MassOF%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.11&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001">Goodridge and others vs. Department of Public Health</a>

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 04:23 AM

Roger has a long history with child support enforcement. There were rampant cases of them harassing honest dads instead of going after the deadbeat ones. He does not oppose dads paying child support when they should. He opposes harassing honest dads instead of going after the deadbeat dads, which those programs have often done.

That's correct.

<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay092904.htm">The Case of Cpl Romel Smith, USMC</a>

<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2005/gay062305.htm">Death of a Father</a>

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 04:29 AM

I am going to display my abject ignorance [something I'm not short on] right here and right now: I did not know that the FEDERAL government was involved in the collection of child support.

I thought it was strictly a STATE issue.

I learn something new every day.

Last time I checked, the federal program had about 90,000 agents nationwide and a $4 billion + annual budget; also the most intrusive data collection system in US history. Stephen Baskerville makes an interesting comparison in his book "Taken into Custody" - which I could not quickly find using the index. But something like about how much larger it is than the Dept. of Homeland Security for example.

<a href="http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1201/1201nationalid.htm">Too Late to Stop National ID</a>

johnwk

11-10-2007, 05:21 AM

Oh, I almost forgot. Regarding same-sex marriage. The Constitutional mandate in favor of same-sex marriage found by the Mass. court is based on equal protection of the laws. This is the exclusive consideration given to social policy issues. It is a just a simple fact that the reclassification of family law from civil law to social policy lead directly to the constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage; the reclassification made to allow states to arbitrarily manipulate child support amounts so that they would receive greater amounts of federal funding.
"Oh, I almost forgot. Regarding same-sex marriage. The Constitutional mandate in favor of same-sex marriage found by the Mass. court is based on equal protection of the laws."

Which Constitution did the Mass. Court point to when referencing the “equal protection of the laws”?
JWK
The basis of the claim is the Mass. Constitution. As is required by our federal system and federal Constitution, the Mass. Constitution is consistent with the federal constitution regarding basic rights; and the court, in making the decision refers to both the Mass. and the federal constitution.
Goodridge and others vs. Department of Public Health (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=2&ACTION=SEARCH&bQlocfnd=True&CFID=0&DB=MA%2DORCS%2DWEB&Method=TNC&query=TI%28+Goodridge+%22Department+of+Public+Heal th%22%29+%26+CO%28sjcf+sjcres+sjcopj%29&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT512131011&RLTDB=CLID%5FDB502131011&sp=MassOF%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.11&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001)

Roger,

There is no basis in the federal Constitution favoring same sex marriage. There is no basis in the federal Constitution forbidding states from refusing to acknowledge same sex marriages or allowing it. Those who claims otherwise are making something up which is inconsistent with the documented beliefs and understanding under which our federal Constitution was adopted. Keep the federal Constitution out of the discussion. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage!

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

Federalism is in fact the real “big tent” everyone loves to talk about. If homosexuals all want to go to Massachusetts, get married and live happily ever after, that is what federalism is all about, a big tent system, so long as when it comes time to protect our nation from foreign threats, Massachusetts sends its apportioned share of gay troops and pays its apportioned share of any general tax laid among the States by Congress!

JWK

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 06:10 AM

[/color]

Roger,

There is no basis in the federal Constitution favoring same sex marriage. There is no basis in the federal Constitution forbidding states from refusing to acknowledge same sex marriages or allowing it. Those who claims otherwise are making something up which is inconsistent with the documented beliefs and understanding under which our federal Constitution was adopted. Keep the federal Constitution out of the discussion. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage!

I'm afraid you misunderstood. The response you quote is not constructing my own opinion on the matter. I was asked a factual question about how the Massachusetts case was decided. I was neither a litigant in the case nor a member of the court that made the decision. You're merely shooting at the messenger.

[/color]
Federalism is in fact the real “big tent” everyone loves to talk about. If homosexuals all want to go to Massachusetts, get married and live happily ever after, that is what federalism is all about, a big tent system, so long as when it comes time to protect our nation from foreign threats, Massachusetts sends its apportioned share of gay troops and pays its apportioned share of any general tax laid among the States by Congress!

JWK

Your response does not aim at the concerns I have expressed. Marriage as we knew it - in a legal sense - no longer exists. It was killed off before the Mass. decision on same-sex marraige. Marriage and family - as now legally defined - are merely the result of arbitrary political decisions. They are on the same footing as welfare entitlements and taxes; and nothing more in the eyes of the law. This is not a result of decisions on same-sex marriage and not my response to decisions on same-sex marriage. It is a result of the reclassification of family law from civil law to social policy - which happened years before the new decisions on same-sex marriage.

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 06:29 AM

[/color]

Roger,

There is no basis in the federal Constitution favoring same sex marriage. There is no basis in the federal Constitution forbidding states from refusing to acknowledge same sex marriages or allowing it. Those who claims otherwise are making something up which is inconsistent with the documented beliefs and understanding under which our federal Constitution was adopted. Keep the federal Constitution out of the discussion. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage!

JWK

BTW: Not much I can do about the correspondence between the US Constitution and state constitutions related to the Bill of Rights; nor would I want to change that. State constitutions must correspond, at least meeting minimum requirements of the Bill of Rights. The case commented on was decided by a state supreme court however. Federal courts have the power to overturn it, but it was not been appealed on that level; perhaps because a federal appeals court had already classified family law as social policy. What use then unless those who object want a new ruling on the classification from the USSC?

I read a dissenting opinion in the case that agrees with you. At least one of the justices was of the opinion that the state constitution (and the argument would also apply to the US Constitution IMO) does not in any way mandate a right of same-sex marriage. The justice saw the majority decision as redefining marriage rather than upholding a right to marry whoever you want to marry; which the justice saw as outside the proper authority of the court.

johnwk

11-10-2007, 08:55 AM

BTW: Not much I can do about the correspondence between the US Constitution and state constitutions related to the Bill of Rights; nor would I want to change that.

Huh? Correspondence? Change what?

State constitutions must correspond, at least meeting minimum requirements of the Bill of Rights.

Really? Do you have documentation supporting the notion that our Constitution’s Bill of Rights was adopted so as to compel the States to meet its “minimum requirements“? My research indicates something far different!

The Bill of Rights, upon its ratification, was not intended, nor does it, apply to the various states governments, each of which had their own state Constitutions and Declarations of Rights when the federal Bill of Rights was adopt, and was adopted to further restrict the federal government’s powers and not the various State powers or powers retained by the people therein.

The very intentions of those who framed and ratified the federal Bill of Rights is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm)

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution ….

And, it is also important to note that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Bill of Rights, [which includes the Tenth Amendment] with reference to “federalism“:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"____ Justice Story

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 09:32 AM

The Bill of Rights, upon its ratification, was not intended, nor does it, apply to the various states governments, each of which had their own state Constitutions and Declarations of Rights when the federal Bill of Rights was adopt, and was adopted to further restrict the federal government’s powers and not the various State powers or powers retained by the people therein.

That's a very odd point of view, one I've never seen or heard expressed directly like that. I don't know when this idea may have emerged, or whether there is any popularity to it; but if there are many more people using this view as part of their underlying philosophy, it might explain a few of the more things I encounter in political discussion.

So, what you're saying is that it's ok for states to deprive citizens of due process rights, the right to bear arms, religious freedom, etc. - ok so long as it's not done by the federal government?

Elgalad

11-10-2007, 10:37 AM

So, what you're saying is that it's ok for states to deprive citizens of due process rights, the right to bear arms, religious freedom, etc. - ok so long as it's not done by the federal government?

No, what he is saying is that the Bill of Rights does not apply in any way, shape, or form to State Governments.

It is a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, only addresses the Federal Government.

The way you phrased your question is misleading.. the Bill of Rights does not Grant the States the right to deprive citizens of rights. It only denies the Federal Government from doing so.

Each State has its own Constitution created and approved by its citizens that limit the State Government as well.

But it is not the purpose of the United States Constitution to limit States' Rights or powers. That was never its stated intent or purpose. It Only applies to the Federal Government. Period.

-Elgalad

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 11:01 AM

So which candidate impresses you?

I like Nicolas Sarkozy. He would be very difficult to elect. He's not a Republican or a Democrat. But he seems to understand US history and values and what the American people really want better than any other politician that I am aware of.

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 11:03 AM

The way you phrased your question is misleading.. the Bill of Rights does not Grant the States the right to deprive citizens of rights. It only denies the Federal Government from doing so.
-Elgalad

Mind if I ask how old you are? I'm just wondering in what time frame you finished high school.

Elgalad

11-10-2007, 11:53 AM

It's in my user description, but I graduated in 1984. Not really sure how that's relevant?

-E

RogerFGay

11-10-2007, 12:11 PM

It's in my user description, but I graduated in 1984. Not really sure how that's relevant?

-E

I graduated from HS 14 years earlier, and they were already dismantling civics education at that time.

This looks kind of interesting: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6802967-7190520?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194721463&sr=1-1">The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution</a>. It's available on audio. TBH, I'm a little tired by the time I have time for such things in the evenings. Reading at night puts me to sleep.

Elgalad

11-10-2007, 01:43 PM

Ah, well..

I did not get most of my 'civics' education from Public School anyway. :flame:

No, they (my public school teachers) were more concerned with indoctrinating us in the relative value (and superiority in most examples) of other nations and cultures over the United States. They also felt it necessary to point out how horribly the U.S. had responded during the Cold War, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam.

They didn't really have that much time left then, to teach us about the U.S. Government or the Constitution with all those Much more important lessons in their curriculum, so they basically just skimmed through the details.

I actually learned much more about the Constitution when I was charged with defending it during my military service. I also took some college history courses later, but for the most part, I'm 'self-taught', which probably explains why I sometimes come across as uninformed or naive at times. :smirky:

But since that's a never ending process, I want to thank you for the link, I now know what to ask for Christmas this year. :)

-Elgalad

johnwk

11-10-2007, 02:33 PM

The Bill of Rights, upon its ratification, was not intended, nor does it, apply to the various state governments, each of which had their own state Constitutions and Declarations of Rights when the federal Bill of Rights was adopt, and was adopted to further restrict the federal government’s powers and not the various State powers or powers retained by the people therein.

That's a very odd point of view, one I've never seen or heard expressed directly like that. I don't know when this idea may have emerged, or whether there is any popularity to it; but if there are many more people using this view as part of their underlying philosophy, it might explain a few of the more things I encounter in political discussion.

So, what you're saying is that it's ok for states to deprive citizens of due process rights, the right to bear arms, religious freedom, etc. - ok so long as it's not done by the federal government?

Idea? When it emerged? Any popularity to it? I’m amazed that you should raise such questions when I provided historical documentation the “idea” is that of the founders; that it “emerged” during the framing and ratification of the Constitution; and. its “popularity” led to ten of the proposed amendments [our federal “Bill of Rights”] being ratified by the various States with the specific intention to further restrict the federal Government which our founders had just created.

Did you go to the two links I provided?

Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm)

Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

As to your pompous suggestion as to what I was saying, Elgalad responded appropriately, but left out the undiplomatic thoughts I would certainly have included. Your stated suggestive innuendo as to what I was saying was very much uncalled for.

JWK

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 02:06 AM

No, they (my public school teachers) were more concerned with indoctrinating us in the relative value (and superiority in most examples) of other nations and cultures over the United States. They also felt it necessary to point out how horribly the U.S. had responded during the Cold War, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam.
-Elgalad

<O:p</O:p
Wow. They were just getting started when I was in school. For my first few years in grade school, we said a prayer and sang the national anthem with our hands over our hearts every morning. My teacher wept on the last day of that ceremony. Then they removed the flags.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

When it was time for civics courses in HS, my class was the first in the “experimental” group – switching much of it out for new wave “sociology” studies. We were also the first class in our high school to have sex education and family studies. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 02:18 AM

Idea? When it emerged? Any popularity to it? JWK

Apparently we're talking past one another.

Constitution 101

The original Constitution, without amendments, defined the three branches, a system for representative democracy at the federal level (soon strengthened by states that unanimously gave the right to vote to citizens as the basis for deciding how electoral votes would be cast), and certainly limited the role of the federal government.

Soon thereafter, the Bill of Rights was passed; adding 10 amendments to the Constitution. There are times when I have discovered confusion over whether amendments can be referred to as part of the Constitution. Many seem to think they are not. When I speak of the Constitution in present tense, including the amendments, there have been times when confusion has resulted.

<O:p</O:pWhere do you stand on the tricky question of whether the amendments are part of the Constitution?
<O:p</O:p

johnwk

11-11-2007, 05:29 AM

NEWS UPDATE ON FRED THOMPSON

How Much Did Thompson's Abortion Comments Hurt Him? (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmVkZWMxNmU2ZmNlNjBiN2VlOWI3YzdiNWRmMWMwYzc=)

Clearly, Thompson's federalism on abortion and gay marriage is not sitting well with some social conservatives. I suppose if they prefer other candidates, this will be one more log on the fire. Still, one wonders if they're looking for reasons to reject him. The idea that Thompson wouldn't be their ally on so many issues doesn't hold much water, nor the idea that deciding abortion at the state level wouldn't be a major victory for the pro-life cause.

I must say, if “social conservatives” are upset with Thompson’s above view on federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system, their argument ought to be with the Constitution itself and not directed at Fred Thompson who is advocating nothing more than a return to an obedience to our Constitution’s intended limitations, which, if followed, would nullify the tyrannical Roe vs. Wade decision handed down by the SCOTUS!

Do these “social conservatives” really want a candidate who proposes to make the Constitution mean whatever he/she desires it to mean? Hopefully not! Perhaps these disgruntled voices are really those of agents provocateurs attempting to avoid federalism overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Federalist Paper No. 45 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed45.htm) tells us:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 05:50 AM

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-11-2007, 07:43 AM

Fred Thompson has perfected the art of stating a philosophical position that makes action defined to be ineffective sound like something important. He's saying things that he knows people want to hear and making proposals that are just ambiguous and complicated enough that people will be forced to the philosophical rhetoric in an effort to figure out what it means. What he means is that he’s a Washington Establishment Republican who will give you more of the same.

Break it down. Explain, in specifics. At this point you sound just ambiguous and your philosophical rhetoric is complicating my understanding of your phraseology. Pick any "point" in his philosophical position and show what you are talking about.

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect by nor am I employing any sarcasm in the above, as it is merely a request for an explanation of your statements.

If you believe in Fred Thompson, let me ask you this. Would you like me to build a monorail in your town? (And if the subject is still politics: remember the advice of Kang and Kodos; if you don’t vote for one of them, you’re throwing your vote away.)<O:p</O:p

Huh? Sounds like a red-herring to me.

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 08:55 AM

Simply put: he's lying and calling a politician a liar is like calling rain wet. I don't recall a politician telling the truth. I'm not sure about Ron Paul - keep reading that his record is consistent with his rhetoric. If that's true, he's unique.

Fred Thompson's record in no way suggests that he's a constitutionalist. I chatted with one of his supporters - don't recall whether this was you or someone else - who rationalized the lack of detail in his positions, including his website. The explanation was that he's presenting his "principles" first. But I saw that in operation when he insisted families are suffering for lack of involvement of fathers. "We need more fathers" in families he said. (Great round of applause. All normal people agree.)

Thing is, he didn't mean it. Speaking with great experience as a politician, what he said was open widely for interpretation. It's a code phrase for increased funding for the child support enfocement program; as explained, one of the most useless and corrupt federal pork-barrel programs ever invented. This particular ruse wasn't even his idea. It was originally created during the Clinton administration and promoted by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Whatever is said about promoting marriage or strengthening families ... it's all about increasing funding for the federal child support enforcement program: always. There's nothing constitutional about that.

johnwk

11-11-2007, 10:26 AM

If you believe in Fred Thompson,

I never stated whether or not I believe in Fred Thompson. My post was directed at a specific issue which I’m sure you are aware of. But you used the occasion to beat your own drum rather than address the specific subject matter in my post. But heck, I’m beginning to realize that is your purpose here, judging from your previous posts.

Carry on old sport.

JWK

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 10:44 AM

[/color][/font]

I never stated whether or not I believe in Fred Thompson. .... JWK

Then you have no need to respond so defensively.

Jack_Savage

11-11-2007, 11:04 AM

RogerFGay

11-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Are you supporting Ron Paul?

Not at this point. I'm still uncommitted.

johnwk

11-11-2007, 02:09 PM

Then you have no need to respond so defensively.

Defensively? Seems to me I was merely stating facts in my post and pointing out you wandered off topic to beat your own drum and express your personal feelings about Fred Thompson.

MY POST (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=602187&postcount=44), which you responded to was directed at a specific issue dealing with the subject matter of the thread, which I’m sure you are aware of. But, as I correctly stated, you used the occasion to beat your own drum rather than address the specific subject matter in my post. The subject matter of my post did in fact deal with “federalism“, and “social conservatives” alleged to be upset with federalism as it would apply to abortion.

Your response did not contribute to a productive discussion, and misdirected the subject matter.

JWK

Jack_Savage

11-11-2007, 02:12 PM

Not at this point. I'm still uncommitted.

Can you forsee any circumstance where you would vote for Ron Paul? How about his supportes, you meet with any of them?

What is your position on homosexuals having the right to adopt kids?

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 02:55 AM

Defensively? Seems to me I was merely stating facts in my post and pointing out you wandered off topic to beat your own drum and express your personal feelings about Fred Thompson.
JWK

Oh sorry. I guess I spoke out of turn and didn't say what you wanted me to say. (not)

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 03:04 AM

Can you forsee any circumstance where you would vote for Ron Paul? How about his supportes, you meet with any of them?

What is your position on homosexuals having the right to adopt kids?

What Ron Paul has going for him is a record that lines up with his views on a return to Constitutional rule. That's a point in his favor. At this point I'm only assuming the Libertarian and Constitutional parties (which have endorsed him) and other sources making that claim are all correct. I used to live in Texas, and know that Ron Paul has a reputation - that leads me to believe it's probably true. You might see him running a third party ticket again; assuming he loses the Republican primary. He's done quite well in collecting contributions recently.

I haven't personally met any of his supporters face to face. I did visit Perot headquarters back when he ran. But it's a little difficult to meet people face to face from Sweden. I did accidentally make a connection, and am receiving email from someone who's involved in fund-raising. He's a retired journalist, commentator, and radio talk host who still writes articles published on the internet and is very politically active.

I am not in favor of queer adoptions, but the only way we can get back into a sane zone is by putting family law back into civil law - i.e. back into the private sphere. Family law must be de-federalized in order to accomplish this.

johnwk

11-12-2007, 05:41 AM

Oh sorry. I guess I spoke out of turn and didn't say what you wanted me to say. (not)

More of your pompous and adolescent remarks? You used your “turn”(s) to misdirect the subject matter of federalism and went on to level unsubstantiated charges against an individual while not addressing the content of the post you were responding to.

Seems to me another poster in this thread has also brought your posting into question:

Break it down. Explain, in specifics. At this point you sound just ambiguous and your philosophical rhetoric is complicating my understanding of your phraseology. Pick any "point" in his philosophical position and show what you are talking about.

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect by nor am I employing any sarcasm in the above, as it is merely a request for an explanation of your statements.

If you are not interested in federalism, our Constitution’s plan, as it relates to the coming election, why post in this thread? Eh? Are you here simply to troll?

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 06:30 AM

Here's the thing John. I'm just a cantankerous old bastard. That's not going to change between now and Nov. 2008, so there's no reason to nag.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-12-2007, 06:42 AM

Simply put: he's lying and calling a politician a liar is like calling rain wet. I don't recall a politician telling the truth.

So you won't be voting for anyone, because everyone running is a politician by virtue of the fact they are running for political office. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure about Ron Paul - keep reading that his record is consistent with his rhetoric. If that's true, he's unique.

This thread is not about Ron Paul, please stay on topic. Regardless of the thread drift others choose to pursue, you don't have to jump down that rabbit trail behind them, take the high road. Besides, Ron Paul is a politician, therefore he must be a liar, :smirky:.

]Fred Thompson's record in no way suggests that he's a constitutionalist.

Provide examples of this allegation.

I don't know you from a hole in the wall, how do I know you are not lying. I can employ the exact same kind of "logic" you have above (in stating all politicians lie, so you won't vote for a liar) -- people lie on the internet all the time, therefore you must be a liar, and I don't take the word of liars.

I chatted with one of his supporters - don't recall whether this was you or someone else - who rationalized the lack of detail in his positions, including his website. The explanation was that he's presenting his "principles" first. But I saw that in operation when he insisted families are suffering for lack of involvement of fathers. "We need more fathers" in families he said. (Great round of applause. All normal people agree.)

Thing is, he didn't mean it. Speaking with great experience as a politician, what he said was open widely for interpretation. It's a code phrase for increased funding for the child support enfocement program; as explained, one of the most useless and corrupt federal pork-barrel programs ever invented.

And you can claim this with absoute certainty how?

This particular ruse wasn't even his idea. It was originally created during the Clinton administration and promoted by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Whatever is said about promoting marriage or strengthening families ... it's all about increasing funding for the federal child support enforcement program: always. There's nothing constitutional about that.

So what you are saying is you are a one-issue voter, and that issue is "Father's Rights", and therefore if any candidate, no matter how minutely or remotely, appears to be at odds with you on this "issue", you will not vote for them.

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 06:47 AM

HomeschoolrsRUs (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/member.php?u=705)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_602361", true); </SCRIPT> : Asked and answered pretty much. You can get a more concise statement on what I'm looking for in the article linked to "Three Election Pledges." I won't go into it here because I'm really, really afraid to comment on something that's not the specific subject of the thread.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-12-2007, 06:49 AM

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 06:57 AM

That's not from the article I suggested. I can't repost it here because it would be off topic.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-12-2007, 06:57 AM

Asked and answered pretty much.

No, it has not been answered. You are unable to provide specifics.

You can get a more concise statement on what I'm looking for in the article linked to "Three Election Pledges."

Read and re-read, doesn't answer a thing.

I won't go into it here because I'm really, really afraid to comment on something that's not the specific subject of the thread.

You haven't "gone into" anything here, only offered baseless allegations.

Your answers in this thread and others give the appearance of a one-issue voter, that issue being "Father's Rights" and all others (issues) take a back seat to that one. If this is the case, in knowing where you stand it certainly adds perspective to the other "answers" you've given.

Your "issue" is not my issue, so I cannot use it to discredit my candidate of choice -- especially if you've given no specific examples of his (Fred Thompson) actions which illustrate your position against him.

RogerFGay

11-12-2007, 06:58 AM

I understand that the answers I've given are not the ones you want. Once again, refer to the article I mentioned earlier to get a more concise statement on what I want.

Jack_Savage

11-12-2007, 11:16 AM

What Ron Paul has going for him is a record that lines up with his views on a return to Constitutional rule. That's a point in his favor. At this point I'm only assuming the Libertarian and Constitutional parties (which have endorsed him) and other sources making that claim are all correct. I used to live in Texas, and know that Ron Paul has a reputation - that leads me to believe it's probably true. You might see him running a third party ticket again; assuming he loses the Republican primary. He's done quite well in collecting contributions recently.

I haven't personally met any of his supporters face to face. I did visit Perot headquarters back when he ran. But it's a little difficult to meet people face to face from Sweden. I did accidentally make a connection, and am receiving email from someone who's involved in fund-raising. He's a retired journalist, commentator, and radio talk host who still writes articles published on the internet and is very politically active.

I am not in favor of queer adoptions, but the only way we can get back into a sane zone is by putting family law back into civil law - i.e. back into the private sphere. Family law must be de-federalized in order to accomplish this.
Thank you for your courtesy with a straight forward answer.

Underneath the dichotomy of personal rights is the more important context being what is good for the country at large in this time of our growth. Priortizing needs to be what guides our ground-rules.

Ron Paul has no idea of what that means as he is only interested in turning it all into about what benefits him. Debating each increment of the paradigm ad infinitum is putting people to sleep, creating this state of apathy we find ourselves in. Its time to do what works instead of what is "right" for every personal opinion. That would be an appropriate mission for our Congressmen instead of the self-serving pompus promotion we see from him now.

johnwk

11-12-2007, 07:47 PM

GREAT NEWS FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT FEDERALISM!

Huckabee’s campaign officials appear to be miffed at Fred Thompson getting the National Right to Life's endorsement. See: HUCK CAMP: NRLC’S FRED NOD 'A MISTAKE' (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/12/463185.aspx)

But the fact is, Fred’s federalism approach regarding the issue of abortion and various other social issues, which is in harmony with our Constitution’s plan and commands the various states, and people in each, have retained the power over these issues, is something which Huckabee and Co. have yet to understand the importance of.

What part of the following passage from Federalist 45 does Huckabee not understand?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

While Huckabee asserts his commitment to protecting the unborn, he also promises to ignore the limited powers granted to the federal government and has stated he wants to use the federal government’s power to trespass State borders and forbid smoking on privately owned property ___ which boils down to him being nothing more than a control freak who wants federal power, and would use that power to trample upon the Tenth Amendment! Isn’t this the very cause of a major portion of our misery, the federal government ignoring powers retained by the States and people therein?

On the other hand, Thompson appears to understand the importance of the separation of powers under our Constitution [federalism], and which the SCOTUS totally ignored when handing down the tyrannical Roe vs. Wade decision.

Fred Thompson seems to see the big picture and the consequences when federalism is ignored with respect to various social issues ___ federalism promotes a big tent system in which the people within each of the various States exercise self determination, while Huckabee’s approach would exercise dictatorial powers subjugating the very intentions for which the Tenth Amendment was adopted ___ the intention being to protect and preserve federalism.

The only “mistake” not yet figured out by the Huckabee camp is, a duty for Republican Candidates to support and defend federalism, our Constitution’s plan!

JWK

Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism as our Constitution's plan:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

RogerFGay

11-13-2007, 02:32 AM

Thank you for your courtesy with a straight forward answer.

Underneath the dichotomy of personal rights is the more important context being what is good for the country at large in this time of our growth. Priortizing needs to be what guides our ground-rules.

Ron Paul has no idea of what that means as he is only interested in turning it all into about what benefits him. Debating each increment of the paradigm ad infinitum is putting people to sleep, creating this state of apathy we find ourselves in. Its time to do what works instead of what is "right" for every personal opinion. That would be an appropriate mission for our Congressmen instead of the self-serving pompus promotion we see from him now.

If I take your comments literally, you favor a police state and absense of human rights. I'm guessing that's not what you mean; so I'm going to ask that you examine the second paragraph above. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that's what the second paragraph above says, and I don't want to go off on you if that's not what you mean. If the US is to survive, other than merely as a geogrpahic location with political boundaries, then it must survive with its political foundations in tact. Treating marriage and family as private institutions rather than government programs is not a threat to the nation. Just the opposite. Treating marriage and family as government programs undermines the social fabric (it already has) and destabalizes the nation (I think that's happening too). Ask the people who took to the streets to end the Soviet era: that's where the model of marriage and family as public institutions came from. There was much debate about these "bourgeoisie" institutions when the Soviet Union was establishing itself and family policy became more corrupt along with the general (and inevitable imo) corruption of the Soviet government. We've adopted all the corruption their system had to offer. There are times when it seems to me that the Soviet Union did not fall, but the fall of the Berlin Wall merely allowed it to move, in spirit (and more than a few of its advisors), to the US. This trend is also seen in the the EU:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

Just had to add this link.
http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/55579/
Real due process isn't working here, because there isn't any. If you're not familiar with the subject, this is going to sound extreme. But I'll tell the truth anyway. These guys are politiical prisoners of the lowest kind of political corruption. They go to jail as part of the process of systematic intimidation of a population. The root motive is billions in federal pork that's being spread around without being properly accounted for. Much of it goes into private hands. Much effort has gone into establishing the victims as the "bad guys" who deserve punishment - keeping the public from looking more closely at the corruption.

johnwk

11-13-2007, 04:48 AM

I don't mean to be rude, but .

Then why don’t you use private messages to discus your off topic interests, or start a new thread ? Why are you trolling this thread?

RogerFGay

11-13-2007, 06:44 AM

Then why don’t you use private messages to discus your off topic interests, or start a new thread ? Why are you trolling this thread?

I don't mind in which thread these things are discussed, but the issue was raised in this thread for good reason. The title and subject of the thread is "Fred Thompson and federalism, our Constitution's plan!" But his commentary on constitutional federalism is superficial and ... quite frankly, a trick. There is an absense of effective means of returning to constitutional rule. He also says he supports the institution of marriage, but his plans say he'll do nothing to restore it.

RogerFGay

11-13-2007, 06:48 AM

So what you are saying is you are a one-issue voter, and that issue is "Father's Rights", and therefore if any candidate, no matter how minutely or remotely, appears to be at odds with you on this "issue", you will not vote for them.

What I'm waiting to hear (and laugh at) is the Republican interpretation of the constitution that separates "Fathers' Rights" from general civil rights, what defines marriage and family as public institutions more than private ones, and what makes family law a federal policy issue.

Rhino

11-13-2007, 07:48 AM

And you can claim this with absoute certainty how?There is none. This is such a hot button with Roger that he sees 'code' in everything, whether it's there or not.

mkafrica

11-13-2007, 07:52 AM

This looks kind of interesting: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6802967-7190520?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194721463&sr=1-1). It's available on audio. TBH, I'm a little tired by the time I have time for such things in the evenings. Reading at night puts me to sleep.

I added it to my Amazon Wish List for Christmas, as well as a couple of others from the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series :)

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-13-2007, 07:53 AM

There is none. This is such a hot button with Roger that he sees 'code' in everything, whether it's there or not.

I had a sneaking suspicion.

As I stated earlier, knowing his position (of a one-issue position, that issue being "Fathers' Rights" which trumps all others) sheds a tremendous amount of light on his answers to all the other questions put before him.

Rhino

11-13-2007, 09:20 AM

His issue is valid. His seeing 'code phrase' everywhere is where his zeal gets him into trouble.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-13-2007, 11:51 AM

His issue is valid. His seeing 'code phrase' everywhere is where his zeal gets him into trouble.

I wasn't questioning the validity of his issue, however he refused to clarify why he believes Fred Thompson is in opposition to it. When challenged for specifics he refused to provide them.

Rhino

11-13-2007, 12:05 PM

Because he doesn't have any. That's what I meant.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-13-2007, 12:18 PM

Because he doesn't have any. That's what I meant.
:thumb:

Jack_Savage

11-13-2007, 12:41 PM

If I take your comments literally, you favor a police state and absense of human rights.

No I am not for a police state. But I fear we are closer to that happening because of a new anarchy growing out of our apathy. Out of some compulsive view of personal rights. We need to examine, not what feels good to every whacko out there, but what is good for the country.

The once strong model we use to insure our freedoms is crumbling. The paradigm of paradigms is context. Willingness is what ignites it, as we see from every deviant who charges off masterbating in public because it feels good. That is not a healthy model for our nations safety. No we need to be willing to discipline ourselves for a larger goal. Thats the context our forfathers employed that made this country great. Not just some right experssed out of ignorance and impetuous desire.

The question is are we willing to institute appropriate ground rules that keep us safe? I was for what America did during the second world war. Interning the Japanese. It worked to keep us free. We have to understand that; that what can be, is a neverending goal to work for, in the appropriate context. Responsiblity. A context of what works to produce the results we agree needs to be produced. Not some fantasy land of desires attorneys dream up to manipulate more billable hours.

As far as familys go, what we have allowed to happen over the last 35 years, has subtracted from the family. We need to set in place rules which insure a healthy family unit first, then find what works to expand beyone that.

Ask the people who took to the streets to end the Soviet era: that's where the model of marriage and family as public institutions came from.

Thats not what did it. It came down within the context of yankee ingenuity. Our ability to create more workable systems. BMD. Our ability to miniturize. They simply could not compete in that paradigm. To survive they tore down the wall. Had we been using vacuum tubes, in our space program, the wall would still be up.

Much effort has gone into establishing the victims as the "bad guys" who deserve punishment - keeping the public from looking more closely at the corruption.

Victimology is corrupt. It is only used to manipulate others to aquire some want. Its time for people to be responsible for the conditions they author and bring some contribution to the table. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". That is the round peg needed for the hole America is in today. Not more vicitms.

johnwk

11-13-2007, 04:00 PM

While running for the US Senate in 1994, Mitt Romney backed the infamous “Brady Bill” seeking to impose federal law within the various state borders regulating the sale of fire arms ___ a power not delegated to Congress by our federal Constitution.

It is also very important to note that Mitt Romney, when running for the US Senate, called for the abolishment of the Department of Education___ a position very much in harmony with federalism and our federal Constitution! Congress has not been granted power to tax and spend for State constitutionally authorized public education, nor is there any power granted to Congress to enter the States and regulate public school systems established under State Constitutions!

But during the May 15th debate in SC, Romney stated his previous position concerning the Department of Education was a mistake and he now gives his nod of approval to the federal Department of Education and also supports the No Child Left Behind Act.

On the other hand, Thompson seems to have learned from his mistake in supporting the No Child Left Behind Act, and is now very much against such federal involvement. At least someone learns from their mistakes.
So tell us Mitt old boy, why have you flipped flopped your position to one which ignores the separation of powers between State and federal functions?

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce ___ The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."_____ Federalist 45

Why do you support subjugating federalism, our Constitution’s plan? Could it be you are just another control freak who hates our Constitution's big tent system, federalism, and who really believes deep down inside the federal government knows best and ought to impose its will upon the people of every state in spit of the 10th Amendment forbidding such impositions?

It is also interesting to note that Mitt Romney also supports government force being used to forbid smoking on privately owned property, a sure sign of a dedicated control freak. Gov. Mitt Romney supported and signed into law a Massachusetts smoking ban forbidding smoking on privately owned property.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, [powers retained by the States and People therein] would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" ____Justice Story

d'urville

11-13-2007, 04:12 PM

These people are like cockroaches.

[/color][/font]

I never stated whether or not I believe in Fred Thompson. My post was directed at a specific issue which I’m sure you are aware of. But you used the occasion to beat your own drum rather than address the specific subject matter in my post. But heck, I’m beginning to realize that is your purpose here, judging from your previous posts.

Carry on old sport.

JWK

You don't "believe" in Fred Thompson:

http://dailypaul.com/user/187

And you're spamming again - your "point" is to c/p posts.

RogerFGay

11-14-2007, 02:01 PM

There is none. This is such a hot button with Roger that he sees 'code' in everything, whether it's there or not.

Naaaayyh. It's just not a new trick. They've been doing this since the Clinton years. Articles arose suggesting (sometimes strongly) that maybe fatherhood wasn't such a bad idea. So, as soon as the gov (us ocse) saw a little support for it, they said okeedokey then, and used it as an excuse for more funding.

I'm one of many who traced through it all and continued in the public discussion - checking to see what they did in relation to what they said. It's just an old trick now.

RogerFGay

11-14-2007, 02:17 PM

As far as familys go, what we have allowed to happen over the last 35 years, has subtracted from the family. We need to set in place rules which insure a healthy family unit first, then find what works to expand beyone that.

I have to agree with John Stuart Mill on this one. He said: "It would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another."

We already know what works. Now we've run an experiment with federal intrusion in family law, allowing states to arbitrarily intrude into family and personal life, with no civil rights to protect us. Any reasonable person could have guessed that wasn't going to amount to anything good, and it didn't. So, for starters, the answer is simple - get the fed. out of where it doesn't belong. You won't find that suggested by candidates from the two parties. There's a huge amount of pork involved, and they're not going to give it up.

Thats not what did it. (copying Soviet policy) It came down within the context ...

You're not going to understand me well without taking me literally. I've studied this stuff for years, and by study I don't mean throwing a lot of stuff off my head when the mood strikes. I can even give you the name of the academics that played the key role in it. One was even written up in an article in Time or Newsweek at the height of the "deadbeat dad" propaganda era. If you want some references to Russian law, go to <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/principles.html">this link</a> and search a few times for the word russian.

Victimology is corrupt. It is only used to manipulate others to aquire some want. Its time for people to be responsible for the conditions they author and bring some contribution to the table. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". That is the round peg needed for the hole America is in today. Not more vicitms.

OK, so for example - the dead guy who got his head split open by a mugger - it's his fault for being unAmerican?

Rhino

11-14-2007, 02:34 PM

Naaaayyh. It's just not a new trick. They've been doing this since the Clinton years. Articles arose suggesting (sometimes strongly) that maybe fatherhood wasn't such a bad idea. So, as soon as the gov (us ocse) saw a little support for it, they said okeedokey then, and used it as an excuse for more funding.

I'm one of many who traced through it all and continued in the public discussion - checking to see what they did in relation to what they said. It's just an old trick now.My point exactly. You've seen it before, so everybody who uses those words must be doing it too. Whether or not it's actually true is unimportant to you.

RogerFGay

11-15-2007, 06:58 AM

My point exactly. You've seen it before, so everybody who uses those words must be doing it too. Whether or not it's actually true is unimportant to you.

It's true. Not my rules. If you're interested in my preferences, then no, it's not my preference. I would be more than happy to report that things have changed if there is any evidence that they have. Instead, there's confirmation of business as (what has become) usual. What code phrases mean what is quite well established at this point. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not the one who decided that the two parties would view CSE as the definition of "fatherhood." It's the billions in pork-barrel funding each year that does that.

Being general enough to that EVERYBODY should get it - when the fed. creates a pork-barrel program, there is a tendency to never let it die. Generally speaking, the bureacrats themselves spend a great deal of time and effort pushing for expansion and larger budgets. CSE, with its support from state politicians (for the money) and full bipartisan support - has no one on the inside (two parties) questioning whether the program is of any value - the only high level government employee (an assistant AG who's name I don't remember) to question the constitutionality of the whole thing was quickly fired.

If someone wants to change things at this point, it would be a pretty big deal. Speaking of Fred Thompson's reputation as a corruption fighter, this is the type of thing that any real corruption fighter would find extra juicy. But so far, all I've seen from Fred are purposefully ambiguous statements in speeches (hoping everyone will interpret his comments in a way they like) and the short-lived statement on his web-site that he means to support the corruption if elected; promising to increase the amount of pork.

RogerFGay

11-15-2007, 07:25 AM

BTW: They're not really secret code phrases either. Fatherhood, strengthing families, and such phrases have shown up as titles of bills, in explanations of bills, and in the documentation of such programs - which are in fact carried out by OCSE. All such federal legislation has occassionally popped out a small amount of money for something else - but the lion's share has always gone to OCSE. It's fixed language in current federal law.

HomeschoolrsRUs

11-15-2007, 07:34 AM

If you're holding that out as your one-issue deal-breaker, you'll never be voting for anyone. With all that is wrong in and with this coutry, not to mention the attacks from without, I doubt your issue will ever be front burner.

The only way to solve it is to dissolve the entitlement program and disallow pork-packing. I've never known anyone who's been able to put the toothpaste back into the tube once it has been squeezed out. And honestly, how would they even go about doing it?

Better to get in one who holds the most true to the Republican platform and start employing the democrats strategy of incrementalism, or begin a revoluton of the hearts, minds, and souls of this country prompting a third party to rise, retake, and raise the Conservative mantle once again. We need folks like the Founding Fathers, and I'm just not sure if any exist anymore.

Rhino

11-15-2007, 08:19 AM

It's true.Not without proof it isn't. In this case it's just an assertion without any facts to back it up. You're perfectly free to presume whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Jack_Savage

11-15-2007, 08:37 AM

You're not going to understand me well without taking me literally. I've studied this stuff for years, and by study I don't mean throwing a lot of stuff off my head when the mood strikes. I can even give you the name of the academics that played the key role in it. One was even written up in an article in Time or Newsweek at the height of the "deadbeat dad" propaganda era. If you want some references to Russian law, go to this link (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/principles.html) and search a few times for the word russian.

The wall came down because of SDI. Check with New't on it. Or do a google on SDI end of cold war. As far as Russian Family Law, maybe that is your area, I am not up on it.

OK, so for example - the dead guy who got his head split open by a mugger - it's his fault for being unAmerican?

In this respect, each one of us sets in motion the circumstance we face. So the dead guy who intentionally went to that part of town, for what ever reason, is responsible for what happened to him. Same thing for the mugger, they are both 100% responsible. As far as blame, The mugger should be hung. In a larger sense, All of us are responsible for the muggers actions, as we have intentionally transformed punishment into rehab. Pandering to the far-lefts victimology platform of getting elected which has given even the lowest puke a sense of added resentment.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you think homosexual's should be allowed to adopt kids? If you do, who is responsible for the acts that poor kid does, when he grows up and commits some compulsive sexual act?

RogerFGay

11-15-2007, 10:11 AM

Not without proof it isn't. In this case it's just an assertion without any facts to back it up. You're perfectly free to presume whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Actually what is true is true whether you admit it or ignore the facts and deny it 'till ya die.

RogerFGay

11-15-2007, 10:20 AM

The wall came down because of SDI. Check with New't on it. Or do a google on SDI end of cold war. As far as Russian Family Law, maybe that is your area, I am not up on it.

Right. So - what I said before. That's what I mean.

In this respect, each one of us sets in motion the circumstance we face. So the dead guy who intentionally went to that part of town, for what ever reason, is responsible for what happened to him. Same thing for the mugger, they are both 100% responsible. As far as blame, The mugger should be hung. In a larger sense, All of us are responsible for the muggers actions, as we have intentionally transformed punishment into rehab. Pandering to the far-lefts victimology platform of getting elected which has given even the lowest puke a sense of added resentment.

OK. So, here's the thing. Under civil law what you get are the sad consequences of divorce with children. You get all the problems. Parents are liable, including for financial support of children: and also the somewhat more difficult task of remaining in their lives. That's what happens under constitutional rule - parents aren't spared the pain, but should do what they can to spare the children and see that they grow up right.

Right now, the government is the mugger; and I am in agreement at least so far as there are people in government who belong in jail for what's going on. The pain and suffering has been amplified by many times over and the pain and suffering is being exploited for financial gain, as well as what amounts to nothing more than grand (and I mean really really Grand) theft from the public coffers.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you think homosexual's should be allowed to adopt kids? If you do, who is responsible for the acts that poor kid does, when he grows up and commits some compulsive sexual act?

I have answered that question once - and I only remember seeing the question once, so I guess you asked it and I answered. No - I don't think homo adoption should be legal. I don't even think homo "marriage" should be classified as marriage.

Rhino

11-15-2007, 10:32 AM

Actually what is true is true whether you admit it or ignore the facts and deny it 'till ya die.You haven't posted any facts for anyone to deny, just an assertion.

johnwk

11-15-2007, 01:14 PM

.
It’s really amazing how easy it is for a troll to misdirect the subject matter of the thread.

Jack_Savage

11-15-2007, 01:41 PM

I have answered that question once - and I only remember seeing the question once, so I guess you asked it and I answered. No - I don't think homo adoption should be legal. I don't even think homo "marriage" should be classified as marriage.

Ok, I stand corrected on that. I thought you were advocating same sex marriage. Then your one of the good guys. I have to admit, I had some trouble reading your post. Maybe if I read them a bit slower, I will get it better. You pack alot in a few words.

RogerFGay

11-16-2007, 05:34 AM

You haven't posted any facts for anyone to deny, just an assertion.

I understand that you're defending your candidate. No matter what facts are presented, the bar will always be higher to "prove" the point. And no matter how many times the facts make it over the next bar, the character assaults against those presenting evidence will be there in an attempt to make it appear as though the vaulter slipped before making the jump.

I am one of the most objective, fact based, truth-driven people you'll ever run across; and I have no stake at all in falsely accusing a candidate who might do some actual good. Quite the opposite, I am extremely interesting in finding one. If you have any suggestions let me know. I will be more than happy to take an objective look at the evidence regarding credible candidates -- on the actual issue that is; the horse-race doesn't interest me so much.

RogerFGay

11-16-2007, 05:50 AM

You pack alot in a few words.

I try. Even relatively simple issues become very complicated to discuss as a result of all the tricks and twists and bizarre spin that's put on them in the political process; and people really don't get information about what's really going on - just the tricks and twists and spin. I've worked at doing the best I can in saying what I mean in relatively short comments -- I'd hate to really estimate how much time I've spent in internet discussions.

I don't know why you'd think I was advocating same-sex marriage. I don't suppose you've read many of my articles. I've written that - besides the fact that survey after survey says the constitutional amendement approach to defining marriage is not going to happen - I see it as the wrong band aid to cover the gapping, deadly wound.

The original cause of the destruction of the institution of marriage was - step by step going backwards -> federal court reclassified marriage and family issues as "social policy" which formally defines it as public policy rather than private issue (with any government involvement a matter of civil law). The reclassification was done specifically to allow the highest amount of federal pork to continue to flow to states based on existing federal laws. This problem was created because the federal government got involved in family law unconstitutionally, absorbing all marriage and family law into its sphere supported by rhetoric only on welfare reform, and created a vast bureacratic empire to police the family. Ultimately, some of the most serious analysts and commentators will trace back another step to no-fault divorce; but I'm not as stuck on that as others are - not saying they're entirely wrong either; under civil law marriage is treated as a contract, and that does make sense.

A lot would be accomplished simply by getting the federal government out of the marriage and family business - pushing them back to their previous exclusive involvement in the welfare program would be enough to eliminate that force that formally destroyed the institution of marriage. (Some would go farther for other reasons.) When the federal pork incentive is removed, states and courts would no longer have the financial motive to insist on the classification of marriage and family as a public rather than private institution. Family law could be returned to civil law, where the institutions of marriage and family had remained safe for more than two centuries.

RogerFGay

11-16-2007, 06:00 AM

<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay122903.htm">An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment</a>

Rhino

11-16-2007, 10:15 AM

I understand that you're defending your candidate. No matter what facts are presented, the bar will always be higher to "prove" the point.Probably a valid point, but it doesn't really apply here since you presented no facts.

And no matter how many times the facts make it over the next bar, the character assaults against those presenting evidence will be there in an attempt to make it appear as though the vaulter slipped before making the jump.And no matter how many times you assert something, you'll never make it over any bar if you present no facts to back it up. You vaulter didn't slip. He simply never showed up to the competition.

I am one of the most objective, fact based, truth-driven people you'll ever run across; and I have no stake at all in falsely accusing a candidate who might do some actual good. Quite the opposite, I am extremely interesting in finding one. If you have any suggestions let me know. I will be more than happy to take an objective look at the evidence regarding credible candidates -- on the actual issue that is; the horse-race doesn't interest me so much.Actually, I usually find you to be just what you described, and I have often agreed with you. But just as you think 'my candidate' may have clouded my judgement on this issue, it is your own zeal about this topic that has clouded yours. You keep mentioning getting "facts" over the bar, but you seem to completely miss the reality that you posted absolutely no facts whatsoever. You stated an opinion, which you are certainly welcome to do. But you don't really have a leg to stand on when claiming that people don't agree with your facts, if you haven't posted any. You claimed, among other things, that Thompson wants to increase funding for the child support enfocement program. Since you posted no facts to support that assertion, Homes asked for them. After all this back and forth, you still have not posted said facts. Of course your position can't get over a bar in such a case. How could it?