What's wrong with the Republicans and how to fix it

[philly rabbit]

Leave all the social issues to the different states. Not the state courts, the numerical majority of the people in each state. This is where
I disagree with the judge you told me about on fox news. He called California's prop 8 bill progressive populism ( in a book he wrote that I'm currently reading) If that's the case then each election is progressive populism.

There should be no federal probation on drugs, abortion or any other issue that the constitution doesn't cover but does instruct the states to decide.

 

[Robo]

You know what I mean. Social conservatism is not going away.

“Social conservatism” neo-con style is simply the code words for nosey old ladies, Priest who love young boys and neo-cons that pant and pine for a religious theocracy and other folks that love minding other folks business and ignoring their own.

True social conservatism is the conservation of our very liberal Bill Of Rights that guarantees us the liberty and protection from the religious bigots on the right and their moron co-conspirators on the left.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I never knew 2 libertarians, (small l), who agreed on everything and it would likely be dangerous if they did.

The “State’s Rights” issue pertaining to gay marriages and drugs sounds good to some libertarians and you surely can recite the 10th amendment in support of that in a Rand Paul/Ron Paul fashion, but I’m more constitutionally radical than even the 10th amendment loyalist. I’ll recite the 4th amendment and the 9th amendment relative to drugs and the 9th and 14th amendments relative to gay marriages. I’m so “libertarian,” (small l), that I firmly believe that liberty means that everybody no matter whether I agree with what they’re doing or not has every right to do whatever they want as long as they don’t infringe on any right of another. When the State’s Rights libertarians can convince me that gay marriages violate some kind of “agreeable contract” protected by the Constitution or infringe on somebody’s constitutional rights and that drug users deciding for themselves what they can and cannot put into their own bodies violates somebody’s constitutional rights, I’ll argue that everybody has the right to do whatever they want as long as they violate nobody else’s rights.

Two points. With respect to marriage there is a reason after millions of years of social organization have ordered itself toward one man marrying one woman. It is the most rational, biological option for a thriving prosperous society. That is a fact. The state has an interest in that. Now should the state be involved in codifying that contract? No not in my mind.

The issue over gay marriage isn't because they have some overwhelming desire to marry that did not exist hundreds of years ago. They do not and don't believe them when they tell you. They are committed to the destruction of the institutions that made this a strong and prosperous nation.

If you want to see what redefining the role of marriage can do, look no further than the black community. In the 1920s at the height of democrats terrorizing black people with the KKK blacks had a high rate of married families. Fast forward to the 1960s and the lefties deciding they needed to keep the blacks on their plantation with welfare replacing the father and you have an illegitimacy rate of over 70% and the consequences that stem from that simple redefinition of the traditional family.

So yes, the traditional family matters. It wasn't by accident. It wasn't because some guy said it should be so. It is because it works

As for drugs, I have always been conflicted on this issue and go back and forth taking both sides. I see both arguments and in a perfect world, if one just wants to fill their veins with heroin who am I to complain. But, we have created a socie where those actions do impact my freedoms as I have to pay a societal and financial cost for their actions.

Now, if you have a world where they truly are accepting the physical and financial ramifications of their drug use then, yes I will support legalizing drugs.

 

[Robo]

Leave all the social issues to the different states. Not the state courts, the numerical majority of the people in each state. This is where
I disagree with the judge you told me about on fox news. He called California's prop 8 bill progressive populism ( in a book he wrote that I'm currently reading) If that's the case then each election is progressive populism.

There should be no federal probation on drugs, abortion or any other issue that the constitution doesn't cover but does instruct the states to decide.

Then there’s this thing called The National Constitution whereby every State and State Constitution is subordinate. Thereby the Judge is absolutely correct. States cannot pass laws that violate the National Constitution. Every State is required to establish a ”Republican” form of government whereby elections are only for the purpose of electing ”representatives” and not referendum to create majority/mob rule. Referendum only presents the will of the majority AKA the mob. Representatives are required and sworn to preserve, protect and defend the National Constitution & the Constitution of their respective State and a State Constitution cannot violate the National Constitution.

I give you the following from the National Constitution.

“the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9)

The only possible disclaimer of that can be that “the People” have every right they choose for themselves individually providing that the action taken does not violate any right of another. Agreeable adult marriages of any race, creed or gender are simply agreeable legal contracts because they violate no constitutional right of anybody else.

“………….No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States……………nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14)

No government State or Federal has the right, power or authority to prohibit agreeable adult contract. No one’s constitutional rights are violated by agreeable adult contracts.

Prohibition therefore of gay marriages is nothing more than “progressive busybodyism” and religious bigoted authoritarianism. America is NOT supposed to be a mob rule democracy. America was founded and instituted as a “Constitutional Republic” no matter what left and right extremist would like it to be. Government is the very worse deciders of moral standards except when an action of one violates the rights of others. The only credible reason to even have government is to protect our rights, protect us from one another, protect one State from another and protect the citizenry from attack from within and without. Government has no valid purpose to create bigoted unconstitutional moral standards.

If we’re truly for constitutional liberty, we have to be for ”everybody’s” constitutional liberty!

Do we really need a fucking gang of immoral authoritarian busybody old ladies, religious zealots and worst of all bigoted authoritarian politicians deciding our moral standards for us???? I’ll stick with the Constitution, how about you???

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Then there’s this thing called The National Constitution whereby every State and State Constitution is subordinate. Thereby the Judge is absolutely correct. States cannot pass laws that violate the National Constitution. Every State is required to establish a ”Republican” form of government whereby elections are only for the purpose of electing ”representatives” and not referendum to create majority/mob rule. Referendum only presents the will of the majority AKA the mob. Representatives are required and sworn to preserve, protect and defend the National Constitution & the Constitution of their respective State and a State Constitution cannot violate the National Constitution.

I give you the following from the National Constitution.

“the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9)

The only possible disclaimer of that can be that “the People” have every right they choose for themselves individually providing that the action taken does not violate any right of another. Agreeable adult marriages of any race, creed or gender are simply agreeable legal contracts because they violate no constitutional right of anybody else.

“………….No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States……………nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14)

No government State or Federal has the right, power or authority to prohibit agreeable adult contract. No one’s constitutional rights are violated by agreeable adult contracts.

Prohibition therefore of gay marriages is nothing more than “progressive busybodyism” and religious bigoted authoritarianism. America is NOT supposed to be a mob rule democracy. America was founded and instituted as a “Constitutional Republic” no matter what left and right extremist would like it to be. Government is the very worse deciders of moral standards except when an action of one violates the rights of others. The only credible reason to even have government is to protect our rights, protect us from one another, protect one State from another and protect the citizenry from attack from within and without. Government has no valid purpose to create bigoted unconstitutional moral standards.

If we’re truly for constitutional liberty, we have to be for ”everybody’s” constitutional liberty!

Do we really need a fucking gang of immoral authoritarian busybody old ladies, religious zealots and worst of all bigoted authoritarian politicians deciding our moral standards for us???? I’ll stick with the Constitution, how about you???

Why haven't the queers pushed for this sooner? If this right has always existed for the, why has it taken the queers 200 years to figure out

A) they want to get married
B) they have a right to it

being queer isn't a new phenomenon, but their desire to marry is. Why?

 

[Howey]

We need to revive the Moral Majority that Falwell started with great success. Since these peaheaded Liberals think that America needs to be "tolerant" of rabid Sodomites and embrace abortion on demand, we need Social Conservatives to act as a buffer against them. Hey Liberals, change is not always good, morons.

Lol...rabid sodomites? Does the foam prevent pregnancy in you perverted breeders when you munch rug?

 

[Robo]

Two points. With respect to marriage there is a reason after millions of years of social organization have ordered itself toward one man marrying one woman. It is the most rational, biological option for a thriving prosperous society. That is a fact. The state has an interest in that. Now should the state be involved in codifying that contract? No not in my mind.

I give you the divorce rate of “one man/one woman[/b] marriages. I give you the poverty rate of divorced one man/one woman marriages. I give you the child poverty rate of divorced one man/one woman marriages. I give you the child poverty rate of divorced/break up homosexual marriages/live together relationships. The latter has none. If government/the state, has a rational skin in the game of deciding agreeable adult marriage contracts, it’s doing a piss poor job just like most everything governments do, don’t you think?

For thousands of years and especially in the Christian Bible “polygamy” was “traditional” marriage. Solomon had 1,000 wives and 1500 concubine and was considered by the Bible to be “A Man Of God!” So much for the skewed prejudice religious view of marriage contracts!

The issue over gay marriage isn't because they have some overwhelming desire to marry that did not exist hundreds of years ago. They do not and don't believe them when they tell you. They are committed to the destruction of the institutions that made this a strong and prosperous nation.

Well I’ve always thought that the most important “institution” of a strong America was “the Constitution” and the individual rights guaranteed by it and I’ve always believed that’s what makes America strong. I believe that because both right and left have severely abandoned the Constitution is why America is getting weaker & weaker.

If you want to see what redefining the role of marriage can do, look no further than the black community. In the 1920s at the height of democrats terrorizing black people with the KKK blacks had a high rate of married families.

I don’t believe the democrats KKK was terrorizing the blacks because they were “married” one man/one woman families, I believe they were terrorizing them because they were “black.”

Fast forward to the 1960s and the lefties deciding they needed to keep the blacks on their plantation with welfare replacing the father and you have an illegitimacy rate of over 70% and the consequences that stem from that simple redefinition of the traditional family.

That wasn’t redefining traditional marriage, it was redefining the federal roll in a welfare state that’s prohibited by the Constitution. Welfare doesn’t produce homosexuality it produces poverty, violence and the prevention of most all marriages of any gender.

So yes, the traditional family matters. It wasn't by accident. It wasn't because some guy said it should be so. It is because it works.

As I’ve presented, it works for a high divorce and child poverty rate. And by what evidence do you evaluate that gay marriage contracts between agreeable adults brings an end to traditional man/woman marriages? Why isn’t there room in America for freedom of agreeable adult contracts for everybody without respect for race creed or gender?

As for drugs, I have always been conflicted on this issue and go back and forth taking both sides. I see both arguments and in a perfect world, if one just wants to fill their veins with heroin who am I to complain. But, we have created a socie where those actions do impact my freedoms as I have to pay a societal and financial cost for their actions.

Now, if you have a world where they truly are accepting the physical and financial ramifications of their drug use then, yes I will support legalizing drugs.

Well if you wish to consider the financial ramifications of the Drug War look no further thatn the creation of it by government. It’s costing American taxpayers billions every year, clogging up the penal and judicial system and turning criminals into billionaires. It’s a tax free market place for criminals and even terrorist.

Look no further than the past and repealed “Prohibition Of Alcohol War” for the physical ramifications that produced corruption in politicians, judges and law enforcement, shooting wars in our streets and incarceration of otherwise non-violent folks. To boot, it was determined by a past Congress that a constitutional amendment had to be ratified to prohibit the transportation and sale of alcohol, but the fucking crook Nixon started the Drug War with no such amendment and the Drug War has produced more incarceration of non-violent folks, caused more corruption of politicians, judges and law enforcement and more violence in our streets than alcohol prohibition ever did, not to mention it cost taxpayers billions more and even creates a tax free market for terrorist as well as criminals.

I give you the 4th & 9th Amendments to our Constitution. Nixon’s Drug War is totally unconstitutional. If that alone isn’t enough to cause you to oppose the Drug War, I don’t think anything ever will be.

BTW, there’s no credible evidence that drug legalization of all drugs will produce more drug use or drug addicts. There’s no credible evidence that repealing prohibition of alcohol created more individual alcohol use or alcohol addiction.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You people keep pretending your not a dying party.



You keep insulting Americans and cheating them out of their vote and wonder why your party has to increase its cheating efforts every election just to have a shot at winning.


You jumped the shark this time.


No more winning through cheating for your party

I am a party of one sweetie.

 

[Independent]

Why haven't the queers pushed for this sooner? If this right has always existed for the, why has it taken the queers 200 years to figure out

A) they want to get married
B) they have a right to it

being queer isn't a new phenomenon, but their desire to marry is. Why?

Because they want to force people to bow to their beliefs. Personally, I wish "marriage" would be taken out of the public forum altogether. Have a contract for a personal contractual agreement between any two legally responsible adults that has nothing whatsoever to do with sex or familial relationship and leave "marriage" to the churches and any other 501c3 that cares to be established as such. Why should two females be able to be domestic partners with each other but two sisters can not, as an example? This is not about equality for all. This is about people forcing those who disagree with them to comply with their beliefs.

 

[philly rabbit]

Why haven't the queers pushed for this sooner? If this right has always existed for the, why has it taken the queers 200 years to figure out

A) they want to get married
B) they have a right to it

being queer isn't a new phenomenon, but their desire to marry is. Why?

Because as libertarians disregard the needs of society, progressives want to destroy all elements of western Christian society.

The constitution says nothing about marriage so it should be defined by the states.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I give you the divorce rate of “one man/one woman[/b] marriages. I give you the poverty rate of divorced one man/one woman marriages. I give you the child poverty rate of divorced one man/one woman marriages. I give you the child poverty rate of divorced/break up homosexual marriages/live together relationships. The latter has none. If government/the state, has a rational skin in the game of deciding agreeable adult marriage contracts, it’s doing a piss poor job just like most everything governments do, don’t you think?

For thousands of years and especially in the Christian Bible “polygamy” was “traditional” marriage. Solomon had 1,000 wives and 1500 concubine and was considered by the Bible to be “A Man Of God!” So much for the skewed prejudice religious view of marriage contracts!



Well I’ve always thought that the most important “institution” of a strong America was “the Constitution” and the individual rights guaranteed by it and I’ve always believed that’s what makes America strong. I believe that because both right and left have severely abandoned the Constitution is why America is getting weaker & weaker.



I don’t believe the democrats KKK was terrorizing the blacks because they were “married” one man/one woman families, I believe they were terrorizing them because they were “black.”



That wasn’t redefining traditional marriage, it was redefining the federal roll in a welfare state that’s prohibited by the Constitution. Welfare doesn’t produce homosexuality it produces poverty, violence and the prevention of most all marriages of any gender.



As I’ve presented, it works for a high divorce and child poverty rate. And by what evidence do you evaluate that gay marriage contracts between agreeable adults brings an end to traditional man/woman marriages? Why isn’t there room in America for freedom of agreeable adult contracts for everybody without respect for race creed or gender?



Well if you wish to consider the financial ramifications of the Drug War look no further thatn the creation of it by government. It’s costing American taxpayers billions every year, clogging up the penal and judicial system and turning criminals into billionaires. It’s a tax free market place for criminals and even terrorist.

Look no further than the past and repealed “Prohibition Of Alcohol War” for the physical ramifications that produced corruption in politicians, judges and law enforcement, shooting wars in our streets and incarceration of otherwise non-violent folks. To boot, it was determined by a past Congress that a constitutional amendment had to be ratified to prohibit the transportation and sale of alcohol, but the fucking crook Nixon started the Drug War with no such amendment and the Drug War has produced more incarceration of non-violent folks, caused more corruption of politicians, judges and law enforcement and more violence in our streets than alcohol prohibition ever did, not to mention it cost taxpayers billions more and even creates a tax free market for terrorist as well as criminals.

I give you the 4th & 9th Amendments to our Constitution. Nixon’s Drug War is totally unconstitutional. If that alone isn’t enough to cause you to oppose the Drug War, I don’t think anything ever will be.

BTW, there’s no credible evidence that drug legalization of all drugs will produce more drug use or drug addicts. There’s no credible evidence that repealing prohibition of alcohol created more individual alcohol use or alcohol addiction.

The high divorce rate can be tied to the passage of no fault divorce. That was step one of the leftists tearing down the institution of marriage.

As for the Constitution, ad brilliant a document as it was, it was completely dependent on a moral society

As for the democrat led KKK, my point was that blacks had a lower rate of illigitimacy in the 1920s a time much closer to slavery than now

Marx knew that to tear down the United States you had to first destroy religion and the traditional family unit. Without them the country and the Constitution you claim to love cannot survive.

Morality matters. If being a libertarian means taking part in beliefs that will further apart this country then count me out. I will continue to be a party of one

 

[philly rabbit]

Then there’s this thing called The National Constitution whereby every State and State Constitution is subordinate. Thereby the Judge is absolutely correct. States cannot pass laws that violate the National Constitution. Every State is required to establish a ”Republican” form of government whereby elections are only for the purpose of electing ”representatives” and not referendum to create majority/mob rule. Referendum only presents the will of the majority AKA the mob. Representatives are required and sworn to preserve, protect and defend the National Constitution & the Constitution of their respective State and a State Constitution cannot violate the National Constitution.

I give you the following from the National Constitution.

“the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9)

The only possible disclaimer of that can be that “the People” have every right they choose for themselves individually providing that the action taken does not violate any right of another. Agreeable adult marriages of any race, creed or gender are simply agreeable legal contracts because they violate no constitutional right of anybody else.

“………….No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States……………nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14)

No government State or Federal has the right, power or authority to prohibit agreeable adult contract. No one’s constitutional rights are violated by agreeable adult contracts.

Prohibition therefore of gay marriages is nothing more than “progressive busybodyism” and religious bigoted authoritarianism. America is NOT supposed to be a mob rule democracy. America was founded and instituted as a “Constitutional Republic” no matter what left and right extremist would like it to be. Government is the very worse deciders of moral standards except when an action of one violates the rights of others. The only credible reason to even have government is to protect our rights, protect us from one another, protect one State from another and protect the citizenry from attack from within and without. Government has no valid purpose to create bigoted unconstitutional moral standards.

If we’re truly for constitutional liberty, we have to be for ”everybody’s” constitutional liberty!

Do we really need a fucking gang of immoral authoritarian busybody old ladies, religious zealots and worst of all bigoted authoritarian politicians deciding our moral standards for us???? I’ll stick with the Constitution, how about you???

\


The numerical majority in each state is not a mob conducting mob rule. The judicial including your judge should not and should never decide for the people of every state how they define their assigned constitutional privileges and what's been left to them to determine.

 

[Independent]

The constitution says nothing about marriage so it should be defined by the states.

Agreed. I see several of these issues as a radical leftist push to eliminate the concept of States Rights. There is a method within the Constitution that was put there for a reason. If they wish marriage to be a federal issue than it should be amended into the Constitution. If they wish to change the rules, let them amend the Constitution as our founders intended. They know, however, that they do not have the power or numbers to do that and are thus attempting to undermine the Constitution.

 

[Howey]

Agreed. I see several of these issues as a radical leftist push to eliminate the concept of States Rights. There is a method within the Constitution that was put there for a reason. If they wish marriage to be a federal issue than it should be amended into the Constitution. If they wish to change the rules, let them amend the Constitution as our founders intended. They know, however, that they do not have the power or numbers to do that and are thus attempting to undermine the Constitution.

The concept of State's Rights was eliminated when the states signed off on the constitution.

 

[Independent]

The concept of State's Rights was eliminated when the states signed off on the constitution.

Incorrect

 

[Robo]

The high divorce rate can be tied to the passage of no fault divorce. That was step one of the leftists tearing down the institution of marriage.

If the institution of marriage is a grand devotional sanctity and accepted as such by all of humanity, then of course it would always stand on its own uncorrupted by anybody including the left and if the left has been as successful in corrupting it then how come so many on the right and libertarian thinking folks also engage in divorce? Have they all been duped by the left? Do others have a right to view marriage contracts differently from you or even a majority? The Constitution says they do.

As for the Constitution, ad brilliant a document as it was, it was completely dependent on a moral society

On the contrary! The Bill Of Rights and other amendments were added because the framers recognized the “immorality” of humanity and particularly a government collective gang of immoral, authoritarian politicians. If we could depend on human morality, we wouldn’t even need government at all or a Constitution or legal marriage contracts.

As for the democrat led KKK, my point was that blacks had a lower rate of illigitimacy in the 1920s a time much closer to slavery than now.

So are you advocating a return to historical slavery to protect marriage as opposed to modern day Nanny State slavery?

Marx knew that to tear down the United States you had to first destroy religion and the traditional family unit. Without them the country and the Constitution you claim to love cannot survive.

What Marx didn’t realize was we had a Constitution that protected all religion in America. He also ignored the fact that his insane ideology would fail every place it was ever tried. Thus, if we continue to ignore our Constitution and keep trying communism here in America, then we deserve to fail as Marx failed. We get the government that we collectively deserve. The innocent true patriots/constitutionalist will fail along with the guilty. It’s called life on earth.

Morality matters. If being a libertarian means taking part in beliefs that will further apart this country then count me out. I will continue to be a party of one

It won’t be gay marriages that bring down this country, it will be the Nanny State, The Military Industrial Complex, America’s incompetent authoritarian world foreign policies and crony capitalism.

Political parties are nothing more than special interest groups. The BIGGER the party, just like the BIGGER the government, the BIGGER the corruption!

A “party of one” is a party of an independent thinker, congratulations!

 

[Howey]

Incorrect

It created the United States of America.

 

[Independent]

It created the United States of America.

note the plural

 

[Robo]

\


The numerical majority in each state is not a mob conducting mob rule.

The numerical majority in each state is a mob conducting mob rule when it’s allowed to force into law constitutional violations. America and its several States are not supposed to be a “mob rule democracy.” Our framers designed a “constitutional Republican” system whereby we democratically elect “representatives” who are first sworn to preserve, protect and defend our national Constitution.

The judicial including your judge should not and should never decide for the people of every state how they define their assigned constitutional privileges and what's been left to them to determine.

My judge isn’t “deciding for the people of every state how they define their assigned constitutional privileges and what's been left to them to determine.” He’s defining “the rule of law that appears in the Constitution.” The people of the several States have no authority or privilege to decide to override the national Constitution. Their forefathers ratified it and if they want to change what their forefathers ratified they must seek, pass and ratify an amendment to the national Constitution.

I request your opinion. Please articulate for me what you believe is your business or the business of a majority or government marriage contracts between agreeing sane adults is and what right of yours, the majority or government you believe is violated by such equal opportunity and freedom?

 

[Robo]

Why haven't the queers pushed for this sooner? If this right has always existed for the, why has it taken the queers 200 years to figure out.

Likely because homosexuality was considered as some kind of perverted sexual crime in a religious majority America for 200 years. Now days religious Priest and television full of Holy Joes extorting the minions and getting caught in their own sexual perversions have diminished and defamed God and the majority of believers. Now so many have become Atheist or Agnostics and are now deciding that homosexuality might well be the least of sexual crimes and may well be no crime at all. Thereby allowing the “queers” to come out of the closet and offer them the same freedom as everybody else as long as what they do violates no rights of others. In better words, more and more folks are discovering that they really don’t give a rat’s ass what the queers do if they violate nobody’s rights because agreeing homosexuals violate nobody’s rights

As Jefferson noted, “In all of history the Priest have never been kind to liberty.”