Okay... There is a tax they have to pay they are just choosing the option that is least expensive for them. It seems that doing what the law says isn't "cheating" it is following the law.
The Importance of Social Conservatism as it Relates to the GOP
- Thread starter Boris The Animal
- Start date
Okay... There is a tax they have to pay they are just choosing the option that is least expensive for them. It seems that doing what the law says isn't "cheating" it is following the law.
Right, the infallible court who proclaimed that black people are not citizens whether free or enslaved in the Dredd Scott decision, they therefore had no standing to sue for any rights whatsoever...
We should never question any of their decisions because they're always perfect.
No, but they are one of the steps, in the check and balances and this is a pretty conservative body right now and they decided it was constitutional.
In review, was that the fault of the Supremes or the fact that the Constitution recognized slavery in the first place?
Slavery is immoral, terribly wrong, but something that was legal at one time in our history.
Yes he coined the term, but here is how I understand it as posted in wiki:
Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971,[13] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914.[14][15] Less well-known today is that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the "Drug czar" in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the "war on drugs". DuPont also argued that it was the proponents of drug legalization that popularized the term "war on drugs".[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Is this not factual?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Richard Nixon did try to ban porn. He commissioned a study to determine the hazards, and when it reported that there were few or none, he ignored the study and went after x-rated films anyway.
Robo
Verified User
The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on July 1, 1973, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, signed by President Richard Nixon on July 28.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration
Robo
Verified User
BTW TD, I can still recall as a younger man watching Tricky Dick make his State Of The Union Speech where he ranted on about the evils of drugs and how his administration would institute new measures to eradicate drug use in America. Here we are 40 years later and the only thing eradicated by the Drug War is safety in our streets, taxes and competitive prices for drug pushers and terrorist and the constitutional liberty for free adults to decide for themselves what they shall and shall not put into their own bodies without interference from the BIG government duopoly authoritarians.
Robo
Verified User
The Supreme Court doesn’t actually decide constitutionality. The Constitution is a written contract for the people. It’s our responsibility to know what’s in our contract and hold politicians and judges feet to the fire of it. Any rational, honest and intelligent citizen can interpret the vast majority of the Constitution. Today’s judges simply decide which written crimes against liberty conjured up by the ideological bastards in Congress and the White House they want to ”
legalize.”
The courts are stacked with political ideological bastards, appointed by political ideological bastards and confirmed by political ideological bastards.
Politicians can be impeached and or voted out. Judges can be impeached, all for violation of their oath of office. But they only will when an informed and interested public demands it, good fucking luck with that!
Humanoids are governed by the government they deserve!
I often wonder what a social conservative is? They stress a more religious point of view but it is very difficult to know what religion they are proclaiming. Given some of the their pronouncements it would have to be market fundamentalism, for I never see them talking poverty or the wages that force families into poverty. They argue against government and yet these humongous churches are more like self motivation pop psychology institutions. Government with all its flaws is oddly more Christian than the so called Christians in America. Government at least performed a bit like Jesus did in the Sermon on the mount. I was reading about this Harvest church recently and no where in their writing could I find anything that addressed issues that would make life a little better for those here on earth. Imagine all these hallelujah singers at the pearly gates, what was you did my sister, well I sure sang a lot and I sure praised a lot and I sure gave a lot to harvest. That's nice sister but what was it you did? I would think Christians would support Obamacare, but now church is all about 'prosperity theology,' an apology rather than an act of charity. It is truly amazing how even religion and its ideas can be turned on their head.
I am amused that there are people who think that drugs are not a bane on society. What has drug use ever done other than cause misery?
I am equally amused by the same illogical arguments that by allowing unabated drug use, the costs to society would decrease and we would all be better off.
I am all for personal responsibility and less Government intrusion; but to lay blame on crime and the devastating effects of drug use on "the war on drugs" is beyond mere bizarre.
The answer to this is simple; Christianity is a Conservative belief of personal independence from the State; which should rightly be held in suspicion and minimalized. When did Jesus suggest that the State should take care of the poor???
I am amused that there are people who think that drugs are not a bane on society. What has drug use ever done other than cause misery?
I am equally amused by the same illogical arguments that by allowing unabated drug use, the costs to society would decrease and we would all be better off.
I am all for personal responsibility and less Government intrusion; but to lay blame on crime and the devastating effects of drug use on "the war on drugs" is beyond mere bizarre.
So, you do not partake of alcoholic beverages? You are a non smoker as well?
The answer to this is simple; Christianity is a Conservative belief of personal independence from the State; which should rightly be held in suspicion and minimalized. When did Jesus suggest that the State should take care of the poor???
When charity does not cover the need.
Is there a point here? Or are you again engaging in a debate that will prove way over your head?
False claim; as is typical from the uninformed emotional left, they are more inclined to fabricate strawmen than they are to deal in facts.
Please point to the section within our Constitution that states it is the Governments duty to be charitable. I can wait.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
So what? Social conservatism has lost the battle in the market place of ideas. Social conservatism has landed squarely on the trash heap of history of lost causes and bad ideas. History has passed it's judgment a long time ago and social conservatism has lost to the modern liberal notions of empirical knowledge, education, egalitarianism, merit and personal liberty.
The days of social conservatism and it's rigid class structure based on birth and family connections instead of ability and merit are over.
History has rejected Social conservatisms intrinsic racism and bigotry and it's medieval lord/serf, master/slave economic paradigm.
Social conservatism and its values based on revealed knowledge have been abandoned for liberal education and empirical knowledge.
Social conservatism and its view that a persons worth is based upon an accident of birth has been replaced by the liberal egalitarian concept that a person shall be judged by their ability and the content of their character.
Social conservatism and its medievel belief that freedom and political liberty are reserved only for the special few has been replaced by the liberal ideal that ALL persons have the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and history has proven the truth of these liberal ideals to be self evident.
OK...so the GOP will lose half their base by distancing themselves from social conservatives, so what? They are better off without them.
Robo
Verified User
I am amused that there are people who think that drugs are not a bane on society. What has drug use ever done other than cause misery?
I am equally amused by the same illogical arguments that by allowing unabated drug use, the costs to society would decrease and we would all be better off.
I am all for personal responsibility and less Government intrusion; but to lay blame on crime and the devastating effects of drug use on "the war on drugs" is beyond mere bizarre.
In 1919 the federal government decided to institute the prohibition of alcohol. At least in those days a little more respect for the Constitution was still in order and alcohol prohibition was legally instituted by the 18’th amendment to our Constitution. The end result of course of that prohibition of rights of the people being added to a Constitution that for the most part protected and guaranteed rights for the people turned out predictably adding violence in our streets, establishing a very high profit and tax free products market for criminals, corrupted law enforcement and politicians, clogged up our judicial and penal system, started a new back room speak-easy industry throughout America, moonshine in the country backwaters and was never proven to cure a single alcoholic or prevent any new ones, but lots of folks died and went to jail, went blind from “bathtub” gin and we had lots criminal/cop shootouts in the streets.
The only thing learned from that folly was that politicians need not bother with constitutional amendments to bully and attempt to socially engineer the minions, all they needed to do was create the DEA and repeat the very same folly all over again with Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon’s unconstitutional Drug War.
Now that’s beyond bizarre!!!!
I'm all for abandoning the DEA and correctly placing that enforcement back to the states where it belongs. But don't believe that Nixon, who was really a Democrat, was alone and instrumental in our Federal drug enforcement efforts.
Lorca
Don't fence me in
Have you seen the recent PBS special on Prohibition? It's fantastic. A real eye-opener. And yes, what you've written is very true. The special is worth finding online if it's available. What an amazing glimpse into our history. And more importantly, it shows how quickly and easily we forget history: the futility of trying to legislate morals and the power of $$$$ & how easily corrupts.
I watched part 2 last nite, part 1 last week....not sure if there's a part 3 coming. (The PBS special on the Dust Bowl was great too.)